A human model for primate personality

Abstract

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. Animal models of human behaviour and vice versaThe question of whether studies of human behaviour can contribute to the understanding of behavioural evolution is an old one, and the debate that it has engendered is ongoing. In this paper, I will show that using a 'human model' of personality, developed within differential psychology, to study the evolutionary origins of individual differences in behaviour, affect and cognition (i.e. personality) in non-human primates (from now on, primates) has been a successful enterprise. Moreover, in a move that I hope does not distress the editors, I will sidestep answering directly the question posed by this special issue. Instead, I will describe why the human model is useful for studying primate personality and how it came to be that way.Before discussing human models, I will present an overview of animal models. Animal models have been an important and powerful tool for learning about the evolutionary origins of humans behaviour [1]. One would think then that critics of this model would be limited to the likes of creationists [2]. Unfortunately, displeasure and discomfort with the notion that we can learn about our behaviour and its evolution by studying animals has not been limited to people outside the purview of evolutionary biology. For example, because he viewed them as excusing human vices, such as sexism, Stephen J. Gould wrote essays for scientific and lay audiences that criticized adaptationist explanations for human behaviour that were based on studies of animals [3].To some, the use of human models to understand animal behaviour is also controversial. Using humans as models to understand the evolutionary bases of behaviour has a history that dates back at least as far as the use of animal models. The use of human models is rooted in the notion that evolution is gradual, and so related species will tend to be similar [4]. Prominent examples of the use of human models in the history of comparative psychology include Wolfgang Kö hler's investigations into the intelligence of chimpanzees [5], and work by Robert Yerkes [6] and his colleagues, Donald Hebb [7] and Meredith Crawford [8], on chimpanzee personality. These and similar pursuits continue into the present day, and have been enjoined by others (see articles in this special issue).The view that human behaviour can inform us about animal behaviour has been criticized by biologists and psychologists. One criticism is that the use of human m...

TheEGA+GNMframework: An integrative approach to modelling behavioural syndromes

“…We presented a theoretical introduction to exploratory graph analysis (Golino & Epskamp, ) and generalized network modelling (Epskamp et al., ), and we argued that an integration of these approaches—the EGA+GNM framework—will enhance descriptive modelling and causal inference in behavioural syndrome research. As demonstrated in our exploratory empirical example, GGM and GNM techniques can provide additional nuance and causal insight beyond the factor analytic approaches prominent in personality research (Araya‐Ajoy & Dingemanse, ; Dingemanse et al., ; Martin & Suarez, ; Weiss, ). The EGA+GNM framework facilitates a theoretically motivated model generation procedure integrating exploratory and confirmatory approaches to model comparison and selection.…”

Humans as model organisms

“…Moreover, these are cases in which the challenges of anthropocentrism and exceptionalism are less compelling. In this connection, Weiss's contribution is an interesting intermediate case [47]. Weiss argues that a standard social psychology model of human personality types, characterized along five dimensions of difference, is both a good model of human individual difference, and extends quite well to intraspecific differences among nonhuman primates.…”

Humans as a model for understanding biological fundamentals

“…B 284: 20172146 departments, presumably because of these species' phylogenetic closeness to humans. Perhaps not surprisingly, our subjective experience is that scientists who study nonhuman primates may be among the most likely to explicitly compare their results to human outcomes, or to use human models to guide their research (see, for example, Weiss' contribution to this issue; [4]). In addition to this physical separation, researchers studying human behaviour often attend different meetings and read different journals than those working on behaviour in non-human species.…”

“…Together, these have helped to identify and understand biological fundamentals. As a matter of fact, Weiss [4] argues that the reason that studies of personality in nonhuman species have come so far is because the human model was both simple and rigorously tested before it was applied to other species, leading to a relatively well-described model with good explanatory power.…”

“…Furthermore, and arguably even more excitingly, researchers have gone beyond the adoption of analytical tools: originally developed by psychologists, the human model of personality has now successfully been applied to non-human species, and extensive work indicates that it is a good model of the behaviour of other species than our own [4]. Similarly, research initially aimed at understanding traits often believed to be uniquely human, including some aspects of cooperation [27], menopause and a prolonged post-reproductive lifespan [26], and culture [28], has now revealed similar characteristics in other species.…”