- A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Psychological Review
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
VOL.
76, No. 4
JULY
1969
PSYCHOLOGICAL
REVIEW
SCALA
NATURAE:
WHY
THERE
IS NO
THEORY
IN
COMPARATIVE
PSYCHOLOGY
l
WILLIAM HODOS
* AND C. B. G.
CAMPBELL
Walter
Reed
Army
Institute
of
Research
Center
for
Neural Sciences,
Indiana
University
Washington,
D. C.
The
concept that
all
living
animals
can be
arranged along
a
continuous
"phylogenetic
scale" with
man at the top is
inconsistent
with
contemporary
views
of
animal
evolution.
Nevertheless, this arbitrary hierarchy
continues
to
influence
researchers
in the field of
animal
behavior
who
seek
to
make
inferences
about
the
evolutionary
development
of a
particular
type
of be-
havior.
Comparative
psychologists have
failed
to
distinguish
between
data
obtained
from
living
representatives
of a
common
evolutionary
lineage
and
data
from
animals
which
represent divergent lineages. Only
the
former
can
provide
a
foundation
for
inferences
about
the
phylogenetic
development
of
behavior
patterns.
The
latter
can
provide
information
only
about
general
mechanisms
of
adaptation
and
survival,
which
are not
necessarily
relevant
to
any
specific
evolutionary
lineage.
The
widespread
failure
of
comparative
psychologists
to
take
into
account
the
zoological
model
of
animal
evolution
when
selecting animals
for
study
and
when interpreting behavioral simi-
larities
and
differences
has
greatly
hampered
the
development
of
generaliza-
tions
with
any
predictive
value.
Nearly
two
decades have passed since added
to the
animal psychologist's
standard
Beach
(1950)
presented
his
classic paper menagerie. Occasional studies
of
behavior
"The Snark
was a
Boojum"
in
which
he de- in
teleost
fish,
reptiles,
and
carnivores have
plored
the
decline
of
comparative psychology also appeared
in
psychological journals
and
as a
result
of
"excessive
concentration upon
a
some attempts
at
comparison across species
single
species,"
namely,
the
albino rat.
His
have been made.
In
addition, several
text-
paper appears
to
have stimulated
a
renewed books
and
collections
of
readings
in
corn-
interest
in an
animal psychology which
is
parative psychology recently have been pub-
more
broadly comparative than
the rat
learn-
lished.
However, much
of the
current
re-
ing
studies which were prevalent
in the
search
in
comparative psychology seems
to
1940s
and
1950s.
Rhesus monkeys
and be
based
on
comparisons between animals
White
Carneaux pigeons have
now
been
that
have been selected
for
study according
,
„,.
..
...
...
...
.
.
to
rather
arbitrary considerations
and ap-
lThe
authors
wish
to
express their gratitude
to ...
^
.
.
,
,
their
colleagues
and
students
for
their
helpful
com-
Pears
to
be
without
any
goal
other
than
the
ments
on
this
paper
and to J. Z.
Young
and the
comparison
of
animals
for the
sake
of
corn-
Oxford
University Press
for
their
permission
to
parison.
This
rather
tenuous
approach
to
reproduce
the
phylogenetic
trees
shown
in
Figures
,
,
,.
,
,
,
,
,
j_4
e
j
*
e
research