Sign inSubmit
ArticleArticle metrics
Editorial · Open access · Published 6 September 2017

Importance of Comparative Psychology in Pet Industry Litigation

Charles I. Abramson1 & Timothy E. Black1

Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp. 118–123 · doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2017.118.123

8,265 accesses4,587 downloads2 citations (Crossref)Journal metrics
Cite Check for updates

Editorial

Comparative psychology is the branch of psychology that studies animal behavior. This article describes the value of comparative psychology for pet industry litigation.  An overview is provided on the unique strengths and skills of a comparative psychologist and how comparative psychology differs from other scientific disciplines interested in the behavior of animals. In addition, examples are provided on how comparative psychology can be applied to litigation in the pet industry. Information is also provided on the training of comparative psychologists and where comparative psychologists can be found.

Licence and reuse

Open access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence (CC BY 3.0), as printed on the article, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original authors and the source. No permission is needed.

How to reuse this article

Responses (0)

Have a comment on this research? Sign in to respond. Responses are moderated and published with your name and affiliation; the authors are invited to reply. How we use your dataWrite a response

About this article

Cite this article

Abramson, C. I. & Black, T. E. (2017). Importance of Comparative Psychology in Pet Industry Litigation. Journal of Social Sciences, 13(3), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2017.118.123

Licence
CC BY 3.0
Issue
Volume 13, Issue 3
Policies
Editorial independenceUse of generative AIData availabilityAppeals and complaints
Version
Version of record
Importance of Comparative Psychology in Pet Industry LitigationJournal of Social Sciences · Volume 13, Issue 3 · pp. 118–123 · CC BY 3.0Download