The journey in comparative psychology matters more than the destination.

Abstract

The Journal of Comparative Psychology has enjoyed a century of publishing some of the best investigations of animal behavior, often with reference to human cognition and behavior. This long history has manifested many paradigm-like shifts. Researchers have fluctuated between treating animals as models of human learning to emphasizing stark differences between animal and human behavior to stressing psychological continuity across species. At this time, there appears little consensus regarding questions of psychological continuity. I argue that this is a futile debate. Rather than focusing on behavior in nonhuman animals that represent potential parallels to human psychology (or behavior), comparative psychologists should focus on questions of development, function, and mechanism of behavior to better understand the behavior of all species in biological context. A focus on understanding underlying mechanisms for behavior rather than settling on behavioral outcomes alone as diagnostic of a species’ status on some imaginary scale of progress will help address anthropocentric biases in current approaches. A focus on the “why” and “how” questions espoused by Tinbergen over half a century ago will move the field in better alignment with related fields, such as ethology, and provide greater insights into both animal and human minds.

Cognitive asymmetry in rats in response to emergent vs. disappearing affordances

“…The landscape of animal research in psychology has undergone a transformation, moving from the traditional "animal model" approach to a contemporary system that prioritizes processes over speci c species (Maestripieri, 2005). Jennifer Vonk (2021) succinctly captures this shift by advocating that comparative psychologists focus on understanding the development, function, and mechanisms of behavior across species within a biological context (p. 156). While this perspective extends to humans, it does not imply the existence of parallel processes between humans and animal models.…”

Editorial.

“…Second, “comparative” studies can be conducted even with only one species being assessed in a new report, provided those data are presented in a way that situates them phylogenetically (i.e., with other species), or as a function of sex, or in life-span perspective (i.e., by comparing performance of the same species at different age or developmental points, just as we can study life-span changes across species), and even through comparison of those data to an interesting hypothesis or theory (e.g., how does the performance of species X compare to what a theory would predict of such a species?). In their recent history of the term comparative psychology in the literature, d’Isa and Abramson (2023) noted that this more inclusive meaning of comparative psychology emerged from the more restricted sense that only direct comparisons of species were truly comparative research, and that is a good thing (also see Vonk, 2021). My role is to aid authors in taking one or more of these comparative perspectives, but there is otherwise no prohibition or restriction on articles that involve data from only one species.…”

100 years of comparative psychology advancing practice, policy, and the public—And what the future requires.

“…Finally, the field must contend with the issue of increasing anthropomorphism and anthropocentric biases (Vonk, 2021, this issue). These biases have the potential to influence societal decisions with a broad impact on human, animal, and environmental health.…”

“…Scientists are working to address these issues. In addition to a long history warning the field about the potential limitations to conducting comparative psychology with an anthropocentric lens (Eaton et al, 2018; Shettleworth, 1993; Vonk, 2021, this issue), there has been a recent slew of scientific articles defending the use of nonhuman animals in basic research ranging in topics from neuroscience to addiction to cognitive decline to mood disorders, among other areas (Barron et al, 2021; Ma et al, 2019; Phillips et al, 2014; Rothwell et al, 2021; Spanagel, 2017). Scientists are also actively engaging with their members of Congress, often with the support of the scientific societies they belong to, to educate them about the vital role of nonhuman animals, and comparative psychology, in the research enterprise and in answering outstanding questions about human and nonhuman animal health (American Psychological Association [APA], 2013, 2021).…”