Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Sep 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
214x Filetype PDF File size 0.17 MB Source: gosling.psy.utexas.edu
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICALSCIENCE
Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman methods, and notations; and varied
in their scope and reliability. Our
Animals: ACross-Species Review first task was to select the most
1 trustworthy reports; starting with
Samuel D. Gosling and Oliver P. John more than 100 potentially relevant
Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, studies, we selected those that had
Berkeley, California sample sizes larger than 20 animals
and a reasonably broad coverage of
2
personality traits.
Abstract newsworthy, except that Susie is a To integrate the many pieces of
The evolutionary continuity bear. Scientists have been reluctant information provided by the di-
between humans and other to ascribe personality traits, emo- verse research reports, we used the
animals suggests that some tions, and cognitions to animals, most widely accepted and com-
dimensions of personality may even though they readily accept plete map of personality structure:
be common across a wide that the anatomy and physiology of the human Five-Factor Model
range of species. Unfortunate- humans is similar to that of ani- (FFM; John, 1990). The FFM is a hi-
ly, there is no unified body of mals. Yet there is nothing in evolu- erarchical model with five broad
research on animal personal- tionary theory to suggest that only factors (Table 1), which represent
ity; studies are dispersed physical traits are subject to selec- personality at the broadest level of
across multiple disciplines and tion pressures, and Darwin abstraction. Each bipolar factor
diverse journals. To review 19 (1872/1998) argued that emotions (e.g., Extraversion vs. Introversion)
studies of personality factors exist in both human and nonhu- summarizes several more specific
in 12 nonhuman species, we man animals. Thus, personality facets (e.g., sociability), which, in
used the human Five-Factor traits like Extraversion and turn, subsume a large number of
Model plus Dominance and Agreeableness may not be as even more specific traits (e.g., talk-
Activity as a preliminary uniquely human as once was ative, outgoing). Unfortunately, no
framework. Extraversion, Neu- thought (Buss, 1988). Early at- short labels capture the broad FFM
roticism, and Agreeableness tempts to assess animal personali- dimensions adequately, so the tra-
showed the strongest cross- ty, including the pioneering studies ditional labels are easily misunder-
species generality, followed by by Stevenson-Hinde, were con- stood; thus, we use the letters N
Openness; a separate Con- ducted in the 1970s, and the 1990s (for Neuroticism, Nervousness,
scientiousness dimension ap- have seen a resurgence of research Negative affectivity), A (for Agree-
peared only in chimpanzees, activity. Our goal in this article is to ableness, Altruism, Affection), E
humans’ closest relatives. take stock of what is known about (for Extraversion, Energy, Enthu-
Cross-species evidence was animal personality, focusing on in- siasm), O (for Openness, Origin-
modest for a separate Dom- dividual differences within species. ality, Open-mindedness), and C
inance dimension but scant for We ask, What are the major dimen- (for Conscientiousness, Control,
Activity. The comparative sions of animal personality? Constraint).
approach taken here offers a Are there additional dimensions
fresh perspective on human that might be of special importance
personality and should MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE for describing the personality of
facilitate hypothesis-driven OF ANIMALPERSONALITY nonhuman animals? In adult
research on the social and human personality, Activity and
biological bases of personality. DominancearepartoftheEdimen-
Faced with the challenge of inte- sion. In children, however, Activity
Keywords grating the fragmented literature may form a separate dimension
personality; traits; cross- on animal personality, we felt like (John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, &
species; Big Five; temperament early cartographers faced with the Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994), and
challenge of constructing a map of temperament models (Buss &
the globe. Our task—much like that Plomin, 1984) also consider it sepa-
In a recent article in the Los of the cartographers—was to piece rate. Moreover, many socially liv-
Angeles Times, Robert Fagen, a together the isolated reports about ing animal species show individual
professor of biometry, described the landscape of personality. These differences related to status in the
Susie as irascible, irritable, grumpy, reports came in different lan- dominance hierarchy: Individuals
and manipulative. This is hardly guages; used a variety of scales, with high status can control others
Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society 69
70 VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3, JUNE 1999
Table 1. The dimensions of the Five-Factor Model (FFM)
FFM dimension label Examples of facets
N Neuroticism vs. Emotional Stability Anxiety, depression, vulnerability to stress, moodiness
A Agreeableness vs. Antagonism Trust, tendermindedness, cooperation, lack of aggression
E Extraversion vs. Introversion Sociability, assertiveness, activity, positive emotions
O Open vs. Closed to Experience Ideas/intellect, imagination, creativity, curiosity
C Conscientiousness vs. Impulsiveness Deliberation, self-discipline, dutifulness, order
Note. See John (1990) and Costa and McCrae (1992) for details.
and get their way. To explore despite the differences in factor la- 7 of the 12 species. The two major
whether Activity and Dominance bels, these animal factors capture components defining this dimen-
form separate dimensions in ani- core elements of N, such as sion were curiosity-exploration
mals, we added them to the five Fearfulness, Emotional Reactivity, (interest in new situations and
FFM dimensions in our prelimi- Excitability, and low Nerve novel objects) and playfulness
nary framework (see Table 2). Stability. Factors related to A ap- (which is associated with E when
Our review includes 19 factor peared in 14 studies, with social, rather than imaginative, as-
analytic studies and represents 12 Affability, Affection, and Affinity pects of play are assessed).
different species. We reviewed the capturing the high pole of A, and Although these factors are similar
items defining each personality fac- Aggression, Hostility, and Fighting to the O dimension known from
tor in each study and compared 4
capturing the low pole. humans,somecorefacetsareobvi-
them with the definitions of the The evidence indicates that ously missing; openness to ideas
seven potential dimensions in chimpanzees, various other pri- and interest in arts are difficult to
Table 2. If there was a match in item mates, nonprimate mammals, and observe in animals that lack ad-
content, we classified the animal even guppies and octopuses all vanced means of symbolic expres-
factor into one of the seven dimen- show individual differences that sion, such as language and music.
sions and included its label (or a can be organized along dimensions The O factor in these animal stud-
short definition) in the appropriate akin to E, N, and (with the excep- ies resembles the early forms of O
column of Table 2.3 tion of guppies and octopuses) A. observed in human toddlers; lack-
These remarkable commonalities ing advanced language skills, their
Extraversion, Neuroticism, and across such a wide range of taxa curiosity is manifested in an in-
Agreeableness: Cross-Species suggest that general biological tense interest in novel objects and
Dimensions? mechanisms are likely responsible. events, and their imagination is
The way these personality dimen- shown in perspective taking and
Three human FFM dimen- sions are manifested, however, de- role shifts characteristic of pretend
sions—E, N, and A—showed con- pends on the species. For example, play.
siderable generality across species. whereas the human scoring low on The evidence for an O-related
Of the 19 studies, 17 identified a Extraversion stays at home on factor was not consistent across
factor related to E. The factor labels Saturdaynight,ortriestoblendinto multiple studies of the same
in the E column in Table 2 range acorneratalargeparty,theoctopus species, pointing to methodologi-
from Surgency in chimpanzees to scoring low on Boldness stays in its cal differences, most likely in the
Sociability in pigs, dogs, and rhe- protective den during feedings and traits included in the studies. For
sus monkeys; Energy in cats and attempts to hide itself by changing example, the two chimpanzee
dogs; Vivacity in donkeys; and a color or releasing ink into the water. studies that did not find an O fac-
dimension contrasting Bold tor did not include items clearly
Approach versus Avoidance in oc- Openness: Another Potential relevant to O. Given that forms of
topuses. The particular labels may Cross-Species Personality curiosity have been observed in a
differ, but they all reflect core fea- Dimension? wide range of species, a thorough
tures of the broad E dimension (see and focused search should pro-
Table 1). Factors related to N ap- Factors related to the O dimen- vide more consistent evidence for
peared almost as frequently; again, sion in the FFM were identified in O.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICALSCIENCE 71
Conscientiousness: Only in dimension. Perhaps these differ- argue against this concern. First,
Humans and Chimpanzees? ences arise because humans partic- for a wide range of species, includ-
ipate in multiple dominance hier- ing chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys,
Although cats and dogs showed archies that are less clearly defined and hyenas, studies show that in-
a factor that combined C and O, and involve widely divergent dependent observers agree about
chimpanzees were the only species skills: The class bullies may domi- the relative ordering of individuals
with a separate C factor. The chim- nate in the school yard, but the on a trait. Second, many of the
panzee factor was defined more conscientious students will get the studies reviewed here used behav-
narrowly than in humans but in- grades to advance academically, ioral tests in specific situations or
cluded lack of attention and goal and the open-minded artists will carefully recorded ethological ob-
directedness, as well as erratic, un- win prizes for their creations. servations. Both types of data
predictable, and disorganized be- Future research needs to examine yielded similar factors. For exam-
havior—characteristics typical of more closely the links between ple, when piglet behavior was test-
the low pole of C. Why did we not dominance rank and personality ed in specific situations, the E fac-
find separate C factors in any other traits. Personality may vary even tor was defined by number of
species? The failure to include rele- among animals of the same rank, vocalizations, number of nose con-
vant items cannot explain this find- and rather than being viewed as a tacts, and location in the pen; when
ing: In our own studies of dogs and personality trait, dominance rank chimpanzee behavior was ob-
cats, we included items that define maybebetterconceivedasasocial served in naturally occurring set-
C in humans, but they did not form outcome determined by both per- tings, the E factor was defined by
a separate factor. Considering the sonality and physical traits (Buss, behavior patterns such as “pull
“superego” aspects of the C factor 1988). limb” (playful social contact),
(following norms and rules, think- Finally, our review uncovered “grasp and poke” (boisterous but
ing before acting, and other com- scant evidence for the idea that relaxed contact), and “gymnastics”
plex cognitive functions involved Activity should be retained as a (exuberant locomotory play, such
in the control of impulses), it may separate dimension of animal per- as swinging, dangling, turning
not be surprising that we found a sonality, with only 2 of the 19 stud- somersaults). It is remarkable that
separate C factor only in humans ies showing support. Of the 3 such similar factors were discov-
and in humans’ closest relatives, chimpanzee studies, only the study ered using such diverse methods.
chimpanzees. These findings sug- of infants identified a separate In fact, studies using multiple
gest C may have appeared relative- Activity factor. This age difference methods have demonstrated the
ly recently in the evolution of in chimpanzees parallels findings validity of trait ratings (Capitanio,
Homininae, the subfamily com- in humans suggesting that Activity 1999). Third, our finding that the
prising humans, chimpanzees, and may not become integrated with factor structures showed meaning-
gorillas. the E dimension until late adoles- ful differences across species ar-
cence (John et al., 1994). gues against the operation of gen-
Dominance and Activity: Two eral rating biases in observers. For
Additional Dimensions? example, in our own work, we
THE SPECTER OF found the familiar FFM dimensions
Dominance emerged as a clear ANTHROPOMORPHISM for humans but only four factors
separate factor in 7 of the 19 stud- for dogs, even when we collected
ies. Although interpreted as personality ratings using the same
Confidence in rhesus monkeys Anumber of the studies summa- instrument for both species; the
and Assertiveness in hyenas, the rized in Table 2 relied on human items defining a clear C factor in
factor was essentially the same, observers rating animals on trait humans failed to form a separate
correlating substantially with adjectives defined in brief behav- factor in dogs (Gosling & John,
dominance rank.5 Across studies, ioral terms (e.g., playful was de- 1998). These differences show that
the Dominance factor was typical- fined as “initiates play and joins in personality structure depends on
ly defined by assertiveness or when play is solicited”). Although the individual rated, rather than on
boldness (high E), physical aggres- some researchers argue that ob- the particular items in the rating
sion (low A), and low fearfulness server ratings are the best way to instrument.
(low N). Thus, dominance had assess personality, others are skep- Sex differences are another do-
more diverse personality implica- tical and worry that these ratings main where cross-species differ-
tions in animals than in humans, might be anthropomorphic projec- ences in the meaning and implica-
for whomitis related only to the E tions. Three kinds of evidence tions of personality factors can be
Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society
72
Table 2. Review of animal personality factors: Factor labels organized in terms of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) plus two potential additional dimensions
Trait dimensions in the human FFM Additional dimensions
Species Neuroticism Agreeableness Extraversion Openness Conscientiousness Dominance Activity Study
Chimpanzee Emotional Agreeableness Surgency Openness Dependability Dominance King and Figueredo
Stability (1997)
Audiovisual Affect- Task Behavior Activity Bard and Gardner (1996)
Reactivity Extraversion
Excitability- Aggression; Social Play Submission Hooff (1973)
Agitation Affinitya
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3, JUNE 1999
Published by Blackwell Publishers, Inc.GorillaFearfulnessUnderstandingExtroversion Dominance Gold and Maple (1994)
Rhesus Tense-Fearful Aggressive Solitary Curious- Bolig, Price, O Neill,
monkey Playful and Suomi (1992)
Excitability Sociability Confidence Stevenson-Hinde and
Zunz (1978); Stevenson-
Hinde, Stillwell-Barnes,
and Zunz (1980)
Fear Hostility Affiliation Chamove, Eysenck, and
Harlow (1972)
Vervet Opportunistic Playful-Curiousb Social McGuire, Raleigh, and
monkey Self-Serving Competence Pollack (1994)
Hyena Excitability Sociability; Curiosity Assertiveness Gosling (1998)
Human-Related
Agreeablenessa
Dog Emotional Affection Energy Competencec Gosling and John (1998)
Reactivity
Stability vs. Sociability Learning and Dominance- Coren (1998)
Excitability Obedience Abilityc Territoriality
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
