Experimental Study of Associative Processes 129 
Dodger !” and then, ‘Bring it.” This the dog does and so 
on through the list. Mr. Davis makes no signals which any- 
one sitting even right beside or in front of him can detect. 
‘Thus the dog exceeds the human observers in delicacy and 
associates each with a separate act four attitudes of his mas- 
ter, which to human observers seem all alike. | Mr. Davis 
says he thinks the dog is a mind reader. I think it quite 
possible that whatever signs the dog goes by are given un- 
consciously and consist only of some very delicate general 
differences in facial expression or the manner of saying the 
words, ‘Bring it,” or slight sounds made by Mr. Davis in 
thinking to himself the words oné or two or three or four. 
Mr. Davis keeps his eyes shut and his hands behind a news- 
paper. The dog looks directly at his face. 
To such a height possible delicacy may attain, but possible 
delicacy is quite another thing from actual untrained and 
unstimulated delicacy. The difference in reaction has to be 
brought about by associating with pleasure the reaction 
to the different sense-impression when it itself differs and 
associating with pain tendencies to confuse the reactions. 
The animal does not naturally as a function of sense-powers 
discriminate at all delicately:~ Thus the cat who climbed 
up the wire netting when I said, “I must feed those cats !” 
did not have a delicate association of just that act with just 
those words... For after I had dropped the clapping part 
of the signal and simply used those words, it would react just 
as vigorously to the words, “To-morrow is. Tuesday” or 
“My name is Thorndike.”’ The reaction naturally was to 
a very vague stimulus. Taking cat 10 when just beginning 
to learn to climb up at the signal, “‘I must feed those cats !”” 
I started in to improve the delicacy, by opposing to this 
formula the formula, “I will not feed them,” after saying 
which, I kept my word. That is, I gave sometimes the 
K 
