Animal intelligence: Experimental studiesThorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Science
Animal intelligence: Experimental studies
Thorndike, Edward L. (Edward Lee)
Animal intelligence; Psychology, Comparative
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
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