I also took two chicks, one of whom learned to escape from A (in [Fig. 19]) by going to B and jumping down the side to the right of A, the other of whom learned to jump down the side to the left, and placed them together upon A. Each took his own course uninfluenced by the other in 10 trials.
Chicks were also tried in several pens where there was only one possible way of escape to see if they would learn it more quickly when another chick did the thing several times before their eyes. The method was to give some chicks their first trial with an imitation possibility and their second without, while others were given their first trial without and their second with. If the ratio of the average time of the first trial to the average time of the second is smaller in the first class than it is in the second class, we may find evidence of this sort of influence by imitation. Though imitation may not be able to make an animal do what he would otherwise not do, it may make him do quicker a thing he would have done sooner or later any way. As a fact the ratio is much larger. This is due to the fact that a chick, when in a pen with another chick, is not afflicted by the discomfort of loneliness, and so does not try so hard to get out. So the other chick, who is continually being put in with him to teach him the way out, really prolongs his stay in. This factor destroys the value of these quantitative experiments, and I do not insist upon them as evidence against imitation, though they certainly offer none for it. I do not give descriptions of the apparatus used in these experiments or a detailed enumeration of the results, because in this discussion we are not dealing primarily with imitation as a slight general factor in forming experience, but as a definite associational process in the mind. The utter absence of imitation in this limited sense is apparently demonstrated by the results of the following experiments.
V was a box 16 × 12 × 8½, with the front made of wire screening and at the left end a little door held by a bolt but in such a way that a sharp peck at the top of the door would force it open.
W was a box of similar size, with a door in the same place fixed so that it was opened by raising a bolt. To this bolt was tied a string which went up over the top of the edge of the box and back across the box, as in D. By jumping up and coming down with the head over this thread, the bolt would be pulled up. The thread was 8½ inches above the floor.
X was a box of similar size, with door, bolt and string likewise. But here the string continued round a pulley at the back down to a platform in the corner of the box. By stepping on the platform the door was opened.
Y was a box 12 × 8 × 8½, with a door in the middle of the front, which I myself opened when a chick pecked at a tack which hung against the front of the box 1½ inches above the top of the door.
These different acts, pecking at a door, jumping up and with the neck pulling down a string, stepping on a platform, and pecking at a tack, were the ones which various chicks were given a chance to imitate. The chicks used were from 16 to 30 days old. The method of experiment was to put a chick in, leave him 60 to 80 seconds, then put in another who knew the act, and on his performing it, to let both escape. No cases were counted unless the imitator apparently saw the other do the thing. After about ten such chances to learn the act, the imitator was left in alone for ten minutes. The following table gives the results. The imitators, of course, had previously failed to form the association of themselves. F denotes failure to perform the act:
Table 4
| Chick | Act | No. Times Saw | Time in Which Failed | Final Time | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 84 | V | 38 | 45.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 85 | V | 30 | 30.00 | F | 10.00 | F |
| 86 | V | 44 | 55.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 87 | V | 26 | 35.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 80 | W | 54 | 60.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 81 | W | 40 | 45.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 87 | W | 27 | 30.00 | F | 10.00 | F |
| 81 | X | 18 | 20.00 | F | 10.00 | F |
| 82 | X | 21 | 20.00 | F | 8.40 | Did |
| 83 | X | 33 | 35.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 84 | X | 46 | 55.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 84 | Y | 45 | 55.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
| 83 | Y | 29 | 35.00 | F | 15.00 | F |
Thus out of all these cases only one did the act in spite of the ample chance for imitation. I have no hesitation in declaring 82’s act in stepping on the platform the result of mere accident, and am sure that any one who had watched the experiments would agree.