The nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of polypropylene/polystyrene (PP/PS) blends compatibilized or not with the linear triblock copolymer (styrene-ethylene-/butylene-styrene, SEBS) was investigated. Start-up of steady-shear at rates from 0.1 to 10 s(-1) supercript stopwas carried out using a controlled strain rotational rheometer and a sliding plate rheometer for strain histories involving one or several shear rates. The shear stress and first normal shear stress difference were measured as functions of time, and the morphologies of the samples before and after shearing were determined. For each strain history except that involving a single shear rate of 0.1 s(-1) the blends showed typical non-linear viscoelastic behavior: a shear stress overshoot/undershoot, depending on the history, followed by a steady state for each step. The first normal stress difference increased monotonically to a steady-state value. The values of the stresses increased with the addition of SEBS. The shear stress overshoot and undershoot and the times at which they occurred depended strongly on the strain history, decreasing for a subsequent shear rate step performed in the same direction as the former, and the time at which stress undershoot occurred increased for a subsequent shear rate step performed in the opposite direction, irrespective of the magnitude of the shear rate. This behavior was observed for all the blends studied. The time of overshoot in a single-step shear rate experiment is inversely proportional to the shear rate, and the steady-state value of N-1 scaled linearly with shear rate, whereas the steady-state shear stress did not. The average diameter of the dispersed phase decreased for all strain histories when the blend was not compatibilized. When the blend was compatibilized, the average diameter of the dispersed phase changed only during the stronger flows. Experimental data were compared with the predictions of a model formulated using ideas of Doi and Ohta (1991), Lacroix et al. (1998) and Bousmina et al. (2001). The model correctly predicted the behavior of the uncompatibilized blends for single-step shear rates but not that of the compatibilized blends, nor did it predict morphologies after shearing.