Abstract

What is cognitive consistency? How could we study it in nonhuman animals? And why honeybees? This species seems to offer a compelling model to investigate the presence of some forms of cognition in insects; honey bees are of interest in particular, because of their ecology and social characteristics. This article describes four experiments, conducted by Finke and collaborators, designed to examine various cognitive abilities in honeybees. The findings suggest that bees may have different cognitive strengths, rather than one general intelligence that applies to all tasks. Some bees might be better at certain types of learning while being weaker in others. This supports the idea that bee cognition is partly modular, meaning different brain systems handle different tasks. Although some brain areas, like the mushroom bodies — which are crucial for learning, memory, and sensory information — are important for complex learning, not all tasks seem to be connected. The lack of correlation between different task types could also be due to other factors like motivation, attention, or differences in brain structure. However, more research is needed to understand how these individual differences affect real-world behaviors like foraging.

Introduction

An engaging recent study by Finke and colleagues (2023) sheds light on the cognitive abilities of honey bees. They discovered that some individuals consistently perform better than others across a range of learning tasks, a phenomenon known as cognitive consistency. Cognitive consistency can be defined as the concept that individuals have a preference for their thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, opinions, attitudes, and intents to be congruent, which is to say that they don’t contradict each other (Gawronski & Brannon, 2019). Further, these facets should be congruent with how individuals see themselves and their subsequent behaviors. The concept of cognitive consistency may be used to predict and explain the various outcomes (Brannon & Gawronski, 2018).

Interestingly, some of the bees showed distinct individualistic learning capabilities compared to their counterparts.

Cognitive consistency has attracted the interest of researchers due to its implications for nonhuman animal awareness and their ability to process complex environmental information (Mendl & Paul, 2004). Cognitive consistency challenges the traditional view that nonhuman animal cognition is primarily measured by the overall success of a species or the best-performing individuals, a perspective that has historically overlooked individual variation due to a focus on usual performance and generalizations across-species (Brannon & Gawronski, 2018). Instead, it suggests that individual variation in learning abilities may be a more significant factor, influencing ecological success and adaptability (Mettke‐Hofmann, 2014).

Do Bees Have Cognitive Consistency?

Finke et al. (2023) ran a series of experiments to test whether honey bees’ performance on simple discrimination predicts success on more demanding tasks, specifically reversal learning and negative patterning. Simple discrimination refers to learning to choose a rewarded stimulus (S+) over an unrewarded one (S−) that differs in colour, shape, or odour. It is a foundational component of associative learning and a common starting point for assessing cognitive abilities (Pearce & Bouton, 2001). Reversal learning tests cognitive flexibility: After acquisition, the contingencies are switched so that the previously rewarded stimulus becomes unrewarded and the bee must adapt accordingly. Negative patterning requires responding to individual stimuli (A+, B+) but withholding the response to their compound (AB−), implying configural processing that goes beyond simple cue–reward associations (Finke et al., 2023).

According to Finke et al. (2023), if an individual performs well in basic discrimination and also excels in these more complex tasks, it suggests a consistency in cognitive performance, indicating deeper learning capacities rather than task-specific skills. These tasks require bees to adapt to changing conditions or complex stimulus relationships, offering a rigorous test not only of cognitive flexibility and problem-solving abilities, but also of their capacity to maintain cognitive consistency amidst shifting environmental demands. The study found that bees who performed well in simple discrimination tasks — where they had to distinguish between two stimuli, usually visual type, to identify which one was consistently rewarded — also showed greater success in more complex challenges.

The researchers were also interested to see whether individual honey bees exhibit cognitive consistency across the various tasks. To test this, they examined whether bees’ ability to learn a simple discrimination task predicted their performance in two more complex forms of learning, and whether this consistency persisted across variations in sensory modality (visual or olfactory) and conditioning method (classical/Pavlovian or operant). The study ran four closely matched experiments that differed only in how bees experienced the tasks. In two, free-flying bees chose between cues (two colours or two odours) to earn a reward — an operant setting where they had to act to succeed. In the other two, bees were gently restrained and trained with classical conditioning, and learning was scored by whether they showed the PER (they either extend the proboscis or they don’t). Each bee moved through three stages:

1. 1. Simple discrimination — pick the rewarded cue over the unrewarded one
   2. Reversal learning — the rule flips and the previously “right” cue becomes “wrong”
   3. Negative patterning — respond to C and D alone, but withhold responding to the compound CD.

This let the researchers compare the same cognitive challenges across visual versus olfactory cues and operant versus classical designs.

Across four matched experiments, bees completed the same discrimination–reversal–negative-patterning sequence under either operant (free-flying choices) or classical (restrained PER) conditions, using visual or olfactory cues to test whether results generalise across modality and setup.

Interestingly, across all conditions, bees’ performance in the simple discrimination phase was positively and significantly correlated with their performance in the more complex tasks. In both visual and olfactory modalities, the ability to solve the initial discrimination predicted success in reversal learning and negative patterning. Performance on simple discrimination and negative patterning tasks were consistently correlated, whereas reversal learning did not correlate significantly with negative patterning. This pattern suggests that some bees possess a general learning proficiency that extends across task complexity and context, but that flexibility (reversal) and configural learning (negative patterning) rely on at least partly distinct processes.

Honey bee cognition is not random or locked to a specific task. Individuals that mastered simple associations quickly were also the ones that handled tougher problems — across colours and odours, and under both operant and classical setups. This pattern suggests that bees possess a generalized learning ability that spans tasks and sensory modalities, challenging the idea that small-brained insects rely only on narrow, modular skills. In other words, the good learners stayed good: Performance was consistent and flexible, suggesting bees can carry strategies forward rather than relearn each problem from scratch.

Why This Applies to Behaviour Practice

By showing that learning in one sense carries over to another, this study adds to evidence for cross-modal learning and converges with findings from other species. For example, Proops, McComb, and Reby (2009) showed that horses can integrate visual and auditory information to identify familiar individuals, reacting with surprise when the call of a different colony member followed the sight of a known one. What is interesting with this study is that the presence of higher-order integrative processes that operate across different sensory channels is found to be present even in animals with relatively simple nervous systems. This challenges the assumption that complex cognition requires a large brain and offers a comparative model for studying the evolution of cognition while helping to identify general principles of learning across species — with implications for artificial intelligence as well.

These results have broader implications for understanding how cognitive abilities contribute to survival strategies in nonhuman animals, highlighting the role of individual variation in problem-solving and environmental adaptation. Future research could explore whether similar patterns of cognitive consistency appear across species, potentially offering insight into the diversity of cognitive/behavioural strategies and the evolutionary pressures that shape them without assuming a single, linear model of intelligence.

Conclusion

Rather than reacting randomly, bees that show cognitive consistency reuse learned rules in a stable, predictable way. This is an internal framework that guides decisions in a highly organised, prosocial species. For practitioners in behaviour and training, this has clear parallels: When an individual tends to apply the same problem-solving strategy across contexts (and even across senses), you can forecast which skills will generalise, set criteria more intelligently, and choose environments that support success without overfacing the learner. The broader point is that integrated cognition is not exclusive to large brains. Cross-modal carryover — learning in one sensory domain improving performance in another — appears in insects and has been documented in larger species. Therefore, in practice, look for these stable patterns early; they tell you which cues will transfer, where flexibility training is needed, and how to pace progress for safer, more effective behaviour change.

References

Brannon, S. M., & Gawronski, B. (2018). Cognitive consistency in social cognition. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.314

Gawronski, B., & Brannon, S. M. (2019). What is cognitive consistency, and why does it matter? In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 91–116). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-005

Finke, V., Scheiner, R., Giurfa, M., & Avarguès-Weber, A. (2023). Individual consistency in the learning abilities of honey bees: Cognitive specialization within sensory and reinforcement modalities. Animal Cognition, 26(3), 909–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-022-01741-2

Mendl, M., & Paul, E. S. (2004). Consciousness, emotion and animal welfare: Insights from cognitive science. Animal Welfare, 13(S1), S17–S25. https://doi:10.1017/S0962728600014330

Mettke‐Hofmann, C. (2014). Cognitive ecology: Ecological factors, life‐styles, and cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1289

Pearce, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (2001). Theories of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.111

Proops, L., McComb, K., & Reby, D. (2009). Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(3), 947–951. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809127105