Comparative psychology is deadp Long live comparative psychology.

Abstract

The study of behavior of nonhuman organisms is today, as it has been for a century, a vital and active area within psychology. Comparative psychology is, therefore, by definition, alive and well. The recent resurgence in interest in evolutionary and ecological approaches to the study of comparative psychology reflects developments in ethology, sociobiology, and behavioral ecology. The ability of comparative psychologists to incorporate these modern biological approaches to the study of animal behavior into their work, while maintaining traditional focus on the study of developmental and causal problems, is a sign of strength in the field, not a sign of incipient demise. Neither revisionist histories of nor epitaphs for comparative psychology are needed. Discussion of the past, present, and future health of comparative psychology has been a growth industry for at least a decade now, and I must confess to some trepidation at joining the fray at so late a date. My discomfiture arises in large part from my failure to see clearly an issue amenable to discussion. There does not seem to be agreement either as to what comparative psychology is today or was in its reputed golden age or ages. In consequence, questions about the health, death, rebirth, and so forth of comparative psychology seem to be unanswerable. Depending on what one means by comparative psychology, it can be argued that the field never existed (Lorenz, 1950), was stillborn (Hodos & Campbell, 1969), died in its prime (Lockhard, 1971), is alive but ailing (Adler, Adler, & Tobach, 1973), or is in robust health (Dewsbury, 1984).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.