Non-Human Animals

BP’s Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals:

The British Psychological Society (BPS) publishes guidelines for research with animals. Psychologists
are advised as follows:
1. Conform to current legislation.
2. Heed the 3Rs.
3. Choose species that are suited to the research purpose.
4. Be aware of animals’ previous experience.
5. Remember that responsibilities extend to the care of animals when not being studied,
including the provision of companions for social animals.
6. Pay special attention to any procedure that may cause pain and ensure that such procedures
are carefully evaluated, and alternatives considered.
7. Consider food intake (e.g. for conditioning experiments) so that normal food intake and
metabolic requirements are met.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) requires that research with non-human animals is only
permitted by licensed researchers on licensed projects. Licences are only granted by the Home Office
if:
• The knowledge to be gained from any investigation justifies harm or distress to animal
participants.
• The research cannot be done using non-animal methods.
• Any discomfort or suffering is kept to a minimum by appropriate use of anaesthetics or
painkillers.
The Act relates only to vertebrate animals and only to those more than halfway through their
gestation period. One invertebrate species (the octopus) was added in 1993. Primates, cats, dogs and
horses have additional protection.
The 3R’s: Replace, Reduce, and Refine
In 2000, the Home Office issued guidance on the principle of the 3Rs, first proposed by William
Russell and Rex Birch in 1959. Researchers should seek, wherever possible, to replace animal
research with suitable alternatives (e.g. brain scanning), to reduce the number of animals used, and
refine procedures so that they cause less suffering.
A national group, The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction Animals
(NC3Rs), has been set up to encourage, research and support the use of the 3Rs through research
and education.
Comparative Psychology:
Comparative psychology is the study of non-human animals, often with the intention of making
comparisons with humans. One example is the work of Harry Harlow (1959), who placed infant
rhesus monkeys in a cage with two wire mothers (see left) – one with a feeding bottle and one
wrapped in soft cloth. The monkeys chose to spend most time with the cloth-covered mother,
demonstrating the importance of contact comfort rather than feeding.
So where’s the harm? The monkeys developed into emotionally maladjusted adults despite their
contact comfort – they couldn’t socialise with other monkeys and rejected their own infants.
However, the research had a very important influence on understanding of infant emotional
development – the recognition that feeding alone was not the basis of the bond between caregiver
and infant.
It should be acknowledged that some comparative research may be applied to benefit animals’ lives.
For example Harlow’s research can be used to help improve the lives of monkeys in captivity or for
breeding programmes for species in danger of extinction.
Ethological Psychology:
Ethologists seek to study animals in a way that does not affect their behaviour, observing the animals
in their natural environment with relatively little interference. For example, Konrad Lorenz (1935)
arranged for some gosling eggs to hatch so he was the first moving thing they saw. These goslings
then followed Lorenz everywhere as if he was their mother. This research, like Harlow’s had an
important influence on understanding emotional development.
Dian Fossey (1983) observed gorillas in their natural habitat in order to reach a greater
understanding of their social relationships. Her work was made famous through the film = Gorillas in
the Mist.
Use as a Therapeutic Device:
The presence of pets has been shown to reduce stress. For example, Karen Allen (2003) reported
that the presence of pets reduced blood pressure in children reading aloud, buffered the elderly
against life event stresses and reduced cardiovascular risk.
A different kind of therapeutic approach aims to enable disturbed or socially isolated individuals to
learn how to trust and form relationships with other people (i.e. to form attachments). Animal
assisted therapy (AAT) may involve the use of dogs, cats, horses, dolphins or even fish and hamsters
as ‘behavioural facilitators’.
The bond between client and animal is developed through physical interactions such as grooming or
feeding the animal. Later verbal interactions are encouraged, such as commanding a dog to sit. This
is the beginning of a social bond between client and animal. The ultimate aim is to be able to transfer
social skills learned with animals to relationships with humans. In addition, the therapist can use the
animal-client relationship as a means of exploring sensitive issues and discussing painful experiences.
Evaluation:
Some studies have provided very encouraging evidence for the use of AAT. For example Erika
Friedmann and Heesook Son (2009) reviewed 28 studies using AAT and found that all the studies
reported beneficial effects for emotional problems including schizophrenia, developmental
disabilities and Down syndrome.
However other researchers have criticised such studies. Michael Anestis et al. (2014) reviewed 14
studies of equine therapy and identified a number of serious methodological issues – the sample
sizes were very small, there were no control groups and individuals were not randomly allocated to
treatment groups. Any benefits may be simply due to having special attention from a therapist rather
than any animal interaction per se. (To be fair, the same criticism has been levelled towards therapies
in general – that it is the therapist–client relationship that is key rather than any particular kind of
intervention.)
Speciesism:
Peter Singer (1975) argued that discrimination on the basis of membership of a species is no different
from racial or gender discrimination and thus suggested that the use of animals is an example of
‘speciesism’, similar to racism or sexism.
On the other hand, Jeffrey Gray (1991) suggested that we have a special duty of care to humans, and
therefore speciesism is not equivalent to, for example, racism.
Animal rights:
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Gray is Tom Regan (1984), who believes that there are no
circumstances under which animal research is acceptable. Singer’s view is a utilitarian one, i.e.
whatever produces the greater good for the greater number of individuals is ethically acceptable.
This means that, if animal research can alleviate pain and suffering, it is justifiable. Regan’s position is
an absolutist one. He claims that animals have a right to be treated with respect and should never be
used in research.
The ‘animal rights’ argument can be challenged by examining the concept of rights – having rights is
dependent on having responsibilities in society, i.e. as citizens. It can therefore be said that as
animals do not have any responsibilities, they do not have any rights.
Scientific Status
Benefits of being a Science to Society and the Economy:
The use of a scientific approach in psychology is important because people might claim, for example,
that men are more aggressive than women or that a certain drug cures depression – but people
quite rightly demand evidence to support such claims. For this reason, in the 19th century, early
psychologists sought to create a science of psychology in order to produce verifiable knowledge as
distinct from common-sense or ‘armchair psychology’.
Using evidence-based data makes the research more useful to society both ethically and
economically – ethically because it would be wrong, for example, to give people a drug for
depression without having some certainty that it is effective. Economically such research is useful
because we can apply it in ways that save money. For example, psychoactive drugs may save around
£22.5 billion a year In England alone.
Changing Nature of ‘Science’:
Science may seem to be something that is static but actually it has been changing over thousands of
years, going back to early Greek thinkers. The Greeks proposed the idea that science should be
evidence based (empirical). Since that time there have been many different developments in the
process of science, improving its objectivity and validity.
The subject matter of psychology:
In psychology there have been two recent changes. One concerns the types of behaviour being
studied i.e. its subject matter. For example the positive approach in psychology has sought to change
the focus of psychological research. The primary focus of this approach is on the positive aspects of
human nature – the good qualities that people have and how these qualities can be nurtured. Many
researchers believe that, as a discipline, psychology has been dominated by a focus on pathology –
understanding mental illness – and that a ‘shift’ is needed in order to understand how people may
flourish as individuals. Most importantly all of this can be the focus of scientific research.
The methodology of psychology:
The second recent change in psychology has been in the methods that are used. Psychologists sought
to quantify behaviour and have used quantitative methods which permit statistical analysis. This is
sometimes classed as a nomothetic approach which aims to formulate general laws of behaviour
based on the study of groups of people. It attempts to summarise the differences between people
through generalisations.
In contrast the idiographic approach focuses on individuals and emphasises uniqueness, favouring
qualitative methods in research. Such an approach was common in early psychology (for example
Freud’s case studies) but fell out of favour with the rise of behaviourism at the start of the 19th
century. Psychologists today have established much more rigorous qualitative techniques which are
scientific i.e. they can be objective and systematic.
For example, when analysing details from a case study thematic analysis may be used which works
like observational research – the researcher considers all the data collected and identifies
behavioural categories (e.g. things that make a person angry or the types of friendships they form).
Then examples of each category can be collected, or instances can be counted, and conclusions
drawn from the data.
Triangulation:
A further method of systematic analysis that is used is called triangulation. This is the process of
looking at a number of different research findings (quantitative and qualitative) to see to what extent
they all point in a similar direction.
For example, the effects of shift work on sleep disruption might be explored by interviewing a night
worker (self-report), making detailed observations using equipment in a sleep laboratory
(observation) and also using experiments to determine the effects of sleep deprivation. If these all
generate similar results with regards to sleep disturbance, the validity of the conclusions high.
Costs of Being a Science:
Determinist:
The scientific approach is determinist as its aim is to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships.
Such understandings enable us to control our world but may also misrepresent it because the idea of
simple determinism may be mistaken, even in physics. Chaos theory proposes that very small
changes in initial conditions can result in major changes – called the butterfly effect. This means that
systems don’t obey simple cause-and-effect principles, especially in psychology. Trying to produce
cause-and-effect answers in psychology is therefore misleading and doesn’t represent what actually
happens.
Reductionist:
The scientific approach is reductionist because it seeks to identify single variables that can be
manipulated, which means breaking complex behaviours into individual elements. This approach
may limit psychological insights. For example the psychiatrist R.D. Laing (1965) argued that
reductionist explanations of schizophrenia (e.g. as a physical–chemical system gone wrong) missed
important elements of the disorder, such as the distress experienced by a patient.
Such psychologists prefer a more holist approach. This approach focuses on systems as a whole
rather than on the constituent parts, and suggests that we cannot predict how the whole system will
behave just from a knowledge of the individual components. This means that reductionist
explanations would only play a limited role in understanding behaviour. Gestalt psychology is an
example of a holist approach in psychology.
Focus on the general rather than the individual:
In addition, Laing claimed that the aim of the scientific approach is to make generalisations about
behaviour (the nomothetic approach) whereas he felt that treatment could only succeed if each
patient was treated as an individual case. This suggests that the scientific approach may not be
suitable for at least some of the concerns of psychologists.
Perhaps the way to decide whether science is appropriate for psychology is to look at the results of
research. For example, scientific approaches to treating mental illness (such as the use of
psychoactive drugs) have had at best modest success.
Methodologies Used by the Various Approaches:
• Biological approach – brain scans (such as fMRI), experimental research. Genetic research
uses twin and family studies.
• Psychodynamic approach – case study approach, including semi-structured interviews.
• Behaviourist approach – As behaviourists believe that there are only quantitative differences
between humans and animals (e.g. brain size), they advocate studying animal learning and
applying it to humans. Behaviourists also endorse the use of lab experiments.
• Cognitive approach – experiments often in a lab setting, make inferences about what is going
on in someone’s mind. Case studies of abnormal individuals are also used.
• Positive approach – meta-analysis, questionnaires.
Sexism
Gender Differences or Gender Bias:
Psychologists have identified differences between men and women, but these may be due to
biases in the research process. Rachel Hare-Mustin and Jeanne Maracek (1988) applied their idea of
alpha bias and beta bias to gender as well as to culture (as discussed on page 161). In the case of
both biases the outcome is that women are portrayed as inferior.
Alpha bias:
Alpha-biased theories assume there are real and enduring differences; in the case of gender bias
these are real differences between men and women.
Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychosexual development is an example of an alpha-biased theory
because he viewed femininity as failed masculinity, an inescapable difference. In his discussion of
female development, Freud claimed that ‘we must not allow ourselves to … regard the two sexes as
completely equal in position and worth’ (Freud, 1925). As Ruthellen Josselson (1988) points out:
‘Classical psychoanalytic theory is grounded in the genital inferiority of women and deduces their
moral inferiority as well’. The ‘deficiency’ of women was, according to Freud, caused by the absence
of a penis. Women are jealous of men’s penises (penis envy) and they are morally inferior (because
the superego, which governs moral behaviour, develops from the Oedipus complex and women don’t
experience this).
Beta Bias:
Beta-biased theories tend to ignore or minimise differences, in this case between men and
women. Such theories tend either to ignore questions about the lives of women, or assume that
insights derived from studies of men will apply equally well to women. There is an androcentric bias
in psychology, i.e. theories and studies tend to be written by or conducted by men. Therefore beta-
biased theories/studies tend to favour the male perspective.
Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1968) theory of moral reasoning (discussed as an example of research
in developmental psychology in the Year 1 course) considered how people think about moral
decisions. This theory had an androcentric bias for two reasons – the dilemmas used to assess moral
reasoning were based on a male perspective (justice orientation) and the stage theory was based on
research with males. Nevertheless the theory was then applied to both men and women assuming
that it had universal relevance. Unsurprisingly Kohlberg found females did not reason at the higher
level that males did. The beta bias in the theory produced evidence of a difference which may not be
real, and the end result is that the female perspective is devalued – the importance of care in moral
judgements (a female perspective) is devalued. Carol Gilligan (1982) argued that women use the
principle of care rather than justice in their moral judgements. Kohlberg’s research devalues the
female perspective.
Gender Differences:
There are physical differences between men and women – men are bigger and have a faster
metabolic rate and are more muscular. It is argued that such physical differences evolved because
men were hunters, and this physique was adaptive. It has also been argued that psychological
differences between men and women evolved because women raised children and therefore it was
adaptive for women to be more focused on interpersonal needs. However this male–female divide is
an illusion. There is a considerable overlap both physically and psychologically – some women are
taller and more muscular than some men; some men are more caring than some women.
Furthermore even the notion of male versus female may be wrong. Approximately 1 in 2,000 people
are born with some kind of intersex condition – their external genitals do not match their
chromosomal sex (XY for male and XX for females). Some people have abnormal sex chromosomes,
for example 1 in 1,000 people are XXY. A number of countries (e.g. India,
Germany) now recognise that the world is not simply divided into males and females, and allow
individuals to state their gender as male, female or other.
Heterosexism:
Heterosexism is the assumption that the ‘natural’ kind of sexual/romantic relationship is between
males and females, as opposed to homosexuality (love between people of the same sex).
For many years mainstream social psychological research tended to concentrate on romantic love
relationships among heterosexuals. This was challenged by Julia Wood and Steve Duck
(1995) in their book entitled Understudied Relationships, where they argued that psychological
research actually only focused on a small sample of human relationships, ignoring long-distance
relationships, online relationships, lesbian and gay relationships and so on.
Alpha or beta bias?
Research on homosexual relationships is an example of socially sensitive research – by distinguishing
hetero- and homosexual relationships as different (and requiring different research) this may
perpetuate stereotypes (an alpha bias). By disregarding the differences, one group may be devalued
(a beta bias).
Nature or nurture?
There is a further socially sensitive issue related to gender research. If, for example, a region of the
brain was identified as being unique to gay men then it might help people to be more accepting of
gay-ness (because gay individuals are simply made like that). On the other hand, it might be seen
negatively because then individuals may feel their behaviour is inevitable rather than a matter of
choice.
Historical and Social Context:
A number of the views described point clearly to gender as a social construct. Psychological research
has identified the processes that create this. For example, a classic study by Caroline Smith and
Barbara Lloyd (1978) observed mothers playing with an infant who was either presented as a boy (in
terms of name and clothing), or as a girl. The study showed that mothers selected gender-
appropriate toys (e.g. a doll for girls or squeaky hammer for boys) and also responded more actively
when a ‘boy’ showed increased motor activity. This shows that parents differentially reinforce gender
stereotypes from a very early age. Young children are also exposed to gender stereotypes in the
media – a case of vicarious reinforcement.
More recent research indicates that such gender stereotypes are still with us. For example, Emily
Mondschein et al. (2000) asked mothers to predict how successful their babies would be at a
crawling task. There were no actual gender differences in crawling, yet mothers had lower
expectations for girls.
In another study Corinne Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) sent job applications out to academics. If the
application was from ‘Jennifer’ it was perceived as less competent than when labelled ‘John’. This
shows that stereotypes continue to bias the ways we treat men and women.
Biological research:
We might not be surprised at finding sexism in social behaviour and research, but it is rather
surprising to find it in biological research – but it is there as well. Traditionally males have been used
in research, even biological research where it was argued that female hormonal variations would
have an effect on behaviour and therefore it was best to use, for example, male rather than female
rats. Consider the fight-or-flight response – the view that people respond to high anxiety situations
by producing an aggressive response (fight) or fleeing. Shelley Taylor et al. (2000) have produced
evidence that this is not a typical response in females who react to stress with a tend-and-befriend
response. So, for a long time we presumed fight-or-flight was a universal response, but this turns out
to be an example of a beta bias.
Feminist psychology:
Feminist psychologists argue that there may be real biologically based sex differences but socially
determined stereotypes make a far greater contribution to perceived differences than biological
ones.
Feminist psychology takes the view that a prerequisite to any social change with respect to gender
roles must be a revision of our ‘facts’ about gender. Whether such facts are true or not, they
perpetuate our beliefs about women. Feminist psychology is a branch of psychology that aims to
redress the imbalances in psychology.
The ‘Invisibility’ of Women in Psychology:
People are often mildly surprised when they realise a particular researcher is a woman. The
academic practice of using last names only means we are often not aware of the researcher’s gender.
In fact authors are more likely to be male – the American Psychological Association published a list of
the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century; the list named only six women.
This gender imbalance is strange because most undergraduate psychology students are female.
Fionnula Murphy et al. (2014) argue that part of the problem lies with women’s own implicit
stereotypes about gender; women also endorse male superiority. Murphy et al. recommend that we
must all become more aware of our biases.