Animal intelligence: Experimental studiesThorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Science
Animal intelligence: Experimental studies
Thorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Animal intelligence; Psychology, Comparative
The subjects of the experiments were three South American monkeys of the
genus _Cebus_. At the time of beginning the experiment No. 1 was about
half grown, No. 2 was about one fourth full size and No. 3 was about half
grown. No. 1 was under observation from November, 1899, to February,
1900; No. 2 and No. 3 from October, 1900, to February, 1901. No. 1 was
during the period of experimentation decidedly tame, showing no fear
whatever of my presence and little fear at being handled. He would handle
and climb over me with no hesitation. No. 2 was timid, did not allow
handling, but showed no fear of my presence and no phenomena that would
differentiate his behavior in the experiments discussed from that of No.
1, save much greater caution in all respects. No. 3 also showed no fear
at my presence. Any special individual traits that are of importance in
connection with any of the observations will be mentioned in their proper
places. No. 1 was kept until June, 1900, in my study in a cage 3 by 6 by
6 feet, and was left in the country till October, 1900. From October,
1900, all three were kept in a room 8 by 9 feet, in cages 6 feet tall by
3 long by 2.6 wide for Nos. 1 and 2, 3 feet by 3 feet by 20 inches for
No. 3. I studied their behavior in learning to get into boxes, the doors
to which could be opened by operating some mechanical contrivance, in
learning to obtain food by other simple acts, in learning to discriminate
between two signals, that is, to respond to each by a different act, and
in their general life.
Following the order of the ‘Animal Intelligence,’ I shall first recount
the observations of the way the monkeys learned, solely by their own
unaided efforts, to operate simple mechanical contrivances.
Besides a number of boxes such as were used with the dogs and cats (see
illustration on p. 30), I tried a variety of arrangements which could
be set up beside a cage, and which would, when some simple mechanism was
set in action, throw a bit of food into the cage. Figure 26 shows one of
these. See description of QQ (ff) on page 182.
[Illustration: FIG. 26. _A_, loop; _BB_, lever, pivoted at _M_. A bit of
food put in front of _C_ would be thrown down the chute _DDD_ when _A_
was released.]
APPARATUS
The different mechanisms which I used were the following:—
Box BB (O at back) was about 20 by 14 by 12 inches with a door in the
front which was held by a bolt to which was tied a string. This string
ran up the front of the box outside, over a pulley, across the top, and
over another pulley down into the box, where it ended in a loop of wire.
Box MM (bolt) was the same as BB but with no string and loop attachment
to the bolt.
Box CC (single bar) was a box of the same size as BB. The door was held
by a bar about 3 by 1 by 5 inches which swung on a nail at the left side.
Box CCC (double bar) was CC with a second similar bar on the right side
of the door.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account