What we need, then, as an improvement on the old law of association by contiguity, and as a supplement to the law of exercise, is some law governing the response to two or more contiguous stimuli. Now we already have such a law, which we put to some use in studying attention, [Footnote: See pp. 268-264.] and called the law of "combination", or of "unitary response to a plurality of stimuli". We had better fetch that law out again and put it in good repair, and see whether it is adequate for the job that we now have on hand. In a very general, abstract form, the law of combination read that "two or more stimuli may arouse a single joint response". Let us add a single word, which had not risen above the horizon when we formulated the law before, and say that {399} two or more contiguous stimuli may arouse a single joint response.

That seems very little to say; can we possibly go far with so simple a statement? Well, let us see. In saying that two or more stimuli arouse a single response, we imply that there is already some rudimentary linkage between each stimulus and their common response, and that this linkage is used in arousing the response. Now bring in our trusty law of exercise, and we see that the use, or exercise, of such a linkage may strengthen it to such an extent that, later, a single one of the stimuli may arouse the response which was originally aroused by the whole collection of stimuli.

Does that promise any better? Probably it requires further discussion and exemplification before its value can be appreciated. Let us, then, first discuss it a bit, and then apply it to the explanation of the chief varieties of learned reaction that have come to our attention.

The law of combination attempts to show how it comes about that a stimulus, originally unable to arouse a certain response, acquires the power of arousing it; and the law states that this occurs only when the originally ineffective stimulus is combined with others which can and do arouse the response. The ineffective stimulus, being one of a combination of stimuli which collectively arouse the response, participates to some slight degree in arousing that response and may thus become effectively linked with the response.

Notice an assumption underlying the law of combination. Evidently a stimulus could not take part in arousing a response unless there were some pre-existing linkage between it and the response. This linkage may however be extremely loose and feeble, and wholly incapable by itself of arousing the response. The assumption of pre-existing loose linkage between almost any stimulus and almost any response is justified by the facts of playful behavior and trial and error {400} behavior. In addition to the close reflex connections provided in the native constitution, and in addition also to the close connections formed in previous training, there are at any time, and especially in childhood and youth, a vast number of loose connections. These are too weak to operate singly, until they have coÖperated in producing a response, and thus been individually strengthened, after which they may be able singly to produce the response.

The law of combination, then, as applied to learning, includes four points:

(a) A collection of stimuli may work together and arouse a single response.
(b) This is possible because of pre-existing loose linkage between the separate stimuli and the response.
(c) When any stimulus, working together with others, helps to arouse a response, its linkage with that response is strengthened by exercise.
(d) The linkage may be sufficiently strengthened so that a single stimulus can arouse the response without help from the other stimuli that were originally necessary.

Having now abundantly stated and reiterated the law of combination in the abstract, let us turn to concrete instances of learned reactions, and see how the law takes care of them. We have already classified a large share of all the concrete instances under a few main heads, as substitute stimulus, substitute response, combination (or association) of stimuli, and combination of responses. We shall presently find it possible to reduce these four classes to two, since the association of two objects, by virtue of which one of them later recalls the other, is a rather complicated case of substitute stimulus, while the combination of movements into a higher unit is a complicated case of substitute response.

[Footnote: To distinguish between "substitute stimulus" and "substitute response" is, in strict logic, like distinguishing between "inside out" and "outside in." Whenever there is a substitute stimulus there is also a substitute response, of course, since this stimulus, in being substituted for another, gets that other's response in place of its own original response; and in the same way, you can always find substitute stimulus in any instance of substitute response; for, in being substituted for another, a response gets that other's stimulus in place of its own original stimulus. For all that, the distinction between the two main cases of learning is of some importance, since sometimes the changed stimulus, and sometimes the changed response, is the interesting fact.]{401}