4 WALTER S. HUNTER 



viewing the other's performance. Haggerty ' found this be- 

 havior in well controlled tests with monkeys. He divides the 

 stimulus for that imitative behavior into three parts: (i) A 

 fairly simple mechanism; (2) the perception of another animal 

 working at the mechanism, and (3) the perception of the other 

 animal getting food. Haggerty does not discuss the theoretical 

 side of imitation and argue for the existence of images. He 

 simply presents the data. However, in view of the stand taken 

 by Thorndike and others on interpretation, we shall neverthe- 

 less use material drawn from Haggerty 's monograph for analysis. 

 The following criticisms tell against the use of this type of 

 behavior as crucial evidence for images; The animal that does 

 the imitating may make its improvement under the incentive 

 of a social impulse rather than of the apprehension of relations. 

 This receives confirmation by the fact that Haggerty 's monkeys 

 did better if the animal to be imitated was a stranger and thus 

 aroused the imitator more strongly than a familiar animal would 

 have done.^ This criticism is a variant on the following one. 

 (2) The fact that the sight of the other animal being fed was a 

 part of the stimulus makes it at least possible that the imitator's 

 attention was simply drawn very vividly to the spot to be 

 attacked. Of course the more complicated the reaction to be 

 made and the more exact the execution of this by the imitator, 

 the better the argument for an ideational perception of rela- 

 tions. However, the general objection will always be valid that 

 one can never say that the imitating animal was not guided 

 solely by stimuli present to sense. The determining factor in 

 the stimulus can not be said to be ideational. Once the animal's 

 attention is vividly focused upon the objective sequence "pull- 

 ing string — getting food," e.g., the necessary reaction may fol- 

 low by association when the opportunity presents itself. Mon- 

 keys in particular have such an enormous repertoire of reactions 

 that it is very tempting to analyze such imitative reactions as 

 Haggerty presents on a purely "stimulus and response" basis. 

 That author says of one of his typical experiments (Chute 

 Experiment A) : "In order to secure the food, the monkey must 

 leap from the wire part of the cage to the chute, and, while 



■• Haggerty, M. E. Imitation in Monkeys. Jour, of Cotup. Neur. and Psy., 1909 

 vol. 19. 



= Op. cit., p. 4.36. 



