Abstract
This article identifies what I believe is a crisis in comparative psychology: the need to recruit undergraduates as the next generation of comparative psychologists. Issues to be addressed include the lack of graduate programs, only a single currently available comparative textbook, few undergraduate courses in comparative psychology, and the portrayal of comparative psychology in introductory psychology texts. Suggestions to help increase undergraduate interest in comparative psychology involve: recognition that comparative psychology is more than the study of animal behavior, that comparative psychology teaches broad-based research and critical thinking skills that can be used not only to further educational opportunities but also be useful for students who would like to directly go into business, encouraging students to create their own undergraduate major with a focus on comparative psychology, development of on-line courses, promotion of comparative-based teaching exercises, and using a track system to develop graduate programs in comparative psychology.
This paper provides some personal thoughts on what I consider to be the major problem facing comparative psychology in the United States today: where will the next generation of comparative psychology students come from? Although my comments are restricted to comparative psychology in the United States, I believe that they also extend to comparative psychology worldwide. For example, at the time I am writing this article membership in the International Society of Comparative Psychology is now based on whether an individual has attended the most recent bi-annual conference, and I know of no data internationally addressing the growth or lack thereof of comparative psychology worldwide. Anecdotal evidence from recent visits to Russia, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia suggests, at least to me, that comparative psychology is stagnant if not regressing. For example, when one compares the Russian contributions to comparative psychology as reported by Razran (1971) and Abramson, Shuranova, and Burmistrov (1996) to what it is now, it is obvious that the lack of funding, little to no experiential learning activities for students, poor faculty salaries, difficulty in obtaining any type of grant, few jobs, crumbling infrastructure, language issues, and scant access to contemporary research papers are all having major effects on the development of comparative psychology (Aleksandrova-Howell, Abramson, & Craig, 2011). The situation I found in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia is not much different. In a survey of psychology students at two universities in the northeast and south of Brazil, approximately 70% of the students polled did not even believe that behavior is predictable—a really shocking percentage (Bartoszeck, Abramson, & Place, 2005; Morales, Abramson, Nain, Junior, & Bartoszeck, 2005).
An abridged version of this article was recently published as an opinion piece in Frontiers in Psychology (Abramson, 2015), and I would like to take this opportunity to include some additional material that did not make it into the original contribution. It is my hope that these reflections will stimulate not only discussions on the need to recruit the next generation of students to comparative psychology but whether comparative psychology will survive as a distinct discipline. Over the course of my 30-yr. career, I have witnessed the decline of the field to the point where it has almost disappeared. I am not alone in this assessment. In his “presidential column” (2014) for Division 6 of the American Psychological Association—Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology—Dr. David A. Washburn stated the obvious when he wrote, “The truth is, our division is dying.” 3 He went on to write, “Although we are fortunate to have the long-time commitment, leadership and service of these senior scientists, more than 70% of Div. 6 affiliates/members/fellows are at least 60 yr. of age. More than 40% are age 70 or older. In 2013, the average age of Div. 6 members was 67.3 yr. and only 3.5% of the members were under age 40. Compare those figures to the 2009 data (65.7 yr. and 3.6%) and the picture is clear: Our division isn't just getting smaller. It's getting older. Unless we can figure a way to ensure that the 76% of our members who earned their Ph.D.s more than 25 yr. ago live forever (and I'm all for that!), our division will literally die unless we become more effective in attracting young behavioral neuroscientists and comparative psychologists.”
As perhaps a member of the last generation to identify themselves as comparative psychologists, something must be done before we lose access to an entire generation of psychology undergraduates. It may already be too late. I have no doubt, for example, that when I retire there will no longer be a listing in the course catalog called “comparative psychology,” thus ending an almost 50-yr. tradition at Oklahoma State University where such a course has been taught. It is not enough to say that comparative psychology is being “absorbed” into other academic units such as “integrative biology,” “integrative study of animal behavior,” or “evolutionary psychology.” In the shorter version of this paper (Abramson, 2015), I mentioned that many of these topics are seldom examined in psychology departments. However, students taking a comparative psychology course have traditionally received training in evolution, development, behavioral principles, and comparative methodology, which are applied to both humans and other organisms.
Consider for a moment the contrast between comparative cognition and comparative psychology. While comparative cognition certainly includes features of comparative psychology, there are fundamental distinctions including a belief on the part of cognitivists that the thought process of non-human animals can be studied scientifically. Comparative psychology also represents a larger scientific enterprise incorporating many theoretical perspectives and research methods to make interspecies comparisons (e.g., behaviorist, cognitive, evolutionary, molecular, and physiological). In these days of “cultural relativism,” it is the comparative psychologist, not the comparative cognitivist, that can make the greatest contribution precisely because of our broad research training and multiple theoretical outlooks. Moreover, I believe that there is no greater need for the comparative psychologist than any time in the history of psychology not only because of how our use of the comparative method and unique training can be applied to really pressing issues of contemporary society but also because our discipline demonstrates to university and college administrators the importance of a liberal arts education, and this should not be minimized. As I see it, training in comparative psychology teaches students how to learn, think, reason, be exposed to other cultures by, for instance, learning a foreign language, and see the greater picture—goals that are consistent with training in the liberal arts. Although I have no data, I suspect that training in comparative psychology also produces better teachers and scientists.
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. If not, we will be regulated to history of psychology textbooks and as a footnote in introductory psychology texts. As we will see, the latter is already happening.
For the sake of disclosure, I should mention that I am a comparative psychologist with over 30 yr. of experience, having been a Ph.D. student of M. E. Bitterman (University of Hawaii) and Henry Marcucella (Boston University). As a graduate student, and subsequently as a professional, I have worked with many organisms including ants, cats, dogs, fishes, flatworms, llamas, lizards, rattlesnakes, and humans in a variety of applied and theoretical areas. One of the greatest thrills of my career was working with a human one day, the next with an elephant, and the third with a honey bee. I know of no other branch of psychology that provides such exhilarating, unique, and challenging experiences. As comparative psychologists, the world is literally our laboratory, and I say this having conducted comparative psychological work in over 20 countries. I have also been fortunate enough for the past 23 yr. to teach a course called “comparative psychology,” and I believe my career is an excellent example of the type of experiences and job opportunities highlighted by White (2007) and Moran (1987) in their discussions of the benefits of becoming a comparative psychologist.
As White (2007) and Moran (1987) noted, the study of 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 opportunity to use their skills in both academic and applied fields. Many contemporary problems such as racism and gender bias would be better addressed by using the methods of comparative psychology (Abramson & Lack, 2014). After all, comparative psychologists are specifically trained to make valid comparisons and to expose those that are invalid. Arguably, it is one of the few areas of psychology where we are specifically trained to make comparisons. One might say that all psychologists are trained to make valid comparisons, but given the recent and stunning revelations associated with problems of replication of cognitive and social psychology experiments and the reliance on the use of statistics (rather than a reliance on replication), I am beginning to have my doubts (Grice, Barrett, Schlimgen, & Abramson, 2012; Bohannon, 2015; Hubbard, 2016). These findings force comparative psychologists to wonder about the replication of findings in other areas of psychology. For, after all, we are especially in tune with the issue of replication since so many of us often work with exotic species consisting of a few individuals (Agrillo & Petrazzini, 2012).
Over the years, many authors have commented on the problems, real or imagined, 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 & Campbell, 1969; Kalat, 1983), decline in the number of animal facilities available for comparative research (Gallup, Jr., & Eddy, 1990), scientists who begin their careers as comparative psychologists only to change disciplines (Dewsbury, 1990), the expense and resources needed to fund a comparative program (Dewsbury, 1992; Varnon & Abramson, 2013), few articles examining more than one species (Lester, 1973), whether animals are needed for psychological research (Bowd, 1980 Robinson, 1990), and a lack of jobs (Dewsbury, 1990). I believe that all of these issues have contributed to the crisis we now face—where do we find our next generation of students interested in comparative psychology?
Again, I may not be expressing the general opinion, but there seems to me to be an emphasis on the perceived negatives of comparative psychology at the expense of the positive. As Roger Thompson noted at a Teaching Comparative Psychology symposium, one of the beautiful aspects of our field is the use of the comparative method to provide a comprehensive analysis of psychological phenomena (Thompson, 1987). The comparative method is never mentioned in introductory psychology textbooks. Another paper in this symposium suggests that a course in comparative psychology should replace a course in introductory psychology and therefore be a student's first introduction to the field of psychology (Demarest, 1987a)—bravo! For those readers contemplating creating a comparative psychology course, this symposium also provided insights on how to create such a course (Candland, 1987; Demarest, 1987a; Greenberg, 1987; Thompson, 1987).
Problems Recruiting Students
Few Colleges and Universities Offer Courses in Comparative Psychology In 2014, we surveyed the course catalogs of the 650 academic institutions that Forbes Magazine considers the best. While the argument can be made that the criteria used by Forbes Magazine may or may not be appropriate (ratings based on student satisfaction and school efficacy), it does provide an evaluation of a wide range of schools from large state universities to small liberal arts colleges and is a good starting point. Of the 650 undergraduate course catalogs searched, only 82 (12.6%) offered an undergraduate course in comparative psychology! This figure is probably overestimated because we could not determine if the course was actually being taught. I suspect that over the coming years this number will further decrease if for no other reason than no one will be left on the faculty to teach the course. Although I have no data on the number of U.S. colleges and universities from 1889–1923, courses on comparative psychology were offered at 39 schools (Demarest, 1987b).
One can reasonably argue that the information obtained in a comparative course might be included in other course offerings such as evolutionary psychology and animal behavior. This may be so, but I would suggest that comparative psychology is unique. Moreover, it may be disingenuous for faculty in other disciplines to “cherry pick” parts of comparative psychology to be incorporated into other disciplines while at the same time doing little to help comparative psychology survive, if not thrive. What is needed is a stand-alone course in comparative psychology.
No Currently Available Comparative Psychology Text
The last comparative text was written by Papini (2002), with a second edition in 2008. Even if Papini (2002/2008) can still be found in enough quantities to meet class demands, for the sake of diversity of ideas and approach alternative texts should be available. A couple of years ago, I submitted a proposal to write a comparative text and, after the publishing house conducted some market research, I was told that there is “no market for a comparative psychology textbook.” Given that only 12.6% of the “top” 650 universities have comparative psychology listed in the course catalog, it is not surprising that a publisher would not invest in a comparative psychology text. Perhaps one way to get around this is to publish a text online that can be offered free to students. By way of comparison, 26 comparative psychology textbooks were written (including multiple editions) between 1882 through 1942 (Demarest, 1987b)
Few Graduate Programs Specifically Called Comparative Psychology
Sometimes I receive requests to recommend graduate programs in “comparative psychology” and find myself at a loss to find one. As a class exercise, I asked students to search online for graduate programs – the results were dismal. For example, if you Google “Graduate programs in comparative psychology,” Hunter College (part of the CUNY system) and Oakland University (Rochester Hills, MI) are listed. A search of the website Psychology Career Center 4 lists only two programs, one at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor (Belton, TX) and the other at Western Washington University (Bellingham, WA). Other sites such as the Psychology School Guide 5 and Degree Directory.org 6 present only perfunctory information. While a student can find many institutions that study animal behavior, there are few institutions where “comparative psychology” can be studied. It is interesting to note that there is no graduate program in comparative psychology at the institutions where the last two comparative texts were written (Texas Christian University and Wichita State University). I would invite readers to conduct their own online search and evaluate the quality of the material they find.
Comparative Psychology as Portrayed in Introductory Psychology Texts Comparative psychology is seldom mentioned in introductory psychology textbooks. This is extremely unfortunate, because introductory texts provide the initial source materials for students within a given area. They also serve an important function for students because they help identify and highlight key terms and provide direction into areas that the author deems important (Coleman, Fanelli, & Gedeon, 2000; Abramson & Place, 2005).
I examined 13 popular contemporary introductory textbooks (Huffman, 2007; Gray, 2011; Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2011; Krause & Corts; 2012; Wade & Tavris, 2012; Zimbardo, Johnson, & McCann, 2012; Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2013; King, 2014; Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner, & Nock, 2014; Okami, 2014; Wood, Wood, & Boyd, 2014; Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2015; Ciccarelli & White, 2015) to find whether comparative psychology was mentioned. Of the 13 textbooks, only four mention comparative psychology! Even here, the descriptions are very brief and highlighted the research of a particular comparative psychologist, or comparative psychology is discussed within the context of ethics in research and/or included in a brief comment on the various areas of psychology (Huffman, 2007; Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2013; Wood, et al., 2014; Ciccarelli & White, 2015). Nothing in these descriptions encourages the reader to learn more about comparative psychology, and they are certainly not inspiring. Even if a student does become interested in comparative psychology based on the material presented in an introductory text, who would they ask for more detailed information—the professor, who knows nothing about comparative psychology except perhaps criticisms, or what they can easily find on the Internet?
Comparative Psychology as Portrayed in Encyclopedias
I also took the opportunity to look at several encyclopedias of psychology. In contrast to introductory texts, most encyclopedias/dictionaries have entries for comparative psychology. However, similar to what I found in introductory textbooks, the entries are all too often superficial. Certainly, none of the descriptions motivate the reader to learn more about comparative psychology. Comparative psychology is mentioned in Corsini's Encyclopedia of Psychology-3rd ed. (Weiner & Craighead, 2010), Magill's Encyclopedia of Social Science: Psychology, vol. 3 (Piotrowski & Irons-Georges, (2003), APA Dictionary of Psychology (VandenBos, 2007), Encyclopedia of Psychology, vol. 1 (Kazdin, 2000), and Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (Reber, Allen, & Reber, 2009); comparative psychology is not mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Spielberger, 2004). I found the latter extremely disappointing because there are many applied aspects of comparative psychology (Moran, 1987). Perhaps the best encyclopedia entry is provided by Greenberg (2012) in the Encyclopedia of Science and Learning. There is also a handbook of comparative psychology that contains some excellent information, but this book also is out of print (Greenberg & Haraway, 1998).
Suggestions For Recruiting Students
I would like to focus the remainder of my comments on what can be done at the undergraduate level to recruit students to comparative psychology. My rationale for focusing on undergraduates is that it is here we will recruit our next generation of students, if we can recruit them at all.
Recognition That Comparative Psychology is Interested in the Behavior of Humans
I believe the most egregious example where we hurt ourselves is not making it fundamentally clear to students that comparative psychology is absolutely concerned with human behavior—it is much more than a course on animal behavior. Over the years, I have asked students at the beginning of the semester what they think comparative psychology is. The vast majority of them believe that the course will focus on how the comparative method is applied, for example, to an analysis of culture and social practices and how these human behaviors relate to those found in animals.
Not only is it a mistake to focus solely on animal behavior without making a strong “comparative” connection, it is also a mistake not to discuss in detail the deep philosophical issues associated with comparative psychology. For example, Muckler (1963) makes the point that the comparative analysis of human and animal behavior is one of the major philosophical controversies in the intellectual tradition of the West, with key figures being Aristotle (384–322 BCE), St. Thomas Aquinas (1227–1274), Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592), René Descartes (1596–1650), Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), and David Hume (1711–1776). This is, and continues to be, an exciting story that, to my knowledge, is seldom presented to perspective comparative psychology students. In addition, the contribution of under-represented groups to comparative psychology is also seldom discussed. The life of Charles Henry Turner, among others such as Margaret Washburn and Margaret Morse (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1987), and what led him to comparative psychology is a fascinating story (Abramson, Jackson, & Fuller, 2003; Abramson, 2009). We have used the story of Dr. Turner to help recruit under-represented groups to the STEM disciplines (Abramson, Curb, & Chicas-Mosier, 2013). The story of Dr. Turner can be used in the same way to help recruit under-represented groups to comparative psychology.
In addition to philosophical considerations and stories highlighting the contributions of underrepresented groups, students must be taught that many “animal psychologists” clearly state that their work is designed to be integrated and compared with human behavior. Watson, in his book Behavior: an Introduction to Comparative Psychology (Watson, 1914), stated on page 1 that: “The behaviorist attempts to get a unitary scheme of animal responses. He recognizes no dividing line between man and brute. The behavior of man, with all of its refinement and complexity, forms only a part of his total field of investigation.” Moreover, his Chapter 10 (“Man and Beast”) is devoted to a comparison of humans and non-human organisms. Fred Keller (1937), in commenting on comparative psychology, stated: “Psychology is more genetic and comparative than it was in Titchener's day. The notions that the child is father to the man and that man is kin to the brute may have waited a long time for psychological appreciation, but each is now part and parcel of our explanatory scheme. The adult human being is not the only focal point of interest. Most psychologists feel that there is much to be gained from a study of the genesis of man's activity and a comparison of human with animal functions” (p. 104). Many other examples can be given, including the work of B. F. Skinner and those of the neo-behaviorists such as Abram Amsel, Clark Hull, Neal Miller, O. H. Mower, Kenneth Spence, and Edward Tolman (Abramson, 2013).
A search of early comparative texts reveals a similar concern with connecting animal and human behavior. For example, the first chapter of Washburn's Animal Mind (1908) made it clear that her work sought to make a connection between the minds of humans and that of animals as revealed by their behavior. Warden (1928) in the preface to his An Outline of Comparative Psychology wrote, “No class of phenomena has excited greater interest or presented more knotty problems than that which we now include under the term comparative psychology—the mental life or behaviour of organisms from the amoeba to man.” A similar connection can be found in the comparative texts of Warden, Jenkins, and Warner (1935), Stone (1951), Denny and Ratner (1970), Razran (1971), Lester (1973), and the out-of-print Comparative Psychology: A Handbook edited by Greenberg and Haraway (1998).
Recently, the comparative method has been extended into the field of robotics. Here is certainly an opportunity to recruit students. One issue is the autonomous quantification of an individual robot's behavior and its interaction with groups of robots. Twu, Mostofi, and Egerstedt (2014) suggested a simple rating scale; however, comparative psychology provides an ideal framework to make such comparisons. The machine learning community is also in need of the perspective offered by comparative psychologists. A notable feat of machine learning technology is the success of IBM's Watson “deep learning” computer in defeating human players in the popular game show Jeopardy. Lieder, Goodman, and Griffiths (2013) noted that the Watson computer used approximately 10, 000 times the power of the human brain. A comparative analysis of the brains of honey bees and humans, for example, might contribute to the development of more efficient “deep learning” computers. Honey bees perform impressive feats of learning, navigation, and age-dependent changes in behavior with only a minuscule fraction of the number of neurons in the human brain. Schmidhuber (2015) comments on how far deep learning has come since its conception, but notes the need for future work in deep learning to include more efficient paradigms. These paradigms can come from a renewed interest in comparative psychology. It should also be mentioned that comparative work with assistance dogs and other social animals are helping to design assistance robots and increase socialization skills in robots (Miklósi & Gácsi, 2012; Gácsi, Szakadát, & Miklósi, 2013).
I believe what is needed is a comparative text written from a truly comparative perspective incorporating not only data from animals but also incorporating data from the human family. Such a text would be an exciting read, no doubt difficult to write, and match the expectations of most students who believe that comparative psychology is a cross-cultural psychology. Lester (1973), commenting on some previous comparative texts, wrote, “Though these books contain vast quantities of information on the behavior of different animals, they rarely take a genuinely comparative approach” (p. 3; emphasis in the original). This statement by Lester can readily be applied to contemporary comparative texts (Greenberg & Haraway, 2002; Papini, 2002/2008). If we are going to recruit undergraduates to comparative psychology, a publishing house must be found that will publish a new text written from a truly comparative perspective but also inspiring and exciting. From my perspective, such a book writes itself.
Students Must Understand That Comparative Psychology Develops Broad Skills, Including Problem Solving, Apparatus Design, and Knowing What to Compare and How to Compare
Students must be taught that comparative psychology meets the need of businesses looking for trained individuals with broad-based problem-solving abilities. Undergraduate students in comparative psychology learn about analogies, homologies, subject variables, environmental variables, observation skills, the use of systematic variation, etc. They are confronted with fascinating challenges in experimental design, apparatus construction, and data interpretation. An undergraduate student with a degree emphasizing comparative psychology will be in high demand in the business world. Consider, for example, what it takes to make comparisons between a bee and an ant. A host of environmental variables, subject variables, and experimental variables must be considered. The process is further complicated by the questioning of basic assumptions and the need to build an apparatus. As complicated as it is making a “simple” comparison of a bee and an ant, imagine the critical thinking required when comparing human social, political, and economic systems. Any company or graduate program would benefit from a person having an ability to properly make comparisons. Moreover, a student of comparative psychology would meet all of the goals and outcomes established by the American Psychological Association for quality education in psychology.
Encourage Students Interested in Comparative Psychology to Create Their Own Study Program
Many, if not most, universities allow undergraduates to design their own courses of study. I would encourage faculty members and academic advisors who have students interested in becoming comparative psychologists to allow such students to create their own majors. These “create your own major” schemes go by several names such as Interdisciplinary Major (Ithaca College), Bachelor's Degree with Individual Concentration (University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Interdisciplinary Major (Duke University), Integrated Studies (George Mason University), Independent Concentrations (Brown University), Self-designed Interdisciplinary Major (Wesleyan University, Georgia), Individual Studies Program (University of Maryland), Create Your Own Major (The Evergreen State College), and Individual Major (Keene State College). By doing just a cursory Internet search, I found over 150 colleges and universities where students can create their own majors.
Students interested in comparative psychology can be encouraged to create their own plan of study in collaboration with their faculty mentor and academic advisor. I would recommend, for example, that such a plan of study include psychology courses such as cross-cultural, developmental, comparative, history, learning, quantitative methods, and experimental design. In addition, they can take courses in introductory biology, evolution, behavioral genetics, animal behavior, and neuroscience. Students should also be urged to take courses with the word “comparative” in the title such as comparative religion, comparative anthropology, comparative politics, comparative literature, comparative anatomy and physiology, and comparative philosophy. A course in apparatus design and fundamental electronic/computer programing skills would also be important to round out their plan of study. Such a plan of study is, in my view, very exciting and attractive to students.
Development of Online Courses in Comparative Psychology
The number of online courses offered by psychology departments is increasing. While the usefulness and quality of such courses can be debated, there is little doubt that online courses should be part of the future of comparative psychology course offerings. A faculty member who may not be permitted to create a new course in comparative psychology may be allowed to develop an online course. Such a course can be made available to students from different institutions as a way of encouraging students to learn about comparative psychology and stimulate their interest in advanced training. The development of an online comparative psychology course may also be of interest to faculty members already teaching an in-class version. For example, I used to teach a summer session course in comparative psychology, but I am now prohibited from doing so because the university is encouraging summer classes to be online. If I now want to teach a summer session course, I must develop an online comparative psychology course. Many universities offer development fees for the creation of online courses and have the production facilities necessary to create the course.
Faculty Should Take Advantage of Every Opportunity to Highlight the Value of Comparative Psychology
Dr. Kit Nast of Bishop State Community College has received grants from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology (American Psychological Association) and the American Psychological Society Fund for Teaching and Public Understanding of Psychological Science to seek out faculty and graduate students to highlight possible careers in psychology. Comparative psychology is among the videos. 7 To further “get the word out,” I also present “comparative psychology” shows throughout the state of Oklahoma to encourage high school students to become comparative psychologists. Our laboratory also participates in the annual Women in Science program, funded by the National Science Foundation Program known as the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). Another suggestion to highlight the value of comparative psychology is for faculty to present at “psychology club” events (Satterfield & Abramson, 1998). I would also recommend those interested in finding graduate students to submit a grant to the National Science Foundation—Research Experience for Undergraduates Program with a comparative focus (Page, Abramson, & Jacobs-Lawson, 2004).
The Need to Develop Teaching Exercises for Comparative Psychology
There are few articles devoted to hands-on inquiry-based teaching activities for a course in comparative psychology. Comparative psychology presents an excellent opportunity to incorporate laboratory activities either within a lecture format or as part of a laboratory section. At our university, we do not have a separate laboratory section, so I incorporate hands-on inquiry-based activities within a lecture and/or assign them as a home activity. One of the most popular laboratories allows students to compare classical conditioning in planarians, honey bees, and humans. A popular activity that can be performed outside of the class is what we call “Project Petscope” (Abramson, Huss, Wallisch, & Payne, 1999). In Project Petscope, the local pet store becomes a comparative behavior research center. Another activity I have found useful is called “correspondence in the classroom” (Abramson & Hershey, 1999). In the version of this exercise that I use, students are encouraged to write letters, either individually or as a group, to comparative psychologists. An interesting, but more didactic exercise is to turn comparative psychologists into official United States Postage Stamps. The stamps can include QR codes that, when scanned, lead the user to websites (Abramson & Long, 2012).
Over the years, I have developed many classroom exercises using both invertebrates and vertebrates (Abramson, 1986, 1990; Abramson, Curb, Barber, & Sokolowski, 2011; Chicas-Mosier & Abramson, 2015). One of my rationales for the developing of hands-on activities for comparative psychology is to offer an alternative to the use of computer simulations such as Cyber Rat (AI2; Winter Park, Florida) and Sniffy the Rat (Graham, Alloway, & Krames, 1994). The use of such simulations at the undergraduate level does not allow students to experience the nuances associated with the comparative analysis of behavior and reduces the student to playing what amounts to a video game. I will go further and say that I personally find such computer programs insulting—it does not accurately reflect a situation that students will likely experience. In a study specifically designed to compare a live animal demonstration of classical conditioning with a computer simulation, students reported the live animal demonstration to be a more realistic and more valuable teaching experience (Abramson, Onstott, Edwards, & Bowe, 1996). For more advanced students, a mathematical model of the learning process that can be used for species comparison is of great interest in the classroom (Stepanov & Abramson, 2008).
I believe that the lack of meaningful student exercises contributes to the decline of comparative psychology as a viable psychological enterprise. Cyber Rat and Sniffy the Rat are not suitable for a comparative course not only because they are, in my view, ineffective, but also because they focus on emulating the behavior of a single species. What is needed to generate students' interest in comparative psychology are exercises that are truly comparative and experiential (Abramson, Hilker, Becker, Barber, & Miskovsky, 2011).
Our laboratory has tried to address this problem not only by developing specific exercises but also by adapting the Parallax Propeller microcontroller (Parallax, Inc., Rocklin, California) for comparative psychology. One of the biggest costs associated with comparative psychology is the expense of equipment to control experiments and to establish teaching laboratories. The controller is inexpensive, versatile, powerful, and readily adaptable to a wide range of laboratory and field situations. A comparative laboratory can literally be placed in the palm of your hand and carried from office to classroom in your pocket. We have developed a full range of teaching-related programs available for free that are designed for use in the standard operant and classical conditioning laboratories so familiar to the pre-“Sniffy the Rat” generation (Varnon & Abramson, 2013). The controller can easily be interfaced with a wide range of stimulus presentation and response recording devices to study the behavior of any organism including bees, fish, reptiles, and humans within the laboratory, home, or out in the field. For example, we have recently used the controller to investigate the representation of time in horses (Craig, Varnon, Pollock, & Abramson, 2015).
Discussion
Dr. Donald Dewsbury often writes about the history of comparative psychology and the issues that confront us. In a chapter devoted to the retrospect and prospect of comparative psychology (Dewsbury, 1990), he stated: “There are no intellectual reasons that progress in comparative psychology should not continue. Comparative psychologists have made effective use of available resources in advancing their science and have produced research results and principles demonstrating the utility of their approach” (p. 447). In the next paragraph, he went on to identify what he considered to be one of the major threats to comparative psychology: “Perhaps the major internal threat to the continued advancement of comparative psychology is growing fractionalization.” (pp. 447–448). While these threats continue to be faced by comparative psychologists in the 21st century, there is one threat that has not to my knowledge been recognized or addressed before now—where is the next generation of comparative psychologists going to come from?
We must develop a cadre of undergraduates that can fill our graduate programs. What graduate programs? Where are they? As I reported earlier, there are only a handful of graduate programs in comparative psychology, and some of these are not Ph.D. programs. While I am cognizant of the many difficulties associated with creating a comparative psychology graduate program, at Oklahoma State University we have addressed this problem by going to a track system with comparative-neurobiology as one of the tracks. While we actually have three comparative psychologists among our faculty, this is not enough to have a viable standalone comparative program. As a result, we have recruited “affiliated faculty” from all over the university (and outside) to serve as advisors and to offer courses. Our students are able to take courses from such departments as Integrative Biology, Sociology, Human Development, Animal Science, Veterinary Medicine, Engineering, and Philosophy. The track system in conjunction with the use of affiliated faculty may be a model suitable for many other universities.
I hope that the suggestions presented in this paper will serve as a starting point for the discussions on the problems facing comparative psychology in undergraduate student recruitment. If any faculty member needs assistance in implementing any of the ideas presented in this paper, I will be glad to help.