No abstract

and Bowling (1960) concluded that the characteristic mazesolving superiority of rats reared in a free environment was due, not to differences in intelligence or in maze-solving ability, but to differences in exploratory behavior. Using males and females reared in both free and restricted environments, they found, first of all, significant correlations between Hebb-Williams error-scores (Rabinovitch & Rosvold, 1951) and exploration measures even when several months intervened between these testings. Secondly, the restricted females were found to explore more than the other three groups, which did not differ among themselves, and this same relationship held for the Hebb-Williams error scores. And, finally, the adaptation and preliminary training series for the Hebb-Williams intelligence test (Rabinovitch & Rosvold, 1951), which was intended to minimize exploratory behavior, actually served to decrease exploration in the free groups while it increased exploration in the restricted groups. These findings, then, were interpreted as confirming Zimbardo & Montgomery's (1957) speculation, "... that perhaps the superiority in problemsolving ability for 5s with 'rich' early experience . . . may arise as a result of the relatively decreased novelty of the test situation for the free-environment 5s."It is certainly obvious, however, that this confirmation is based entirely upon the similarity between the error scores on the Hebb-Williams test and the exploratory measures taken. More weight could be given to this argument if exploratory behavior could be reduced in the restricted animals so that their performance on the Hebb-Williams test equaled that of the free animals. One method that can be used to reduce exploratory behavior is to establish a strong drive in conflict with the exploratory drive. Two such drives