Abstract

Comparative psychology can generally be defined as the branch of psychology that studies the similarities and differences in the behavior of organisms. Formal definitions found in textbooks and encyclopedias disagree whether comparative psychologists restrict their work to the study of animals or include the study of human behavior. This paper offers an opinion on the major problem facing comparative psychology today—where we will find the next generation of comparative psychology students. Something must be done before we lose access to an entire generation of psychology undergraduates. It is not enough to say that comparative psychology is being “absorbed” in other academic units such as “integrative biology,” “integrative study of animal behavior,” “evolutionary psychology,” “comparative cognition,” or “animal cognition.” Indeed, many of these topics are not primarily studied in psychology departments, wherein comparative psychology students have traditionally received joint training in the principles of behavior and comparative analysis, as applied to both humans and other animals. Consider, for example, the difference between comparative psychology and comparative cognition. Comparative cognition includes features of comparative psychology, but they are not identical. Comparative cognition represents a very specific theoretical position whose validity is based on certain suppositions such as the belief (by definition) that the internal cognitive process of non-human animals can be studied scientifically. It is unclear whether the study of behavior in comparative perspective, without reference to cognition, would fit within this endeavor at all. Conversely, comparative psychology represents a broader scientific field encompassing any number of theoretical perspectives that can be employed to make inter-species phenotypic comparisons (e.g., behaviorist, cognitive, physiological, and evolutionary). Therefore, to reduce comparative psychology to comparative cognition would foreclose upon a large portion of possible theory space. Moreover, given that undergraduates are heavily influenced in their choice of discipline by the existence of curricular specializations, the increasing paucity of opportunities to undertake a program of comparative psychology is likely driving students—and psychology majors in particular—away from engagement with this important field. Comparative psychology as a separate and distinct discipline was a vital and important branch of psychology and can be so once again if we act soon. Comparative psychology has much to offer undergraduate students with regard to the development of critical thinking skills, personal exploration, cultivating a comprehensive view of the world around them, and the ability to apply their skills in both academic and applied fields (Moran, 1987; White, 2007). Many contemporary problems such as racism and gender bias would be better addressed by using the methods of comparative psychology (Abramson and Lack, 2014). Comparative psychologists are specifically trained to make valid comparisons and to expose those that are invalid. Training in comparative psychology is a fine example of the importance of a liberal arts education. Many authors have commented on the problems associated with comparative psychology. These include the use of a restricted number of species (Beach, 1950; Bitterman, 1965), lack of an appreciation of evolutionary theory (Lockard, 1968; Hodos and Campbell, 1969; Kalat, 1983), decline in the number of animal facilities available for comparative research (Gallup and Eddy, 1990), scientists who begin their career as comparative psychologists only to change disciplines (Dewsbury, 1990), the expense and resources needed to fund a comparative program (Dewsbury, 1992; Varnon and Abramson, 2013), few articles containing more than one species (Lester, 1973), whether animals are needed for psychological research (Bowd, 1980; Robinson, 1990), and a lack of jobs (Dewsbury, 1990). All of these issues have contributed to the crises we now face.

Highlights

  • Comparative psychology can generally be defined as the branch of psychology that studies the similarities and differences in the behavior of organisms

  • This paper offers an opinion on the major problem facing comparative psychology today—where we will find the generation of comparative psychology students

  • Dr Donald Dewsbury writes about the history of comparative psychology and the issues which confront us

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Comparative psychology can generally be defined as the branch of psychology that studies the similarities and differences in the behavior of organisms. Many authors have commented on the problems associated with comparative psychology These include the use of a restricted number of species (Beach, 1950; Bitterman, 1965), lack of an appreciation of evolutionary theory (Lockard, 1968; Hodos and Campbell, 1969; Kalat, 1983), decline in the number of animal facilities available for comparative research (Gallup and Eddy, 1990), scientists who begin their career as comparative psychologists only to change disciplines (Dewsbury, 1990), the expense and resources needed to fund a comparative program (Dewsbury, 1992; Varnon and Abramson, 2013), few articles containing more than one species (Lester, 1973), whether animals are needed for psychological research (Bowd, 1980; Robinson, 1990), and a lack of jobs (Dewsbury, 1990). One can reasonably argue that the information obtained in a comparative course is included in other course offerings such as evolutionary psychology, animal behavior, and learning processes This may be so, but as I mentioned in the introductory comments comparative psychology is unique. We have developed a full range of teaching related programs that are freely available (Varnon and Abramson, 2013)

Discussion
Findings
Principles and Methods
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call