90 HAROLD C. BINGHAM 



The present observations are not presented as in any way 

 contributing to the problem of the relative merits of punish- 

 ment and reward. They are presented for the sole purpose of 

 showing that the problem can not be disposed of after the 

 dogmatic method of some writers nor on the basis of the super- 

 ficial study of certain experimenters. The problem is intro- 

 duced in this connection because of its obvious relation to the 

 learning process. 



The shock, in my study, was introduced for the first time 

 at the beginning of series 4. The coil was set at 6 and connected 

 with a Columbia Dry Cell No. 6. The felt pad on the floor 

 of the entrance box was water soaked and the floor of the 

 discrimination chamber was covered with black dry cardboard. 

 Under these conditions, my records for No. 24 in test 4 and 

 for No. 25 in test 5 of this series contain this interpretation: 

 "shock seemed to tickle;" for No. 27 in test 5, where there 

 were three possibilities of shock, "no response." 



The coil was now set at 5 and the floor conditions were left 

 unchanged. Under this new arrangement. No. 27 made no 

 perceptible response to the closing of the electric circuit. 



In the beginning of series 6, the cardboard on the floor of 

 the discrimination chamber was water soaked. Following this 

 change. No. 27 made no obvious response in test 3; in test 4 

 it turned back immediately upon the administration of the 

 shock, but there was no violent response. The choices of 

 No. 25 were fortunate and it escaped with very little punish- 

 ment in this series. No. 24 was shocked every time an approach 

 was made into the wrong exit, the total number of shocks 

 being ten for seven wrong choices. 



The behavior of the three chicks clearly indicates that No. 

 27 was least sensitive to this particular shock. It now remains 

 to note whether or not there is evidence of a correlation between 

 the responses to shocks and the disturbances in the methods 

 of responding to the problem; and furthermore, to determine 

 if possible the relative effects of such disturbances. 



Responses to the electric current were so slight that little 

 or no effects in series 4 or 5 may with reason be expected. In 

 test 6, the shock having been increased, possible effects may 

 be noted. The number of correct choices by No. 24 suddenly 

 drops to 3. That this change is due to a "shaking up" is 

 suggested by radically different types of behavior appearing 



