Three Blind Mice, See How They Run: A Critique of Behavioral Research With Animals
1985
- 6,070Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage6,070
- Downloads5,807
- 5,807
- Abstract Views263
Book Chapter Description
Animal research has been a traditionally accepted and respected part of modern psychology from its earliest days. The prevalent view of animals in contemporary psychology has origins far more basic than the scientific method. Its roots are deeply imbedded in Judaeo-Christian culture, a tradition which postulates a wide gulf between humankind and the animal world. The Darwinian revolution and the ethological outlook it fostered, while of immense biological significance, has for the most part been neglected by modern American comparative psychologists in favor of a positivistic-behaviorist orientation with a heavy reliance upon laboratory experimentation.In recent years, opposition to animal research (some of it rational, some not) has experienced a profound resurgence. Psychologists have received a disproportionate share of the criticism considering the relatively small numbers of animals sacrificed in psychology laboratories. In this paper, I propose to review this development, critically examine the response of orthodox psychology to it, and offer suggestions for improvement.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know