[Transcriber's notes]

This text is derived from an unedited version in the Internet Archive.
Page numbers are indicated by numbers enclosed in curly braces, e.g. {99}. They have been located where page breaks occurred in the original book.
Labels and text in a figure that are not mentioned in the figure description are included as a comma separated list, as in "(Figure text: cochlea, vestibule, 3 Canals)".
Lengthy footnotes and quotations are indented.
Obvious misspellings and typos are corrected but inconsistent spelling is not resolved, as in coordinate and coördinate.
Here are the appearances of the heading levels.

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Header 4

Here are the definitions of some unfamiliar words (to me).
amour propre: self-esteem; self-respect.
esprit de corps: camaraderie, bonding, solidarity, fellowship.
motility (motile): moving or capable of moving spontaneously.
unwonted: unusual.

[End Transcribers's notes]

PSYCHOLOGY

A STUDY OF MENTAL LIFE

BY
ROBERT S. WOODWORTH, Ph. D.
Professor of Psychology in Columbia University
NEW YORK
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1921
COPYRIGHT, 1921
BY
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
Printed in the U.S.A.

PREFACE

A few words to the reader are in order. In the first place, something like an apology is due for the free way in which the author has drawn upon the original work of many fellow-psychologists, without any mention of their names. This is practically unavoidable in a book intended for the beginner, but the reader may well be informed of the fact, and cautioned not to credit the content of the book to the writer of it. The author's task has been that of selecting from the large mass of psychological information now available, much of it new, whatever seemed most suitable for introducing the subject to the reader. The book aims to represent the present state of a very active science.

Should the book appear unduly long in prospect, the longest and most detailed chapter, that on Sensation, might perfectly well be omitted, on the first reading, without appreciably disturbing the continuity of the rest.

On the other hand should any reader desire to make this text the basis of a more extensive course of reading, the lists of references appended to the several chapters will prove of service. The books and articles there cited will be found interesting and not too technical in style.

Much advantage can be derived from the use of the "Exercises". The text, at the best, but provides raw material. Each student's finished product must be of his own making. The exercises afford opportunity for the student to work over the material and make it his own.

A first or preliminary edition of this book, in mimeographed sheets, was in use for two years in introductory classes conducted by the author and his colleagues, and was subjected to exceedingly helpful criticism from both teachers and students. The revision of that earlier edition into the present form has been very much of a coöperative enterprise, and so many have coöperated that room could scarcely be found for all their names. Professor A. T. Poffenberger, Dr. Clara F. Chassell, Dr. Georgina I. Gates, Mr. Gardner Murphy, Mr. Harold E. Jones and Mr. Paul S. Achilles have given me the advantage of their class-room experience with the mimeographed book. Dr. Christine Ladd-Franklin has very carefully gone over with me the passages dealing with color vision and with reasoning. Miss Elizabeth T. Sullivan, Miss Anna B. Copeland, Miss Helen Harper and Dr. A. H. Martin have been of great assistance in the final stages of the work. Important suggestions have come also from several other universities, where the mimeographed book was inspected.

R. S. W.
Columbia University
August, 1921

CONTENTS

[{1}]

PSYCHOLOGY

CHAPTER I
WHAT PSYCHOLOGY IS AND DOES

THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE SCIENCE, ITS PROBLEMS AND ITS METHODS

Modern psychology is an attempt to bring the methods of scientific investigation, which have proved immensely fruitful in other fields, to bear upon mental life and its problems. The human individual, the main object of study, is so complex an object, that for a long time it seemed doubtful whether there ever could be real science here; but a beginning was made in the nineteenth century, following the lead of biology and physiology, and the work of the investigator has been so successful that to-day there is quite a respectable body of knowledge to assemble under the title of scientific psychology.

Psychology, then, is a science. It is the science of--what shall we say? "The science of the soul"--that is what the name means by derivation and ancient usage. "The science of the mind" has a more modern sound. "The science of consciousness" is more modern still. "The science of behavior" is the most recent attempt at a concise formula.

None of these formulas is wholly satisfactory. Psychology does not like to call itself the science of the soul, for that has a theological tang and suggests problems that have so far not seemed accessible to scientific investigation. Psychology does not like very well to call itself the science [{2}] of the mind, as the mind seems to imply some thing or machine, and there is no such thing to be observed (unless it be the brain and body generally), and, anyway, psychology is distinctly a study of actions rather than of things. Psychology does not like to limit itself to the study of consciousness, but finds it necessary to study also unconscious actions. As to "behavior", it would be a very suitable term, if only it had not become so closely identified with the "behavioristic movement" in psychology, which urges that consciousness should be entirely left out of psychology, or at least disregarded. "Behavior psychology", as the term would be understood to-day, means a part of the subject and not the whole.

[Footnote: A series of waggish critics has evolved the following: "First psychology lost its soul, then it lost its mind, then it lost consciousness; it still has behavior, of a kind.">[

The best way of getting a true picture of psychology, and of reaching an adequate definition of its subject-matter, would be to inspect the actual work of psychologists, so as to see what kind of knowledge they are seeking. Such a survey would reveal quite a variety of problems under process of investigation, some of them practical problems, others not directly practical.

Varieties of Psychology

Differential psychology.

One line of question that always interests the beginner in psychology is as to how people differ--how different people act under the same circumstances--and why; and if we watch the professional psychologist, we often find him working at just this problem. He tests a great number of individuals to see how they differ, and tries to discover on what factors their differences depend, how far on heredity, how far on environment. The "psychologist" in such a place as the children's court [{3}] is a specialist whose duty it is to test the delinquent children that are brought before the court, with the special object of measuring the intelligence of each individual child and of helping in other ways to understand the child's peculiar conduct and attitude.

The "psychological examiner" in the Army, during the Great War, had the same general object in view. It was desirable to measure the intelligence of each recruit as he entered the service, since military experience had shown that men of low intelligence made poor soldiers, while those of high intelligence made the best officers and non-commissioned officers, provided they also possessed good physique and certain less measureable mental qualifications, such as courage and leadership.

Applied psychology.

The Army psychologists, like the court psychologist, were engaged in applying scientific knowledge to the practical problems of life; and there are many other applications of psychology, to education, to medicine, to business and other occupations, as well as to the art of right living. Scientific knowledge enables you to predict and control. Having devised scientific tests for intelligence, you can predict of a six-year-old boy who tests low, that he will not get much good from the regular classes in school; and thus you are in a position to control the education of this boy for his own best interests. In the Army, it happened during the earlier part of the war that some companies or regiments made much slower progress in training than others; and a whole Division was delayed for months because of the backwardness of a single regiment. When the psychological tests were introduced, these slow-learning units were found to contain a disproportionate number of men of low intelligence. From that time on, it was possible by aid of the tests to equalize the intelligence of different units when first formed, and thus insure equal [{4}] progress in training. This was a good example of "control".

Most of us are attracted by the practical use of a science, and some have no patience with any study that does not seem immediately practical. But really any science, however much it is applied, must remain fundamentally a pure science; that is, it must seek most of all to know and understand. Practical scientific knowledge was usually first obtained without any inkling of how it might be used. The science of electricity is the most striking example of this. It began as an attempt to understand certain curious phenomena, which seemed to be nothing but curiosities; yet when the knowledge of these phenomena had progressed to a certain point, abundant use was found for it. Much the same is true of psychology, which began as a pure science and only recently has found ways of applying its discoveries to practical affairs. So the student beginning the science, though properly desirous of making practical use of what he learns, should let himself be governed for the present by the desire to know and understand, confident that the more scientific (which is to say, the more complete, systematic and reliable) his knowledge is, the more available it will be for practical application.

General psychology.

Our science is not concerned entirely with differences between people, but asks also in what ways people are alike, and this is indeed its central problem. How do "we" observe, learn, remember, imagine, think? What sensations and feelings do we have, what emotions, what instincts, what natural and acquired impulses to action? How are our natural powers and impulses developed and organized as we grow up? Psychology is concerned with the child as well as the adult, and it is even concerned with the animal. It is concerned with the abnormal as well as the normal human being. So you will find books and [{5}] courses on animal psychology, child psychology, abnormal psychology. Now general psychology--or just plain "psychology"--has to do with the main laws and principles that hold in all these special fields.

Psychology as Related to Other Sciences

A good definition of our science would distinguish it from other sciences, especially from those neighboring sciences with which it is in closest contact.

Psychology and sociology.

There is no difficulty in framing a good logical distinction here. Sociology studies the activities of a group of people taken as a whole, while psychology studies the activities of the individuals. Both might be interested in the same social act, such as an election, but sociology would consider this event as a unit, whereas psychology would break it up into the acts of the several voters. The distinction is clear enough theoretically, but breaks down often in practice, as sociology would like to know the motives that swayed individual voters, while psychology on its side is interested to know what decision was reached by the majority. All the social sciences, including economics and politics, have a psychological side, since they evidently are concerned to know the causes that govern human conduct. Social psychology studies the individual in his social relations.

Psychology and biology.

Biology, being the science of living creatures, includes psychology, which studies these creatures on the mental side. The science of life includes the science of mental life. We may call psychology a part of biology, or we may call it one of the biological sciences. It has very close contact with several other branches of biology. Animal psychology overlaps that part of zoology which studies the behavior of animals. Genetic psychology, as it is sometimes called, i.e., the study of mental heredity. [{6}] and development, dovetails with the general biological science of genetics, so that we find biologists gathering data on the heredity of feeble-mindedness or of musical ability, while psychologists discuss the general theory of heredity.

Psychology and physiology.

That one of all the sciences that has the closest contacts with psychology is human and animal physiology. Broadly defined, physiology is that part of biology that studies functions or activities; and, so defined, it includes psychology as part of itself. In practice, psychology devotes itself to desire, thought, memory, and such "mental functions", while physiology concentrates its effort upon "bodily functions" like digestion and circulation. But this is only a rough distinction, which breaks down at many points.

Where shall we class sensation? Is it "mental" or "bodily"? Both sciences study it. Physiology is perhaps more apt to go into the detailed study of the action of the sense organs, and psychology to concern itself with the classification of sensations and the use made of them for recognizing objects or for esthetic purposes. But the line between the two sciences is far from sharp at this point.

Speech, also, lies in both provinces. Physiology has studied the action of the vocal organs and the location of the brain centers concerned in speech, while psychology has studied the child's process of learning to speak and the relation of speech to thought, and is more apt to be interested in stuttering, slips of the tongue, and other speech disturbances which are said to be "mental rather than physical".

It would be hard to mention any activity that is mental without being physical at the same time. Even thinking, which seems as purely mental as any, requires brain action; and the brain is just as truly a bodily organ as the heart or stomach. Its activity is bodily activity and lies properly within the field of physiology.

[{7}]

But it would be equally difficult to mention any function that is exclusively bodily, and not mental at the same time, in some degree. Take digestion for example: the pleasant anticipation of food will start the digestive juices flowing, before any food is physically in the stomach; while in anger or fear digestion comes to a sudden halt. Therefore we find physiologists interested in these emotions, and psychologists interested in digestion.

We do not find any clean separation between our science and physiology; but we find, on the whole, that psychology examines what are called "mental" activities, and that it studies them as the performances of the whole individual rather than as executed by the several organs.

The Science of Consciousness

Typically, the activities that psychology studies are conscious performances, while many of those falling to physiology are unconscious. Thus digestion is mostly unconscious, the heart beat is unconscious except when disturbed, the action of the liver is entirely unconscious. Why not say, then, that psychology is the study of conscious activities?

There might be some objection to this definition from the side of physiology, which studies certain conscious activities itself--speech, for example, and especially sensation.

There would be objection also from the side of psychology, which does not wish to limit itself to conscious action. Take the case of any act that can at first be done only with close attention, but that becomes easy and automatic after practice; at first it is conscious, later unconscious, but psychology would certainly need to follow it from the initial to the final stage, in order to make a complete study of the practice effect. And then there is the "unconscious", or the "subconscious mind"--a matter on which psychologists [{8}] do not wholly agree among themselves; but all would agree that the problem of the unconscious was appropriate to psychology.

For all the objections, it remains true that the typical mental process, the typical matter for psychological study, is conscious. "Unconscious mental processes" are distinguished from the unconscious activity of such organs as the liver by being somehow like the conscious mental processes.

It would be correct, then, to limit psychology to the study of conscious activities and of activities akin to these.

The Science of Behavior

No one has objected so strenuously to defining psychology as the science of consciousness, and limiting it to consciousness, as the group of animal psychologists. By energetic work, they had proved that the animal was a very good subject for psychological study, and had discovered much that was important regarding instinct and learning in animals. But from the nature of the case, they could not observe the consciousness of animals; they could only observe their behavior, that is to say, the motor (and in some cases glandular) activities of the animals under known conditions. When then the animal psychologists were warned by the mighty ones in the science that they must interpret their results in terms of consciousness or not call themselves psychologists any longer, they rebelled; and some of the best fighters among them took the offensive, by insisting that human psychology, no less than animal, was properly a study of behavior, and that it had been a great mistake ever to define it as the science of consciousness.

It is a natural assumption that animals are conscious, but after all you cannot directly observe their consciousness, and you cannot logically confute those philosophers [{9}] who have contended that the animal was an unconscious automaton. Still less can you be sure in detail what is the animal's sensation or state of mind at any time; to get at that, you would need a trustworthy report from the animal himself. Each individual must observe his own consciousness; no one can do it from outside. The objection of the behaviorist to "consciousness psychology" arises partly from distrust of this method of inner observation, even on the part of a human observer.

Indeed, we can hardly define psychology without considering its methods of observation, since evidently the method of observation limits the facts observed and so determines the character of the science. Psychology has two methods of observation.

When a person performs any act, there are, or may be, two sorts of facts to be observed, the "objective" and the "subjective". The objective facts consist of movements of the person's body or of any part of it, secretions of his glands (as flow of saliva or sweat), and external results produced by these bodily actions--results such as objects moved, path and distance traversed, hits on a target, marks made on paper, columns of figures added, vocal or other sounds produced, etc., etc. Such objective facts can be observed by another person.

The subjective facts can be observed only by the person performing the act. While another person can observe, better indeed than he can himself, the motion of his legs in walking, he alone can observe the sensations in the joints and muscles produced by the leg movement. No one else can observe his pleased or displeased state of mind, nor whether he is thinking of his walking or of something quite different. To be sure, his facial expression, which is an objective fact, may give some clue to his thoughts and feelings, but "there's no art to read the mind's construction [{10}] in the face", or at least no sure art. One may feign sleep or absorption while really attending to what is going on around. A child may wear an angelic expression while meditating mischief. To get the subjective facts, we shall have to enlist the person himself as our observer.

Introspection

This is observation by an individual of his own conscious action. It is also called subjective observation. Notice that it is a form of observation, and not speculation or reasoning from probabilities or from past experience. It is a direct observation of fact.

One very simple instance of introspection is afforded by the study of after-images. Look for an instant at the glowing electric bulb, and then turn your eyes upon a dark background, and observe whether the glowing filament appears there; this would be the "positive after-image". This simple type of introspection is used by physiology in its study of the senses, as well as by psychology; and it gives such precise and regular results that only the most confirmed behaviorists refuse to admit it as a good method of observation.

But psychology would like to make introspective observations on the more complex mental processes as well; and it must be admitted that here introspection becomes difficult. You cannot hope to make minute observations on any process that lasts over a very few seconds, for you must let the process run its natural course unimpeded by your efforts at observing it, and then turn your "mental eye" instantly back to observe it retrospectively before it disappears. As a matter of fact, a sensation or feeling or idea hangs on in consciousness for a few seconds, and can be observed in this retrospective way. There is no theoretical objection to this style of introspection, but it is practically difficult and [{11}] tricky. Try it on a column of figures: first add the column as usual, then immediately turn back and review exactly what went through your mind in the process of adding---what numbers you spoke internally, etc. Try again by introspecting the process of filling in the blanks in the sentence:

"Botany could not make use of introspection because ______ have probably no ________ processes."

At first, you may find it difficult to observe yourself in this way; for the natural tendency, when you are aiming at a certain result, is to reach the goal and then shift to something else, rather than to turn back and review the steps by which you reached the goal. But with practice, you acquire some skill in introspection.

One difficulty with introspection of the more complex mental processes is that individuals vary more here than in the simpler processes, so that different observers, observing each his own processes, will not report the same facts, and one observer cannot serve as a check upon another so easily as in the simpler introspection of after-images and other sensations, or as in the observations made in other sciences. Even well trained introspectionists are quite at variance when they attempt a minute description of the thought processes, and it is probable that this is asking too much of introspection. We mustn't expect it to give microscopic details. Rough observations, however, it gives with considerable certainty. Who can doubt, for example, that a well-practised act goes on with very little consciousness, or that inner, silent speech often accompanies thinking? And yet we have only introspection to vouch for these facts.

Objective Observation

But to say, as used to be said, that psychology is purely an introspective science, making use of no other sort of observation, is absurd in the face of the facts.

[{12}]

We have animal psychology, where the observation is exclusively objective. In objective observation, the observer watches something else, and not himself. In animal psychology, the psychologist, as observer, watches the animal.

The same is true of child psychology, at least for the first years of childhood. You could not depend on the introspections of a baby, but you can learn much by watching his behavior. Abnormal persons, also, are not often reliable introspectionists, and the study of abnormal psychology is mostly carried on by objective methods.

Now how is it with the normal adult human being, the standard subject for psychology? Does he make all the observations on himself or may he be objectively observed by the psychologist? The latter, certainly. In fact, nearly all tests, such as those used in studying differential psychology, are objective. That is to say that the person tested is given a task to perform, and his performance is observed in one way or another by the examiner. The examiner may observe the time occupied by the subject to complete the task, or the quantity accomplished in a fixed time; or he may measure the correctness and excellence of the work done, or the difficulty of the task assigned. One test uses one of these measures, and another uses another; but they are all objective measures, not depending at all on the introspection of the subject.

What is true of tests in differential psychology is true of the majority of experiments in general psychology: the performer is one person, the observer another, and the observation is objective in character. Suppose, for example, you are investigating a memory problem; your method may be to set your subject a lesson to memorize under certain defined conditions, and see how quickly and well he learns it; then you give him another, equally difficult lesson to be learned under altered conditions, and observe whether he [{13}] does better or worse than before. Thus you discover which set of conditions is more favorable for memorizing, and thence can infer something of the way in which memorizing is accomplished. In the whole experiment you need not have called on your subject for any introspections; and this is a type of many experiments in which the subject accomplishes a certain task under known conditions, and his success is objectively observed and measured.

There is another type of objective psychological observation, directed not towards the success with which a task is accomplished, but towards the changes in breathing, heart beat, stomach movements, brain circulation, or involuntary movements of the hands, eyes, etc., which occur during the course of various mental processes, as in reading, in emotion, in dreaming or waking from sleep.

Now it is not true as a matter of history that either of these types of objective observation was introduced into psychology by those who call themselves behaviorists. Not at all; experiments of both sorts have been common in psychology since it began to be an experimental science. The first type, the success-measuring experiment, has been much more used than introspection all along. What the behaviorists have accomplished is the definitive overthrow of the doctrine, once strongly insisted on by the "consciousness psychologists", that introspection is the only real method of observation in psychology; and this is no mean achievement. But we should be going too far if we followed the behaviorists to the extent of seeking to exclude introspection altogether, and on principle. There is no sense in such negative principles. Let us accumulate psychological facts by any method that will give the facts.

[{14}]

General Laws of Psychological Investigation.

Either introspective or objective observation can be employed in the experimental attack on a problem, which consists, as just illustrated in the case of memory, in controlling the conditions under which a mental performance occurs, varying the conditions systematically, and noting the resulting change in the subject's mental process or its outcome. Psychologists are inclined to regard this as the best line of attack, whenever the mental activity to be studied can be effectively subjected to control. Unfortunately, emotion and reasoning are not easily brought under control, and for this reason psychology has made slower progress in understanding them than it has made in the fields of sensation and memory, where good experimental procedure has been developed.

Another general line of attack worthy to be mentioned alongside of the experimental is the comparative method. You compare the actions of individuals, classes or species, noting likenesses and differences. You see what behavior is typical and what exceptional. You establish norms and averages, and notice how closely people cluster about the norm and how far individuals differ from it. You introduce tests of various sorts, by which to get a more precise measure of the individual's performance. Further, by the use of what may be called double comparison, or "correlation", you work out the relationships of various mental (and physical) traits. For example, when many different species of animals are compared in intelligence and also in brain weight, the two are found to correspond fairly well, the more intelligent species having on the whole the heavier brains; from which we fairly conclude that the size of the brain has something to do with intelligence. But when we correlate brain weight and intelligence in human individuals. [{15}] we find so many exceptions to the rule (stupid men with large brains and gifted men with brains of only moderate size) that we are forced to recognize the importance of other factors, such as the perfection of the microscopic structure of the brain.

Tests and correlations have become so prominent in recent psychological investigation that this form of the comparative method ranks on a par with the strict experimental method. A test is an experiment, in a way, and at least is often based upon an experiment; but the difference between the two lines of attack is that an experiment typically takes a few subjects into the laboratory and observes how their mental performances change with planfully changed conditions; whereas a test goes out and examines a large number of persons under one fixed set of conditions. An experiment belongs under what we called "general psychology", and a test under "differential psychology", since the first outcome of a test is to show how the individual differs from others in a certain respect. The results may, however, be utilized in various ways, either for such practical purposes as guiding the individual's choice of an occupation, or for primarily scientific purposes, such as examining whether intelligence goes with brain size, whether twins resemble each other as much mentally as they do physically, whether intellectual ability and moral goodness tend on the whole to go together, or not.

The genetic method is another of the general lines of attack on psychological problems. The object here is to trace the mental development of the individual, or of the race. It may be to trace the development either of mentality in general, or of some particular mental performance. It may be to trace the child's progress in learning to speak, or to follow the development of language in the human species, from the most primitive tongues up to those of the great [{16}] civilized peoples of to-day. It may be to trace the improvement of a performance with continued practice.

The value of the genetic method is easily seen. Usually the beginnings of a function or performance are comparatively simple and easy to observe and analyze. Also, the process of mental growth is an important matter to study on its own account.

The pathological method is akin to the genetic, but traces the decay or demoralization of mental life instead of its growth. It traces the gradual decline of mental power with advancing age, the losses due to brain disease, and the maladaptations that appear in insanity and other disturbances. Here psychology makes close contact with psychiatry which is the branch of medicine concerned with the insane, etc., and which in fact has contributed most of the psychological information derived from the pathological method.

The object of the pathological method is, on the one side, to understand abnormal forms of mental life, with the practical object of preventing or curing them, and on the other side, to understand normal mental life the better. Just as the development of a performance throws light on the perfected act, so the decay or disturbance of a function often reveals its inner workings; for we all know that it is when a machine gets out of order that one begins to see how it ought to work. Failure sheds light on the conditions of success, maladaptation throws into relief the mental work that has to be done by the normal individual in order to secure and maintain his good adaptation. According to the psychiatrists, mental disturbance is primarily an affair of emotion and desire rather than of intellect; and consequently they believe that the pathological method is of special importance in the study of the emotional life.

[{17}]

Summary and Attempt at a Definition

Having now made a rapid preliminary survey of the field of psychology, and of the aims and methods of the workers in this field, we ought to be in a position to give some sort of a definition.

We conclude, then: psychology is a part of the scientific study of life, being the science of mental life. Life consisting in process or action, psychology is the scientific study of mental processes or activities. A mental activity is typically, though not universally, conscious; and we can roughly designate as mental those activities of a living creature that are either conscious themselves or closely akin to those that are conscious. Further, any mental activity can also be regarded as a physiological activity, in which case it is analyzed into the action of bodily organs, whereas as "mental" it simply comes from the organism or individual as a whole. Psychology, in a word, is the science of the conscious and near-conscious activities of living individuals.

Psychology is not interested either in dead bodies or in disembodied spirits, but in living and acting individuals.

One word more, on the psychological point of view. In everyday life we study our acquaintances and their actions from a personal standpoint. That is, we evaluate their behavior according as it affects ourselves, or, perhaps, according as it squares or not with our standards of right and wrong. We always find something to praise or blame. Now, the psychologist has no concern with praise and blame, but is a seeker after the facts. He would know and understand human actions, rather than pass judgment on them. When, for example, he is introduced into the school or children's court, for the purpose of examining children that are "problems", his attitude differs considerably from that of the [{18}] teacher or officer of the law; for while they almost inevitably pass judgment on the child in the way of praise or blame, the psychologist simply tries to understand the child. The young delinquent brought into the laboratory of the court psychologist quickly senses the unwonted atmosphere, where he is neither scolded nor exhorted, but asked to lend his coöperation in an effort to discover the cause why his conduct is as it is. Now, this psychological attitude is not necessarily "better" than the other, but it is distinctly valuable in its place, as seen from the fact that the young delinquent often does coöperate. He feels that if the psychologist can find out what is the trouble with him, this may help. Nothing, indeed, is more probable; it is when we have the facts and trace out cause and effect that we are in a fair way to do good. Nothing is more humane than psychology, in the long run, even though the psychologist may seem unfeeling in the course of his investigation.

To the psychologist, conduct is a matter of cause and effect, of natural law. His business is to know the laws of that part of nature which we call human nature, and to use these laws, as fast as discovered, for solving the problems presented by the human individual or group. For him, even the most capricious conduct has its causes, even the most inexplicable has its explanation--if only the cause can be unearthed, which he does not pretend he can always actually accomplish, since causes in the mental realm are often very complex. No one can be a psychologist all of the time; no one can or should always maintain this matter-of-fact attitude towards self and neighbor. But some experience with the psychological attitude is of practical value to any one, in giving clearer insight, more toleration, better control, and even saner standards of living.

[{19}]

EXERCISES

1. Outline the chapter. A sample outline of the briefer sort is here given:

A. Subject-matter of psychology: mental activities.

(1) A sub-class under vital activities.
(2) Activities of individuals, as distinguished from

(a) Activities of social groups (sociology).
(b) Activities of single organs (physiology).

(3) Either conscious, or closely related to conscious activities.
(4) May be activities of human or animal, adult or child, normal or abnormal individuals.

B. Problems of psychology:

(1) How individuals differ in their mental activities.
(2) How individuals are alike in their mental activities.
(3) Practical applications of either (1) or (2).

C. Methods of psychology:

(1) Methods of observing mental activities.

(a) Introspective, the observing by an individual of his own actions.
(b) Objective, the observation of the behavior of other individuals.

(2) General lines of attack upon psychological problems.

(a) Experimental: vary the conditions and see how the mental activity changes.
(b) Comparative: test different individuals or classes and see how mental activity differs, etc.
(c) Genetic: trace mental development.
(d) Pathological: examine mental decay or disturbance.

2. Formulate a psychological question regarding each of the following: hours of work, genius, crime, baseball.
3. Distinguish introspection from theorizing.
4. What different sorts of objective fact can be observed in psychology?
5. What is the difference between the physiology of hearing and the psychology of hearing?
6. State two reasons why it would be undesirable to limit psychology to the introspective study of consciousness.
[{20}]
7. What is the difference between an experiment and a test, (a) in purpose, (b) in method?
8. Compare the time it takes you to add twenty one-place numbers, arranged in a vertical column, and arranged in a horizontal line, (a) Is this introspective or objective observation? Why so? (b) Is it a test or an experiment? Why?
9. Write a psychological sketch of some one you know well, taking care to avoid praise and blame, and to stick to the psychological point of view.

REFERENCES

Some of the good books on the different branches of psychology are the following:
On animal psychology:

Margaret F. Washburn, The Animal Mind, 2nd edition, 1917. John B. Watson, Behavior, 1914.

On child psychology:

Norsworthy and Whitley, The Psychology of Childhood, 1918.

On abnormal psychology:

A. J. Rosanoff, Manual of Psychiatry, 5th edition, 1920.

On applied psychology:

Hollingworth and Poffenberger, Applied Psychology, 1917.

On individual psychology, parts of:

E. L. Thorndike, Educational Psychology, Briefer Course, 1914, Daniel Starch, Educational Psychology, 1919.

[{21}]

CHAPTER II
REACTIONS

REFLEXES AND OTHER ELEMENTARY FORMS OF REACTION, AND HOW THE NERVES OPERATE IN CARRYING THEM OUT

Having the field of psychology open before us, the next question is, where to commence operations. Shall we begin with memory, imagination and reasoning, or with will, character and personality, or with motor activity and skill, or with feelings and emotions, or with sensation and perceptions? Probably the higher forms of mental activity seem most attractive, but we may best leave complicated matters till later, and agree to start with the simplest sorts of mental performance. Thus we may hope to learn at the outset certain elementary facts which will later prove of much assistance in unraveling the more complex processes.

Among the simplest processes are sensations and reflexes, and we might begin with either. The introspective psychologists usually start with sensations, because their great object is to describe consciousness, and they think of sensations as the chief elements of which consciousness is composed. The behaviorists would prefer to start with reflexes, because they conceive of behavior as composed of these simple motor reactions.

Without caring to attach ourselves exclusively to either introspectionism or behaviorism, we may take our cue just here from the behaviorists, because we shall find the facts of motor reaction more widely useful in our further studies than the facts of sensation, and because the facts of [{22}] sensation fit better into the general scheme of reactions than the facts of reaction fit into any general scheme based on sensation.

A reaction is a response to a stimulus. The response, in the simplest cases, is a muscular movement, and is called a "motor response". The stimulus is any force or agent that, acting upon the individual, arouses a response.

If I start at a sudden noise, the noise is the stimulus, and the forcible contraction of my muscles is the response. If my old friend's picture brings tears to my eyes, the picture (or the light reflected from it) is the stimulus, and the flow of tears is the response, here a "glandular" instead of a motor response.

The Reaction Time Experiment

One of the earliest experiments to be introduced into psychology was that on reaction time, conducted as follows: The experimenter tells his "subject" (the person whose reaction is to be observed) to be ready to make a certain movement as promptly as possible on receiving a certain stimulus. The response prescribed is usually a slight movement of the forefinger, and the stimulus may be a sound, a flash of light, a touch on the skin, etc. The subject knows in advance exactly what stimulus is to be given and what response he has to make, and is given a "Ready!" signal a few seconds before the stimulus. With so simple a performance, the reaction time is very short, and delicate apparatus must be employed to measure it. The "chronoscope" or clock used to measure the reaction time reads to the hundredth or thousandth of a second, and the time is found to be about .15 sec. in responding to sound or touch, about .18 sec. in responding to light.

Even the simple reaction time varies, however, from one [{23}] individual to another, and from one trial to another. Some persons can never bring their record much below the figures stated, while a few can get the time down to .10 sec, which is about the limit of human ability. Every one is bound to vary from trial to trial, at first widely, after practice between narrow limits, but always by a few hundredths of a second at the least. It is curious to find the elementary fact of variability of reaction present in such a simple performance.

What we have been describing is known as the "simple reaction", in distinction from other experiments that demand more of the subject. In the "choice reaction", there are two stimuli and the subject may be required to react to the one with the right hand and to the other with the left; for example, if a red light appears he must respond with the right hand, but if a green light appears, with the left. Here he cannot allow himself to become keyed up to as high a pitch as in the simple reaction, for if he does he will make many false reactions. Therefore, the choice reaction time is longer than the simple reaction time--about a tenth of a second longer.

The "associative reaction" time is longer still. Here the subject must name any color that is shown, or read any letter that is shown, or respond to the sight of any number by calling out the next larger number, or respond to any suitable word by naming its opposite. He cannot be so well prepared as for the simple, or choice reaction, since he doesn't know exactly what the stimulus is going to be; also, the brain process is more complex here; so that the reaction time is longer, about a tenth of a second longer, at the best, than the choice reaction. It may run up to two or three seconds, even in fairly simple cases, while if any serious thinking or choosing has to be done, it runs into many seconds and even into minutes. Here the brain process is very [{24}] complex and involves a series of steps before the required motor response can be made.

These laboratory experiments can be paralleled by many everyday performances. The runner starting at the pistol shot, after the preparatory "Ready! Set!", and the motorman applying the brakes at the expected sound of the bell, are making "simple" reactions. The boxer, dodging to the right or the left according to the blow aimed at him by his adversary, is making choice reactions, and this type is very common in all kinds of steering, handling tools and managing machinery. Reading words, adding numbers, and a large share of simple mental performances, are essentially associative reactions. In most cases from ordinary life, the preparation is less complete than in the laboratory experiments, and the reaction time is accordingly longer.

Reflex Action

The simple reaction has some points of resemblance with the "reflex", which, also, is a prompt motor response to a sensory stimulus. A familiar example is the reflex wink of the eyes in response to anything touching the eyeball, or in response to an object suddenly approaching the eye. This "lid reflex" is quicker than the quickest simple reaction, taking about .05 second. The knee jerk or "patellar reflex", aroused by a blow on the patellar tendon just below the knee when the knee is bent and the lower leg hanging freely, is quicker still, taking about .03 second. The reason for this extreme quickness of the reflex will appear as we proceed. However, not every reflex is as quick as those mentioned, and some are slower than the quickest of the simple reactions.

A few other examples of reflexes may be given. The "pupillary reflex" is the narrowing of the pupil of the eye [{25}] in response to a bright light suddenly shining into the eye. The "flexion reflex" is the pulling up of the leg in response to a pinch, prick or burn on the foot. Coughing and sneezing are like this in being protective reflexes, and the scratching of the dog belongs here also.

There are many internal reflexes: movements of the stomach and intestines, swallowing and hiccoughing, widening and narrowing of the arteries resulting in flushing and paling of the skin. These are muscular responses; and there are also glandular reflexes, such as the discharge of saliva from the salivary glands into the mouth, in response to a tasting substance, the flow of the gastric juice when food reaches the stomach, the flow of tears when a cinder gets into the eye. There are also inhibitory reflexes, such as the momentary stoppage of breathing in response to a dash of cold water. All in all, a large number of reflexes are to be found.

Most reflexes can be seen to be useful to the organism. A large proportion of them are protective in one way or another, while others might be called regulative, in that they adjust the organism to the conditions affecting it.

Now comparing the reflex with the simple reaction, we see first that the reflex is more deep-seated in the organism, and more essential to its welfare. The reflex is typically quicker than the simple reaction. The reflex machinery does not need a "Ready" signal, nor any preparation, but is always ready for business. (The subject in a simple reaction experiment would not make the particular finger movement that he makes unless he had made ready for that movement.) The attachment of a certain response to a certain stimulus, rather arbitrary and temporary in the simple reaction, is inherent and permanent in the reflex. Reflex action is involuntary and often entirely unconscious.

Reflexes, we said, are permanent. That is because they [{26}] are native or inherent in the organism. You can observe them in the new-born child. The reflex connection between stimulus and response is something the child brings with him into the world, as distinguished from what he has to acquire through training and experience. He does acquire, as he grows up, a tremendous number of habitual responds that become automatic and almost unconscious, and these "secondary automatic" reactions resemble reflexes pretty closely. Grasping for your hat when you feel the wind taking it from your head is an example. These acquired reactions never reach the extreme speed of the quickest reflexes, but at best may have about the speed of the simple reaction. Though often useful enough, they are not so fundamentally necessary as the reflexes. The reflex connection of stimulus and response is something essential, native, closely knit, and always ready for action.

The Nerves in Reflex Action

Seeing that the response, in reflex action, is usually made by a muscle or gland lying at some distance from the sense organ that receives the stimulus--as, in the case of the flexion reflex, the stimulus is applied to the skin of the hand (or foot), while the response is made by muscles of the limb generally--we have to ask what sort of connection exists between the stimulated organ and the responding organ, and we turn to physiology and anatomy for our answer. The answer is that the nerves provide the connection. Strands of nerve extend from the sense organ to the muscle.

But the surprising fact is that the nerves do not run directly from the one to the other. There is no instance in the human body of a direct connection between any sense organ and any muscle or gland. The nerve path from sense organ to muscle always leads through a nerve center. One [{27}] nerve, called the sensory nerve, runs from the sense organ to the nerve center, and another, the motor nerve, runs from the center to the muscle; and the only connection between the sense organ and the muscle is this roundabout path through the nerve center. The path consists of three parts, sensory nerve, center, and motor nerve, but, taken as a whole, it is called the reflex arc, both the words, "reflex" and "arc", being suggested by the indirectness of the connection.

Fig. 1.--The connection from the back of the hand, which is receiving a stimulus, and the arm muscle which makes the response. The nerve center is indicated by the dotted lines.

The nervous system resembles a city telephone system. What passes along the nerve is akin to the electricity that [{28}] passes along the telephone wire; it is called the "nerve current", and is electrical and chemical in nature.

Fig. 2.--(From Martin's "Human Body.") General view of the nervous system, showing brain, cord, and nerves.

All nerve connections, like the great majority of telephone connections, are effected through the centers, called "centrals" in [{29}] the case of the telephone. Telephone A is connected directly with the central, telephone B likewise, and A and B are indirectly connected, through the central switchboard. That is the way it is in the nervous system, with "nerve center" substituted for "central", and "sense organ" and "muscle or gland" for "telephones A and B."

Fig. 3.--Location of the cord, cerebrum and cerebellum. The brain stem continues the cord upward into the skull cavity. (Figure text: cerebrum, cerebellum, cord, tongue)

The advantage of the centralized system is that it is a system, affording connections between any part and any other, and unifying the whole complex organism.

The nerve centers are located in the brain and spinal cord. The brain lies in the skull and the cord extends from the brain down through a tube in the middle of the [{30}] backbone. Of the brain many parts can be named, but for the present it is enough to divide it into the "brain stem", a continuation of the spinal cord up along the base of the skull cavity, and the two great outgrowths of the brain stem, called "cerebrum" and "cerebellum". The spinal cord and brain stem contain the lower or reflex centers, while the cerebellum, and especially the cerebrum, contain the "higher centers". The lower centers are directly connected by nerves with the sense organs, glands and muscles, while the higher centers have direct connections with the lower and only through them with the sense organs, glands and muscles. In other words, the sensory nerves run into the cord or brain stem, and the motor nerves run out of these same, while interconnecting nerve strands extend between the lower centers in the cord and brain stem and the higher centers in the cerebrum and cerebellum.

The spinal cord contains the reflex centers for the limbs and part of the trunk, and is connected by sensory and motor nerves with the limbs and trunk. The brain stem contains the reflex centers for the head and also for part of the interior of the trunk, including the heart and lungs, and is connected with them by sensory and motor nerves. The nerve center that takes part in the flexion reflex of the foot is situated in the lower part of the cord, that for the similar reflex of the hand lies in the upper part of the cord, that for breathing lies in the lower or rear part of the brain stem, and that for winking lies further forward in the brain stem.

Big movements, such as the combined action of all four legs of an animal in walking, require cord and brain stem to work together, and throw into relief what is really true even of simpler reflexes, namely that a reflex is a coordinated movement, in the sense that different muscles cooperate in its execution.

[{31}]

Internal Construction of the Nerves and Nerve Centers

We shall understand nerve action better if we know something of the way in which the nervous system is built. A nerve is not to be thought of as a unit, nor are the brain and cord to be thought of as mere masses of some peculiar substance.

Fig. 4.--A motor nerve cell from the spinal cord, highly magnified. (Figure text: dendrites, cell body, axon, termination of axon in muscle)

A nerve is a bundle of many slender insulated threads, just as a telephone cable, running along the street, [{32}] is a bundle of many separate wires which are the real units of telephonic communication. A nerve center, like the switchboard in a telephone central, consists of many parts and connections.

The whole nervous system is essentially composed of neurones. A neurone is a nerve cell with its branches. Most nerve cells have two kinds of branches, called the axon and the dendrites.

The nerve cell is a microscopic speck of living matter. Its dendrites are short tree-like branches, while its axon is often several inches or even feet in length. The axon is the "slender thread", just spoken of as analogous to the single telephone wire. A nerve is composed of axons. [Footnote: The axon is always protected or insulated by a sheath, and axon and sheath, taken together, are often called a "nerve fiber".] The "white matter" of the brain and cord is composed of axons. Axons afford the means of communication between the nerve centers and the muscles and sense organs, and between one nerve center and another.

The axons which make up the motor nerves are branches of nerve cells situated in the cord and brain stem; they extend from the reflex center for any muscle out to and into that muscle and make very close connection with the muscle substance. A nerve current, starting from the nerve cells in the reflex center, runs rapidly along the axons to the muscle and arouses it to activity.

The axons which make up the optic nerve, or nerve of sight, are branches of nerve cells in the eye, and extend into the brain stem. Light striking the eye starts nerve currents, which run along these axons into the brain stem. Similarly, the axons of the nerve of smell are branches of cells in the nose.

The remainder of the sensory axons are branches of nerve cells that lie in little bunches close alongside the cord or [{33}] brain stem. These cells have no dendrites, but their axon, dividing, reaches in one direction out to a sense organ and in the other direction into the cord or brain stem, and thus connects the sense organ with its "lower center".

Fig. 5.--Sensory and motor axons, and their nerve cells. The arrows indicate the direction of conduction. (Figure text: eye, brain stem, skin, cord, muscle)

Where an axon terminates, it broadens out into a thin plate, or breaks up into a tuft of very fine branches ( the "end-brush"), and by this means makes close contact with the muscle, the sense organ, or the neurone with which it connects.

[{34}]

The Synapse

Now let us consider the mode of connection between one neurone and another in a nerve center. The axon of one neurone, through its end-brush, is in close contact with the dendrites of another neurone. There is contact, but no actual growing-together; the two neurones remain distinct, and this contact or junction of two neurones is called a "synapse". The synapse, then, is not a thing, but simply a junction between two neurones.

Fig. 6.--The synapse between the two neurones lies just above the arrow.

The junction is good enough so that one of the two neurones, if itself active, can arouse the other to activity. The end-brush, when a nerve current reaches it from its own nerve cell, arouses the dendrites of the other neurone, and thus starts a nerve current running along those dendrites to their nerve cell and thence out along its axon.

Now here is a curious and significant fact: the dendrites are receiving organs, not transmitting; they pick up messages from the end-brushes across the synapse, but send out no messages to those end-brushes. Communication across a synapse is always in one direction, from end-brush to dendrites.

This, then, is the way in which a reflex is carried out, the pupillary reflex, for example. Light entering the eye starts a nerve current in the axons of the optic nerve; these axons terminate in the brain stem, where their end-brushes arouse the dendrites of motor nerve cells, and the axons of these [{35}] cells, extending out to the muscle of the pupil, cause it to contract, and narrow the pupil.

Or again, this is the way in which one nerve center arouses another to activity. The axons of the cells in the first center (or some of them) extend out of this center and through the white matter to the second center, where they terminate, their end-brushes forming synapses with the cells of the second center. Let the first center be thrown into activity, and immediately, through this connection, it arouses the second.

Fig. 7.--Different forms of synapse found in the cerebellum, "a" is one of the large motor cells of the cerebellum (a "Purkinje cell"), with its dendrites above and its axon below; and "b," "c" and "d" show three forms of synapse made by other neurones with this Purkinje cell. In "b," the arrow indicates a "climbing axon," winding about the main limbs of the Purkinje cell. In "c," the arrow points to a "basket"--an end-brush enveloping the cell body; while "d" shows what might be called a "telegraph-wire synapse." Imagine "d" superimposed upon "a": the axon of "d" rises among the fine dendrites of "a," and then runs horizontally through them; and there are many, many such axons strung among the dendrites. Thus the Purkinje cell is stimulated at three points: cell body, trunks of the dendrites, and twigs of the dendrites.

The "gray matter" comprises the nerve centers, lower and higher. It is made up of nerve cells and their dendrites, of the beginnings of axons issuing from these cells and of the terminations of incoming axons. The white matter, as was said before, consists of axons. An axon issues from the [{36}] gray matter at one point, traverses the white matter for a longer or shorter distance, and finally turns into the gray matter at another point, and thus nerve connection is maintained between these two points.

There are lots of nerve cells, billions of them. That ought to be plenty, and yet--well, perhaps sometimes they are not well developed, or their synapses are not close enough to make good connections.

Fig. 8.--A two-neurone reflex arc. (Figure text: stimulus, skin, sensory axon, bit of the spinal cord, motor axon, muscle)

Examined under the microscope, the nerve cell is seen to contain, besides the "nucleus" which is present in every living cell and is essential for maintaining its vitality and special characteristics, certain peculiar granules which appear to be stores of fuel to be consumed in the activity of the cell, and numerous very fine fibrils coursing through the cell and out into the axon and dendrites.

The reflex arc can now be described more precisely than before. Beginning in a sense organ, it extends along a sensory axon (really along a team of axons acting side by side) to its end-brush in a lower center, where it crosses a synapse and enters the dendrites of a motor neurone and so [{37}] reaches the cell body and axon of this neurone, which last extends out to the muscle (or gland). The simplest reflex arc consists then of a sensory neurone and a motor neurone, meeting at a synapse in a lower or reflex center. This would be a two-neurone arc.

Fig. 9.--A three-neurone arc, concerned in respiration. This also illustrates how one nerve center influences another. (Figure text: white matter, gray matter, lung, respiratory center in the brain stem, diaphragm, motor center in cord for the diaphragm)

Very often, and possibly always, the reflex arc really consists of three neurones, a "central" neurone intervening between the sensory and motor neurones and being connected through synapses with each. The central neurone plays an important rôle in coördination.

COÖRDINATION

The internal structure of nerve centers helps us see how coördinated movement is produced. The question is, how [{38}] several muscles are made to work together harmoniously, and also how it is possible that a pin prick, directly affecting just a few sensory axons, causes a big movement of many muscles. Well, we find the sensory axon, as it enters the cord, sending off a number of side branches, each of which terminates in an end-brush in synaptic connection with the dendrites of a motor nerve cell.

Fig. 10.--Coördination brought about by the branching of a sensory axon. (Figure text: cord, sensory neurone, motor neurone)

Thus the nerve current from a single sensory neurone is distributed to quite a number of motor neurones. Where there are central neurones in the arc, their branching axons aid in distributing the excitation; and so we get a big movement in response to a minute, though intense stimulus.

But the response is not simply big; it is definite, coordinated, representing team work on the part of the muscles as distinguished from indiscriminate mass action. That means selective distribution of the nerve current. The axons of the sensory and central neurones do not connect with any and every motor neurone indiscriminately, but link up with selected groups of motor neurones, and thus harness together teams that will work in definite ways, producing [{39}] flexion of a limb in the case of one such team, and extension in the case of another. Every reflex has its own team of motor neurones, harnessed together by its outfit of sensory and central neurones. The same motor neurone may however be harnessed into two or more such teams, as is seen from the fact that the same muscle may participate in different reflex movements; and for a similar reason we believe that the same sensory neurone may be utilized in more than one reflex arc.

Fig. 11.--Coördination brought about by the branching of the axon of a central neurone. (Figure text: sensory, central, motor)

The most distinctive part of any reflex arc is likely to be its central neurones, which are believed to play the chief part in coördination, and in determining the peculiarities of any given reflex, such as its speed and rhythm of action.

Reactions in General

Though the reflex is simple by comparison with voluntary movements, it is not the simplest animal reaction, for it is coördinated and depends on the nervous system, while the simplest animals, one-celled animals, have no nervous system, any more than they have muscles or organs of any [{40}] kind. Without possessing separate organs for the different vital functions, these little creatures do nevertheless take in and digest food, reproduce their kind, and move. Every animal shows at least two different motor reactions, a positive or approaching reaction, and a negative or avoiding reaction.

The general notion of a reaction is that of a response to a stimulus. The stimulus acts on the organism and the organism acts back. If I am struck by a wave and rolled over on the beach, that is passive motion and not my reaction; but if the wave stimulates me to maintain my footing, then I am active, I respond or react.

Now there is no such thing as wholly passive motion. Did not Newton teach that "action and reaction are equal"?--and he was thinking of stones and other inanimate objects. The motion of a stone or ball depends on its own weight and shape and elasticity as much as on the blow it receives. Even the stone counts for something in determining its own behavior.

A loaded gun counts for more than a stone, because of the stored energy of the powder that is set free by the blow of the hammer. The "reaction" of the gun is greater than the force acting on it, because of this stored energy that is discharged.

An animal reaction resembles the discharge of the gun, since there is stored energy in the animal, consisting in the chemical attraction between food absorbed and oxygen inspired, and some of this energy is utilized and converted into motion when the animal reacts. The stimulus, like the trigger of the gun, simply releases this stored energy.

The organism, animal or human, fully obeys the law of conservation of energy, all the energy it puts out being accounted for by stored energy it has taken in in food and oxygen. But at any one time, when the organism receives [{41}] a stimulus, the energy that it puts forth in reaction comes from inside itself.

There is another way in which the organism counts in determining its reaction. Not only does it supply the energy of the response, but its own internal arrangements determine how that energy shall be directed. That is to say, the organism does not blow up indiscriminately, like a charge of dynamite, but makes some definite movement. This is true even of the simplest animals, and the more elaborate the internal mechanism of the animal, the more the animal itself has to do with the kind of response it shall make to a stimulus. The nervous system of the higher animals, by the connections it provides between the stimulus and the stores of energy in the muscles, is of especial importance in determining the nature of the response.

Stimuli are necessary to arouse the activity of the organism. Without any stimulus whatever, it seems likely that the animal would relapse into total inactivity. It should be said, however, that stimuli, such as that of hunger, may arise within the organism itself. The stimulus may be external or internal, but some stimulus is necessary in order to release the stored energy.

In general, then, a reaction consists in the release by a stimulus of some of the stored energy of an animal, and the direction of that energy by the animal's own internal mechanism of nerves and muscles (and, we may add, bones and sinews) into the form of some definite response.

[{42}]

EXERCISES

1. Outline of the chapter, being at the same time a "completion test". Complete the following outline by filling in the blank spaces (usually a single word will fill the blank, but sometimes two words will be better):

A. Definition: A reaction is a response to a ___________. The stimulus energy stored in the organism, and the __________ has a definite form determined by the organism's own machinery of ________ and ______.
B. Among very prompt reactions are the reflex and the "simple reaction". The reflex differs from the "simple reaction" in that:

(1) It usually takes less________.
(2) It requires no___________,
(3) The machinery for it is ________in the organism.

C. The machinery for a reflex consists of:

(1) a________ organ.
(2) a ________nerve.
(3) a nerve ________,
(4) a _________nerve.
(5) a muscle or _________.

D. The sensory and motor nerves consist of ________ which are branches of ______. The cells for the motor nerves lie in the ________, and those for the sensory nerves lie in two cases in the _________, and in all other cases in bunches located close beside the _________or ________,
E. The neurone is the _______ of which the nervous ______ is composed. It consists of a ________ and of two sorts of branches, the ________ and the ________. Internally, the neurone shows a peculiar structure of ________ and ________.
F. Communication from one neurone to another occurs across a _____ called the synapse. The _________of an axon here comes into close contact with the ______or with the _________of another neurone. The communication takes place from the ________of the first neurone to the ___________ of the second.
G. The "nerve current" in a reflex therefore runs the following course: from the sense organ into a ________ axon, along this to its _________ in a nerve, and across a _________ there into the _________ of a neurone, and thence [{43}] out along the _______of this neurone to the ________or _________ that executes the reflex. This is a two-neurone _________, but often there is a third, ________neurone between the _________ and the _____________.
H. Coördination is effected by the ________ of the axons of the sensory and ________ neurones, by which means the nerve current is ______ to a team of ________ and so to a team of _________.

2. Is the reaction time experiment, as described in the text, an introspective or an objective experiment?
3. Mention two cases from common life that belong under the "simple reaction", two that belong under "choice reaction", and two that belong under the "associative reaction".
4. Arrange the reflexes mentioned in the text under the two heads of "protective" and "regulative".
5. Draw diagrams of (a) the neurone, (b) a synapse, (c) a reflex arc, and (d) a coördinated movement. Reduce each drawing to the simplest possible form, and still retain everything that is essential.
6. What part of the nervous system lies (a) in the forehead and top of the head, (b) in the very back of the head, (c) along the base of the skull, (d) within the backbone, (e) in the arm?
7. Using a watch to take the time, see how long it takes you to name the letters in a line of print, reading them in reverse order from the end of the line to the beginning. Compare with this time the time required to respond to each letter by the letter following it in the alphabet (saying "n" when you see m, and "t" when you see s, etc.). Which of these two "stunts" is more like reflex action, and how, nevertheless, does it differ from true reflex action?
8. The pupillary reflex. Describe the reaction of the pupil of the eye to light suddenly shining into the eye. This response can best be observed in another person, but you can observe it in yourself by aid of a hand mirror. On another person you can also observe the "crossed" pupillary reflex, by throwing the light into one eye only while you watch the other eye. What sort of connection do you suppose to exist between the two eyes, making this crossed reflex possible?
9. The lid reflex, or wink reflex, (a) Bring your hand suddenly close to another person's eye, and notice the response of the eyelid, (b) See whether you can get a crossed reflex here, (c) See whether your subject can voluntarily prevent (inhibit) the lid reflex, (d) See whether the reflex occurs when he gives the stimulus himself, by moving his own hand suddenly up to his eye. (e) What other stimulus, besides the visual one that you have been using, will arouse the same response?

[{44}]

REFERENCES

C. Judson Herrick, in his Introduction to Neurology, 2nd edition, 1918, gives a fuller and yet not too detailed account of the neurone in Chapter III, and of reflex action in Chapter IV.

Percy G. Stiles, in his Nervous System and Its Conservation, 1915, discusses these matters in Chapters II, III and IV.

Ladd and Woodworth's Elements of Physiological Psychology, 1911, has chapters on these topics.

[{45}]

CHAPTER III
REACTIONS OF DIFFERENT LEVELS

HOW SENSATIONS, PERCEPTIONS AND THOUGHTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS FORMS OF INNER RESPONSE, AND HOW THESE HIGHER REACTIONS ARE RELATED IN THE NERVOUS SYSTEM TO THE SIMPLER RESPONSES OF THE REFLEX LEVEL.

Having defined a reaction as an act of the individual aroused by a stimulus, there is no reason why we should not include a great variety of mental processes under the general head of reactions. Any mental process is an activity of the organism, and it is aroused by some stimulus, external or internal; therefore, it is a reaction.

I hear a noise--now, while the noise, as a physical stimulus, comes to me, my hearing it is my own act, my sensory reaction to the stimulus. I recognize the noise as the whistle of a steamboat--this recognition is clearly my own doing, dependent on my own past experience, and may be called a perception or perceptive response. The boat's whistle reminds me of a vacation spent on an island--clearly a memory response. The memory arouses an agreeable feeling--an affective response, this may be called. In its turn, this may lead me to imagine how pleasant it would be to spend another vacation on that island, and to cast about for ways and means to accomplish this result--here we have imagination and reasoning, aroused by what preceded just as the sensation was aroused by the physical stimulus.

In speaking of any mental process as an act of the individual, we do not mean to imply that he is always conscious [{46}] of his activity. Sometimes he feels active, sometimes passive. He feels active in hard muscular work or hard thinking, while he feels passive in reflex action, in sensation, and in simply "being reminded" of anything without any effort on his own part. But he is active in everything he does, and he does everything that depends on his being alive. Life is activity, and every manifestation of life, such as reflex action or sensation, is a form of vital activity. The only way to be inactive is to be dead.

But vital activity is not "self-activity" in any absolute sense, for it is aroused by some stimulus. It does not issue from the individual as an isolated unit, but is his response to a stimulus. That is the sense of calling any mental process a reaction; it is something the individual does in response to a stimulus.

To call a sensation a form of reaction means, then, that the sensation is not something done to the person, nor passively received by him from outside, but something that he himself does when aroused to this particular form of activity. What comes from outside and is received by the individual is the stimulus, and the sensation is what he does in response to the stimulus. It represents the discharge of internal stored energy in a direction determined by his own inner mechanism. The sensation depends on his own make-up as well as on the nature of the stimulus, as is especially obvious when the sensation is abnormal or peculiar. Take the case of color blindness. The same stimulus that arouses in most people the sensation of red arouses in the color-blind individual the sensation of brown. Now what the color-blind individual receives, the light stimulus, is the same as what others receive, but he responds differently, i.e., with a different sensation, because his own sensory apparatus is peculiar.

The main point of this discussion is that all mental [{47}] phenomena, whether movements, sensations, emotions, impulses or thoughts, are a person's acts, but that every act is a response to some present stimulus. This rather obvious truth has not always seemed obvious. Some theorists, in emphasizing the spontaneity and "self-activity" of the individual, have pushed the stimulus away into the background; while others, fixing their attention on the stimulus, have treated the individual as the passive recipient of sensation and "experience" generally. Experience, however, is not received; it is lived, and that means done; only, it is done in response to stimuli. The concept of reaction covers the ground.

While speaking of sensations and thoughts as belonging under the general head of reactions, it is well, however, to bear in mind that all mental action tends to arouse and terminate in muscular and glandular activity. A thought or a feeling tends to "express itself" in words or (other) deeds. The motor response may be delayed, or inhibited altogether, but the tendency is always in that direction.

Different Sorts of Stimuli

To call all mental processes reactions means that it is always in order to ask for the stimulus. Typically, the stimulus is an external force or motion, such as light or sound, striking on a sense organ. There are also the internal stimuli, consisting of changes occurring within the body and acting on the sensory nerves that are distributed to the muscles, bones, lungs, stomach and most of the organs. The sensations of muscular strain and fatigue, and of hunger and thirst, are aroused by internal stimuli, and many reflexes are aroused in the same way.

Such internal stimuli as these are like the better known external stimuli in that they act upon sense organs; but it [{48}] seems necessary to recognize another sort of stimuli which act directly on the nerve centers in the brain. These may be called "central stimuli" and so contrasted with the "peripheral stimuli" that act on any sense organ, external or internal. To do this is to take considerable liberty with the plain meaning of "stimulus", and calls for justification. What is the excuse for thus expanding the notion of a stimulus?

The excuse is found in the frequent occurrence of mental processes that are not directly aroused by any peripheral stimulus, though they are plainly aroused by something else. Anything that arouses a thought or feeling can properly be called its stimulus. Now it often happens that a thought is aroused by another, just preceding thought; and it seems quite in order to call the first thought the stimulus and the second the response. A thought may arouse an emotion, as when the thought of my enemy, suddenly occurring to mind, makes me angry; the thought is then the stimulus arousing this emotional response.

If hearing you speak of Calcutta makes me think of India, your words are the stimulus and my thought the response. Well, then, if I think of Calcutta in the course of a train of thought, and next think of India, what else can we say than that the thought of Calcutta acts as a stimulus to arouse the thought of India as the response? In a long train of thought, where A reminds you of B and B of C and C of D, each of these items is, first, a response to the preceding, and, second, a stimulus to the one following.

There is no special difficulty with the notion of "central stimuli" from the physiological side. We have simply to think of one nerve center arousing another by means of the tract of axons connecting the two. Say the auditory center is aroused by hearing some one mention your friend's name, [{49}] and this promptly calls up a mental picture of your friend; here the auditory center has aroused the visual. What happens in a train of thought is that first one group of neurones is aroused to activity, and then this activity, spreading along the axons that extend from this group of neurones to another, arouses the second group to activity; and so on. The brain process may often be exceedingly complex, but this simple scheme gives the gist of it.

The way nerve currents must go shooting around the brain from one center or group of neurones to another, keeping it up for a long time without requiring any fresh peripheral stimulus, is remarkable. We have evidence of this sort of thing in a dream or fit of abstraction. Likely enough, the series of brain responses would peter out after awhile, in the absence of any fresh peripheral stimulus, and total inactivity ensue. But response of one brain center to nerve currents coming from another brain center, and not directly from any sense organ, must be the rule rather than the exception, since most of the brain neurones are not directly connected with any sense organ, but only with other parts of the brain itself. All the evidence we have would indicate that the brain is not "self-active", but only responsive; but, once thrown into activity at one point, it may successively become active at many other points, so that a long series of mental operations may follow upon a single sensory stimulus.

The Motor Centers, Lower and Higher

A "center" is a collection of nerve cells, located somewhere in the brain or cord, which gives off axons running to some other center or out to muscles or glands, while it also receives axons coming from other centers, or from sense organs. These incoming axons terminate in end-brushes and so form synapses with the dendrites of the local [{50}] nerve cells. The axons entering any center and terminating there arouse that center to activity, and this activity, when aroused, is transmitted out along the axons issuing from that center, and produces results where those axons terminate in their turn.

Fig. 12.--Side view of the left hemisphere of the brain, showing the motor and sensory areas (for the olfactory area, see [Fig. 18]). The visual area proper, or "visuo-sensory area," lies just around the corner from the spot marked "Visual," on the middle surface of the hemisphere, where it adjoins the other hemisphere. (Figure text: frontal lobe, parietal lobe, central fissure, occipital lobe, motor area, somesthetic area, auditory area, fissure of Sylvius, temporal lobe, brain stem, cerebellum)

The lower motor centers, called also reflex centers, are located in the cord or brain stem, and their nerve cells give rise to the axons that form the motor nerves and connect with the muscles and glands. A muscle is thrown into action by nerve currents from its lower motor center.

The principal higher motor center is the "motor area" of the brain, located in the cortex or external layer of gray matter, in the cerebrum. More precisely, the motor area is a long, narrow strip of cortex, lying just forward of what is called the "central fissure" or "fissure of Rolando".

[{51}]

If you run your finger over the top of the head from one side to the other, about halfway back from the forehead, the motor areas of the two cerebral hemispheres will lie close under the path traced by your finger.

Fig. 13.--(After Cajal.) Type of the brain cells that most directly control muscular movement. (Figure text: Axon. Giant pyramid cell from the motor area of the cerebral cortex, magnified 35 diameters. Cell body of same farther magnified)

The motor area in the right hemisphere is connected with the left half of the cord and so with the muscles of the left half of the body; the motor area of the left hemisphere similarly affects [{52}] the right half of the body. Within the motor area are centers for the several limbs and other motor organs. Thus, at the top, near the middle line of the head (and just about where the phrenologists located their "bump of veneration"!), is the center for the legs; next below and to the side is the center for the trunk, next that for the arm, next that for head movements, and at the bottom, not far from the ears, is the center for tongue and mouth.

Fig. 14.--The nerve path by which the motor area of the cortex influences the muscles. The upper part of this path, consisting of axons issuing from the giant pyramids of the motor area and extending down into the spinal cord, is the pyramidal tract. The lower part of the path consists of axons issuing from the motor cells of the cord and extending out to the muscles. The top of the figure represents a vertical cross-section of the brain, such as is given, on a larger scale, in [Fig. 18.] (Figure text: cortex, cord, muscles)

The largest nerve cells of all are found in the motor area, and are called, from their shape, the "giant pyramids". They have large dendrites and very long axons, which latter, [{53}] running in a thick bundle down from the cortex through the brain stem and cord, constitute the "pyramidal tract", the principal path of communication from the cerebrum to the lower centers. The motor area of the brain has no direct connection with any muscle, but acts through the pyramidal tract on the lower centers, which in turn act on the muscles.

How The Brain Produces Muscular Movements

The motor area is itself aroused to action by nerve currents entering it through axons coming from other parts of the cortex; and it is by way of the motor area that any other part of the cortex produces bodily movement. There are a few exceptions, as, for example, the movements of the eyes are produced generally by the "visual area" acting directly on the lower motor centers for the eye in the brain stem; but, in the main, any motor effect of brain action is exerted through the motor area. The motor area, as already mentioned, acts on the lower motor centers in the cord and brain stem, and these in turn on the muscles; but we must look into this matter a little more closely.

A lower motor center is a group of motor and central neurones, lying anywhere in the cord or brain stem, and capable of directly arousing a certain coördinated muscular movement. One such unit gives flexion of the leg, another gives extension of the leg, a third gives the rapid alternation of flexion and extension that we see in the scratching movement of the dog. Such a motor center can be aroused to activity by a sensory stimulus, and the resulting movement is then called a reflex.

The lower center can be aroused in quite another way, and that is by nerve currents coming from the brain, by way of the motor area and the pyramidal tract. Thus flexion of the leg can occur voluntarily as well as reflexly. The same [{54}] muscles, and the same motor neurones, do the job in either case. In the reflex, the lower center is aroused by a sensory nerve, and in the voluntary movement by the pyramidal tract.

The story is told of a stranger who was once dangling his legs over the edge of the station platform at a small backwoods town, when a native called out to him "Hist!" (hoist), pointing to the ground under the stranger's feet. He "histed" obediently, which is to say that he voluntarily threw into play the spinal center for leg flexion; and then, looking down, saw a rattler coiled just beneath where his feet had been hanging. Now even if he had spied the rattler first, the resulting flexion, though impulsive and involuntary, would still have been aroused by way of the motor area and the pyramidal tract, since the movement would have been a response to knowledge of what that object was and signified, and knowledge means action by the cerebral cortex, which we have seen to affect movement through the medium of the motor area. But if the snake had made the first move, the same leg movement on the man's part, made now in response to the painful sensory stimulus, would have been the flexion reflex.

Facilitation and Inhibition

Not only can the motor area call out essentially the same movements that are also produced reflexly, but it can prevent or inhibit the execution of a reflex in spite of the sensory stimulus for the reflex being present, and it can reinforce or facilitate the action of the sensory stimulus so as to assist in the production of the reflex. We see excellent examples of cerebral facilitation and inhibition in the case of the knee jerk. This sharp forward kick of the foot and lower leg is aroused by a tap on the tendon running in front [{55}] of the knee. Cross the knee to be stimulated over the other leg, and tap the tendon just below the knee cap, and the knee jerk appears. So purely reflex is this movement that it cannot be duplicated voluntarily; for, though the foot can of course be voluntarily kicked forward, this voluntary movement does not have the suddenness and quickness of the true reflex. For all that, the cerebrum can exert an influence on the knee jerk. Anxious attention to the knee jerk inhibits it; gritting the teeth or clenching the fist reinforces it. These are cerebral influences acting by way of the pyramidal tract upon the spinal center for the reflex.

Thus the cortex controls the reflexes. Other examples of such control are seen when you prevent for a time the natural regular winking of the eyes by voluntarily holding them wide open, or when, carrying a hot dish which you know you must not drop, you check the flexion reflex which would naturally pull the hand away from the painful stimulus. The young child learns to control the reflexes of evacuation, and gradually comes to have control over the breathing movements, so as to hold his breath or breathe rapidly or deeply at will, and to expire vigorously in order to blow out a match.

The coughing, sneezing and swallowing reflexes likewise come under voluntary control. In all such cases, the motor area facilitates or inhibits the action of the lower centers.

Super-motor Centers in the Cortex

Another important effect of the motor area upon the lower centers consists in combining their action so as to produce what we know as skilled movements. It will be remembered that the lower centers themselves give coördinated movements, such as flexion or extension of the whole limb; but still higher coördinations result from cerebral control. [{56}] When the two hands, though executing different movements, work together to produce a definite result, we have coördination controlled by the cortex. Examples of this are seen in handling an ax or bat, or in playing the piano or violin. A movement of a single hand, as in writing or buttoning a coat, may also represent a higher or cortical coördination.

Fig. 15.--(From Starr.) Axons connecting one part of the cortex with another. The brain is seen from the side, as if in section. At "A" are shown bundles of comparatively short axons, connecting near-by portions of the cortex; while "B," "C," and "D" show bundles of longer axons, connecting distant parts of the cortex with one another. The "Corpus Callosum" is a great mass of axons extending across from each cerebral hemisphere to the other, and enabling both hemispheres to work together. "O. T." and "C. N." are interior masses of gray matter, which can be seen also in [Fig. 18]. "O. T." is the thalamus, about which more later.

Now it appears that the essential work in producing these higher coördinations of skilled movement is performed not by the motor area, but by neighboring parts of the cortex, which act on the motor area in much the same way as the motor area acts on the lower centers. Some of these [{57}] skilled-movement centers, or super-motor centers, are located in the cortex just forward of the motor area, in the adjacent parts of the frontal lobe. Destruction of the cortex there, through injury or disease, deprives the individual of some of his skilled movements, though not really paralyzing him. He can still make simple movements, but not the complex movements of writing or handling an instrument.

It is a curious fact that the left hemisphere, which exerts control over the movements of the right hand and right side of the body generally, also plays the leading part in skilled movements of either hand. This is true, at least, of right-handed persons; probably in the left-handed the right hemisphere dominates.

Motor power may be lost through injury at various points in the nervous system. Injury to the spinal cord, destroying the lower motor center for the legs, brings complete paralysis. Injury to the motor area or to the pyramidal tract does not destroy reflex movement, but cuts off all voluntary movement and cerebral control. Injury to the "super-motor centers" causes loss of skilled movement, and produces the condition of "apraxia", in which the subject, though knowing what he wants to do, and though still able to move his limbs, simply cannot get the combination for the skilled act that he has in mind.

Speech Centers

Similar to apraxia is "aphasia" or loss of ability to speak. It bears the same relation to true paralysis of the speech organs that hand apraxia bears to paralysis of the hand. Through brain injury it sometimes happens that a person loses his ability to speak words, though he can still make vocal sounds. The cases differ in severity, some retaining the ability to speak only one or two words which [{58}] from frequent use have become almost reflex (swear words, sometimes, or "yes" and "no"), while others are able to pronounce single words, but can no longer put them together fluently into the customary form of phrases and sentences, and still others can utter simple sentences, but not any connected speech.

Fig. 16.--Side view of the left hemisphere, showing the location of the "speech centers." The region marked "Motor" is the motor speech center, that marked "Auditory" the auditory speech center, and that marked "Visual" the visual speech center. (Figure text: central fissure, motor area, auditory area, visual area, fissure of Sylvius, brain stem, cerebellum)

In pure cases of motor aphasia, the subject knows the words he wishes to say, but cannot get them out. The brain injury here lies in the frontal lobe in the left hemisphere, in right-handed people, just forward of the motor area for the mouth, tongue and larynx. This "motor speech center" is the best-known instance of a super-motor center. It coördinates the elementary speech movements into the combinations called words; and perhaps there is no other motor performance so highly skilled as this of speaking. It is acquired so early in life, and practised so constantly, that [{59}] we take it quite as a matter of course, and think of a word as a simple and single movement, while in fact even a short word, as spoken, is a complex movement requiring great motor skill.

There is some evidence that the motor speech center extends well forward into the frontal lobe, and that the front part of it is related to the part further back as this is to the motor area back of it. That is to say, the back of the speech center combines the motor units of the motor area into the skilled movements of speaking a word, while the more forward part of the speech center combines the word movements into the still more complex movement of speaking a sentence. It is even possible that the very front part of the speech center has to do with those still higher combinations of speech movements that give fluency and real excellence of speaking.

The Auditory Centers

Besides the motor aphasia, just mentioned, there is another type, called sensory aphasia, or, more precisely, auditory aphasia. In pure auditory aphasia there is no inability to pronounce words or even to speak fluently, but there is, first, an inability to "hear words", sometimes called word deafness, and there is often also an inability to find the right words to speak, so that the individual so afflicted, while speaking fluently enough and having sense in mind, misuses his words and utters a perfect jargon. One old gentleman mystified his friends one morning by declaring that he must go and "have his umbrella washed", till it was finally discovered that what he wanted was to have his hair cut.

The cortical area affected in this form of aphasia is located a little further back on the surface of the brain than [{60}] the motor speech center, being close to the auditory area proper. The latter is a small cortical region in the temporal lobe, connected (through lower centers) with the ear, and is the only part of the cortex to receive nerve currents from the organ of hearing. The auditory area is, indeed, the organ of hearing, or an organ of hearing, for without it the individual is deaf. He may make a few reflex responses to loud noises, but, consciously, he does not hear at all; he has no auditory sensations.

In the immediate neighborhood of the auditory area proper (or of the "auditory-sensory area", as it may well be called), are portions of the cortex intimately connected by axons with it, and concerned in what may be called auditory perceptions, i.e., with recognizing and understanding sounds. Probably different portions of the cortex near the auditory-sensory center have to do with different sorts of auditory perception. At least, we sometimes find individuals who, as a result of injury or disease affecting this general region, are unable any longer to follow and appreciate music. They cannot "catch the tune" any longer, though they may have been fine musicians before this portion of their cortex was destroyed. In other cases, we find, instead of this music deafness, the word deafness mentioned just above.

The jargon talk that so often accompanies word deafness reminds us of the fact that speech is first of all auditory to the child. He understands what is said to him before he talks himself, and his vocabulary for purposes of understanding always remains ahead of his speaking vocabulary. It appears that this precedence of auditory speech over motor remains the fact throughout life, in most persons, and that the auditory speech center is the most fundamental of all the speech centers, of which there is one more not yet mentioned, used in reading.

[{61}]