Experimental Study of Associative Processes 131 
them together in comparison, this long and tedious process. 
would have been unnecessary. ' 
It might be stated here that the animals also acquired 
associations of moderate delicacy in discriminating between 
the different boxes. No cat tried to get out of A or B by 
licking herself, for instance. 
The question may naturally be raised that if naturally 
associations are thus vague, the common phenomenon of a 
dog obeying his master’s commands, and no one else’s, is 
inexplicable. The difference between one man and another, 
one voice and another, it may be said, is not much of a dif- 
ference, yet is here uniformly discriminated, although we 
cannot suppose any such systematic training to reject the 
other slightly differing commands. My cats did not so 
discriminate. If any one else sat in my chair and called 
out, “I must feed the cats,” they reacted, and probably very 
many animals would, if untroubled by emotions of curiosity 
or fear at the new individual, go through their tricks as well 
at another’s voice as at that of their master. The other 
cases exemplify the influence of attention. Repeated 
attention to these sense-impressions has rendered them 
clear-cut and detailed, and the new impression consequently 
does not equal them in calling forth the reaction. 
The main thing to carry away from this discussion is 
the assurance thatithe delicacy of the animal in associating 
acts with impressions. is nothing like the delicacy of the man 
who feels that a certain tone is higher, or weight is heavier, 
than another, but is like the delicacy of the man who runs\ 
to a certain spot to hit one tennis ball and to a different spot ' 
to hit one coming with a slightly different see] . 
