Haggerty, hnitation in Monkeys. 339 



hoiTse,^ and liy Watson/ In the main these observations are but 

 indirectly related to the present inv^estigation, for they are largely 

 concerned with the animal's ability to copy the acts of hmiian beings. 

 On this ground, the work of Hobhouse, which gave positive results, 

 ma}^ be excluded from this discussion. The other three investigators, 

 who studied the tendency of monkeys to imitate one another, used, 

 in one form or another, the problem method. One monkey was 

 taught to get food by manipulating a mechanical device; then 

 another monkey was allowed to learn the act by watching the trained 

 animal perform. None of the investigators has given the problem 

 an extended study, since the observations in this particular were 

 incidental to studies of wider scope. 



Thorndike reports a series of five experiments on a Cebus monkey. 

 This animal, "JSTo. 3," was, at the time of the experiments, "on 

 terms of war" with J^o. 1, the animal he was to imitate. In none 

 of the imitation tests did "ISTo. 3" learn to do the act. Thorndike 

 concludes : "There is clearly no evidence here of any imitation of 

 -N^o. 1 by E^o. 3. There was also apparently nothing like purposive 

 watching on the part of ISTo. 3."^ '"This lack of any special curiosity 

 about the doings of their own species characterized the general be- 

 havior of all three of my monkeys and in itself lessens the proba- 

 bility that they learn much from one another."*' 



Kinnaman observed two cases where the conduct of a male rhesus 

 caused the female to learn an act. The problem was to get food 

 by manipulating a mechanism — in one case, the pulling of a plug, 

 in the other, the bearing down of a lever. In each case, the female 

 was given opportunity to get food but failed. The male was then 

 allowed to get food while she was present and watching. In each 

 case she went at once, after seeing the male get food, and operated 

 the mechanism and repeated the performance numerous times later. 

 Kinnaman says : "Here we have a copy in the form of an act. It 

 was copied almost in detail, and that, too, so far as the place of 



'Hobhouse, L. T. Mind in Evolution. Chap, X, London. 1901, 

 'Watson, John B, Imitation in Monlveys, Psychological Bulletin, vol, 5, 

 pp, 169-178, 1908, 

 =P. 40. 

 «P, 42. 



