4.5 | 4 | 2 | 7.6 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1: 0.43
========+===========+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+==============+===+===+===+===+========

[Footnote *: Aided by experimenter.]

Examination of table 5 indicates that some of the settings proved very
easy for Sobke; others, extremely difficult. Consequently, the number of
methods which were tried and rejected for a given setting varies from
two to five. Setting 2 proved a fairly simple one, and after the
inhibition of the tendency to choose the first box at the left, the only
definite tendency to appear was that of choosing the first box at the
right, and then the one next to it. After one hundred and thirty trials,
this method suddenly gave place to direct choice of the right box, and
during the following twenty-eight series, no error occurred for this
setting. Setting 4, on the contrary, proved extremely difficult, and a
variety of methods is more or less definitely indicated by the records.

It is needless to lengthen the description by analyzing the data for
each setting, since the reader by carefully scanning the columns of data
in table 5 may observe for himself the various tendencies and their
mutual relations.

Sobke's curve of learning (figure 19) in problem 2, is extremely
irregular, as was that of Skirrl. Similar irregularities appear in the
daily ratios of right to wrong first choices presented in the last
column of table 5. Most of these irregularities were due, I have
discovered, to unfavorable external conditions. Thus, dark rainy days
and disturbing noises outside the laboratory were obviously conditions
of poor work.

On the day following the final and correct series for problem 2, a
control series was given. In this Sobke seemed greatly surprised by the
new situations which presented themselves. Repeatedly he exhibited
impulses to enter the box which would have been the correct one in the
regular series of settings. He frequently inhibited such impulses and
chose correctly, but at other times he reacted quickly and made
mistakes. It was evident from his behavior that he was not guided by
anything like a definite idea of the relation of the right box to the
other members of the group.

In a second control series given on the following day, June 12,
confusion appeared, but less markedly. For th