Considerations on the Problem of Learning 149 



gruity with the proclivity thus aroused. Ordinarily 

 a response A that is closely followed by an instinc- 

 tive reaction B involving the liberation of a consid- 

 erable amount of nervous energy is reinforced, 

 probably as a result of the influence of this energy 

 on the nervous connections simultaneously excited 

 by the response A. If, however, the associated re- 

 action B is opposed to A, as when an outreaching 

 action is followed by a withdrawing response, the 

 influence of B tends to inhibit the first response A. 

 In both cases, A and B tend to become associated, 

 but the different secondary reactions have different 

 effects on the primary response with which they have 

 become joined. 



Thorndike l has raised several objections to the 

 view here discussed, but none of them, I believe, are 

 fatal or even serious. "A secondary response R 2 

 may bind R x to Sj [the primary response to the in- 

 itial stimulus], even though it is incongruous with 

 it, and disjoin R! from Si though it is congruous with 

 R x . Thus a cat in a box, the door of which is 

 opened, permitting escape and eating whenever the 

 cat scratches herself, will soon come to scratch her- 

 self as soon as put in the box, though there is no 

 congruity between escape through a door and 

 scratching." This objection is based on a miscon- 

 ception of the sense in which the word congruity 

 was used in the statement of the theory criticized. 

 Viewed as two external acts of the cat's body, there 



1 "Educational Psychology," I, 189, 1913. 



