46 WALTER S. HUNTER 



less frequently, however, with Jill and Betty — that it must be 

 described as a genuinely new type of reaction in these experi- 

 ments and not as the result of chance or of the foreknowledge 

 of what box was to be presented. (This latter possibility was 

 adequately ruled out by controls.) 



Table XI gives a numerical statement of the importance of 

 orientation for the rats, dogs and raccoons. As far as this 

 factor is concerned, the animals within each class were on a 

 par with one another. For this reason, I give the results for 

 typical subjects and not an average for all members of a group. 

 The data given for each animal are calculated from comparable 

 groups of 800 delayed reactions each. 



TABLE XI 



No. of reactions not in accordance with orienta- 

 tion that succeeded 



This table indicates plainly the similarity of the behavior of 

 the dogs and rats as well as the wide divergence of the raccoons 

 from the other two groups of animals. The rats and dogs 

 almost never reacted in opposition to orientation. When they 

 did do so, the number of their successes was a negligible quan- 

 tity. That orientation was a strong factor with the raccoons 

 is evidenced by the 76% of reactions that followed it. This 

 fact makes the 89% of correct reactions starting from wrong 

 orientations of great significance. The reactions succeeded in 

 opposition to strong orientation influence. This statement is 

 supported by the facts above noted. It was shown there that 

 one of the raccoons (a typical one): (i) Made difterent correct 

 reactions from the same orientation, and (2) made the same 

 correct response from different orientations. Additional evi- 



■■^ The large percentage of reactions not in accordance with orientation made 

 by the rat, when compared with those made by the dog, is due to the acquisition 

 of a habit of holding orientation b and reacting to box a, i.e., to a position habit. 



