Experimental Study of Associative Processes 117 
was then put in BB (O at back). Now, whereas 2 and 3, who 
were put in without previous experience with AA, failed to 
paw the loop in BB, No. 1 succeeded. His times were 7.00, 
+35, 2-05, 40, .32, .10, 1.10, .38, .10, .05, and from then on he 
pawed the loop as soon as put in the box. After a day or so 
he was put in BBr (O at back high). Although the loop 
was in a new position, his times were only .20, .10, .10, etc. 
After nine days he was put in a box arranged with a little 
wooden platform 2} inches square, hung where the loop was 
in BBr. Although the platform resembled the loop not 
the least save in position, his times were only .10, .07, .05, 
etc. | ih 
0inB. 
{2inB. 
Wigs se 
HinB ce 
Fic. 21. 
From the curves given in Figure 21, which tell the history 
of 10, 11 and 12 in Br (Oat back) after each had previously 
been familiarized with A (O at front), we see this same 
influence of practice in reacting to one mechanism upon the 
time taken to react to a mechanism at all similar. It natu- 
rally takes a cat a longer time to accidentally claw a loop in 
the back than in the front, yet a comparison of these curves 
with those on page 39, Figure 2, shows the opposite to have 
been the case with 10, 11 and 12. The same remarkable 
