COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH

Appeared in the fifties, which was defined as: any study of the behavior of animals,
ie as a psychology of all organisms except man.Similarities and Differences
between Comparative Psychology and EthologyFrom the appearance of
Comparative Psychology, a series of conflicts between the two branches was
generated, since there was no consensus on the tasks of each one. Comparative
psychologists had focused mainly on the study of behavior, learning and mental life
of animals. Its purpose was to compare certain aspects of behavior between
species of different animals, while Ethology is the branch of biology and
Experimental Psychology that studies the behavior of animals in their natural
environments.

Finally, Hods and Campbell (1969-1977) could draw individual characteristics

between Ethology and Comparative Psychology. Comparative Psychology
performs an anagenetic analysis of behavior, which takes as its starting point the
study of behavioral similarities between species, moving away from the genetic
point of view. Ethologists, for their part, interpret the data in the context of
evolution, since they come from biology and zoology.Today, Comparative
Psychology and Ethology are practically the same and both belong to
Psychobiology.

Methods of study in Ethology and Comparative Psychology

The study of behavior can be performed by various procedures, the most important
being: systematic observation and experimentation. The basic difference between
observation and experimentation is the provocation of the behavioral phenomena
to be studied.

The scientific observer records the behavior without manipulating the conditions in
which it occurs, because what it wants is to obtain information about the
spontaneous behavior of the subjects under study in the least artificial conditions
possible, in this way the observational research is said to have An external validity,
because the results can be generalized to the natural behavior of the subjects
under study.

The experimenter, on the other hand, manipulates certain variables in order to

know if, when changing any of them, also change certain behaviors of the
individuals of the study. In this way you will obtain results with internal validity,
because manipulating the necessary variables in a convenient way will reduce the
hypothesis about which factors affect the behavior.

When a systematic observation is made, we can be sure that the data we obtain
are the result of natural behavior, but we do not know if the factors we have
registered as possible conditioners of the behavior (environmental variables,
altresespcies channels, etc.) are the Principal or sole determinants. Thus our
study will have a good external validity and instead will have a low internal validity.

When experimenting we have the possibility to control the factors that influence the
behavior and thus we can be more sure that we know its conditions, but because
we subject the study subjects to an artificial situation, we do not know what the
behavior would be like if it were not manipulated by the scientist. In this way we get
good internal validity but a low external validity.

At the moment there are very few professionals of the psychology that can
dedicate themselves to these fields of study, since in many occasions special
subsidies are needed to be able to pay for the investigation in animals and very
few the estates and private companies are that they can or want to do Of the costs
entailed. Surely, in this case as in many others, supply far exceeds demand.

COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY 197

For example, Ardila (1977, p. 198), reflecting on the perspectives Of the science of
animal behavior, writes: "would be That the psychologists of tropical America would
be interested in The psychological processes of the animals that live near them
and Who are completely uneducated. That could be a contribution Original from
Latin America to science ".As regards Spain (see Cruells, 1981; De Haro, 1985;
Ortega, 1982; Pavn, 1972; Pelez, 1986; Perinat, 1980; Perinat and Lemkow,
1983; Sabater Pi, 1983, 1985a, 1985b) is having a Progressive application of
ethology to the field of science Social, mainly. Now, perhaps because of its climate
and location Their contributions can not be so original. Such as those in Latin
America. Rather, the objective of the Investigation of ethology in Spain is framed, in
fact it is already In this way, within the global frame of reference of the

Rich European tradition. The fact of worrying about the study of behavioral biology

(Or of action) (Hassenstein 1979, Reynols, 1977) leads us to better understand

why the human being ac. As it actually does and not otherwise. For several years,
several authors popularized various Topics about animal behavior. There may be
mentioned, among Others, Ardrey's book (1966) The Territorial Imberatiue, that of
Lorenz (1971) On Aggression, Morris's (1973) The Naked Monkey, etc. In a
general way it is a question of doing, not always with enoug More or less justified
extrapolations, but Always very popular, from animal behavior to human being; This
occupational habit of ethologists to make vague remarks But optimistic about the
importance of their findings In the human context, falls within the common
phenomenon that I call it And ethologism "(Callan, 1973, pp. 63-64). This concept,
that of "ethologism", it is necessary to make clear Which is used as "label to
designate current fashion, shared By some with its educated / popular audience, to
invoke The discoveries of ethology as a necessary and sufficient explanation Of
great fragments of social life.