Experimental Study of Associative Processes 117 



was then put in BB (O at back). Now, whereas 2 and 3, who 

 were put in without previous experience with AA, failed to 

 paw the loop in BB, No. i succeeded. His times were 7.00, 

 .35, 2.05, .40, .32, .10, 1. 10, .38, .10, .05, and from then on he 

 pawed the loop as soon as put in the box. After a day or so 

 he was put in BBi (0 at back high). Although the loop 

 was in a new position, his times were only .20, .10, .10, etc. 

 After nine days he was put in a box arranged with a little 

 wooden platform 2\ inches square, hung where the loop was 

 in BBi. Although the platform resembled the loop not 

 the least save in position, his times were only .10, .07, .05, 

 etc. 



lOiaB. 71. 



!2in.B 



V/W 



IlinB 



FIG. 21. 



From the curves given in Figure 21, which tell the history 

 of 10, ii and 12 in Bi (O at back) after each had previously 

 been familiarized with A (O at front), we see this same 

 influence of practice in reacting to one mechanism upon the 

 time taken to react to a mechanism at all similar. It natu- 

 rally takes a cat a longer time to accidentally claw a loop in 

 the back than in the front, yet a comparison of these curves 

 with those on page 39, Figure 2, shows the opposite to have 

 been the case with 10, n and 12. The same remarkable 



