By the 1920s, comparative psychology would
have hardly been recognizable to the naturalists who had filled its ranks a generation
prior. In fewer than thirty years, it had transitioned from an area dominated
by field observations, case studies, and at-home experiments to one consisting
of lab work, repeated trials, and specialized instrumentation. Where notions
like “reason,” “play,” and even “criminality” in animals had once been freely discussed,
they were now looked upon with the greatest skepticism. In fact, there was a
sense in which the object of study itself had changed. Whereas earlier texts
bore names like Mind in Animals and The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, later
authors frequently opted for titles like Studies in
Animal Behavior or simply Behavior.
The reasons for this change are not especially well-understood. However, I argue
that much of the shift can be explained as a reaction to contemporary anxieties concerning the close relationship between psychology and psychical research (i.e., the
investigation of telepathy and other supernormal phenomena). Focusing on the experimental programme
advanced by figures like Edward Thorndike and J.B. Watson
between 1898 and 1920, I show how developments in psychical research and the concerns
these raised about the proper objects and methods of psychology were used to push for greater conservatism in the study of animals.
I consider how this approach was promoted by leading opponents of psychical
research and incorporated into the training of later psychologists, cementing its
position for generations to come.
