DELAYED REACTION 55 



the experimenter's control and never saw the other children. 

 Hd and L differed so in their attitudes toward the problem and 

 in their general behavior, that I cannot well believe they talked 

 about the problem when together. Further evidence why it 

 is improbable that the children planned with one another how 

 to work the problem is that there was a very keen rivalry as 

 to wha should have the most candy beans at the end of the 

 day's work. When the work was finally dropped, the children 

 said that they had not talked the problem over with one an- 

 other. In the light of these considerations, I believe that the 

 children and the animals worked essentially on a par, so far as 

 extra-individual influences are concerned, throughout both the 

 regular learning series and the delayed reaction series. I say 

 "essentially on a par" because the social influence due to the 

 presence of another member of the same species was operative 

 in the case of the children while it did not appear with the 

 animals. 



C. Learning. — A few words will suffice to describe the trials 

 given on learning the association between the lights and the 

 noisy button. With all subjects save F the light was first turned 

 on at a. (For F it was put on at 6.) On this first trial all the 

 subjects failed. F went to a, then walked past 6 to c and thence 

 back to h and rang the buzzer. All the others went first to h 

 and then to a. This may have been due to the fact that h was 

 the nearest of the buttons. F was the only one that made an 

 error in this series after the first trial. The others learned the 

 association in one trial. Out of the i6 trials on the first day, 

 F failed on 9. The first test was missed the second day and 

 none the third day. In other words, no errors were made after 

 the 17th trial. 



D. Differences Between the Learning of Animals and Children. — 

 Some of the difference between the above data and that for 

 the animals is undoubtedly due to diff'erences in attitude toward 

 the problem, although the conditions were so arranged that this 

 should have been at a minimum. Five rats learned the asso- 

 ciation in from 160 to 176 trials. The two dogs, it will be re- 

 called, required more than 500 trials. Bob received only 120 

 trials. These figures present the number of tests after which 

 no errors were made. Over against these figures, 46 should, 



