• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Illustrations
 Introduction
 Experimental design
 Results
 Interpretation and discussion
 Summary
 Appendix
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: study of place vs. response behavior, learning and reasoning in the white rat
Title: A study of place vs. response behavior, learning and reasoning in the white rat
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098011/00001
 Material Information
Title: A study of place vs. response behavior, learning and reasoning in the white rat
Physical Description: v, 2, 47 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Corlis, Leming B., 1930-
Publication Date: 1958
Copyright Date: 1958
 Subjects
Subject: Learning, Psychology of   ( lcsh )
Rats   ( lcsh )
Animal intelligence   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida, 1958.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 45-47.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098011
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000549645
oclc - 13259914
notis - ACX3940

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 1 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    List of Illustrations
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Experimental design
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Results
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Interpretation and discussion
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Summary
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Appendix
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Bibliography
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Biographical sketch
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
Full Text







A STUDY OF PLACE VS. RESPONSE

BEHAVIOR, LEARNING AND REASONING

IN THE WHITE RAT










By e\
LEMING BCORLIS










A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1958























































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


3 1262 08552 5409

















AC1KO1WLEDG0ENTS

The writer is greatly indebted to the many persons whose

cooperation and suggestions made this study possible. As it is im-

possible to mention all of these persons by name, the writer wishes

them to know that their assistance is genuinely appreciated.

Special thanks must be offered to Dr. Richard J. Anderson who

has been extremely helpful from the very inception of this work. Dr.

Rolland H. Waters also contributed many valuable suggestions. The

writer wishes to express his thanks to the other members of his committee,

Dr. E. P. Hore, Dr. E. D. Hinckley, and Dr. O. B. Thomason.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOLEDGENTS. . . . . . . . . .. . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . ..... iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .... .. 1

II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . . 8

III. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . ... .

IV. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION. . . . . ... 27

V. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . ... 33

APPENDIX .......................... 35

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . ... ..... 5 .


-iii-












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Mean Number of Trials to Criterion on Tasks 1, 2,
3, and 6. . . . . . . . . ... . . 15

2. A Comparison of Place vs. Response Learners on Mean
Number of Trials to Criterion on Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 6 16

3. Relations of Reasoning Measures on Task 4 ...... . 17

L. Mean Measures for the Animals that Reasoned on Task 4 18

5. Mean Measures for the Animals that did not Reason on
Task . . . . . . . . ... . . . 18

6. A Comparison of Reasoners and Non-reasoners on the
Measures on Task . . . . . . . .... 19

7. Data on Mean Number of Trials to Learning Criterion and
Mean Number of Trials to Reasoning on Task $. .... 20

8. Type of Behavior Exhibited on the Test Trials of Tasks
1, 2, and 3 . . . . . . . .... ..... 22

9. Number of Animals Reasoning on Task by Place-Response
Category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3 . . . . .... 23

10. Number of Animals Reasoning by Predominant "Place"
or "Response" Behavior on Tasks 1, 2, and 3 . . .. 23

11. Comparison of Mean Reasoning Measures on Task h and
Place-Response Category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3. . . 24

12. Mean Number of Trials to Reasoning on Task $ by Place-
Response Category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3. . . . . 25

13. Mean Number of Trials to Criterion on Tasks 1, 2, and
3 by Place-Response Category. . . . . . ... 26

14. Mean Number of Trials to Criterion on Task 5 by Place-
Response Category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3. . . . ... 26


-iv-











LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


Figure Page

1. Cross-maze . . . . . . . . ... . .. 2

2. Diagram of Tasks 1 and 6 in Room 1 . . . ... 36

3. Diagram of Task 2 in Room 1 . . . . . . 37

4. Diagram of Task 3 in Room 1 . . . . . . .. 38

5. Diagram of Task 4 in Room 2. . . . . . . 39

6. Diagram of Task 5 in Room 2. . . . . . .. O0

7. The Correct Response for the Rats in Group 1 . ... 4l

8. The Correct Response for the Rats in Group 2 . ... 42


Schedule

I. Schedule for Group Number I. . . . .... . .

II. Schedule for Group Number II . . . . . ... 4i.
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the rela-

tionships between "place" or "response" behavior of white rats and two

other variables, their performance in a reasoning situation and speed

of learning a maze habit. It is possible that animals which exhibit

"place" behavior perform more efficiently on the reasoning tasks and

learn more rapidly than the "response" learners. This does not imply

a causal relationship in either direction but it is a beginning

attempt to solve the apparent contradictions found in the literature

on these topics. As a first step in the study of these relationships

it will be necessary to investigate the consistency of the "place"

or "response" behavior of these animals. If this is found to be

inconsistent no consistent relationships with other phenomena are

possible.

The question of what is learned, i. e., does the animal

exhibit "place" or "response" behavior, is usually investigated through

the use of a cross-maze (Figure 1) or the rotation of a T-maze. In

the cross-maze the animal is first trained to make a right turn at

the choice point, that is to run from S1 to F1. He is then placed on

the maze at S2. If the animal then makes the same, right turn, at

-1-









-2-

the choice point, goes from S2 to F2, this is designated "response"

behavior. If, on the test trial, the animal goes to the same location,

makes a left turn and goes from S2 to Fl, this is designated "place"

behavior.

S2




F2 F1






1

Figure 1.--Cross-maze


Related Literature

An extensive survey of the literature failed to find any

experimentation on the consistency of what is learned by each animal.

The work done can be divided into three general areas. The first

group of experiments are those which have attempted to determine

whether rats learn "responses" or "places" (8, 21, 27, 28). The

results of these studies are conflicting and suggest that the animals

learn both. The second general area of experimentation was an attempt

to determine which of the two, "place" or "response" learning, was the

faster, easier (1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 24, 25, 30, 31, 34, 35). The results

of these experiments are not clear cut and this problem remains un-

answered. The third group of studies are those which have attempted









-3-

to determine the various factors involved in "place" or "response"

learning (U1, 22, 23, 36). These studies have indicated that "place"

learning is partially dependent upon such things as number of reinforce-

ments, the abundance, and availability of various stimuli. This

research appears to cast doubt upon the idea that rats are either

"place" or "response" learners.

Restle (20) states that the place vs. response issue has been

incorrectly formulated. He says, "The details of the single-unit T-maze

experiments quite clearly indicate that there is nothing in the nature

of the rat which makes it a place or response learner." He asserts

that the animals use all of the available cues when learning a maze

habit. These cues are extra-maze, intra-naze, or kinesthetic in

nature. In the typical "place" vs. "response" experiment the animal

is tested in a situation in which he must either go to the sane location

as on the learning trials (place learning), or he must make the same

movements (response learning). In this type of experiment the various

cues mentioned by Restle are put in direct opposition and the animal

must respond to one set at the expense of the other. The extra-

maze cues are those stimuli which are external to the maze, e. g.,

a stationary light in the room. If these cues are the dominant stimuli

for an animal he will exhibit "place" behavior on the test trial. If

the cues arising from the movement of the animal, the kinesthetic

cues, are dominant, we expect "response" behavior on the test trial.

The intra-maze cues are those stimuli, e. g., olfactory, auditory and








-4-

visual, within the maze. These cues can contribute to either "place"

or "response" behavior. In a cross-maze the intra-maze cues direct

the animal to the same location. However, if a T-maze is learned

and then rotated for the test trial these cues contribute to "response"

behavior. These cues direct him along the same arm of the maze as

in the learning trials but this arm now runs to the opposite location.

In the above context, the terms "place" and "response" mean:

What cues do the animal utilize on the test trial? We infer from the

behavior on this test trial which stimuli were dominant in the learning

of the maze habit.

From the evidence, it appears conceivable, as Restle says,

that there is nothing in the nature of the organism which makes it

either an "absolute place" or "absolute response" learner, that rats

cannot be dichotomized into those that utilize only one type of cue

as opposed to those that use only another. However, it must be pointed

out that when rats are put on a cross-maze at S1 and trained to run

to F1 for food and then are tested by being placed at S2, some rats go

to F2 and some go to Fl. Their behavior is different in what appears

to be the same situation. What accounts for this difference in be-

havior?

All of the studies in this area have dealt with rats as a

group. They have found, for instance, that the proportion of "place"

learners depends, at least in part, on the extent of extra-maze cues.

None of the studies has explored the consistency of the behavior of a









-5-

given animal. We may discover that each animal is relatively consistent

in what he learns. This means that in learning a maze habit, any one

animal will use all of the available cues but that some may utilize

predominantly one type of cue and others may use a different kind.

The animal which is a "response" learner with a maximum of extra-maze

cues may be a "response" learner with a minimum of extra-maze cues.

It is possible that the animals fall on a continuum ranging from those

which depend largely on kinesthetic cues to those which utilize primarily

the cues outside the organism. Thus, the animals may fall on a curve

of a normal distribution rather than into a "place-response" dichotomy.

The primary cues utilized by an animal in a learning situation

may be related to his reasoning behavior. A survey of the literature

has also failed to bring to light any research on the relationship of

"place" or "response" behavior and reasoning. It is necessary to

report some of the work done on reasoning, as the results have been

conflicting.

In 1929, Maier (17) published an extensive study on reasoning

in the white rat. He defined reasoning as, "The ability to bring

together spontaneously two elements of past experience without having

them previously associated by contiguity." Maier believed, on the basis

of his results, that such reasoning does occur in the rat. However,

Wolfe and Spragg (37) claimed that the behavior of Laier's animals

could be explained without recourse to the concept of reasoning. They

repeated three of Maier's experiments, in addition to one problem of








-6-

their own design, and failed to confirm his results. In 1935, Maier

defended reasoning in rats in a reply to this criticism. He claimed

that they had not replicated his original work and hence had overlooked

certain relevant factors. Hull (12) also denies reasoning in rats and

attempts to explain Maier's results in stimulus-response terms.

Shepard1 (19), using a fifteen choice-point maze in which a

short-cut could be taken once the maze was learned, also found be-

havior in rats which he believed to be reasoning. He further found

that this reasoning ability was unrelated to learning ability and

interpreted this to mean that learning and reasoning are qualitatively

different.

The results of these experiments are thus ambiguous and the

issue remains unsolved. It is not the purpose of this experiment to

determine whether reasoning does occur in the white rat. This must be

done by other experimentation. However, the detour behavior shown in

these situations will be called reasoning.

No studies have been discovered in the literature on the

relationship between the speed of learning a maze habit and what is

learned. If a relationship is found, it may throw light on the dif-

ferences in the behavior of the animals in what appears to be the same

situation. Once again a causal relationship cannot be implied.

This study undertakes to investigate the following problems:


1Unpublished work which was obtained through Dr. Richard J.
Anderson. Some coverage of this is included in Maier and Schneirla (19).









-7-

1. Does the white rat exhibit consistency in what is

learned? This can be further divided into the

animals' consistency in the same and different

situations.

2. What is the relationship between what is learned

and reasoning behavior?

3. What is the relationship between what is learned

and speed of learning a maze habit?












CHAPTER II


EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

As stated previously the purpose of this study is to determine

first the consistency of what is learned and then the relationships

between what is learned, reasoning, and speed of learning.


Subjects

The subjects in this study were 43 naive, albino rats. They

were maintained on Purina laboratory chow and water ad libitum. They

were housed in the colony room of the Comparative Psychology Labora-

tory at the University of Florida. These animals were between 65 and

75 days of age at the beginning of the experiment.

The animals were run in two groups. Group I, consisting of

21 male animals (numbered 1-21), was received from Rockland Farms on

August 29, 1957 and completed training on November 18, 1957. Origin-

ally, there were 26 animals; however, two died and three refused to

run the maze. Group II, consisting of 22 female animals (numbered 22-

43), was received from Carsworth Farms on January 11, 1958 and com-

pleted training on April 1, 1958. Originally, this group consisted of

26 animals but one died and three refused to run the maze. The two

groups were treated identically insofar as was possible. Any changes

in schedule can be seen by comparing Schedules 1 and 2 in the appendix.

-8-












Procedure

All training and testing of the animals was done between 9:30

a. m. and L:30 p. m. For the first ten days the animals were tamed

by being handled, taught to run a straight elevated runway, and to eat

the moist food in pellet form. This taming took place in Room 2,

shown in Figures 5 and 6. After the taming, each animal was run on

six tasks in the following order:

Task 1: An elevated cross-maze (Figure 2 in the appendix)

Task 2: An elevated pi-maze (Figure 3 in the appendix)

Task 3: A tunnel cross-maze (Figure 4 in the appendix)

Task 4: A reasoning test (Figure 5 in the appendix)

Task 5: A nine-choice-point tunnel-maze with a detour (Figure 6

in the appendix)

Task 6: The rats were again run through Task 1.

The rats were motivated by 20-22 hours of food deprivation.

The reward on all trials was a moist food pellet, about the size of a

large pea, located in a small glass coaster. The animals were fed

ad libitum for one hour a day, feeding being started approximately one-

half to one and one-half hours after completion of the day's trials.

The exceptions to this feeding schedule are noted below and in Schedules

1 and 2. The animals were carried to and from the experimental room

in a cage. The elevated maze pathways were fourteen inches high and

two inches wide, and the tunnel maze pathways were three inches wide

and four and one-half inches high and had the top covered with









-10-


one-half inch wire mesh.

Task l.-The rats were run on Maze 1 in Room 1, as is shown in

Figure 2. The illumination in this room was in all cases the natural

light furnished by the three windows shown in this diagram. The non-

correction method was used and a block was placed just beyond the choice

point forcing the animal to make a turn and preventing him from going

straight ahead. The animals were run alternately with four or five

animals. In other words, each animal ran either every fourth or fifth

trial. All of the animals were placed on the maze at S1. One-half

of the animals was trained to go to F1 and the other half was trained

to go to F2. Each animal was run seven trials per day with the

criterion of learning being five successive correct trials. In case

an animal reached the criterion on the seventh trial he was tested

the same day.

When the criterion was reached the block was placed on the

opposite side of the choice point and the animal was placed at S2 for

one trial. The number of trials to criterion and the turn taken on

the test trial at the choice point were recorded. On Tasks 1, 2, and

3 the animal was never rewarded on the test trial.

Task 2.-Seven days after the last animal completed Task 1

they were started on Task 2 (Figure 3). The feeding schedule for this

period is shown in Schedules 1 and 2. Once again each animal was run

every fourth or fifth trial and the non-correction method was used.

One-half of the rats w as trained to run from S1 to F2 and the other









-11-

half was trained to run from S2 to F2. See Figures 7 and 8 for the

correct choice for each animal. They were run seven trials per day

with a criterion of five, successive, correct trials. When the criterion

was reached the animal was tested by being placed on the maze at the

S other than the one he had been trained on. In other words, if they

had been trained to run from S1 to F2 they were placed on the maze at

S2. If the animal ran to F2 he was classified a "place" learner. If

he ran to either Fl or F3 he was considered a "response" learner.

Task 3.--Seven days after Task 2 was completed the animals

were started on Task 3 (Figure 4). The feeding schedule for these

days is shown in Schedules 1 and 2. The procedure for this task was

identical with the procedure for Task 1 with the exception, that the

correct choice was counter-balanced, as shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Task 4.--After the completion of Task 3 the rats were kept

on one hour a day feeding for approximately three days and then started

the reasoning test in room 2 (Figure 5). This room had one window with

the venetian blinds closed and light was furnished by four overhead

40 watt fluorescent bulbs.

For twelve consecutive days each animal was placed on the

apparatus, on T, for ten minutes a day. The portion of the maze

represented by the dotted lines and the screen barrier were not in

place so the animal could not go from b to F by this route. The

barrier between F and A was not in place.

On the thirteenth day the animal was again placed on T for









-12-

one minute. He was then removed for two minutes and the portion of

the apparatus represented by the dotted lines in addition to the screen

barrier were put in place as shown in the diagram. The animal was

then run one trial from b to F and fed a food pellet. He was then

placed on N, not allowed to move toward n, and run four more trials

to food at F. Retracing and movement toward n were prevented by the

experimenter's hand. The animal was then taken off the apparatus for

one minute. Then he was placed on T at A so that the food was in view

but inaccessible. Four scores were used as measures of reasoning:

1. the time elapsed between the rat being placed at A and his

reaching b on the run to the food,

2. the number of blind alleys (X, Y and Z) taken by the animal

before he solved the problem,

3. tne time elapsed before the animal began looking for a detour

route around the screen, i. e., left area A,

4. the time before the animal first left table T.

This apparatus and procedure is a modification of Maier's

work on reasoning (17).

Task 5.-The next task was the nine-choice-point tunnel maze

(Figure 6). This maze was started five days after the completion of

the reasoning task. Each animal was given five trials per day and

criterion was two successive errorless trials. Once again four or

five animals were run alternately. Backtracking was prevented by

placing a door in the maze if an animal started to retrace. While









-13-
the animal was learning the maze the door at the end of blind alley

number 1 was in place. Due to the angle of the maze the animal was

unable to see whether this door was open or closed from the first

choice point. After the animal reached the criterion this door at the

end of blind alley number 1 was opened and the animal was again pa ced

in the maze at the start. Reasoning was measured by the number of

trials until this short cut was taken.

Task 6.-The animals were then put on full diet for three days

and then one-hour a day feeding for three more days. They were then

run again on Task 1, following the same procedure as formerly. The

only change in procedure was the correct turn at the choice point.

This change is shown in Figures 7 and 8.















CHAPTER III


RESULTS


In reporting the results a comparison of Group I (males) and

Group II (females) will be presented first. This will be followed

by the data on each task and then the relationships of these tasks.


Comparison of Group I and Group II

Of the comparisons made between these two groups only three

significant differences were obtained. Two of these differences

showed faster learning by the females and one difference indicated

the males faster. No significant differences between these groups

were obtained on the reasoning measures or "place" vs. "response"

measures.

These groups differ in sex, strain and time of running. No

effort will be made to explain the obtained differences. Much ex-

perimentation (5, 15, 16, 32, 33) has been done in an attempt to deter-

mine the learning efficiency of males as compared to females. It has

produced conflicting results.

In general the groups' performances were similar and the re-

sults for these two groups have been pooled in this study.

Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 6.-On these tasks (see Figures 2, 3,

-14-









-15-

and 4) each animal was trained on a one-choice-point maze and was then

tested to determine whether he exhibited "place" or "response" behavior.

The mean number of trials to criterion and sigma for all the animals are

presented in Table 1.


TABIE 1

MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO CRITERION ON
TASKS 1, 2, 3, AND 6


N 43
Task 1 M 9.93
1 4.0

N 43
M 8.14
Task 2 63 3.8

N 43
Task 3 M 9.79
o l4.6

N 43
Task 6 M 9.5
(3 5.9



A comparison of the "place" vs. "response" learners on mean

number of trials to criterion on Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 6 is presented in

Table 2.

None of the t ratios of the differences between "place" and

"response" learners on mean numbers of trials to criterion is signifi-

cant at the 5% level of confidence. This fails to support the hypothesis

that speed of learning a maze is related to what is learned on that maze.








-16-


TABIE 2

A COMPARISON OF PACE VS. RESPONSE LEARIERS ON MEAN NUMBER
OF TRIALS TO CRITERION ON TASKS 1, 2, 3,AND 6


Place Learners Response Learners t ratio


N 21 22
Task 1 M 10.6 9.3 1.08
0, 4.0 3.6

N 12 31
Task 2 M 10.0 7.4 1.95
T 4.0 3.6

N 21 22
Task 3 M 8.5 11.0 1.82
6' 4.7 4.2

N 22 21
Task 6 M 8.5 10.6 1.17
6 3.7 7.2



Task 4.-This task makes use of a modification of Maier's (17)

reasoning apparatus shown in Figure 5. Of the 43 animals run on this

apparatus, 11 failed to reach the food on the test trial, within the

allotted time of 420 seconds. The remaining 32 animals took the route

from b to F, within this time limit. As stated previously, four measures

of reasoning were used:

1. thie required by the animal to reach b on the run to F,

2. the number of blind alleys taken by the animal,

3. time elapsed until the animal first left area A on the apparatus,

4. time elapsed until the animal first left table T on the apparatus.








-17-

The intercorrelations for these measures of reasoning are

presented in Table 3.


TABLE 3

RELATIONS OF REASONING MEASURES ON TASK 4


Measures of Reasoning Pearson
Correlation Coefficient

I and II .47

I and III .15

I and IV .26

II and III -.08

II and IV .16

III and IV .76



Measures III and IV are not independent. Often when the animal

left area A he also immediately left the table T. These low inter-

correlations seem to cast doubt on the assumption that all of these

indices measure the same thing, i. e., reasoning. It is possible that

reasoning is not unitary. This writer believes Measure I to be the

most valid index of reasoning as this indicates the length of time re-

quired by the animal to achieve his goal by use of the detour route.

The mean scores of each measure for the animals that reasoned on

Task 4 (went from b to F on the test trial) are presented in Table h.

The mean scores of each measure for the animals that did not

reason (did not go from b to F on the test trial) are shown in Table 5.











It must be pointed out that seven of the 11 animals that did not

reason seemed to "give up" before the allotted time had elapsed.

These animals turned their backs on the food and sat, washed, and ap-

peared to sleep.


MEAN MEASURES FOR THE


TABLE 4

ANIMALS THAT REASONED ON TASK 4


Reasoning Measures
I II III IV

H 135.3" 2.1 alleys 18.2" 42.1"

S 108.3 1.8 21.2 39.8


TABLE 5

1EAN MEASURES FOR THE ANIYAIS THAT DID NOT REASON ON TASK 4

Reasoning Measures
II III IV

M 1.8 alleys 75.9" 91.6"

2.2 98 118.0



The t ratios for the differences between the reasoners and non-

reasoners on mean scores for Measures II, III, and IV are presented in

Table 6. No t is indicated for Measure I as the non-reasoners did not

reach point F.

None of the t ratios between the differences of reasoners and

non-reasoners on mean scores of Measures II, III, and IV is significant









-19-

at the 5% level of confidence. These results further suggest that

Measure I is unrelated to Measures II, III, and IV on Task 4.


TABLE 6

A COMPARISON OF REASONERS AND NON-REASONERS ON THE
MEASURES ON TASK 4


Reasoning Measures t ratio


II .40

III 1.1L)

IV 1.38



Task 5.-This task makes use of the nine-choice-point tunnel

maze with a detour route (Figure 6). Forty-three animals were started

on this maze; however, one refused to run and one animal was terminated

at the end of sixty trials when he had not reached learning criterion.

One additional animal was terminated when he had failed to reason after

37 reasoning trials. Forty-one animals learned this maze and 40

exhibited reasoning, i. e., took the detour route. The mean and sigma

for number of trials to learning criterion and number of trials to

reasoning are presented in Table 7.

The correlation, r =+.33, between number of trials to learning

criterion and number of trials to reasoning by use of the detour route,

is significantly different from r = .00 at the 5% level of confidence.

This correlation indicates a positive relationship between speed of








-20-

learning and speed of reasoning as measured by this maze.


TABIE 7

DATA ON NEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO LEARNING CRITERION AND MEAN
NUMBER OF TRIALS TO REASONING ON TASK 5

Trials to Trials to
Learning Criterion Reasoning

N 41 ho

M 21.9 6.2

C' 9. 6.8



We now turn to the relationships between the various tasks and

investigate the three problems presented in Chapter I.


Consistency of What is Learned

Task 1 and Task 6.--On a comparison of what is learned on Tasks

1 and 6, we find that 16 of the animals were consistent, i. e., ex-

hibited the same type of behavior on the test trial of both mazes.

Of the consistent animals, 8, or 50%, showed "place" behavior in both

situations. On a chance basis we would expect 50% (21.5) of the 43

animals to be consistent. A X2 2.82, with 1 degree of freedom,

between the obtained and expected frequencies of consistent and incon-

sistent animals is not significant at the 5% level of confidence.

Notice should be taken that the majority of the animals were incon-

sistent. These results suggest that the "place" or "response" behavior

of the individual animal may not be consistent over time in the same










-21-


situation.

Task 1, Task 2, and Task 3.-A comparison of the kind of be-

havior, "place" or "response," of each animal on Tasks 1, 2, and 3

yields further information on the consistency of what is learned.

In presenting these data the following designations are used:

1. 3 R -- is used to indicate the animals that exhibited

response behavior on the test trials of all three mazes.

2. 2 R-l P is used to indicate the animals that exhibited

response behavior on two of the mazes and place behavior on

one maze.

3. 1 R-2 P is used to indicate the animals that exhibited

place behavior on two of the mazes and response behavior on

one maze.

4. 3 P is used to indicate the animals that exhibited place

behavior on all three mazes.

The number of animals in each of the "place-response" categories

and the number that would be expected in each by chance is shown in

Table 8.

The chi-square (X2 = 3.45, with 2 degrees of freedom) between

the obtained and expected frequencies in these "place-response" cate-

gories is not significant at the 5% level of confidence. This fails to

support the hypothesis that animals are either "place" or "response"

learners and suggests that animals fall on a normal distribution rather

than into a dichotomy.









-22-


TABLE 8

TYPE OF BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED ON THE TEST TRIALS OF
TASKS 1, 2, AND 3

Place-Response Category
3 R 2 R-1 P 1 R-2 P 3 P

N 8 19 13 3

Expected N 5.4 16.2 16.2 5.1



Comparison of Reasoning Ability as Measured on
Task 4 and Task 5

As stated previously, on Task 4, 32 of the animals exhibited

reasoning behavior. On Task 5, 40 of the 41 animals that learned this

maze exhibited reasoning behavior.

The correlation, r = +.01, between reasoning on Task 5 and

Measure I of reasoning on Task 4 is not significantly different from

r = .00. This low correlation casts doubt upon the assumption that

these tasks, or at least the criteria used, both measure the same thing.


Relationship of What is Learned and
Reasoning Ability

Tasks 1, 2, 3, and Task I.-The information shown in Table 9

indicates the number of animals in each "place-response" category that

reasoned on Task 4, and the number that would be expected to reason by

chance.

As the expected frequency for animals in the 3 P category is less

than 5, the categories have been combined to include those that are









-23-

predominantly "response" learners as opposed to those that are pre-

dominantly "place" learners. These results are presented in Table 10.


TABLE 9

NUMBER OF ANIMALS REASONING ON TASK BY PLACE-RESPONSE
CATEGORY ON TASKS 1, 2, AND 3


Place-Response Category
3 R 2 R-l P 1 R-2 P 3 P

N 8 19 13 3

Number Reasoning 3 14 13 2

Expected Reasoning 6 14.25 9.5 2.25



TABLE 10

NUMBER OF ANIMALS REASONING BY PREDOIMANT PACEC" OR
"RESPONSE" BEHAVIOR ON TASKS 1, 2,AND 3

Predominantly Predominantly
Response Place

N 27 16

Number Reasoning 17 15

Expected Reasoning 20.1 11.9



The chi-square (X2 1.29, with 1 degree of freedom) between

expected and obtained frequencies in the "place-response" categories is

not significant at the 5% level of confidence. This datum fails to

support the hypothesis that what is learned on Tasks 1, 2, and 3 is

related to whether or not an animal reasons on Task 4.








-24-

Table 11 presents the data comparing the mean scores for the

four measures of reasoning on Task 4, for the 32 animals reasoning,

with their "place-response" category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3.


TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF MEAN REASONING MEASURES ON TASK 4 AND
PIACE-RESPONSE CATEGORY ON TASKS 1, 2, AND 3

Place-Response Category F
3R 2R-1 P 1 R-2 P 3 P ratio

N 8 19 14 3

Reasoning
Measure

I 102" 113.6" 142.9" 93.5" .23

II 2.3 alleys 2.5 alleys 1.85 alleys 1.5 alleys .35

III 16.7" 10.5" 27.3 22" 1.28

IV 59" 32.7" 49.2" 36.5" .57



None of the F ratios involving mean reasoning scores by

"place-response" category is significant at the 5% level of confidence.

These data do not support the hypothesis, for those animals that

reason, that reasoning, as measured by these criteria, is related to

what is learned on Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

Tasks 1, 2, 3, and Task 5.-The relationship between what

is learned on Tasks 1, 2, and 3 and the reasoning behavior on Task 5

is presented in Table 12.











TABLE 12

MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO REASON G ON TASK 5 BY
PLACE-RESPONSE CATEGORY ON TASKS 1, 2, AND 3

Place-Response Categor
3 R 2 R- 1 R-2 P 3 P F ratio

N 7 18 12 3

M 8.0 5.5 6.7 1.3 1.00
a 9.4 4.3 7.1 .54



The F ratio involving the mean reasoning score by "place-response"

category is not significant at the 5% level of confidence, and fails

to support the hypothesis that what is learned is related to reasoning

efficiency as measured on Task 5.


Relation of What is Learned and Speed of Learning

Tasks 1, 2, and 3.-It was previously stated that no relationship

was found between the number of trials to criterion and "place" or

"response" behavior on any individual one-choice-point maze. Table 13

presents data on the mean number of trials to criterion according to

the animals "place-response" category on Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

None of the F ratios of the differences of mean number of trials

to criterion by "place-response" category is significant at the 5%

level of confidence. No relationships are obtained between the speed

of learning and what is learned.

Table 14 presents the relation of what is learned and the number










of trials to learning criterion on a complex maze (Task 5).


TABLE 13

MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO CRITERION ON TASKS 1, 2, AND 3
BY PIACE-RESPONSE CATEGORY

Place-Response Category
3 R 2 R-l P 1 R-2 P 3 P F ratio

N 8 19 13 3

Task 1 7.75 9.68 11.77 9.33 1.84

Task 2 6.37 8.30 8.92 6.67 .94

Task 3 10.50 10.00 9.38 8.33 .18



TABLE 14

MEAN NUMBER OF TRIALS TO CRITERION ON TASK 5 by
PLACE-RESPONSE CATEGORY ON TASKS 1, 2, AND 3

Place-Response Category
3 R 2 R- P 1 R-2 P 3 P F ratio

N 7 18 13 3

M 24.4 20.6 21.5 25 .36

7.8 8.9 11.4 4.5


The F ratio of the differences between mean number of trials to

learning criterion on Task 5 by "place-response" category is not signifi-

cant at the 5% level of confidence. These results do not verify the

hypothesis that speed of learning a complex maze is related to the "place"
or "response" behavior of the animals.















CHAPTER IV


INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION


Consistency of What is Learned

The results suggest that any individual rat does not show

absolute consistency in the kinds of cues that it utilizes when learning

a maze. It was stated previously that it is probable that each animal

uses all available cues in a learning situation. However, when these

cues are made to conflict, some animals appear to utilize the extra-

maze cues while others appear to utilize the kinesthetic cues. The

indications are that the animals can and do utilize various cues in

different situations. These findings cast doubt on the assumption that

rats fall into a dichotomy of either "place" or "response" learners.

In a repeat of the same maze (Tasks 1 and 6) 63% of the animals

were inconsistent on the test trials. This indicates that the animal

may not respond to the same cues even in the same situation over time.

There were approximately 65 days between the two test trials, so the

fact that the animals were not rewarded for their choice on the first

test trial is probably unimportant.

From Restle's framework, this indicates that there is nothing

within the animal which makes it respond uniquely to either kinesthetic









-28-

cues or to the cues originating outside of the organism.

A further indication that the animals do not fall into a

"place-response" dichotomy is found by comparing the behavior of the

animals on the test trials of Tasks 1, 2, and 3. The responses, as

shown in Table 8, tend to fall in a normal distribution. This could

be due to one of two factors:

1. The animals are inconsistent and there is nothing in the organism

which makes it tend to be either a "place" or "response"

learner. In other words, the behavior of the animals on the

test trial is determined by the wealth of extra-maze cues,

as has been shown in earlier studies, and chance.

2. The animals are relatively consistent from situation to

situation. They range from those animals which are "place"

learners in almost any situation to those that are primarily

"response" learners.

The first alternative seems more likely in light of the fact

that animals appear to be inconsistent on a repeat of the same situa-

tion. These results tend to support Restal's hypothesis that there is

nothing in the nature of a rat which makes it a "place" or "response"

learner. Further investigation should be carried out on the question

of relative consistency.

One observation should be made at this point. Task 2, the pi

maze, produced a relatively small number of "place" learners. This

might be due to the fact that on Tasks 1 and 3 the intra-maze cues com-








-29-

bined with the extra-maze cues to direct the animals to the same loca-

tion. On Task 2 there were no available intra-maze cues. Experimenta-

tion should be done to determine the relative importance of the intra-

maze cues and attempt to determine just what these cues are. This has

been done by Walker, Dember and Earl (35) but the intra-maze cues were

exaggerated by painting the alleys different colors.

The results discussed therefore are in essential agreement

with the ideas presented by Restle (20). It appears that any valid

learning theory must take into account the fact that animals may use

varied cues in a learning situation. The classical approach to the

"place" vs. "response" controversy, in light of these results, seems

to lead us into a blind alley. Further research should attempt to

determine the relative importance of the various cues. This can be

done by manipulating the cues mentioned previously.


Relation of What is Learned and Reasoning Ability

Before the relationship between reasoning ability and place-

response behavior is reported the various criteria of reasoning should

be compared.

On Task 4 there were four measures of reasoning used. These

measures were adapted from Maier's (17) criteria. The intercorrela-

tions between these measures, as presented in Table 3, are rather low.

The highest correlation is between measures III and IV, r -+.76. It

has been pointed out previously that these two measures are not inde-

pendent. These results cast doubt on the idea that all of these criteria









-30-

measure the same thing. It is possible that reasoning is not unitary

and these criteria are measures of different aspects of reasoning.

Further doubt is cast on the validity of these measures by

comparing the scores of those animals that reason, obtain food on the

test trial, with the scores of the non-reasoners. No significant

differences were found between the measures for these two groups. Two

tenable explanations to account for these results are:

1. This task does not measure reasoning ability in the white rat.

2. This task can measure whether or not an animal does reason

but the criteria are not sufficiently sensitive to measure the

efficiency or speed of reasoning.

These results question whether Maier's apparatus really does

demonstrate reasoning in the white rat. This does not imply that

reasoning does not exist in these animals.

The correlation, r =+.01, between reasoning on Task 5 and

Measure I of reasoning on Task 4 shows that these two tasks are not

measuring the same thing.

On Task 5 the correlation, r =+.33, between number of trials

to learning and number of trials to reasoning is significantly different

from r = .00 at the 5% level of confidence. This indicates that the

faster learners tend also to reason faster than the slower learners.

These results are contrary to those obtained by Shepard (191 who found

no relationship between speed of learning and speed of reasoning in a

similar maze. No relationships were found between speed of learning a










-31-

complex maze and the reasoning measures of Maier's apparatus.

On comparing what is learned and reasoning behavior, we find:

1. no relationship between whether or not an animal reasons

on Maier's apparatus and his "place-response" behavior,

2. no relationships between the four measures of reasoning on

fmaier's apparatus and "place-response" behavior,

3. no relationship between reasoning on the modification of

Shepard's maze and "place-response" behavior.

These results all fail to indicate a relationship between what

is learned and reasoning ability as these have been measured. If the

animals are inconsistent in their "place-response" behavior these

results would be expected. A relationship would suggest that the

animals were relatively consistent in the cues that are predominant

for them in a learning situation.


Relation between What is Learned and Speed of Learning

This topic was investigated in three ways:

1. the relationship between number of trials to criterion in a

one-choice-point maze and the behavior of the animal on the test trial

of that maze,

2. the relationship between what is learned on three one-choice-

point mazes and number of trials to criterion on each of these mazes,

3. tne relationship between what is learned on three one-choice-

point mazes and number of trials to criterion on a nine-choice-point

tunnel maze.










-32-

No relationships were found in any of the above conditions.

This is not proof, of course, that no relationships exist, but it does

suggest that speed of learning is not related to "place-response"

behavior.
















CHAPTER V


SUMMARY


The purpose of this study was to determine:

1. Is the "place" or "response" behavior of a white rat

consistent?

2. What relationships exist between reasoning and "place"

or "response" behavior?

3. What relationships exist between speed of learning a

maze habit and "place" or "response" behavior?

This experiment consisted of each of the 43 animals being run

on six tasks. Four of these tasks consisted of the rat learning a

one-choice-point maze and then being tested for "place" or "response"

behavior. Of the two remaining tasks, used to measure reasoning, one

was a modification of Maier's (17) technique and the other was adapted

from Shepard (19).

The findings:

1. indicate that the animals are inconsistent in their "place"

or "response" behavior and do not fall into a "place" vs.

"response" dichotomy. It is still conceivable that the

animals fall on a continuum as to the cues that are predomi-

nant in learning a maze habit.

-33-








-34-

2. fail to find any relationship between "place" or "response"

behavior and reasoning in the white rat, and

3. fail to indicate any relationship between "place" or "response"

behavior and speed of learning a maze habit as measured by

number of trials to criterion.

It appears that the place vs. response controversy is incorrectly

formulated. The results indicate, as Restle (20) suggests, that the

animals use all of the available cues in a learning situation. Further

study should attempt to identify these cues and determine their rela-

tive importance rather than follow the "place-response" experimentation

classically carried on in this area.

Doubt is cast upon the assertion that the apparatus modified

from Maier (17) measures reasoning. Further research in this area

should attempt to ascertain whether reasoning can occur in the white

rat.































APPENDIX










-- -I
7
i
clble
J


I11


Ii




I'"I'i

~zL cxi~~


r 1

]


Figure 2.--Diagram of Tasks 1 and 6 in Room 1.


r
z= ~q:I II 81[3i
I~i~ ~T"h~T[flC;li
I~bC~ b7~->c~










- -z
J -. i LT '; ..


/Cl~





L\ T


cAhtj.. L
s -.took


.2l


Figure 3.-Diagram of Task 2 in Room 1.


T L r


Hfl;
I~b
11,-22
k iQT











-38-


_ ib__ 7A -
L^ UI^TOIZ-/ ^


.. FtLoc-


/<,


Figure U.-Diagram of Task 3 in Room 1.


; tipjii
ItT






CL: ,1
cbir-





















t .
iLCPLo-kL^
L'0.'-T<.


c UIa&F


N
CLbUI ;n


-c&.CLv_ /3-i-c"


Figure 5.-Diagram of Task 4 in Room 2.


r-


rL


I jc>AtsL





















C)OL~vL


ii


rEEOVRjLW
~Loc~ --7~


cLo~Ex
~~Jor0 UL


Uc&.ie


'C I& -P


Figure 6.--Diagram of Task 5 in Room 2.


~ChLE: ;j~4"51'-0"















Rat Task
Number 1 2 3 6

1 R* R R R
2 R R R L**
3 R R R R
4 R R R L
5 R R L R
6 R R L L
7 R R L R
8 R L L L
9 R L L R
10 R L R L
11 R L R R
12 R L R L
13 L L R R
14 L L R L
15 L L L R
16 L R L L
17 L R L R
18 L R R L
19 L R R R
20 L L L L
21 L L L R

Figure 7.--The Correct Response for the Rats
in Group 1

*R = right
L = left








-142-


Rat
Number

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3h
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43


Task


Figure 8.-The Correct Response
in Group 2

*R = right
*L = left


for the Rats













SCHEDULE I

Schedule for Group Number I


Day
Number

1


2-11

12-1l

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-29

30-32

33-36

37-50

51-55

56-72

73-75

76-78

79-82


Date

Aug. 29, 1957


Aug. 30-Sept 8

Sept. 9-11

Sept. 12-14

Sept. 15-17

Sept. 18-20

Sept. 21-23

Sept. 24-26

Sept. 27-29

Sept. 30-Oct. 3

Oct. 4-17

Oct. 18-22

Oct. 23-Nov. 8

Nov. 9-11

Nov. 12-14

Nov. 15-18


Schedule

Animals received-
55-65 days of age

Animals tamed

Run on Task 1

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 2

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 3

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task L

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 5

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run again on Task 1













SCHEDULE II

Schedule for Group Number II


Day
Number

1


2-11

12-14

15-17

18-20

21-23

24-26

27-29

30-32

33-36

37-50

51-56

57-73

74-76

77-79

80-82


Date

Jan. 11, 1958


Jan. 12-21

Jan. 22-24

Jan. 25-27

Jan. 28-30

Jan. 31-Feb. 2

Feb. 3-5

Feb. 6-8

Feb. 9-11

Feb. 12-14

Feb. 15-28

March 1-6

Mar. 7-23

Mar. 24-26

Mar. 27-29

Mar. 30-April 1


Schedule

Animals received-
55-65 days of age

Animals tamed

Run on Task 1

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 2

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 3

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 4

Fed one hour per day

Run on Task 5

Full feed

Fed one hour per day

Run again on Task 1











BIBLIOGRAPHY


1. Blodgett, H., and McCutchan, K. Place vs. response learning in
the simple T-maze. J. exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 412-422.

2. Blodgett, H., and McCutchan, K. Relative strength of place and
response learning in the T-maze. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.,
1948, 41, 17-24.

3. Blodgett, H., McCutchen, K., and Mathews, R. Spatial learning
in the T-maze: The influence of direction, turn, and food
location. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 800-809.

4. Brown, W. L., and Gentry, G. V. Visual perception and insight in
rats. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1950, 43, 226-230.

5. Corey, S. M. Sex differences in maze learning by white rats.
J. comp. psychol., 1930, 42, 439-442.

6. Galanter, E. H., and Shaw, W. Cue vs. reactive inhibition in
place and response learning. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.,
1954, 47, 395-402.

7. Galanter, E. H. Place and response learning: Learning to alter-
nate. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 17-18.

8. Gentry, G., Brown, W. L. and Kaplan, S. J. An experimental
analysis of the spatial location hypothesis in learning.
J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1947, 0L, 309-322.

9. Hanson, D. A. The influence of age and sex on reasoning.
J. exp. Biol., 1949, 26, 317-326.

10. Harsh, C. M. Disturbance and insight in rats. Univer. Calif.
Publ. in Psychol., 1937, 6, 163-168.

11. Hill, C. W., and Thune, L. E. Place and response learning in
the white rat under simplified and mutually isolated conditions.
J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43, 289-296.

12. Hull, C. L. The mechanism of the assembly of behavior segments
in novel combinations suitable for problem solution.
Psychol. Rev. 1935, 42, 219-2l4.

13. Keller, F. S. and Hill, L. M. Another insight experiment. J.
genet. Psychol., 1936, h8, 484-489.












14. Kendler, H. H., and Gasser, W. P. Variables in spatial learning
I: Number of reinforcements during training. J. comp. physiol.
Psychol., 1948, 41, 178-187.

15. McNemar, Q., and Stone, C. P. The sex differences in rats on
three learning tasks. J. comp. psychol., 1932, 14, 171-180.

16. McNemar, Q. Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley, 1949.

17. Maier, N. R. F. Reasoning in white rats. Comp. Psychol. Monog.,
1929, 6, 1-93.

18. Maier, N. R. F. In defense of reasoning in white rats. J. comp.
Psychol., 1935, 19, 197-206.

19. Maier, N. R. F. and Schneirla, T. C. Principles of animal
psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935, pp. 460-I69.

20. Restle, F. Discrimination of cues in mazes: A resolution of
the place-vs-response question. Psychol. Rev. 1957, 64,
217-228.

21. Ritchie, B. F. Studies in spatial learning III: Two different
paths to the same location and two paths to two different
locations. J. exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 25-38.

22. Ritchie, B. F., Aeschliman, B. and Pierce, P. Studies in spatial
learning VIII: Place performance and the acquisition of place
dispositions. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1950, 43, 73-85.

23. Ritchie, B. F., Hay, A. and Hare, R. Studies in spatial learning
IX: A dispositional analysis of response performance. J.
comp. physiol. Psychol., 1951, 44, 142-L49.

24. Scharlock, D. P. The role of extramaze cues in place and response
learning. J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 50, 249-254.

25. Thompson, M. E. and Thompson, J. P. Reactive inhibition as a
factor in maze learning II: The role of reactive inhibition
in studies of place learning vs. response learning. J. exp.
Psychol., 1949, 39, 883-891.

26. Tolman, E. C. and Honzik, C. H. Insight in rats. Univer. Calif.
Publ. Psychol., 1930, 4, 215-232.

27. Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F. and Kalish, D. Studies in spatial
learning I: Orientation and the short-cut. J. exp. Psychol.,
1946, 36, 13-24.










28. Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F. and Kalish, D. Studies in spatial
learning II: Place learning vs. response learning. J. exp.
Psychol., 1946, 36, 221-229.

29. Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F. and Kalish, D. Studies in spatial
learning IV: The transfer of place learning to other starting
points. J. exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 39-47.

30. Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F. and Kalish, D. Studies in spatial
learning V: Response learning vs. place learning by the non-
correction method. J. exp. Psychol., 1947, 37, 285-292.

31. Tolman, E. C. and Gleitman, H. Studies in spatial learning VII:
Place and response learning under different degrees of motiva-
tion. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 653-659.

32. Tomlin, M. I. and Stone, C. P. Sex differences in learning abilities
of albino rats. J. comp. Psychol., 1930, 16, 207-229.

33. Tryan, R. C. Studies in individual differences in maze ability II:
The determination of individual differences by age, weight,
sex and pigmentation. J. comp. Psychol., 1931, 12, 1-22.

34. Waddell, D., Gans, S., Kempner, P. and Williams, A. A comparison
of place and response learning in very young rats. J. comp.
physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 375-377.

35. Walker, E. L., Dember, W. N., Earl, R. W. and Karoly, A. J. Choice
alternation I: Stimulus vs. place vs. response. J. comp.
physiol. Psychol., 1955, 48, 19-23.

36. Webb, W. B. A study in place and response learning as a dis-
crimination behavior. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1951, 44,
263-268.

37. Wolfe, J. B. and Spragg, S. Some experimental tests of reasoning
in white rats. J. comp. Psychol., 1934, 18, 455-469.















BIOGRAPHICAL ITEMS

Leming Bassett Corlis was born in Cincinnati, Ohio on July 6,

1930. He attended public schools there until the age of eleven at

which time his family moved to Melbourne, Florida. He graduated from

Melbourne High School in June, 19l8. He entered the University of

Florida that September and received the Bachelor of Arts degree with

a major in psychology in February, 1953. He continued at the Univer-

sity in the Graduate School and obtained a Master of Arts degree with

a psychology major in February of 1951. At the present time his

future plans are indefinite.










This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the

chairman of the candidate' supervisory ccamittee and has been approved

by all members of the committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the

College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council and was

approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy.

June 9, 1958


Dean, College of Ats and Sciences



tL W, ---
-a Dean, Graduate School


SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:



Chairman/











./d U. //,, i_




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs