psychology_Sons_(2003)

74 Comparative Psychology

A tradition of edited textbooks in the field began with F. A.
Moss’s (1934) Comparative Psychology. The 15 chapters
included information on maturation, motivation, sensory
function, learning, individual differences, animal social psy-
chology, and a set of related topics. This work was followed
by similar volumes from various editors at regular intervals
in 1942, 1951, 1960, and 1973.
An interesting approach was taken by Normal L. Munn
(1933) with his An Introduction to Animal Psychology. The
book is concerned solely with the behavior of laboratory rats
and provides a comprehensive review of many characteristics
of rats.

Other Characteristics

In some respects, the textbooks were the only bright spot in
the institutionalization of comparative psychology during the
period between the wars. One problem was that of definition,
a difficulty that still affects the field today. There was clearly
a cadre of comparative psychologists of the sort included by
my definition. The term comparative psychology,however,
was used in a variety of ways. Often, it referred to all animal
psychology. Important work was being done in the fields of
animal learning and cognition during this period. Much of the
work, however, was done within a more process-oriented
framework than most work in comparative psychology as de-
fined here. Similarly, numerous physiological studies were
conducted. The true comparative tradition was obscured, in
part, because the field lacked a clearly differentiating name,
clear definition, and less permeable boundaries.
A landmark was the beginning of the publication of the
Journal of Comparative Psychologyin 1922. The field had
had other journals, including the Journal of Comparative
Neurology and Psychology(1904–1910), the Journal of Ani-
mal Behavior(1911–1917), and Psychobiology(1917–1920).
With the Journal of Comparative Psychology,however, the
field finally appeared to have a named journal to provide unity
for the discipline. However, it was not to be. The journal be-
came one of animal psychology and the primary vehicle for
the publication of research in all fields of animal psychology,
thus muddying the definitional problem even further. Indeed,
during the 1920s, the Journal of Comparative Psychologyin-
cluded a significant number of studies of human behavior
(Dewsbury, 1998).
A complete perspective on comparative psychology re-
quires consideration of its flaws as well as its accomplish-
ments. Some of the writings of the time appear to be racist, at
least by contemporary standards. The early volumes of the
Journal of Comparative Psychologyincluded numerous arti-
cles on race differences regarding performance on intelligence

tests, emotional traits, and physical development. In addition,

Watson (1919) wrote that “psychologists persistently main-

tain that cleanlinessis instinctive, in spite of the filth of the

negro, of the savage, and of the child” (p. 260), and Yerkes

(1925) wrote that “certainly these three types of ape [chim-

panzees, orangutans, and gorillas] do not differ more obvi-

ously than do such subdivisions of mankind as the American

Indian, the Caucasian, and the Negro” (p. 56). There are many

aspects of the history of comparative psychology that are wor-

thy of pride; a balanced view must include aspects lacking in

such worth.

Perhaps underlying the looseness of organization of com-

parative psychology was a lack of identity among the leaders

in the field. Although all would probably have accepted the

title of comparative psychologist, there was no sense of unity

or effort to differentiate their work from that of other animal

psychologists who often were included as “comparative psy-

chologists.” There was no unifying theory of the sort devel-

oped by the followers of B. F. Skinner. There was no agenda

of the sort later promulgated by the European ethologists.

Most comparative psychologists of the era were independent-

minded individuals concerned with doing their research, re-

porting it at existing meetings, and publishing it in mainline

journals. There were no efforts to form new organizations or

otherwise band together to define the developing tradition

with any precision. As a result, the individual researchers

gained respect and prestige for their efforts but they lacked

real influence as a group. The subdiscipline that seems so

clear in retrospect was not developed as an entity.

COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY SINCE

WORLD WAR II

The story of comparative psychology since World War II is

one of developments within the field and response to influ-

ences from outside. The war caused some interruption in the

efforts that could be devoted to comparative psychology. The

improved funding environment and the growth of universi-

ties after the war, however, fueled rapid growth.

Personnel

Most critical was the availability of personnel. With stable

positions, most of the prewar generation of comparative psy-

chologists were able to develop active laboratories and pro-

duce a continued output of research. As universities grew

and fellowships became available, this generation, in turn,

produced a new generation of comparative psychologists.

In 40 years at the University of Wisconsin, Harlow alone