43^ 'Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 



cedent of any behavior that may be called imitative it is important 

 to note that it exists. 



A level of social response more advanced than mere looking is 

 following. Here again, it requires but little observation of monkeys 

 to show that the tendency to follow is very strong, especially among 

 the Cebus monkeys. 



More complicated than mere lool'ing or following is behavior of 

 this sort: One animal performs an act, gets food in a given locality 

 and goes away. Another animal which observes this behavior goes, 

 immediately after, to that locality, as if to get food. What the 

 second animal does in that locality seems at this level of behavior 

 to have no relation to the behavior of the first animal. There were 

 numerous instances of this sort of behavior among the animals 

 which I have studied. lu the Screen Experiment, in particular, 

 there were clear cases. ]^o. 5 repeatedly went to the corner of the 

 cage where j^o. 4 had gotten food by lifting the screen. The same 

 was true of No. 2, but in neither of these cases did the imitating 

 animal repeat the behavior of Xo. 4 with sufficient definiteness to 

 succeed. In Chute Experiment B, No. ll's attention was directed 

 to the chute but not to the end of it. When we take account of 

 the fact that No. 5, No. 2, and No, 11, in the instances noted, 

 changed their behavior either in form or in strength from what it 

 had previously been, it is fair to speak of their behavior as imitation. 

 This is the simplest form of behavior to which I have applied the 

 term in this paper. In such cases I have spoken of partially suc- 

 cessful imitation. 



More clearh' entitled to be called imitation is that behavior in 

 which the animal responds to an imitatee, not only by going to a 

 definite locality, but by attacking a particular object. In his imita- 

 tion test in Chute Experiment B, No. 13 went at once to the end 

 of the chute, thrust his hand up the inside, grasped the string, and 

 pulled. The same was true of No. 4, and of No. 6 in the same 

 experiment, of No. 6 in the Rope Experiment and of No. 4 in the 

 Button Experiment. In these cases, attention was centered on a 

 definite object. This investigation presents a number of other cases 

 of similar behavior. It was not always true that when a monkey 



