From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods

Personality trait structures across three species of Macaca, using survey ratings of responses to conspecifics and humans

Comparative studies reliant on single personality surveys to rate wild primates are scarce yet remain critical for developing a holistic comparative understanding of personality. Differences in survey design, item exclusion, and factor selection impede cross-study comparisons. To address these challenges, we used consistently collected data to assess personality trait structures in wild rhesus (Macaca mulatta), bonnet (M. radiata), and long-tailed (M. fascicularis) macaques that varied in their degree of phylogenetic closeness, species-typical social styles, and anthropogenic exposure in urban or urban-rural environments. We administered 51-item personality surveys to familiar raters, and, after reliability and structure screenings, isolated 4-5 factor solutions among the species. Four consistent factors emerged: Confident, Sociable, Active, and Irritable/Equable. This latter factor had differential expression across species. Item composition of the Irritable/Equable factor was consistent with their anticipated differences in social styles, but confounded by cross-site anthropogenic variation. We also administered a 43-item survey confined to human-primate situations which paralleled our findings of social style variation, while also exhibiting variation that aligned with population differences in human density. Our findings indicate that macaque personality trait structures may be emergent outcomes of evolutionary and/or socioecological processes, but further research is needed to parse these processes' relative contributions.

Towards an Integrated Concept of Personality in Human and Nonhuman Animals

Every individual has an idiosyncratic way of feeling, thinking and behaving, which is relatively stable across time and situations. Usually known as Personality, today this phenomenon is recognized in many species, including arthropods, fish, avian or mammals. From an evolutionary perspective, research has shown that personality differences are manifest in distinctive forms of dealing with selective pressures, with consequences for fitness. Despite these facts, the study of personality in animals other than humans is relatively new. Only two decades ago, consistent behavioral individual differences were considered 'noise' around an optimal strategy for behavioral ecologists. Also, psychologists were not interested in animal personality as a consequence of the fear of anthropomorphization and the erroneous belief that humans are unique in nature. Fortunately, this misconception seems already overcome but there are still conceptual issues preventing a unified concept of personality. Throughout this review, we first explore the etymological origins of personality and other terminological issues. We further revise the historical course of the study of personality in humans and other animals, from the perspectives of Psychology and Behavioral Ecology, on the basis of the most used approach, the trait theory. We present the study of nonhuman primates as a paradigmatic example in between both frameworks. Finally, we discuss about the necessity of a unified science of personality.

Fish personality: meta-theoretical issues, personality dimensions, and applications to neuroscience and psychopathology

While the field of personality neuroscience has extensively focused on humans and, in a few cases, primates and rodents, a wide range of research on fish personality has emerged in the last decades. This research is focused mainly on the ecological and evolutionary causes of individual differences and also aimed less extensively at proximal mechanisms (e.g., neurochemistry or genetics). We argue that, if consistent and intentional work is made to solve some of the meta-theoretical issues of personality research both on fish and mammals, fish personality research can lead to important advances in personality neuroscience as a whole. The five dimensions of personality in fish (shyness-boldness, exploration-avoidance, activity, aggressiveness, and sociability) need to be translated into models that explicitly recognize the impacts of personality in psychopathology, synergizing research on fish as model organisms in experimental psychopathology, personality neuroscience, and ecological-ethological approaches to the evolutionary underpinnings of personality to produce a powerful framework to understand individual differences.

The social evolution of individual differences: Future directions for a comparative science of personality in social behavior

Personality is essential for understanding the evolution of cooperation and conflict in behavior. However, personality science remains disconnected from the field of social evolution, limiting our ability to explain how personality and plasticity shape phenotypic adaptation in social behavior. Researchers also lack an integrative framework for comparing personality in the contextualized and multifaceted behaviors central to social interactions among humans and other animals. Here we address these challenges by developing a social evolutionary approach to personality, synthesizing theory, methods, and organizing questions in the study of individuality and sociality in behavior. We critically review current measurement practices and introduce social reaction norm models for comparative research on the evolution of personality in social environments. These models demonstrate that social plasticity affects the heritable variance of personality, and that individual differences in social plasticity can further modify the rate and direction of adaptive social evolution. Future empirical studies of frequency- and density-dependent social selection on personality are crucial for further developing this framework and testing adaptive theory of social niche specialization.

Rating scales institutionalise a network of logical errors and conceptual problems in research practices: A rigorous analysis showing ways to tackle psychology's crises

This article explores in-depth the metatheoretical and methodological foundations on which rating scales-by their very conception, design and application-are built and traces their historical origins. It brings together independent lines of critique from different scholars and disciplines to map out the problem landscape, which centres on the failed distinction between psychology's study phenomena (e.g., experiences, everyday constructs) and the means of their exploration (e.g., terms, data, scientific constructs)-psychologists' cardinal error. Rigorous analyses reveal a dense network of 12 complexes of problematic concepts, misconceived assumptions and fallacies that support each other, making it difficult to be identified and recognised by those (unwittingly) relying on them (e.g., various forms of reductionism, logical errors of operationalism, constructification, naïve use of language, quantificationism, statisticism, result-based data generation, misconceived nomotheticism). Through the popularity of rating scales for efficient quantitative data generation, uncritically interpreted as psychological measurement, these problems have become institutionalised in a wide range of research practices and perpetuate psychology's crises (e.g., replication, confidence, validation, generalizability). The article provides an in-depth understanding that is needed to get to the root of these problems, which preclude not just measurement but also the scientific exploration of psychology's study phenomena and thus its development as a science. From each of the 12 problem complexes; specific theoretical concepts, methodologies and methods are derived as well as key directions of development. The analyses-based on three central axioms for transdisciplinary research on individuals, (1) complexity, (2) complementarity and (3) anthropogenicity-highlight that psychologists must (further) develop an explicit metatheory and unambiguous terminology as well as concepts and theories that conceive individuals as living beings, open self-organising systems with complementary phenomena and dynamic interrelations across their multi-layered systemic contexts-thus, theories not simply of elemental properties and structures but of processes, relations, dynamicity, subjectivity, emergence, catalysis and transformation. Philosophical and theoretical foundations of approaches suited for exploring these phenomena must be developed together with methods of data generation and methods of data analysis that are appropriately adapted to the peculiarities of psychologists' study phenomena (e.g., intra-individual variation, momentariness, contextuality). Psychology can profit greatly from its unique position at the intersection of many other disciplines and can learn from their advancements to develop research practices that are suited to tackle its crises holistically.

Potential applications of personality assessments to the management of non-human primates: a review of 10 years of study

Studies of primate personality have become increasingly common over the past three decades. Recently, studies have begun to focus on the health, welfare and conservation implications of personality, and the potential applications of incorporating quantitative personality assessments into animal management programmes. However, this literature is dispersed across a multitude of settings and scientific disciplines. We conducted a review of nonhuman primate personality studies relevant to these issues published since 2010, following on from an earlier review. The databases ScienceDirect, PubMed and Web of Science were used to identify relevant articles. After eliminating irrelevant or duplicate papers, 69 studies were selected. Our review reveals that, while primate personality research is carried out on a range of species, there is strong taxonomic bias. While 28 species appeared within the reviewed literature, 52% of studies were carried out on just five species. Further, the most common research focus (43%) was validating new assessment methods or describing personality in different species, rather than exploring the links between personality and animal welfare using existing validated methods. However, among the remaining studies that did explore the role of animal personality in husbandry, health, and welfare, we identified progression towards integrating personality data into various aspects of animal management. Evidence suggests the assessment of personality may benefit social group management, enrichment practices, training protocols, health and welfare monitoring, and conservation planning for endangered species. We argue that further research which develops our understanding of primate personality and its influence in these areas will provide a valuable tool to inform animal management practices.

Convergent and Discriminant Validities of SCBE-30 Questionnaire Using Correlated Trait-Correlated Method Minus One

Correlated trait–correlated method minus one was used to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity of Social Competence Behavior Evaluation questionnaire (Social Competence, Anger-Aggression, Anxiety-Withdrawal) between multiple raters. A total of 369 children (173 boys and 196 girls; M_age = 55.85, SD_age = 11.54) were rated by their mothers, fathers, and teachers. Results showed more convergence between parents than parent-teacher ratings. Mother-teacher share a common view of child behavior that is not shared with father. Parents had more difficulty distinguishing internalizing and externalizing behaviors (especially fathers). Measurement invariance across child sex was explored, results imply that differences between boys and girls were not due to measure. Girls (compare to boys) were described as more social competent by their fathers and teachers, while boys as more aggressive by mothers and teachers.

Psychology's Status as a Science: Peculiarities and Intrinsic Challenges. Moving Beyond its Current Deadlock Towards Conceptual Integration

Psychology holds an exceptional position among the sciences. Yet even after 140 years as an independent discipline, psychology is still struggling with its most basic foundations. Its key phenomena, mind and behaviour, are poorly defined (and their definition instead often delegated to neuroscience or philosophy) while specific terms and constructs proliferate. A unified theoretical framework has not been developed and its categorisation as a 'soft science' ascribes to psychology a lower level of scientificity. The article traces these problems to the peculiarities of psychology's study phenomena, their interrelations with and centrality to everyday knowledge and language (which may explain the proliferation and unclarity of terms and concepts), as well as to their complex relations with other study phenomena. It shows that adequate explorations of such diverse kinds of phenomena and their interrelations with the most elusive of all-immediate experience-inherently require a plurality of epistemologies, paradigms, theories, methodologies and methods that complement those developed for the natural sciences. Their systematic integration within just one discipline, made necessary by these phenomena's joint emergence in the single individual as the basic unit of analysis, makes psychology in fact the hardest science of all. But Galtonian nomothetic methodology has turned much of today's psychology into a science of populations rather than individuals, showing that blind adherence to natural-science principles has not advanced but impeded the development of psychology as a science. Finally, the article introduces paradigmatic frameworks that can provide solid foundations for conceptual integration and new developments.

Taxonomic models of individual differences: a guide to transdisciplinary approaches

Models and constructs of individual differences are numerous and diverse. But detecting commonalities, differences and interrelations is hindered by the common abstract terms (e.g. 'personality', 'temperament', 'traits') that do not reveal the particular phenomena denoted. This article applies a transdisciplinary paradigm for research on individuals that builds on complexity theory and epistemological complementarity. Its philosophical, metatheoretical and methodological frameworks provide concepts to differentiate various kinds of phenomena (e.g. physiology, behaviour, psyche, language). They are used to scrutinize the field's basic concepts and to elaborate methodological foundations for taxonomizing individual variations in humans and other species. This guide to developing comprehensive and representative models explores the decisions taxonomists must make about which individual variations to include, which to retain and how to model them. Selection and reduction approaches from various disciplines are classified by their underlying rationales, pinpointing possibilities and limitations. Analyses highlight that individuals' complexity cannot be captured by one universal model. Instead, multiple models phenotypically taxonomizing different kinds of variability in different kinds of phenomena are needed to explore their causal and functional interrelations and ontogenetic development that are then modelled in integrative and explanatory taxonomies. This research agenda requires the expertise of many disciplines and is inherently transdisciplinary.This article is part of the theme issue 'Diverse perspectives on diversity: multi-disciplinary approaches to taxonomies of individual differences'.

Culture, morality and individual differences: comparability and incomparability across species

Major routes to identifying individual differences (in diverse species) include studies of behaviour patterns as represented in language and neurophysiology. But results from these approaches appear not to converge on some major dimensions. Identifying dimensions of human variation least applicable to non-human species may help to partition human-specific individual differences of recent evolutionary origin from those shared across species. Human culture includes learned, enforced social-norm systems that are symbolically reinforced and referenced in displays signalling adherence. At a key juncture in human evolution bullying aggression and deception-based cheating apparently became censured in the language of a moral community, enabling mutual observation coordinated in gossip, associated with external sanctions. That still-conserved cultural paradigm moralistically regulates selfish advantage-taking, with shared semantics and explicit rules. Ethics and moral codes remain critical and universal components of human culture and have a stronger imprint in language than most aspects of the currently popular Big-Five taxonomy, a model that sets out five major lines of individual-differences variation in human personality. In other species (e.g. chimpanzees), human observers might see apparent individual differences in morality-relevant traits, but not because the animals have human-analogue sanctioning systems. Removing the moral dimension of personality and other human-specific manifestations (e.g. religion) may aid in identifying those other bases of individual differences more ubiquitous across species.This article is part of the theme issue 'Diverse perspectives on diversity: multi-disciplinary approaches to taxonomies of individual differences'.

Quantitative Data From Rating Scales: An Epistemological and Methodological Enquiry

Rating scales are popular methods for generating quantitative data directly by persons rather than automated technologies. But scholars increasingly challenge their foundations. This article contributes epistemological and methodological analyses of the processes involved in person-generated quantification. They are crucial for measurement because data analyses can reveal information about study phenomena only if relevant properties were encoded systematically in the data. The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) is applied to explore psychological and social-science concepts of measurement and quantification, including representational measurement theory, psychometric theories and their precursors in psychophysics. These are compared to theories from metrology specifying object-dependence of measurement processes and subject-independence of outcomes as key criteria, which allow tracing data to the instances measured and the ways they were quantified. Separate histories notwithstanding, the article's basic premise is that general principles of scientific measurement and quantification should apply to all sciences. It elaborates principles by which these metrological criteria can be implemented also in psychology and social sciences, while considering their research objects' peculiarities. Application of these principles is illustrated by quantifications of individual-specific behaviors ('personality'). The demands rating methods impose on data-generating persons are deconstructed and compared with the demands involved in other quantitative methods (e.g., ethological observations). These analyses highlight problematic requirements for raters. Rating methods sufficiently specify neither the empirical study phenomena nor the symbolic systems used as data nor rules of assignment between them. Instead, pronounced individual differences in raters' interpretation and use of items and scales indicate considerable subjectivity in data generation. Together with recoding scale categories into numbers, this introduces a twofold break in the traceability of rating data, compromising interpretability of findings. These insights question common reliability and validity concepts for ratings and provide novel explanations for replicability problems. Specifically, rating methods standardize only data formats but not the actual data generation. Measurement requires data generation processes to be adapted to the study phenomena's properties and the measurement-executing persons' abilities and interpretations, rather than to numerical outcome formats facilitating statistical analyses. Researchers must finally investigate how people actually generate ratings to specify the representational systems underlying rating data.

A human model for primate personality

In this article, I review the literature to determine how successful the latent trait theory model of personality from differential psychology has been for studying personality in non-human primates. The evidence for the success of this model is quite good, and offers insights and directions for personality research in primates and other animals. This, I conclude, stems from (i) the human trait model's simplicity, and (ii) the fact that the human differential model of personality developed in the face of harsh criticism, which led researchers to test and refine their models.

Interpreting "Personality" Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

As science seeks to make generalisations, a science of individual peculiarities encounters intricate challenges. This article explores these challenges by applying the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) and by exploring taxonomic "personality" research as an example. Analyses of researchers' interpretations of the taxonomic "personality" models, constructs and data that have been generated in the field reveal widespread erroneous assumptions about the abilities of previous methodologies to appropriately represent individual-specificity in the targeted phenomena. These assumptions, rooted in everyday thinking, fail to consider that individual-specificity and others' minds cannot be directly perceived, that abstract descriptions cannot serve as causal explanations, that between-individual structures cannot be isomorphic to within-individual structures, and that knowledge of compositional structures cannot explain the process structures of their functioning and development. These erroneous assumptions and serious methodological deficiencies in widely used standardised questionnaires have effectively prevented psychologists from establishing taxonomies that can comprehensively model individual-specificity in most of the kinds of phenomena explored as "personality", especially in experiencing and behaviour and in individuals' functioning and development. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is not universal models but rather different kinds of taxonomic models that are required for each of the different kinds of phenomena, variations and structures that are commonly conceived of as "personality". Consequently, to comprehensively explore individual-specificity, researchers have to apply a portfolio of complementary methodologies and develop different kinds of taxonomies, most of which have yet to be developed. Closing, the article derives some meta-desiderata for future research on individuals' "personality".

Developing "Personality" Taxonomies: Metatheoretical and Methodological Rationales Underlying Selection Approaches, Methods of Data Generation and Reduction Principles

Taxonomic "personality" models are widely used in research and applied fields. This article applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to scrutinise the three methodological steps that are required for developing comprehensive "personality" taxonomies: 1) the approaches used to select the phenomena and events to be studied, 2) the methods used to generate data about the selected phenomena and events and 3) the reduction principles used to extract the "most important" individual-specific variations for constructing "personality" taxonomies. Analyses of some currently popular taxonomies reveal frequent mismatches between the researchers' explicit and implicit metatheories about "personality" and the abilities of previous methodologies to capture the particular kinds of phenomena toward which they are targeted. Serious deficiencies that preclude scientific quantifications are identified in standardised questionnaires, psychology's established standard method of investigation. These mismatches and deficiencies derive from the lack of an explicit formulation and critical reflection on the philosophical and metatheoretical assumptions being made by scientists and from the established practice of radically matching the methodological tools to researchers' preconceived ideas and to pre-existing statistical theories rather than to the particular phenomena and individuals under study. These findings raise serious doubts about the ability of previous taxonomies to appropriately and comprehensively reflect the phenomena towards which they are targeted and the structures of individual-specificity occurring in them. The article elaborates and illustrates with empirical examples methodological principles that allow researchers to appropriately meet the metatheoretical requirements and that are suitable for comprehensively exploring individuals' "personality".

Consistent inter-individual differences in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) in Boldness-Shyness, Stress-Activity, and Exploration-Avoidance

The study of animal personality, defined as consistent inter-individual differences in correlated behavioral traits stable throughout time and/or contexts, has recently become one of the fastest growing areas in animal biology, with study species ranging from insects to non-human primates. The latter have, however, only occasionally been tested with standardized experiments. Instead their personality has usually been assessed using questionnaires. Therefore, this study aimed to test 21 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) living in three family groups, in five different experiments, and their corresponding controls. We found that behavioral differences between our animals were not only consistent over time, but also across different contexts. Moreover, the consistent behaviors formed a construct of four major non-social personality components: Boldness-Shyness in Foraging, Boldness-Shyness in Predation, Stress-Activity, and Exploration-Avoidance. We found no sex or age differences in these components, but our results did reveal differences in Exploration-Avoidance between the three family groups. As social environment can have a large influence on behavior of individuals, our results may suggest group-level similarity in personality (i.e., "group personality") in common marmosets, a species living in highly cohesive social groups. Am. J. Primatol. 78:961-973, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Conceiving "personality": Psychologist's challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

Scientists exploring individuals, as such scientists are individuals themselves and thus not independent from their objects of research, encounter profound challenges; in particular, high risks for anthropo-, ethno- and ego-centric biases and various fallacies in reasoning. The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) aims to tackle these challenges by exploring and making explicit the philosophical presuppositions that are being made and the metatheories and methodologies that are used in the field. This article introduces basic fundamentals of the TPS-Paradigm including the epistemological principle of complementarity and metatheoretical concepts for exploring individuals as living organisms. Centrally, the TPS-Paradigm considers three metatheoretical properties (spatial location in relation to individuals' bodies, temporal extension, and physicality versus "non-physicality") that can be conceived in different forms for various kinds of phenomena explored in individuals (morphology, physiology, behaviour, the psyche, semiotic representations, artificially modified outer appearances and contexts). These properties, as they determine the phenomena's accessibility in everyday life and research, are used to elaborate philosophy-of-science foundations and to derive general methodological implications for the elementary problem of phenomenon-methodology matching and for scientific quantification of the various kinds of phenomena studied. On the basis of these foundations, the article explores the metatheories and methodologies that are used or needed to empirically study each given kind of phenomenon in individuals in general. Building on these general implications, the article derives special implications for exploring individuals' "personality", which the TPS-Paradigm conceives of as individual-specificity in all of the various kinds of phenomena studied in individuals.