Temperament and problem solving in the small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii).

Abstract

Bushbabies (Otolemur garnettii) were tested in an empty open field, with novel objects, and with a caged live snake. Each was also tested in the home cage on a latch-box problem. Principal-components analysis of novelty test scores revealed 4 factors (activity, curiosity, boldness, escape). Factor scores were collapsed into an index of behavioral inhibition and analyzed for group effects. Left-handed (LH) subjects were less inhibited than right-handed subjects. Underlying factor scores showed laterality effects only in activity: a main effect with LH subjects more active, an interaction with young, LH subjects higher on activity than other groups. The 17 subjects that solved the latch-box problem had higher scores on curiosity than the 18 that attempted but did not solve the problem.Temperament may be viewed as a synthesis, of behavioral qualities that are "relatively consistent, basic dispositions inherent in the (individual) that underlie and modulate the expression of activity, reactivity, emotionality, and sociability" (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 524). One aspect of temperament, response to novelty, has been studied extensively in children (see Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1989, for review) and rhesus monkeys (see Higley & Suomi, 1989, for review). Kagan and his colleagues (e.g., Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987, 1988) have used the terms "behaviorally inhibited" and "behaviorally uninhibited" to describe the responses of children to novel situations. Behaviorally inhibited children are more likely than behaviorally uninhibited children to withdraw from and be subdued in the presence of novelty.Suomi and his colleagues (e.g., Higley & Suomi, 1989;Suomi, 1987) have used the term "reactivity" to describe a similar concept in rhesus monkeys. Like behavioral inhibition (Kagan et al., 1987(Kagan et al., , 1988, reactivity "reflects an affective and behavioral predisposition to respond to novel or challenging stimuli" (Higley & Suomi, 1989, p. 154). Suomi (1987 reported that high-and low-reactive rhesus infants differ in both behavioral and physiological reaction to environmental novelty. Among other behavioral distinctions, highly reactive monkeys display low levels of motor activity and are reluctant to explore novel stimuli. Bolig, Price, O 'Neill, and Suomi (1992) found an inverse relation-

Factors affecting initial training success of blood glucose testing in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

“…Clay et al [] found similar results when comparing responses to a novelty test and training success. Studies utilizing novel object tests often use the term “curiosity” to define differences in response to novelty [Uher and Asendorpf, ; Ehrlich, ; Watson and Ward, ] and, in humans, curiosity can be considered the motivation behind exploratory behavior [Berlyne, ]. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that the current study found that openness was associated with cooperation for this initial, novel training task, since the adjective “curious” loads on openness.…”

Influence of personality, age, sex, and estrous state on chimpanzee problem-solving success

“…The relationship between personality traits and problem-solving or foraging skill has been studied in a broad array of species, including humans (Goldsmith 1984), birds (e.g., Parus major , Titulaer et al 2012; Taeniopygia guttata , Brust et al 2013), ungulates (e.g., Dama dama , Bergvall et al 2011), hyenas ( Crocuta crocuta , Benson-Amram and Holekamp 2012), cavies ( Cavia aperea , Guenther et al 2013), and other nonhuman primates (e.g., Microcebus murinus , Dammhahn and Almeling 2012; Otolemur garnettii , Watson and Ward 1996). Given these data, it is also likely that chimpanzee personality factors should correlate with their problem-solving ability.…”

Multiple measures of laterality in Garnett's bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii)

“…Moreover, the level of arousal may serve to strengthen lateralized responding [Glick & Cox, 1978;Glick & Shapiro, 1985;Jerussi & Glick, 1975;Larson et al, 1989;Ward et al, 1993]. Given the potential role of arousal in the expression of lateralized behavior Watson & Ward, 1996], one goal of this study was to examine lateralized responding in novel tasks, such as foraging for mealworms. Although bushbabies in the wild may not typically forage for worms, the novelty associated with this task was hypothesized to evoke high levels of arousal, which may have served to strengthen lateral response biases.…”

“…It is common among prosimians for juveniles to show significantly more ambi-preference whereas adults show stronger lateral bias in handedness [Mason et al, 1995;Milliken et al, 1991Milliken et al, , 2005Ward, 1991;Ward et al, 1990; for review, see Geschwind & Galaburda, 1985;Watson & Hanbury, 2007]. Watson and Ward [1996] examined the influence of laterality (i.e., handedness) in response to novelty in O. garnettii of different ages. They found that, when faced with a novel open field environment, bushbabies that were left hand preferent were ''less behaviorally inhibited'' (i.e., were more curious, active, and active in exploring a novel environment) than right hand preferent bushbabies [p 380].…”

“…They also found a significant main effect of age for activity and an age by lateral bias interaction, in that young left hand preferent bushbabies were more active than old left hand preferent bushbabies and young right hand preferent bushbabies. Therefore, it is plausible that differences in laterality may exist due to age and the level of arousal associated with the tasks [Watson & Ward, 1996].…”