Experiments on the Influence of Tuition
The general aim of these experiments was to ascertain whether the monkeys’ actions were at all determined by the presence of free ideas and if so, to what extent. The question is, “Are the associations which experience leads them to form, associations between (1) the idea of an object and (2) the idea of an act or result and (3) the impulses and act itself, or are they merely associations between the sense-impression of the object and the impulse and act?” Can a monkey learn and does he commonly learn to do things, not by the mere selection of the act from amongst the acts done by him, but by getting some idea and then himself providing the act because it is associated in his mind with that idea. If a monkey feels an impulse to get into a box, sees his arm push a bar and sees a door fall open immediately thereafter and goes into the box enough times, he has every chance to form the association between the impulse to get into the box and the idea ‘arm push bar,’ provided he can have such an idea. If his general behavior is due to having ideas connected with and so causing his acts, he has had chance enough to form the association between the idea ‘push at’ and the act of pushing. If then a monkey forms an association leading to an act by being put through the act, we may expect that he has free ideas. And if he has free ideas in general in connection with his actions, we may expect him to so form associations. So also if a monkey shows a general capability to learn from seeing another monkey or a human being do a thing. A few isolated cases of imitation, however, might witness not to any general mental quality, but only to certain instincts or habits differing from others only in that the situation calling forth the act was the same act performed by another.
If the monkeys do not learn in these ways, we must, until other evidence appears, suppose them to be in general destitute of a life of free ideas, must regard their somewhat ambiguous behavior in learning by their own unaided efforts as of the same type as that of the dogs and cats, differing only in the respects mentioned on [pages 190 and 191].
The general method of experimentation was to give monkeys who had failed of their own efforts to operate some simple mechanism, a chance to see me do it or see another monkey do it or to see and feel themselves do it, and then note any change in their behavior. The chief question is whether they succeed after such tuition when they have failed before it, but the presence of ideas would also be indicated if they attacked, though without success, the vital point in the mechanism when they had not done so before. On the other hand, mere success would not prove that the tuition had influenced them, for if they made a different movement or attacked a different spot, we could not attribute their behavior to getting ideas of the necessary act.
The results of the experiments as a whole are on their face value a trifle ambiguous, but they surely show that the monkeys in question had no considerable stock of ideas of the objects they dealt with or of the movements they made and were not in general capable of acquiring, from seeing me or one of their comrades attack a certain part of a mechanism and make a certain movement, any ideas that were at all efficacious in guiding their conduct. They do not acquire or use ideas in anything that approaches the way human adults do. Whether the monkeys may not have some few ideas corresponding to habitual classes of objects and acts is a different question. Such may be present and function as the excitants of acts.
It is likely that this question could have been definitely solved if it had been possible for me to work with a larger number of animals. With enough subjects one could use the method mentioned on [page 105] of Chapter II, of giving the animals tuition in acts which they would eventually do themselves without it, and then leaving them to their efforts, noting any differences in the way they learned from that in which other subjects who had no tuition learned the same acts. The chief of such differences to note would be differences in the time of their first trial, in the slope of the time-curve and in the number of useless acts.
It would also be possible to extend experiments of the type of the (on chair) experiment, where a subject is given first a certain time (calculated by the experimenter to be somewhat less than would be needed for the animal to hit upon the act) and if he does fail is then given certain tuition and then a second trial. The influence of the tuition is estimated by the presence or absence of cases where after tuition the act is done within the time.
There is nothing necessarily insoluble in the problem. Given ten or twenty monkeys that can be handled without any difficulty and it could be settled in a month.
With this general preface we may turn to the more special questions connected with the experiments on imitation of human acts and of the acts of other monkeys and on the formation of associations apart from the selection of impulses.
Imitation of Human Beings
It has been a common opinion that monkeys learned to do things from seeing them done by human beings. We find anecdotes to that effect in fairly reputable authors.
Of course, such anecdotes might be true and still not prove that the animals learned to do things because they saw them done. The animal may have been taught in other ways to respond to the particular sights in question by the particular acts. Or it may have been in each case a coincidence.
If a monkey did actually form an association between a given situation and act by seeing some one respond to that situation by that act, it would be evidence of considerable importance concerning his general mental status, for it would go to show that he could and often did form associations between sense-impressions and ideas and between ideas and acts. Seeing some one turn a key in a lock might thus give him the idea of turning or moving the key, and this idea might arouse the act. However, the mere fact that a monkey does something which you have just done in his presence need not demonstrate or even render a bit more probable such a general mental condition. For he perhaps would have acted in just the same manner if you had offered him no model. If you put two toothpicks on a dish, take one and put it in your mouth, a monkey will do the same, not because he profits by your example, but because he instinctively puts nearly all small objects in his mouth. Because of their general activity, their instinctive impulses to grab, drop, bite, rub, carry, move about, turn over, etc., any novel object within their reach, their constant movement and assumption of all sorts of postures, the monkeys perform many acts like our own and simulate imitation to a far greater extent than other mammals.
Even if a monkey which has failed of itself to do a certain thing does it after you have shown him the act, there need be no reason to suppose that he is learning by imitation, forming an association between the sight of the object and the act towards it through an idea gained from watching you. You may have caused his act simply by attracting his attention to the object. Perhaps if you had pointed at it or held it passively in your hand, you would have brought to pass just the same action on his part. There are several cases among my records where an act which an animal failed totally to do of himself was done after I had so attracted his attention to the object concerned.
Throughout all the time that I had my monkeys under observation I never noticed in their general behavior any act which seemed due to genuine imitation of me or the other persons about. I also gave them special opportunities to show such by means of a number of experiments of the following type: where an animal failed by himself to get into some box or operate some mechanism, I would operate it in his presence a number of times and then give him a chance to profit by the tuition. His failure might be due to (1) the absence of instinctive impulses to make the movement in that situation, (2) to lack of precision in the movement, (3) to lack of force, or (4) to failure to notice and attack some special part of the mechanism. An instance of (1) was the failure to push away from them a bar which held a door; an instance of (2) was the failure to pull a wire loop off a nail; an instance of (2) or (3) was the failure to pull up a bolt; an instance of (4) was the failure to pull up an inside bar. Failures due to (3) occur rarely in the case of such mechanisms as were used in my investigations.
The general method of experiment was to make sure that the animal would not of itself perform a certain act in a certain situation, then to make sure that his failure could not be remedied by attracting his attention to the object, then to perform the act for him a number of times, letting him get each time the food which resulted, and finally to see whether, having failed before the tuition, he would succeed after it. This sounds very simple, but such experiments are hard to carry out satisfactorily. If you try the animal enough times by himself to make quite sure that he will not of himself hit upon the act, you are likely to form in him the habit of meeting the particular situation in question with total disregard. His efforts having failed so often may be so inhibited that you could hardly expect any tuition to give them new life. The matter is worse if you add further enough trials to assure you that your attracting his attention to it has been unavailing. On the other hand, if you take failure in five or ten minutes to mean inability, and from subsequent success after imitation argue that imitation was efficient, you have to face the numerous cases where animals which have failed in ten minutes have succeeded in later unaided trials. With dogs and cats this does not much matter, because they are steady performers, and their conduct in one short trial tells you what to expect with some probability. But the monkeys are much more variable and are so frequently distracted that one feels much less confidence in his predictions. Moreover, you cannot be at all sure of having attracted a monkey’s attention to an object unless he does touch it. Suppose, for example, a monkey has failed to even touch a bar though you have put a bit of food on it repeatedly. It is quite possible that he may look at and take the food and not notice the bar, and the fact that after such tuition he still fails to push or pull the bar may mean simply that it has not caught his notice. I have, therefore, preferred in most cases to give the animals only a brief period of trial to test their ability by their own unaided efforts and to omit the attempts to test the efficacy of attracting their attention to the vital point in the mechanism. This makes the results appear less elegant and definitive but really increases their value for purposes of interpretation.
The thoughtful reader will not expect from my experiments any perfectly rigorous demonstration of either the presence or the absence of imitation of human acts as a means of learning. The general trend of the evidence, it seems to me, is decidedly towards justifying the hypothesis that the monkeys did not learn acts from seeing me do them.
I will first describe a sample experiment and then present a summary of all those made.
On January 12th I put box Epsilon (push down) in No. 3’s cage, the door of the box being open. I put a bit of food in the box. No. 3 reached in and took it. This was repeated three times. I then put in a bit of food and closed the door. No. 3 pulled and bit the box, turned it over, fingered and bit at the hole where the lever was, but did not succeed in getting the door open. After ten minutes I took the box out. Later I took No. 3 out and let him sit on my knees (I sitting on the floor with the box in front of us). I would then put my hand out toward the box and when he was looking at it would insert my finger and depress the lever with as evident a movement as I could. The door, of course, opened, and No. 3 put his arm in and took the bit of food. I then put in another, closed the door and depressed the lever as before. No. 3 watched my hand pretty constantly, as all his experiences with me had made such watching profitable. After ten such trials he was put back in the cage and the box put in with a large piece of food in it and its door closed. No. 3 failed in five minutes and the box was taken out. He was shown fifteen times more and then left to try himself. I tried him for a couple of minutes under just the same circumstances as existed during the tuition, i.e. he on the floor by me, the box in front. In this trial and in a five-minute trial inside his cage he failed to open the door or to differ in any essential respect from his behavior before tuition.
No. 1 saw me do 9 different acts and No. 3, 7, which they had failed of themselves to do.[30] After from 1 to 40 chances to imitate me they still failed to operate at all 11 of these mechanisms. In the case of 3 out of 5 that were worked the act was not the same as that taught. No. 1, who saw me pull a nail out by taking the end of it and pulling the nail away from the box, himself put his hand round the nail and wriggled it out by pulling his hand back and forth. No. 3, who saw me pull a bolt up with my fingers, succeeded by jerking and yanking the door until he shook the bolt up. He saw me pull a hook out of an eye, but he succeeded by pulling at a bar to which it was attached. In the case of one of the two remaining acts (No. 3 with nail chute) the act was done once and never again, though ample opportunity was given and tuition continued. It could, therefore, hardly have been due to an idea instilled by the tuition. The remaining case, No. 1, with loop, must, I think, be attributed to accident, especially since No. 3 failed to profit by precisely the same sort of tuition with precisely the same act.
Nor is there any evidence to show that although tuition failed to cause successes where unaided effort failed, it yet caused attempts which would not otherwise have occurred. Out of fifteen cases where such might have appeared, there were only three where it is possible to claim that they did. No one of these three is a sure case. With RR (wood plug) No. 1 did seem to pull the plug more definitely after seeing me than before. With QQ (c) (nail chute) and MM (bolt at top) he may possibly have done so.
In 5 cases I tried the influence of seeing me make the movement on animals who had done the act of themselves, the aim being to see whether there would be a marked shortening of the time, a change in their way of operating the mechanism or an attempt at such change. I will give the essential facts from the general table on [pages 226-229].
(a) No. 1 had succeeded in pulling in the box by the upper string in OOO (upper string box) in 2.20 and then failed in 3.00. I showed him 4 times. He failed in 10. I showed him 4 more times. He failed in 10. I showed him 4 more times. He succeeded in .20. No change in manner of act or objects attacked, though my manner was different from his.
(b) No. 1 had succeeded in QQ (a) (chute bar) in 8.00. I showed him 20 times. He failed in 10. I showed him 10 more times. He succeeded in 2.00. I showed him 10 more times. He succeeded in 50 seconds. No change in his manner of performance or in the object attacked, though my manner was different from his.
(c) No. 1 had succeeded in 3.00, .25, .07, .25, .20, .06 and .09 with QQ (b) (chute bar double) and then failed in 5.00. I showed him 10 times. He then failed in 5 twice, succeeded in 3.00, and failed in 5 again. No change in manner of performance or in the object attacked, though my manner was different from his.
(d) No. 3 had the following record in box Delta:—
| 2.00 | (pushed with head) |
| 3.20 | (pushed with head) |
| 30 | F |
| 10 | F |
| 10 | F |
| 2.10 | (pulled wire and door). |
I showed him 20 times by pushing the bar to the right with my finger. He succeeded in 8.00 and 8.00 by pulling the wire and the door. No change in object attacked.
(e) No. 2 had failed twice in 5 with chute QQ (ff) (chute string wire) and succeeded once in 2.00 by a strong pull on the wire itself, not the loop. I showed him 5 times, pulling the loop off the nail. He then failed in 5. There was no change in the objects attacked.
These records show no signs of any influence of the tuition that are not more probably signs of something else. We cannot attribute the rapid decrease in time taken in (b) to the tuition until we know the time-curve for the same process without tuition.
The systematic experiments designed to detect the presence of ability to learn from human beings are thus practically unanimous against it. So, too, was the general behavior of the monkeys, though I do not consider the failure of the animals to imitate common human acts as of much importance save as a rebuke to the story-tellers and casual observers. The following facts are samples: The door of No. 1’s cage was closed by an iron hoop with a slit in it through which a staple passed, the door being held by a stick of wood thrust through the staple. No. 1 saw me open the door of his and other cages by taking out sticks hundreds of times, but though he escaped from his cage a dozen times in other ways, he never took the stick out and to my knowledge never tried to. I myself and visitors smoked a good deal in the monkeys’ presence, but a cigar or cigarette given to them was always treated like anything else.
Imitation of Other Monkeys
It would theoretically seem far more likely that the monkeys should learn from watching each other than from watching human beings, and experimental determinations of such ability are more important than those described in the last section as contributions both to genetic psychology and to natural history. I regret that the work I have been able to do in the study of this phase of the mental life of the monkeys has been very limited and in many ways unsatisfactory.
We should expect to find the tendency to imitation more obvious in the case of young and parents than elsewhere. I have had no chance to observe such cases. We should expect closely associated animals, such as members of a common troop or animals on friendly terms, to manifest it more than others. Unfortunately, two of my monkeys, by the time I was ready to make definite experiments, were on terms of war. The other had then become so shy that I could not confidently infer inability to do a thing from actual failure to do it. He showed no evidence of learning from his mates. I have, therefore, little evidence of a quantitative objective nature to present and shall have in the end to ask the reader to take some opinions without verifiable proofs.
My reliable experiments, five in number, were of the following nature. A monkey who had failed of himself (and often also after a chance to learn from me or from being put through the act) would be put where he could see another do the act and get a reward (food) for it. He would then be given a chance to do it himself, and note would be taken of his success or failure, and of whether his act was the same as that of his model in case he succeeded, and of whether he tried that act more than before the tuition in case he tried it and failed. The results are given in Table 11.
In the fourth experiment No. 1 showed further that the tuition did not cause his successes in that after some successes further tuition did not improve him.
There is clearly no evidence here of any imitation of No. 1 by No. 3. There was also apparently nothing like purposive watching on the part of No. 3. He seemed often to see No. 1 open the box or work the chute mechanism, but without special interest.
This lack of any special curiosity about the doings of their own species characterized the general behavior of all three of my monkeys and in itself lessens the probability that they learn much from one another. Nor did there appear, in the course of the three months and more the animals were together, any signs of imitation. There were indeed certain notable instances of the lack of it in circumstances which one would suppose would be favorable cases for it.
For instance: No. 2 was very timid. No. 1 was perfectly tame from the first day No. 2 was with me, and No. 3 became tame shortly after. No. 2 saw Nos. 1 and 3 come to me, be played with, fed and put through experiments, yet he never did the same nor did he abate a jot or tittle from his timidity save in so far as I sedulously rewarded any chance advances of his. Conversely No. 1 and No. 3 seemed uninfluenced by the fear and shyness of No. 2. No. 2’s cage was between No. 1’s and No. 3’s, and they were for three weeks incessantly making hostile demonstrations toward each other, jumping, chattering, scowling, etc. No. 2 never did anything of the sort. Again, seeing No. 3 eat meat did not lead No. 1 to take it; nor did seeing No. 1 retreat in fright from a bit of absorbent cotton lead No. 3 to avoid it.
Table 11
| Subject, Date, Act | Time tried alone, with result | No. of times imitatee did | Result after chance for imitation | Similarity or dissimilarity of act | Similar act attempted, though unsuccessfully in cases where it had not been before training | General judgment as to influence of training |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. 3. Dec. 17, 1900. VV (wire loop) | 50 F | 43 | 55 F | No. | None. | |
| No. 3. Jan. 15, 1901. QQ (c) (nail chute) | 91 F | 75 | 35 F | No. | None. | |
| 1.30 | ||||||
| No. 3. Jan. 21, 1901. Gamma (wind) | 63 F | 43 | 5 F | Dissimilar. | No. | None. |
| 9.00 | ||||||
| 6.00 | ||||||
| No. 3. Jan. 21, 1901. QQ (ff) (string chute with wire) | 20 F | 30 | 1.30 | Dissimilar. | No. | None. |
| 2.00 | .40 | |||||
| .35 | ||||||
| 5 F | ||||||
| No. 3. Jan. 23, 1901. QQ (chute) | 1.15 F | 40 | 10 F | No. | None. |
Nothing in my experience with these animals, then, favors the hypothesis that they have any general ability to learn to do things from seeing others do them. The question is still an open one, however, and a much more extensive study of it should be made, especially of the possible influence of imitation in the case of acts already familiar either as wholes or in their elements.
Learning apart from Motor Impulses
The reader of my monograph, ‘Animal Intelligence,’ will recall that the experiments there reported seemed to show that the chicks, cats and dogs had only slight and sporadic, if any, ability to form associations except such as contained some actual motor impulse. They failed to form such associations between the sense-impressions and ideas of movements as would lead them to make the movements without having themselves previously in those situations given the motor impulses to the movements. They could not, for instance, learn to do a thing from having been put through it by me.
The monkeys Nos. 1 and 3 were tested in a similar way with a number of different acts. The general conclusion from the experiments, the details of which will be given presently, is that the monkeys are not proved to have the power of forming associations of ideas to any greater extent than the other mammals, that they do not demonstrably learn to do things from seeing or feeling themselves make the movement. An adult human being whose hand was taken and made to push in a bar or pull back a bolt would thereby learn to do it for himself. Cats and dogs would not, and the monkeys are not proved to do so. On the other hand, it is impossible for me to say, as of the dogs and cats, that the monkeys are proved not to do so. In a few cases the animals did perform acts after having been put through them which they had failed to perform when left to their own trial and success method. In the majority of cases they did not. And in some of these latter cases failure seemed so improbable in case the animal really had the power of getting an idea of the act and proceeding from idea to execution, that one is inevitably led to some explanation for the few successes other than the presence of ‘ideas.’
The general manner of making these experiments was like that in the case of the cats and dogs, save that the monkey’s paw was used to open the box from the outside instead of from the inside, and that the monkeys were also put through the acts necessary to operate some of the chute mechanisms. Tests parallel to that of comparing the behavior of kittens who had themselves gone into boxes with those who were dropped in by me were made in the following manner. I would carry a monkey from his cage and put him in some conspicuous place (e.g. on the top of a chair) and then give him a bit of food. This I would repeat a number of times. Then I would turn him loose in the room to see whether he had acquired an idea of being on the chair which would lead him to himself go to the chair. I would, in order to tell whether his act, in case he did so, was the result of random activities or was really due to his tuition, leave him alone for 5 or 10 minutes before the tuition. If he got on the chair afterwards when he had not before, or got on it much sooner, it would tend to show that the idea of getting food on that chair was present and effective. We may call these last the ‘on chair’ type of experiments.
A sample experiment with a box is the following:—
On January 4, 1901, box Delta (push back) was put in No. 1’s cage. He failed in 5, though he was active in trying to get in for about 4 minutes of the time and pulled and pushed the bar a great deal, though up and down and out instead of back. In his aimless pushings and pullings he nearly succeeded. He failed in 5 in a second trial also. I then opened the door of the cage, sat down beside it, held out my hand, and when he came to me took his right paw and with it (he being held in front of the box) pushed the bar back (and pulled the door open in those cases when it did not fall open of itself). He reached in and took the food and went back to the top of his cage and ate it. (No. 1 generally did this, while No. 3 generally stayed by me.) I then tried him alone; result 10 F; no activity at all. On January 5th I put the box in; result 10 F. He was fairly active. He pulled at the bar but mostly from a position on the top of the box and with his left hand; no attempts like the one I had tried to teach him. Being left alone he failed in 5. Being tried again with the door of the cage open and me sitting as I had done while putting him through the act, he succeeded in 7.00 by pushing the bar with his head in the course of efforts to poke his head in at the door. I then put him through the act 10 times and left him to himself. He failed in 5.00; no activity. I then sat down by the cage as when teaching him. He failed in 5; little activity. Later in the day I put him through the act 10 times and then left him to himself. He failed in 5; little activity. I sat down as before. He failed in five; little activity. On January 6th I put him through the act 10 times and then left him. He failed in 10. This was repeated later in the day with the same result. Record:—By himself, 10 F. Put through 80 times. F 65 (a) [the (a) refers to a note of his unrepeated chance success with his head]. No similar act unsuccessfully attempted. Influence of tuition, none.
With the chute mechanisms the record would be of the same nature. With them I put the animal through generally by taking his paw, held out through the wire netting of the cage, and making the movement with it. In one experiment (No. 3 with QQ chute) the first 58 trials were made by taking the monkey outside the cage and holding him instead of having him put his paw through the netting for me to take.
Many of the experiments were with mechanisms which had previously been used in experiments concerning the ability to learn from seeing me operate them. And the following Table (12) includes the results of experiments of both sorts. The results of experiments of the ‘on chair’ type are in Table 13. In cases where the same apparatus was used for both purposes, the sort of training which was given first is that where an A is placed.
In the first four experiments with No. 1 there was some struggling and agitation on his part while being held and put through the act. After that there was none in his case except occasional playfulness, and there was never any with No. 3 after the first third of the first experiment. The monkeys soon formed the habit of keeping still, because it was only when still that I put them through the act and that food resulted. After you once get them so that they can be held and their arms taken without their clinging to you, they quickly learn to adapt themselves to the experiments.
With No. 1, out of 8 cases where he had of himself failed (in five of the cases he had also failed after being shown by me), he succeeded after being put through (13, 21, 51, 10, 7, 80, and 10 times) in two cases (QQ (chute) and RR (wood plug). The act was unlike the one taught him in the former case.
Table 12
| Subject. Date. Act | Times tried alone, with result | Number of times attention attracted | Result | Number of times shown by me | Result in trials after being shown by me | Number of times put through the act | Result in trials after being put through the act | Comparison of act used with act taught | Similar act attempted though unsuccessfully | Act done once or more, but not repeated in spite of repeated tuition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. 1, Jan. 7, 1900, PP (string across) | 10 F | 13 | 10 F | No. | ||||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 17, 1900, MM (bolt at top) | 15 F | 21 A | 150 F | 21 | 10 F | (?) | ||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Feb. 24, 1900, OOO (upper string) | 2.20 | 4} | 10 F | Partly similar. | ||||||
| 3 F | 4} 12 | .20 | No. | |||||||
| 4} | ||||||||||
| 4 | .22 | |||||||||
| No. 1, Mar. 24, 1900, QQ (chute) | 120 F | 10 A | 60 F | 10 | 30.00 | Dissimilar. | No. | |||
| No. 1, Apr. 5, 1900, RR (wood plug) | 10 F | 2 | 5 F | 1 A | 2 F | 7 | 2.20 | Similar. | Yes(?) | |
| 1 | 2 F | 2 | 2.00 | |||||||
| 1 | 2 F | |||||||||
| 1 | 5 F | |||||||||
| No. 1, Oct. 20, 1900, VV (loop) | 10 F | 4 | .22 | Similar. | ||||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Nov. 19, 1900, Theta (new bolt) | 10 F | 5 | 10 F | 51 A | 132 F | No. | ||||
| No. 1, Jan. 4, 1901, Delta (push back) | 10 F | 15 | 10 F | 80 A | 65 F[31] | No. | ||||
| No. 1, Jan. 6, 1901, QQ (a) (single wind chute) | 8.00 | 40 | 10 F | Dissimilar. | ||||||
| 2.00 | ||||||||||
| .50 | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 7, 1901, Zeta (side plug new) | 5 F | |||||||||
| 20 | im. | ? | ||||||||
| 1.10 | im. | |||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 9, 1901, QQ (b) (2½ wind chute) | 3.00 to .06 | 10 | 5 F | Dissimilar. | No. | Yes. | ||||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| 5 F | 3.00 | |||||||||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 11, 1901, QQ (c) (nail chute) | 5 F | 5 | 5 F | 1[32] | 2.20 | Dissimilar. | Yes.[33] | |||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 12, 1901, Epsilon (push down) | 5 F | 25 A | 10 F | 10 | 5 F | No. | ||||
| 10 F | 10 F | 10 | 10 F | |||||||
| 15 | 10 F | |||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 16, 1901, QQ (d) (pull chute) | 5 F | 5 | 3.30 | |||||||
| 5 F | .10 | |||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 17, 1901, QQ (f) (string chute) | 5 F | 5 | 5 F | 15 A | 5 F | 10 | 5 F | |||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| No. 1, Jan. 18, 1901, QQ (e) (hook chute) | 5 F | 3 | im. | |||||||
| No. 3, Dec. 17, 1900, QQ (chute) | 60 F | 3 | 60 F | 10 A | 5 F | 113 | 90 F | (?) | ||
| 30 | 30 F | |||||||||
| No. 3, Dec. 17, 1900, VV (loop) | 10 F | 23 | 20 F | No. | ||||||
| 20 F | ||||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 4, 1901, Delta (push back) | 10 F | 20 | 8.00[34] | 5 A | 2.00[35] | Dissimilar. | No. | |||
| 2.10 (by pulling string) | 8.00[34] | 5 | 3.20 | |||||||
| 15 | 30 F | |||||||||
| 5 | 10 F | |||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 4, 1901, Gamma (wind) | 10 F | 30 | 10 F | 20 A | 5 F | No. | ||||
| 10 F | 10 F | 8 F | ||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 8, 1901, Theta (bolt at top) | 10 F[36] | 25 | 6 F | Dissimilar. | ||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 9, 1901, QQ (a) (chute bar) | 10 F | 3.00[37] | 10 | No complete circle. | ||||||
| 10 | .40 | ? | ||||||||
| 10 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 10 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 9, 1901, QQ (b) (2½ wind chute) | 10 F | 20 | 8 F | 5 F | Dissimilar. | Yes. | ||||
| 8 F | ||||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 11, 1901, QQ (c) (nail chute) | 5 F | 10 | 5 F | 25 A | 5 F | 45 | 38 F | No. | Yes. | |
| 5 F | 12 F[38] | 5 F | ||||||||
| 1.30 | 10 | 10 F | ||||||||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| 10 F | ||||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 15, 1901, Epsilon (push down) | 10 F | 25 A | 5 F | 20 | 11.00 | No. | Yes. | |||
| 5 F | 30 F | ? | ||||||||
| 15 | 10 F | |||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 16, 1901, QQ (e) (hook chute) | 5 F | 5 | 5 F | 5 A | 2.00 | 10 | .10 | Dissimilar. | No. | |
| 1.25 | .10 | |||||||||
| 1.20 | ||||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 19, 1901, QQ (ff) (string chute with wire) | 5 F | 5 | 5 A | 5 F | 7 | 5 F | ||||
| 5 F | 8 | 5 F | ||||||||
| 2.00[39] | 12 | 3.00 | Dissimilar. | No. | ||||||
| 5 F | ||||||||||
| No. 3, Jan. 22, 1901, WW (bar inside) | 5 F previously some 40.00 F | 10 | 5 F | |||||||
| 6.00[40] | ||||||||||
| 7.00[40] | Dissimilar. | No. |
In only one case (bolt at top) out of eight was there possibly any attempt at the act after he had been put through which had not been made before. The ‘yes or?’ in the table with RR was a case occurring after the imitation of me but before the putting No. 1 through.
Out of 6 cases where he had himself failed, No. 3 succeeded (after being put through 113, 23, 20, 10, 10, 20 and 10 times) in 3 cases (chute bar, push down and bar inside). The act was dissimilar in all three cases, bearing absolutely no resemblance in one case. There was no unsuccessful attempt at the act taught him in any of the cases. With the chute he did finger the bar after tuition where he had not done so before, but it was probably an accidental result of his holding his hand out toward it for me to take as he had formed the habit of doing. In the case of box Epsilon (push down), with which he succeeded by pushing his hand in above the lever (an act which though unlike that taught him might be by some considered to be due to an idea gained from the tuition), he failed entirely after further tuition (15 times).
Like the dogs and cats, then, the monkeys seemed unable to learn to do things from being put through them. We may now examine those which they did do of themselves before tuition and ask whether they learned the more rapidly thereby or modified their behavior in ways which might be due to the tuition. There are too few cases and no chance for comparison on the first point; on the second the records are unanimous in showing no change in the method of operating the mechanisms due to the tuition.
As in Table 9, figures followed by F mean that in that length of time the animal failed. Figures without an F denote the time taken by the animal to operate the mechanism.
As a supplement to Table 12 I have made a summary of the cases where the animals did succeed after tuition, that shows the nature of the act shown them as compared with the act they made use of.
Supplement to Table 12
I have kept the results of the tests of the ‘on chair’ type separate from the others because they may be tests of a different thing and surely are subject to different conditions.
They were tests of the animals’ ability to form the habit of going to a certain place by reason of having been carried there and securing food thereby. I would leave the animal loose in the room, and if he failed in 5 or 10 minutes to go to the place of his own accord, would put him back in his cage; if he did go of his own accord, I would note the time. Then I would take him, carry him to the place, and feed him. After doing this 10 times I would turn him loose again and see whether the idea of being fed in such and such a place was present and active in making him go to the place. In such tests we are absolutely sure that the animal can without any difficulty perform the necessary movements and would in case the proper stimulus to set them off appeared, if, for instance, a bit of food on one of the places to which he was to go caught his eye. In so far forth the tests were favorable cases for learning. On the other hand, the situation associated with getting food may have been in these cases not the mere ‘being on box’ but the whole previous experience ‘being carried while clinging and being put or let jump on a box.’ In this respect the tests may have been less favorable than the acts where getting food was always the direct sequent of the act of going into the box.
The experiments were:—
A. Carrying the animal and putting him on a chair.
B. Carrying the animal and putting him on a pile of boxes.
C. Carrying the animal and putting him on the top of a sewing machine.
D. Carrying the animal and putting him on the middle of a board 6 feet long, stretched horizontally across the room, 3 feet from the floor.
E. Carrying the animal and putting him on the side of the cage, head down.
The results are given in Table 13.
The size of the room in which I worked and other practical difficulties prevented me from extending these experiments. As they stand, no stable judgments can be inferred from them. It should be noted that in the successful cases there were no other signs of the presence of the idea ‘food when there’ than the mere going to a certain place. The animal did not wait at the place more than a second or two, did not look at me or show any signs of expecting anything.
Table 13
| Experiment and date | Animal | Results before training | Number of times put through | Results after training |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Jan. 22, 1901 | No. 1. | 5 F | 10 | 1.00 |
| 3.00 | ||||
| Jan. 22, 1901 | No. 1. | 5 F | 10 | im. |
| 3.30 | ||||
| Jan. 23, 1901 | No. 3. | 5 F | 10 | 3.30 |
| 5 F | ||||
| B. Jan. 26, 1901 | No. 1. | 10 F | 10 and 5 | 10 F 5 F |
| No. 3. | 5 F | 10 | 5 F | |
| 10 | 5 F | |||
| C. Jan. 27, 1901 | No. 1. | 5 F | 10 | 3.00 |
| D. Jan. 27, 1901 | No. 1. | 3.20 | 10 | 5 F |
| E. Jan. 26, 1901 | No. 3. | 5 F | 5 | 5 F |
Although, as I noted in the early part of this monograph, there were occasionally phenomena in the general behavior of the monkeys which of themselves impressed one as being suggestive of an ideational life, the general run of their learning apart from the specific experiments described was certainly confined to the association of impulses of their own with certain situations. The following examples will suffice:—
In getting them so that they would let themselves be handled it was of almost no service to take them and feed them while holding them or otherwise make that state pleasant for them. By far the best way is to wait patiently till they do come near, then feed them; wait patiently till they do take hold of your arm, then feed them. If you do take them and hold them partly by force, you must feed them only when they are comparatively still. In short, in taming them one comes unconsciously to adopt the method of rewarding certain of their impulses rather than certain conditions which might be associated in their minds with ideas, had they such.
After No. 1 and No. 3 had both reached a point where both could hardly be gotten to leave me and go back into their cages or down to the floor of the room, where they evidently enjoyed being held by me, they still did not climb upon me. The idea of clinging to me was either absent or impotent to cause them to act. What they did do was, in the case of No. 1, to jump about, pawing around in the air, until I caught an arm or leg, to which stimulus he had by dint of the typical sort of animal association learned to react by jumping to my arm and clinging there; in the case of No. 3, to stand still until I held my arm right in front of him (if he were in his cage) or to come and stand on his hind legs in front of me (if he were out on the floor). In both cases No. 3’s act was one which had been learned by my rewarding his impulses. I often tried, at this period of their intimacy with me, this instructive experiment. The monkey would be clinging to me so that I could hardly tear him away. I would do so, and he would, if dropped loose from me, make no efforts to get back.
I have already mentioned my failure to get the animals to put out their right hands through the netting after they had long done so with their left hands. With No. 3 I tried putting my fingers through and poking the arm out and then making the movement with it. He profited little if any by this tuition. Had I somehow induced him to do it himself, a few trials would have been sufficient to get the habit well under way.
Monkey No. 1 apparently enjoyed scratching himself. Among the stimuli which served to set off this act of scratching was the irritation from tobacco smoke. If any one would blow smoke in No. 1’s face, he would blink his eyes and scratch himself, principally in the back. After a time he got in the habit of coming to the front of his cage when any one was smoking and making such movements and sounds as in his experience had attracted attention and caused the smoker to blow in his face. He was often given a lighted cigar or cigarette to test him for imitation. He formed the habit of rubbing it on his back. After doing so he would scratch himself with great vigor and zest. He came to do this always when the proper object was given him. I have recounted all this to show that the monkey enjoyed scratching himself. Yet he apparently never scratched himself except in response to some sensory stimulus. He was apparently incapable of thinking ‘scratch’ and so doing. Yet the act was quite capable of association with circumstances with which as a matter of hereditary organization it had no connection. For by taking a certain well-defined position in front of his cage and feeding him whenever he did scratch himself I got him to always scratch within a few seconds after I took that position.