SECTION ONE 



INTRODUCTION 

 The experiments reported in this paper were inspired by 

 the conviction that almost all of the work previously done 

 on the problem of the transfer of response or the transfer 

 of learning lacked exact definition and control of the fac- 

 tors involved. But in spite of this lack two generally 

 accepted conclusions have been fairly well established: 

 (1) Transfer, negative as well as positive, in varying degrees 

 has been found; (2) A satisfactory theory of explanation 

 must find its basis in the " something in common " or the 

 " identical elements " in the problems or situations between 

 which the transfer occurs. However, to get at the actual 

 conditions under which transfer, both positive and nega- 

 tive, takes place, and to state the explanatory principle 

 in a definite and usable way, it is necessary to define the 

 two problems between which transference is tested accurately 

 and completely in terms of each other as to their similarities 

 and diferences. One can then find by concomitant varia- 

 tion what factors and conditions are correlated with posi- 

 tive and negative transfer and the relative infiuence of 

 these factors and conditions upon one another. This, of 

 course, has been attempted. One needs but to glance at 

 Coover's(l) whole page of " identical elements " to be con- 

 vinced of this. But to facilitate this analysis two condi- 

 tions are favorable: (1) Simplicity of problems. This, 

 too, has been attempted. It is the keynote of most attacks 

 on the problem. Instead of trying the effect of a certain 

 course of study upon practical success in some chosen 

 business or profession, the experimentation has taken up 

 simple cases of memory, discrimination, etc. But these 

 are not sufficiently simple. One element of complexity 

 is the central or subjective factors involved in what goes 

 under the names " attention," " general ideas," " ideals," 

 etc. Hence comes our second condition suited to facili- 



