Incentive Contrast in Honey Bees
- 23 April 1976
- journal article
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 192 (4237) , 380-382
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257773
Abstract
Bees trained to come to the laboratory for a 20% sucrose solution accept it readily, but bees trained with a 40% sucrose solution and tested with the 20% solution show a pattern of interrupted feeding that may last for several minutes. Bees trained with 20% and tested with 40% sucrose are undisturbed. When the animals are offered two samples of the 20% solution simultaneously, they drink to repletion from whichever they first taste on each visit, but if both a 20% and a 40% drop are offered the 20% solution is rejected after a single experience of the 40% solution. Although these results are analogous in many respects to incentive contrast effects found in mammals, they can be understood in sensory terms and do not require the assumption of learning about reward.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Comparative Analysis of LearningScience, 1975
- Simultaneous contrast in the goldfishLearning & Behavior, 1974
- The Influence of the Quantity of Reward On the Learning Performance in HoneybeesBehaviour, 1972
- Influence of degree of training and prior reinforcer magnitude on contrast effects and resistance to extinction within S.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969
- Honey Bee Recruitment to Food Sources: Olfaction or Language?Science, 1969
- Correlations between preening behaviour and foraging tendency in the honeybeeJournal of Comparative Physiology A, 1969
- Effects of shifts in sucrose and saccharine concentrations on licking behavior in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968
- Reward and Learning in the GoldfishScience, 1967
- Representative Factors in the Rat Under “Changed-Incentive-Technique”The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1936
- An experimental study of representative factors in monkeys.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1928