118 VINNIE C. HICKS AND H. A. CARR 



eliminated, but that the relation between the abruptness of 

 slope and the degree of rational ability is just the inverse of 

 that assumed by Thorndike and Hobhouse. 



Several hypotheses may be advanced to explain the inverse 

 relation between intelligent capacity and the gross values. 



i. Differences in previous knowledge of the maze. Our 

 experiment failed to establish comparable conditions for the 

 three groups in the matter of previous knowledge of the prob- 

 lem. The humans knew the meaning of the problem; they 

 knew that the maze was constituted of blind alleys and a true 

 path with an exit. Their acts w T ere purposively controlled by 

 the motive of finding this exit as soon as possible. They were 

 governed by no motives of curiosity or fear leading to idle and 

 unnecessary exploration. The rats face a different situation. 

 There is no distinction between blinds and true path. To them, 

 there is no exit leading to food. The maze as an object from 

 which to escape as quickly as possible constitutes a problem 

 which the animals must discover by experience. Motives of 

 fear and curiosity leading to random exploration are dominat- 

 ing factors which must be eliminated in the early trials. The 

 motive of hunger at first stimulates but does not direct their 

 exploring activities toward some exit. To the rats the maze 

 at first is a strange, novel object to be explored and inves- 

 tigated in all its details, while to the human subjects it is pri- 

 marily an object from which to escape as soon as possible. The 

 rats proceed slowly and cautiously, while the humans travel 

 with some speed and assurance. The human explorations are 

 systematized, while those of the animals are random and dis- 

 cursive from the standpoint of reaching some definite position 

 in the maze. One set of conditions tends to. increase the initial 

 values while the other set tends to minimize them. 



Undoubtedly this conception is legitimate and the phenomenon 

 is to be explained at least in part by such means. Two con- 

 siderations may be urged against the conception as the sole 

 principle of explanation. (a) The differences between the 

 three groups as to previous knowledge of the problem is utterly 

 disproportionate to the corresponding differences of surplus 

 values, (b) If the differences in total values are to be explained 

 entirely in such terms, then all three groups would make the 

 same number of errors in learning the maze, provided they 



