The human side of animal behavior.
Check function and payoff before you let animal studies guide human therapy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Imam (2001) wrote a think-piece. The paper tells us when we can borrow animal data to help humans. It gives two tests: the behavior must work the same way and the payoff must be clear.
Instead of guessing, we check function first. If a rat presses for food and a boy points for praise, we ask: do both acts serve the same purpose?
What they found
The article finds no hard numbers. It offers a rule: use Skinner's extended-tact criteria. That means look for shared function and real-world use before you claim animal work maps onto people.
In short, similarity is not enough. You also need proof the animal model helps your client.
How this fits with other research
English et al. (1995) give a live example. Rats first earned food on a variable-ratio schedule, then moved to a fixed-interval schedule. The rats ran faster, but they never showed the long pauses seen in humans. This seems to clash with Imam (2001), yet it supports the warning: rat FI data do not copy human FI data, so be careful.
Borrero et al. (2005) show the upside. They paired operant discrimination drills with fMRI in adults. Frontal-striatal circuits lit up only when stimuli signaled money. The study meets the target paper's call for converging evidence across levels.
Richardson (1973) and Ribes-Iñesta (1999) add cross-species wins. Pigeons followed Bower's one-element learning rule and showed shifting preference when food cues changed. Both papers pass the functional test, so they pass Imam (2001)'s gate.
Why it matters
Next time you cite a rat or pigeon study, run the two-question check. Ask: does the animal behavior serve the same function for my client? Ask: will using the data make treatment better, cheaper, or faster? If both answers are yes, proceed. If not, keep looking for human data or run your own single-case test.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one animal study you usually cite and list the functional similarity and client benefit in plain words.
02At a glance
03Original 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.
The Behavior analyst, 2001 · doi:10.1007/BF03392026