By reference to the previous descriptions of apparatus, it will be seen that box D was arranged with two compartments, separated by a wire screen. The larger of these had a front of wooden bars with a door which fell open when a string stretched across the top was bitten or clawed down. The smaller was closed by boards on three sides and by the wire screen on the fourth. Through the screen a cat within could see the one to be imitated pull the string, go out through the door thus opened and eat the fish outside. When put in this compartment, the top being covered by a large box, a cat soon gave up efforts to claw through the screen, quieted down and watched more or less the proceedings going on in the other compartment. Thus this apparatus could be used to test the power of imitation. A cat who had no experience with the means of escape from the large compartment was put in the closed one; another cat, who would do it readily, was allowed to go through the performance of pulling the string, going out, and eating the fish. Record was made of the number of times he did so and of the number of times the imitator had his eyes clearly fixed on him. These were called ‘times seen.’ Cases where the imitator was looking in the general direction of the ‘imitatee’ and might very well have seen him and probably did, were marked ‘doubtful.’ In the remaining cases the cat did not see what was done by his instructor. After the imitatee had done the thing a number of times, the other was put in the big compartment alone, and the time it took him before pulling the string was noted and his general behavior closely observed. If he failed in 5 or 10 or 15 minutes to do so, he was released and not fed. This entire experiment was repeated a number of times. From the times taken by the imitator to escape and from observation of the way that he did it, we can decide whether imitation played any part. The history of several cases are given in the following tables. In the first column are given the lengths of time that the imitator was shut up in the box watching the imitatee. In the second column is the number of times that the latter did the trick. In the third and fourth are the times that the imitator surely and possibly saw it done, while in the last is given the time that, when tried alone, the imitator took to pull the string, or if he failed, the time he was in the box trying to get out. Times are in minutes and seconds, failures denoted by F:
TABLE 5 (a)
=======================+=====================================+=========== | NO. 7 IMITATING NO. 2 | --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | Time |No. of times| No. of |No. of times| Time of 7 |Watching| 2 did |times 7 saw| Doubtful |when alone --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | 10.00 | 11 | 3 | 5 | After 48 Hours| 11.00 | 10 | 4 | 2 | | 12.00 | 20 | 4 | 13 | 10.00 F | | | | | 1.00[8] After 24 Hours| 8.00 | 20 | 6 | 11 | 3.30 | | | | | 10.00 F | 13.00 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 20.00 F After 24 Hours| 9.00 | 20 | 4 | 11 | 10.00 F After 24 Hours| 12.00 | 35 | 5 | 21 | 30.00 F After 2 Hours | 10.00 | 25 | 3 | 8 | 25.00 F After 24 Hours| 15.00 | 35 | 6 | 21 | 20.00 F After 24 Hours| 6.00 | 20 | 0 | 7 | 10.00 F Total times surely and possibly seen,— 43 111 | =============================================================+===========
TABLE 5 (b)
=======================+=====================================+=========== | NO. 5 IMITATING NO. 2 | --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | Time |No. of times| No. of |No. of times| Time of 5 |Watching| 2 did |times 5 saw| Doubtful |when alone --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | 12.00 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 5.00 F After 2 Hours| 10.00 | 8 | 4 | 4 | After 24 Hours| 5.00 | 5 | 0 | 3 | After 1 Hour | 14.00 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 10.00 F After 1 Hour | 13.00 | 22 | 7 | 11 | 10.00 F After 24 Hours| 7.00 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 5.00 F After 48 Hours| 18.00 | 20 | 2 | 9 | 20.00 F After 24 Hours| 14.00 | 20 | 2 | 10 | 30.00 F After 24 Hours| 10.00 | 20 | 7 | 12 | 20.00 F Total times surely and possibly seen,— 33 68 | =============================================================+===========
TABLE 5 (c)
=======================+=====================================+=========== | NO. 6 IMITATING NO. 2 | --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | Time |No. of times| No. of |No. of times| Time of 6 |Watching| 2 did |times 6 saw| Doubtful |when alone --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | 12.00 | 30 | 0 | 19 | 1.10[9] After 48 Hours| 11.00 | 30 | 0 | 11 | 9.30 After 72 Hours| 10.00 | 30 | 0 | 15 | 3.00 After 72 Hours| 6.00 | 20 | 3 | 7 | 1.50 After 24 Hours| 9.00 | 30 | 1 | 13 | 10.00 F After 24 Hours| 10.00 | 30 | 6 | 9 | 10.00 F After 24 Hours| 10.00 | 30 | 1 | 8 | 9.40 Total times surely and possibly seen,— 11 82 | =============================================================+===========
TABLE 5 (d)
=======================+=====================================+=========== | NO. 3 IMITATING NO. 2 | --------------+--------+------------+-----------+------------+----------- | 8.00 | 30 | 2 | 19 | 3.30[10] | | | | | 3.30 After 48 Hours| 10.00 | 30 | 2 | 14 | .20 | | | | | .20 After 72 Hours| 10.00 | 30 | 2 | 8 | .18 | | | | | .08 Total times surely and possibly seen,— 6 41 | =============================================================+===========
Before entering upon a discussion of the facts shown by these tables, we must describe the behavior of the imitators, when, after seeing 2 pull the string, they were put in alone. In the opinion of the present observer there was not the slightest difference between their behavior and that of cats 4, 10, 11, 12 and 13, who were put into the same position without ever having seen 2 escape from it. 6, 7, 5 and 3 paid no more attention to the string than they did, but struggled in just the same way. No one, I am sure, who had seen them, would have claimed that their conduct was at all influenced by what they had seen. When they did hit the string the act looked just like the accidental success of the ordinary association experiment. But, besides these personal observations, we have in the impersonal time-records sufficient proofs of the absence of imitation. If the animals pulled the string from having seen 2 do so, they ought to pull it in each individual case at an approximately regular length of time after they were put in, and presumably pretty soon thereafter. That is, if an association between the sight of that string in that total situation and a certain impulse and consequent freedom and food had been formed in their minds by the observation of the acts of 2, they ought to pull it _on seeing it_, and if any disturbing factor required that a certain time should elapse before the imitative faculty got in working order, that time ought to be somewhere near constant. The times were, as a fact, long and irregular in the extreme. Furthermore, if the successful cases were even in part due to imitation, the times ought to decrease the more they saw 2 do the thing. Except with 3, they _increase_ or give place to failures. Whereas 6 and 7, if they had been put in again immediately after their first successful trial and from then on repeatedly, would have unquestionably formed the association, they did not, when put in after a further chance to increase their knowledge by imitation, do the thing as soon as before. The case of 3 is not here comparable to the rest because he _was_ given three trials in immediate succession. He was a more active cat and quicker to learn, as may be seen by comparing his time curves with those of 7, 6 and 5. That the mere speed with which he mastered this association is no sign that imitation was present may be seen by reference to the time curves of 4 and 13 (on p. 43).
Some cats were also experimented with in the following manner. They were put into a box [No. 7 into box A (O at front), No. 5 into B (O at back)] and left for from 45 to 75 seconds. Then a cat who knew the way to get out was put in, and, of course, pulled at the loop and opened the door. _Both cats then went out and both were fed._ After the cat had been given a number of such chances to learn by imitation, he was put in and left until he did the thing, or until 5 or 10 minutes elapsed. As in the preceding experiments, no change in their behavior which might signify imitation was observed. No. 7 acted exactly like 3, or 10, or 11, when put in the box, apparently forming the association by accident in just the same way. Good evidence that he did not imitate is the fact that, whereas 1 (whom he saw) pulled the loop with his teeth, 7 pulled it with his paw. 5 failed to form the association, though he saw 3 do it 8 times and probably saw him 18 times more. He did get out twice by clawing the _string_ in the _front_ of the box, not the _loop_ in the _back_, as 3 did. These successes took place early in the experiment. After that he failed when left alone to get out at all.
Another experiment was made by a still different method. My cats were kept in a large box about 4 ft. high, the front of which was covered with poultry-yard netting. Its top was a board which could be removed. To save opening the door and letting them all loose, I was in the habit of taking them out by the top when I wanted to experiment with them. Of course the one who happened to climb up (perhaps attracted by the smell of fish on my fingers) was most likely to be taken out and experimented with and fed. Thus they formed the habit of climbing up the front of the box whenever I approached. Of three cats which I obtained at the same time, one did not after 8 or 10 days acquire this habit. Even though I held out a piece of fish through the netting, he would not climb after it. It was reasonable to suppose that imitation might overcome this sluggishness, if there were any imitation. I therefore put two cats with him and had them climb up 80 times before his eyes and get fish. He never followed or tried to follow them.
4 and 3 had been subjected to the following experiment. I would make a certain sound and after 10 seconds would go up to the cage and hold the fish out to them through the netting at the top. They would then, of course, climb up and eat it. After a while, they began to climb up upon hearing the signal (4) or before the 10 seconds were up. I then took 12 and 10, who were accustomed to going up when they saw me approach, but who had no knowledge of the fact that the signal meant anything, and gave them each a chance to imitate 3. That is, one of them would be left in the box with 3, the signal would be given, and after from 5 to 10 seconds 3 would climb up. At 10 seconds I would come up with food, and then, of course, 12 would climb up. This was repeated again and again. The question was whether imitation would lead them to form the association more quickly than they would have done alone. It did not. That when at last they did climb up before 10 seconds was past, that is, before I approached with food, it was not due to imitation, is shown by the fact that on about half of such occasions they climbed up _before 3 did_. That is, they reacted to the _signal_ by _association_, not to his _movements_ by _imitation_.
