| Abstract: | An important element of behavioral research with nonhuman animals is that insights are drawn from it about human behavior, what is called here the human side of animal behavior. This article examines the origins of comparing human behavior to that of other animals, the ways in which such comparisons are described, and considerations that arise in evaluating the validity of those comparisons. The rationale for such an approach originated in the reductionism of experimental physiology and the understanding of the commonalities of all life forms promulgated by Darwinian evolutionary biology. Added more recently were such observations as the relative simplicity of animal behavior, tempered by the constraints placed on resulting comparisons by the absence of verbal behavior in animals. The construction of comparisons of human behavior to that of animals may be framed on the basis of Skinner's (1957) distinction between the metaphorical and generic forms of the extended tact. Both ordinary and systematic comparisons of animal and human behavior are congruent with Skinner's extended tact framework. The most general consideration in evaluating comparisons of animal and human behavior is that a functional basis for the claimed similarity be established. Systematic analysis and convergent evidence also may contribute to acceptability of these comparisons. In the final analysis, however, conclusions about the human side of animal behavior are nondeductively derived and often are assessed based on their heuristic and pragmatic value. Such conclusions represent a valuable contribution to understanding the human animal and in developing practical solutions to problems of human behavior to which much of psychology is dedicated. |
