Characteristics Of Comparative Psychology

Science released an article entitled “Facial Expressions—Including Fear—May Not Be as Universal as We Thought”, written by Michael Pierce on October 17, 2016. In this article Pierce discusses how 50 years ago it was assumed that facial expressions were universal. However, it has been found that in the present day, this may not be the case. Expressions such as happiness, anger, sadness, fear, disgust, or hunger, were all assumed to be expressed the same way as well as interpreted the same way. A study was conducted in the Trobriand Islands, were Trobrianders were shown as series of photos with facial expressions. They were asked to describe the emotions they interpreted from the photos, the results were intriguing. Pierce (2016) describes how

Facial expressions -The human face is extremely expressive, able to express countless emotions without saying a word. And unlike some forms of nonverbal communication, facial expressions are

In conclusion, Dr. Sapolsky, breaks down what makes humans unique, he correlates animals` behavior with human behavior; in which, involuntarily makes humans and animals have the same behavior. As a result, humans have the ability to simultaneously embrace different behavior and styles within their own thought process. As Dr. Sapolsky explains, humans and animals have similar

Facial Expression: The facial expression such as happiness, sadness, anger and fear helps a lot in conveying a message. These facial expressions are similar all over the world but non- verbal communication and behaviour varies hugely between the cultures in the world.Since the look on a person’s face is noticed , before we hear ,facial expression contributes a lot in a successfully non-verbal communication .

Emotions are used in everyday life, whether it be just a simple smile that makes happiness disperse in your brain, or a death of a loved one that causes sadness. The basic emotions are joy, interest, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, fear, shame, and guilt. The way we see emotion in ourselves and others can be very complex because we sometimes assume they feel a certain way just based on their actions or even facial expressions. When emotion is discussed in psychological terms, it is not based on one thing, instead it’s a mix of bodily arousal, expressive behaviors, conscious experience. Many theories try to explain how emotion works.

Amanda is struggling with her relationship with her parents which is typical for adolescents. She wants to express herself through her clothing and her parents are trying to pressure her into dressing more feminine or more typical. They pick on her habits, such as burping, which are not seen as very lady-like. Amanda’s parents are also not very accepting of her sexuality. Whenever they seem to bring up the topic in conversation, both Amanda and her parents begin to argue. Her parents do not understand her, while her friends do. She feels unaccepted by her parents, which strengths her relationship with her peers and weakens the relationship with her parents.

Jeremy Rifkin provides many scientific experiments done on animals to support his claims of animals being similar to humans. I do not agree, animals may have characteristics and abilities to enhance some skills but they do not compare to the cognitive mentality of humans. Animals react based on instincts and energy. Although Rifkin uses the gorilla named Koko, Koko was an exception, she was involved in a controlled experiment. Humans react on cognitive thinking, if they were to react based on feelings or instincts one would be in a huge pickle.

The aim of the paper is to evaluate two different psychological approaches in regards of the view and perspective of different authors and scholars to understand its role in human life especially in handling social and abnormal psychology. In addition, it intent to explain anxiety and its relation to behaviours and psychodynamic approach individually in regards of their differences and similarities.

“One cannot look deeply into the eyes of an animal and not see the same depth, complexity and feeling we humans lay exclusive claim to.” – Nan Sea Love. The discussion of the persona of animals and humans is an ongoing topic. Today, scientists with diverse worldviews influence both the young and old minds of individuals with their theories and philosophies based on observations and statistics. Society, as a whole, struggles with the connotation of animals portraying human traits and vice versa.

Facial expressions are probably the most observed part of the human body when we communicate mentioned in the natural bridges book.

He also adds that dolphins were the second most intelligent species on Earth and that men misinterpreted their communications (132). In these quotes, the author satirizes humans’ belief in their own intellect. Humans have always compared themselves to other species according to the standards in which they excelled. However, the standards to measure the superiority of one species can vary. For example, humans believe that they are superior to cheetahs and elephants because their brains are more suited for abstract reasoning and introspection.

The last analysis is facial expression. In most cases it is easy to see what kind of emotion someone is feeling by the look on their face. Eyes are very good way to see how someone is feeling, because you can see happiness, sadness and anger in their eyes. Each of the basic emotions is clearly defined just by looking at someone. There are many different emotions that are expressed just by looking at someone. The basic emotions are obvious, but there are other emotions like guilt, pride, worry and excitement that are seen as well. It is amazing how easy it is sometimes to read peoples emotions. (2010

According to Maust-Mohl et al., “Most responses appeared disconnected from one another, and many participants were not able to extend their idea beyond how specific animals respond in specific conditions to more general types of animal thinking” (pg. 136). The essence of Maust-Mohl’s argument is that majority of people do not see wild animals past their instinctual behaviors, but they can see other cognitive abilities with domesticated animals. The issue with this is that the public tends to have a different attitude towards wild animals and animal use that are more negative or disconnected from the domesticated animals we live with. However, the idea that wild animals are similar to domesticated animals is different, but the point being made is that they both have the same cognitive ability. The domesticated house pets we interact with on a day to day basis have the same amount of cognitive ability as the same animal in the wild. Maust-Mohl complicates matters further when she writes, “The most common assumption by these participants was that pets show empathy for their owners’ emotional states as a consequence of domestication” (pg. 137). In other words, Maust-Mohl et al. believes that the participants see domesticated animals to have more cognitive ability separate from wild animals due to their consistent interaction with

Brandt, K. (2004) bases her work of growing body of literature that highlights the ability that different animals can achieve inter-subjectivity and communicate through shared meaning. The topic is approached through the reformulation of Mead’s internationalist approach that is based on the idea that humans move from biological organisms to minded individuals, and animals are impulsive beings due to their lack of verbal language. Brandt shows that even within the absence of verbal language species can still create shared meaning and shape the way they live together. Through the interaction and creation of a relationship on both ends of the parties enables the ability sense another’s subjective presence. Ones subjective presence enables the

His book, Beyond Words, was a breath of fresh air. In his quest to analyze and debunk the “speculations about animals’ mental experiences…” (Safina 12), Safina has shown us time and again many examples of nonhuman animals exhibiting emotions, behaviors and mental capabilities equal to humans. He has exposed the artificial and non-conclusive experiments of well know behaviorist, such as B. F. Skinner and Edward Thorndike, showing us the false results of the Law of Effect and Operant Conditioning; both claiming to prove the lack of intelligence in animals and the lack of theory of mind. Beyond Words was a platform to present his views on animal behaviors and personalities and how humans and non-human animals are closely related. Safina’s most important message is for all humans to take a closer look at our place in this world and see if all of life’s standards should be compared to us only or should we remove ourselves from on top of that pedestal and admit to the similarities in emotions and mental capabilities that we have with our animal friends. “…who animals simply are—like us or not.” (Safina 13)