Personality assessment in the Great Apes: Comparing ecologically valid behavior measures, behavior ratings, and adjective ratings

Abstract

Three methods of personality assessment (behavior measures, behavior ratings, adjective ratings) were compared in 20 zoo-housed Great Apes: bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). To test a new bottom-up approach, the studied trait constructs were systematically generated from the species' behavioral repertoires. The assessments were reliable, temporally stable, and showed substantial cross-method coherence. In most traits, behavior ratings mediated the relations between adjective ratings and behavior measures. Results suggest that high predictability of manifest behavior is best achieved by behavior ratings, not by adjectives. Empirical evidence for trait constructs beyond current personality models points to the necessity of broad and systematic approaches for valid inferences on a species' personality structure.

Bonobo personality: Age and sex effects and links with behavior and dominance

“…The first criterion is that ratings have to be consistent across observers, different times of measurement, and different contexts (Capitanio, 1999, Dutton, 2008, King et al, 2008, Weiss et al, 2011. The second criterion is that the link between personality dimensions and life history parameters, such as sex and age, as well as between personality dimensions and other measures (typically behaviors) has to be established (Capitanio, 1999, Pederson et al, 2005, Uher and Asendorpf, 2008, Murray, 2011, Baker et al, 2015. If males and females face different selection pressures, sex differences in personality may emerge.…”

“…We therefore expect similar differences to be reflected in their personality. Unfortunately, despite the large number of chimpanzee personality studies, few studies have focused on bonobos, and those that did, involved small sample sizes (Uher and Asendorpf, 2008, Murray, 2011, Garai et al, 2016 or focused on measuring single traits, such as boldness (Herrmann et al, 2011). To complement this existing literature, we obtained personality ratings on154 bonobos.…”

“…In addition to testing comparative validity by examining sex and age differences in personality, it is important to test for construct validity of the dimensions, by looking at how personality correlates with other measures in ways that are consistent with the meaning (and likely function) of these dimensions (Capitanio, 1999, Paunonen, 2003, Pederson et al, 2005, Uher and Asendorpf, 2008, Murray, 2011, Baker et al, 2015. One way to assess the construct validity of these ratings-based measures is to examine their correlations with naturally occurring behaviors (Pederson et al, 2005, Vazire et al, 2007, Konečná et al, 2008, Uher and Asendorpf, 2008 and/or behaviors in response to experimental tests (Baker et al, 2015, Carter et al, 2012.…”

Association between subjective rating and behaviour coding and the role of experience in making video assessments on the personality of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris)

“…There are two types of ratings, behaviour rating and adjective rating, the latter is also referred to as trait rating (Uher et al, 2008). The items of behaviour rating describe actions and the observers make frequency assessments (e.g.…”

A comparison of rating and coding behavioural traits in dogs

“…Two types of rating exist: behaviour rating and adjective rating [27]. behaviour-rating items describe actions, without using adjectives and require observers to make frequency assessments (e.g., "bites conspecifics when threatened" could be rated from "rarely" to "often").…”