The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

184 The Educational Screen out the fallacies of the experiment, careful though it was in execution. First, it must be granted that the novelty of the situation would make for a false heartiness of response. Second, mob psychology is never as infallible in its certainty to sweep in- dividual reaction before it, as in a house of 4,500 youngsters, many of whom were seeing, for the first time, the Tivoli's golden "bauble-ism." Third, differing groups of children went with differing attitudes modified by the remarks of their teachers be- forehand, so that we can not be sure that initial responses were entirely spontaneous. That element would, however, disappear almost immedi- ately and is, therefore, less important. Fourth, we have, perhaps, the most upsetting consideration at work. Those groups were composed of localized groups of children, which fact, in a city of the size of Chicago, means ut- terly diversified audiences, in mental background, social environment, physical health, and natural capaci- ties. In order to make the test less fallacious it would have been neces- sary to present the same program to each group, and even then there would remain the task of calculating the rela- tivity of the response in the light of the differences mentioned. Fifth, the question of choosing films truly repre- sentative of a general output of any one class of film is almost impossible, for no branch of moving picture pro- duction is as yet sufficiently specialized to make classification probable. To offset this array of retarding in- fluences, there are certain laws o child nature functioning. Children emotions are fleeting; the wonder c the Tivoli's brassy splurge, togetht with the novelty of a free movj would eventually cease to color rea< tions. Mob psychology elements ai lessened slightly by the quicker an less repressed reaction of the pfl adolescent organism. And, sure! there is a fairly fixed quantity in chil nature, regardless of the differena within and without the child's lif that makes the experiment, howev< fallacious, still a valuable gauge. With these general warnings mind, then, we find the conclusions ( Balaban & Katz peculiarly interestin Dominant, was the preference for an mals over man and his work. Eve domesticated animals—"dogs to be e: cepted because of their approximate human relationship to small boys"- last when appearing after wild-li: films. "Dumb brutes, birds, poultr fish, reptiles, monkeys and dogs wer in all test matinees, highly preferab to man and his work. . . . Elephan piling teak did not draw much a] plause or interest but a brown bej being captured and drawn with ropi to the camp of Indian guides was i ceived with open arms. . . . One ( the Ditmar animal series, showing tl lives and habits of turtles was view* with the children sitting in silent ii tentness watching the Galapagos to: toises eating, crawling, snapping an napping." Secondly Mr. Lewis remarked thz the children were quick to side wit