The Science of Behavior: Human and Animal Similarities

The topic of this similarities between humans and animals essay is to evaluate research studies that have used animals to understand human behaviour. This will be done by making an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of this topic. About 29 million animals in Western countries are being used in experiments, with 80% being mice and rats. Animals pose less ethical concerns, are easier to conduct in a research lab and have better ability to have their behaviour studied over a lifespan. In this essay, the behavioral experiments of Harlow et al. and Pavlov will be evaluated.

The experimental method in psychology uses the manipulation of one variable in order to discover if changes in one variable leads to changes in another. First, a hypothesis is created. Then, a study is designed and data is collected. And finally, the data from the experiment is analyzed and conclusions are formed. The usage of controlled methods and random placement aid in testing the hypothesis and reaching a conclusion. The usage of animals in behavioral experimentation poses both strengths and limitations. When studying human behaviour through animal testing, the similarities between the two species, especially cognitively, is a great advantage. Studying animals also aids in the domain of ethical considerations, since it is considered to be more ethically acceptable to conduct certain experiments on animals rather than humans. However, the similarities between humans and animals create limitations as well. For example, a more advanced intelligence, such as language, in humans compared to other species and different reactions and decisions based off of emotion and reason. While the experimentation on animals is considered more ethically acceptable than testing on humans, many find it reprehensible since animals have no say in consent. Many argue as well that the results reached from animal testing are not worth the cruelty afflicted on the helpless species.

The aim of Harlow et al’s experiment was to test the claims if surrogate mothers could replace biological mothers and if this bond was based on physiological need only. Harlow separated 8 rhesus monkeys from their mothers at birth. They were each placed individually in reared caged which contained two “surrogate mothers”. These mothers consisted of wire mesh and were created to be the same size as real monkey mothers. One of the “mothers” were covered in terry-toweling cloth, and the other had nothing. A nursing bottle was attached to one of the surrogates in the place where a breast would be on a real mother. Half of the rhesus monkeys had the nursing bottle on the wire surrogate and the other half on the terry-toweling cloth surrogate. After three weeks of observation, the monkeys were spending around 15 hours a day in contact with the cloth surrogate. No monkey spent more than about 1-2 hours a day with the wire surrogate. To test the preference for the cloth surrogate, Harlow decided to create a stressful situation for the monkeys, which included placing frightening objects in the cages. After doing this, Harlow found that the majority of infant monkeys sought first contact with the cloth surrogate, regardless of whether or not it had the bottle. He concluded that the softness of the cloth, or “contact comfort” was more important than the infant’s feeding bottle. This experiment proves that the bond between an infant and its mother is not entirely dependent on physiological satisfaction, such as warmth and food, but also emotional satisfaction, such as feelings of love. A strength of this study is that humans and monkeys are similar.

On a biological level, all mammals including the rhesus monkeys, have the same brain size as humans with a different number of connections. A limitation, however, is that animal testing is considered unethical. Since the monkeys never gave consent, it is impossible to say that they are being ethically considered.

The aim of Pavlov’s experiment was to test the theory of classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is a learning process which happens when two stimuli are repeatedly paired. Pavlov tested using a dog’s hearing, smelling, and watching. The first test included playing a metronome as food was given to his test dogs. He did as many times as it took for the dogs to begin to salivate. He repeated this experiment multiple times and included a vanilla scent and also had the dogs watch a rotating ball. The result of Pavlov’s dog was that the dog was a customer to salivate during every experiment. The first experiment tested if sound was a conditioned stimulus, the second tested smell, and the third tested sight. Through this experiment, Pavlov discovered classical conditioning. This meant that the neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus created a conditioned stimulus which led to a conditioned response (the salivation) independently. A strength of this experiment is that it proves that it was proven scientifically and not theologically. At the time of the experiment, 1890, many experiments were based off of theology and religion rather than science. A limitation, however, is that the subjects were dogs and cannot be fully applied to humans, who lack the same thinking capabilities as humans.

In conclusion, these studies have both contributed equally to the advancement of behavioral psychology. However, they both possess their unique strengths and limitations. Harlow et al. and Pavlov, both studies in which the results revolve around the cognitive activity in animals cannot be fully applied to humans since both species do not share the same cognitive ability.