Haggerty, luiitation in Monkeys. 437 



to her every iiioveinoiit. The same is true of No. 2 and No. 4, of 

 No. 4 and No. 11 and of No. 4 and No. 13 in the chute experiment. 

 The cases of imitation between animals wholly congenial are less 

 than one-half of the cases recorded. 



(&) Levels of ImUative Behavior. — Monkeys react to the pres- 

 ence of one another in various ways. At least four levels of reaction 

 are well defined. The first of these is characterized by the simple 

 arrest of attention. One animal walks across the floor of the cage 

 or climbs a pole, and another animal looks in its direction. That 

 monkeys manifest this sort of reaction requires no extended experi- 

 mentation to prove. Every moving object, and much more, every 

 moving monkey catches their attention. In my investigation the 

 cases where animals failed to respond in this way may be grouped 

 into two classes. The first group has to do with animals which, 

 through being caged together, had become thoroughly accustomed 

 to each other's behavior. No. G, who had lived in a cage with No. 4, 

 often seemed unaffected by her conduct when he was put into the 

 experiment cage with Jier. He would go about the cage hunting food 

 and pay no attention to the actions of No. 4 who miffht be e-ettine 

 food at the time. If, however, under the same circumstances, No. 2, 

 a strange animal, was' substituted for No. 4, No. 6 would become 

 alert and apparently see everything No. 2 did. There were other 

 cases of the same sort. 



The other group of cases are those in which one animal had 

 whipped another. The whi]:>ped animal usually attended to his 

 enemy only to avoid him. When the latter's attention was directed 

 toward some object in a distant part of the cage, the vanquished 

 animal went about hunting food for himself and did not see what 

 the other animal did. It was, of conrse, quite otherwise with the 

 bully. He was usually inclined to watch his victim, unless some- 

 thing more interesting presented itself. 



These cases in which the attention of a monkey was not attracted 

 by the act of another monkey seem explainable by the circumstances 

 under which they occurred. They serve, therefore, to emphasize 

 more strongly the point that monkeys do tend to give attention to 

 the acts of one another. Since such attention is the invariable ante- 



