356 Journal of Comparative Neurology atjd Psychology. 

 III. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 



Morgan says that "in the case of an imitative action the stimulus 

 is afForded by the performance by another of an action similar in 

 character to that which constitutes the response."* It is in this 

 sense that we shall use the term "imitation" in this paper. He 

 distinguishes two kinds of imitation, voluntary and involuntary 

 instinctive. By the latter term he designates what is imitation 

 only from the standpoint of the observer. As an illustration of 

 this kind of action he cites the case of a hen pecking on the ground 

 and the chicks imitating her action. The pecking ot the mother 

 acts as the stimulus that calls forth the instinctive action on the 

 part of the chick. Morgan points out that this action is imitative 

 in its effect but not in its purpose. It is objectively but not sub- 

 jectively imitative. 



Voluntary imitation, on the other hand, is subjective as well as 

 objective. It is conscious, purposive imitation. The action of 

 another is reproduced with a definite end in view. Or, as Thorn- 

 dike says, it is a case of "transferred association." "One sees 

 the following sequence: 'A turning a faucet, A getting a drink.' 

 If one can free this association from its narrow confinement to A, 

 so as to get from it the association, 'impulse to turn faucet, me 

 getting a drink,' one will surely if thirsty, turn the faucet, though 

 he had never done so before."- 



There is a third kind of imitation which Morgan does not 

 mention but which he probably would include under instinctive 

 imitation, and that is automatic imitation. An example of this 

 is one person involuntarily whistling the tune he hears another 

 whistling. Here the action is involuntary, yet it is not instinctive. 

 • So much for the different kinds of imitation. Now, let us turn 

 to a discussion of the experimental work along this line that has 

 the most direct bearing upon our investigation. 



Small, in his study of the white rat, made a few experiments 

 to determine to what extent they learn by imitation. In summing 

 up the results of his work he says: "My conclusion from all this 

 experimental work, and from much other observation of rats is 

 that they do imitate, but that imitation with them is relatively 

 simple. They imitate simple actions; but I have seen no case of 



^Morgan. Habit and Instinct, p. 168. London. 1896. 



'Thorndike. Animal Intelligence. Psychol. Review, Monograph Supp.,Yo\.z,'iio.^,^. \(). 1808. 



