Animal Personality: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
Contributor:
Cristiano Azevedo

Animal personality can be defined as behavioral and physiological differences between individuals of the same species, which are stable in time and across different contexts.

  • boldness
  • copying style
  • extinction

1. Introduction

The increase in the number of animals threatened by extinction is leading researchers worldwide to increase their efforts to conserve animal species [1]. Among the conservation initiatives, habitat protection and captive breeding for animal translocation/reintroduction are the most applicable since they have direct implications for the survival of the species in a specific location [2][3][4][5]. Animal introduction (i.e., the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range), reintroduction (i.e., the intentional movement and release of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has disappeared), and reinforcement (i.e., the intentional movement and release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics) are types of animal translocation (all definitions taken from [6]).

The success of animal translocations can be low [7][8][9] and biologists are studying methods to decrease failures in animal translocation programs [10][11][12]. One of the actions is to consider how aspects of the animals’ behavior affects conservation success [13][14][15]. Conservation biologists have been working separated from behavioral biologists for a long time and the recent union of both scientific areas has proved to be important for the increase in the success rates of translocation programs [16][17][18]. A translocation is considered a success if the released animals maintain a viable population in the release area [6].

Animal personality can be defined as behavioral and physiological differences between individuals of the same species that are stable in time and across different contexts [19][20][21]. Animal temperament, coping styles, behavioral syndromes, and behavioral predisposition are synonyms of animal personality found in the scientific literature [19][20][21]. Every person who has two or more vertebrate pets can easily distinguish differences in their personalities, and these differences are beginning to be observed and studied for wild animals, both in nature and in captivity [21]. Personality is a construct, identified and classified for animals as including: neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, dominance, boldness, sociability, activity, exploration, aggressiveness, and activity, with some overlaps [19][22][23]. Although linking animal personality and conservation is relatively new for science [21], it has proven to be promising.

2. How to Evaluate Personality before Release

Since personality is so important for various biological processes, it is important to know the best methods to collect personality data: questionnaires (rating) and behavioral data (coding) [24][25].

The rating method is a qualitative way to consider animal personality [26]. It involves people familiar with the individuals answering questionnaires [27]. In the questionnaires different aspects of animal personality are addressed (boldness, sociability, activity, exploration, aggressiveness), and the respondents score these aspects by marking on scales that normally range from 1 to 10, where 1 means that the aspect is not or hardly observed in the evaluated individual and 10 means that the aspect is always observed in the individual [27][28]. Ratings need to be statistically validated, which is a complicated process [27], because they need to measure animal personality accurately [26]. The rating method is one of the most used in animal personality studies [28]. A recently developed similar approach, which can provide insights into an animal’s personality, is Qualitative Behavioral Assessment [29][30].

The coding method is based on recording the behavior expressed by the individuals during behavioral tests (e.g., open-field, novel object, etc.) or during normal activities, in captivity or in the wild [28]. Behavioral tests are considered better for the animals to display their personality than observing general behavior [24]. Then, the frequencies of behavioral expressions are computed and used in personality determination [25].

Both methods are efficient in personality investigation, and the best method should be chosen based on the study goals and on the environment where the study is being conducted (the rating method is easier for captive environments and the coding method is better for natural environments [24]). The rating method has the advantage of gathering data faster than the coding method, but also has the disadvantage of being based on the judgements of the raters (if more than one rater is rating the animals, their ratings need to present high levels of agreement to be validated; this normally occurs when very experienced raters are rating the animals) [24]. The coding method has the advantage of being based on the behavior exhibited by the animals, which are recorded without the idea of personality classification, but has the disadvantage of being more time-consuming to gather data [24]. Some authors compared the two methods and found contradictory results, with studies showing that both methods generated similar results [31][32][33], and different results [24][34]. Some authors argued that personality researchers should apply both methods because they are complementary and generate important information about the personality dimensions of the animals [35]. It is important to validate behavioral rating and coding because behavioral recordings always involve subjective judgements. Before validity, we need to test the consistency of data, i.e., how reliable is the collected data. Intra-observer, inter-observer and inter-test’s reliability needs to be evaluated by statistical tests, such as correlation statistics, and if the result of the correlation coefficient is 0.7 or more, then we can assume that the data is reliable [36]. Suggestions for data reliability and validation can be found in the scientific literature [26][37].

A practical and quick idea/suggestion for conservationists is to calculate boldness scores for the animals intended to be reintroduced. Boldness score is calculated based on the number of bold and shy behaviors exhibited during novel object trials [38][39]. To do this, researchers need to classify the species’ behaviors into four categories: overly bold, bold, shy, and overly shy. Overly bold behaviors will be summed and multiplied by 3, bold behaviors will be summed and multiplied by 2, shy behaviors will be summed and multiplied by 1 and overly shy behaviors will be summed and multiplied by -1 [39]. The scores for each bold/shy category are summed, and the highest values represent the bolder individuals while the lowest values represent the shyer individuals. This method developed for the swift fox proved to be easy to apply and should be considered in conservation programs (this is only a suggestion; other practices can be found in the scientific literature [40][41]). Obviously, it would be useful to have population data because of the possibility of having only one personality type in your sample.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ani11041019

References

  1. Pimm, S.L.; Jenkins, C.N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T.M.; Gittleman, J.L.; Joppa, L.N.; Raven, P.H.; Roberts, C.M.; Sexton, J.O. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 2014, 344, 1246752.
  2. Griffith, B.; Scott, J.M.; Carpenter, J.W.; Reed, C. Translocation as a Species Conservation Tool: Status and Strategy. Science 1989, 245, 477–480.
  3. Berger-Tal, O.; Blumstein, D.T.; Swaisgood, R.R. Conservation translocations: A review of common difficulties and promising directions. Anim. Conserv. 2020, 23, 121–131.
  4. Benjamin-Fink, N.; Reilly, B.K. Conservation implications of wildlife translocations; The state’s ability to act as conservation units for wildebeest populations in South Africa. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 12, 46–58.
  5. Seddon, P.J.; Strauss, W.M.; Innes, J. Animal Translocations: What are they and why do we do them. In Reintroduction Biology: Integrating Science and Management; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 1–32.
  6. Minterr, B.A.; Collins, J.P. Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Gland, Switzerland, 2010; Volume 20, ISBN 9782831716091.
  7. Resende, P.S.; Viana–Junior, A.B.; Young, R.J.; De Azevedo, C.S. A global review of animal translocation programs. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 2, 221–232.
  8. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 96, 1–11.
  9. Wolf, C.M.; Garland, T.; Griffith, B. Predictors of avian and mammalian translocation success: Reanalysis with phylogenetically independent contrasts. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 86, 243–255.
  10. Oro, D.; Martínez-Abraín, A.; Villuendas, E.; Sarzo, B.; Mínguez, E.; Carda, J.; Genovart, M. Lessons from a failed translocation program with a seabird species: Determinants of success and conservation value. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 851–858.
  11. Rummel, L.; Martínez-Abraín, A.; Mayol, J.; Ruiz-Olmo, J.; Mañas, F.; Jiménez, J.; Gómez, J.A.; Oro, D. Use of wild–caught individuals as a key factor for success in vertebrate translocations. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 39, 207–219.
  12. Goldenberg, S.Z.; Owen, M.A.; Brown, J.L.; Wittemyer, G.; Oo, Z.M.; Leimgruber, P. Increasing conservation translocation success by building social functionality in released populations. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 18, e00604.
  13. Greggor, A.L.; Berger-Tal, O.; Blumstein, D.T.; Angeloni, L.; Bessa-Gomes, C.; Blackwell, B.F.; Clair, C.C.S.; Crooks, K.; De Silva, S.; Fernández-Juricic, E.; et al. Research Priorities from Animal Behaviour for Maximising Conservation Progress. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 953–964.
  14. Berger-Tal, O.; Polak, T.; Oron, A.; Lubin, Y.; Kotler, B.P.; Saltz, D. Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: A conceptual framework. Behav. Ecol. 2011, 22, 236–239.
  15. Berger-Tal, O.; Blumstein, D.T.; Carroll, S.; Fisher, R.N.; Mesnick, S.L.; Owen, M.A.; Saltz, D.; Claire, C.C.S.; Swaisgood, R.R. A systematic survey of the integration of animal behavior into conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 744–753.
  16. Shier, D. Manipulating animal behavior to ensure reintroduction success. Conservation Behavior 2016, 275–304.
  17. Greggor, A.L.; Blumstein, D.T.; Wong, B.B.M.; Berger-Tal, O. Using animal behavior in conservation management: A series of systematic reviews and maps. Environ. Evid. 2019, 8, 23.
  18. Angeloni, L.; Schlaepfer, M.A.; Lawler, J.J.; Crooks, K.R. A reassessment of the interface between conservation and behaviour. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75, 731–737.
  19. Réale, D.; Reader, S.M.; Sol, D.; McDougall, P.T.; Dingemanse, N.J. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 2007, 82, 291–318.
  20. Stamps, J.; Groothuis, T.G.G. The development of animal personality: Relevance, concepts and perspectives. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85, 301–325.
  21. Carere, C.; Maestripieri, D. Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution, 1st ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013.
  22. Gosling, S.D.; John, O.P. Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman Animals. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1999, 8, 69–75.
  23. Weiss, A. Personality Traits: A View from the Animal Kingdom. J. Personal. 2018, 86, 12–22.
  24. Highfill, L.; Hanbury, D.; Kristiansen, R.; Kuczaj, S.; Watson, S. Rating vs. coding in animal personality research. Zoo Biol. 2009, 29, 509–516.
  25. Inoue-Murayama, M.; Kawamura, S.; Weiss, A. From Genes to Animal Behavior: Social Structures, Personalities, Communication by Color; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2011.
  26. Meagher, R.K. Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 1–14.
  27. Finkemeier, M.-A.; Langbein, J.; Puppe, B. Personality Research in Mammalian Farm Animals: Concepts, Measures, and Relationship to Welfare. Front. Veter. Sci. 2018, 5, 131.
  28. Powell, D.; Zoo, S.L. Applications of Personality to the Management and Conservation of Nonhuman Animals. In From Genes to Animal Behavior; Inoue-Murayama, M., Kawamura, S., Weiss, A., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 185–199. ISBN 9784431538929.
  29. Tetley, C.L.; O’Hara, S.J. Ratings of animal personality as a tool for improving the breeding, management and welfare of zoo mammals. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 463–476.
  30. Minero, M.; Costa, E.D.; Dai, F.; Murray, L.A.M.; Canali, E.; Wemelsfelder, F. Use of Qualitative Behaviour Assessment as an indicator of welfare in donkeys. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 174, 147–153.
  31. Góis, K.C.R.; Ceballos, M.C.; Sant’Anna, A.C.; Da Costa, M.J.R.P. Using an observer rating method to assess the effects of rotational stocking method on beef cattle temperament over time. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2016, 45, 501–508.
  32. Kubinyi, E.; Gosling, S.D.; Miklósi, Á. A comparison of rating and coding behavioural traits in dogs. Acta Biol. Hung. 2015, 66, 27–40.
  33. Horback, K.M.; Miller, L.J.; Kuczaj, S.A. Personality assessment in African elephants (Loxodonta africana): Comparing the temporal stability of ethological coding versus trait rating. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 149, 55–62.
  34. Ijichi, C.; Collins, L.M.; Creighton, E.; Elwood, R.W. Harnessing the power of personality assessment: Subjective assessment predicts behaviour in horses. Behav. Process. 2013, 96, 47–52.
  35. Silva, V.S.; Azevedo, C.S. Evaluating personality traits of captive maned wolves, Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger, 1815) (Mammalia: Canidae), for conservation purposes. Lundiana 2013, 11, 35–41.
  36. Carlstead, K.; Mellen, J.; Kleiman, D.G. Black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in U.S. Zoos: I. Individual behavior profiles and their relationship to breeding success. Zoo Biol. 1999, 18, 17–34.
  37. Martin, P.; Bateson, P. Measuring Behaviour, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; ISBN 9780511810893.
  38. De Azevedo, C.S.; Rodrigues, L.S.F.; Fontenelle, J.C.R. Important tools for Amazon Parrot reintroduction programs. Rev. Bras. Ornitol. 2017, 25, 1–11.
  39. Beckmann, C.; Biro, P.A. On the Validity of a Single (Boldness) Assay in Personality Research. Ethology 2013, 119, 937–947.
  40. Watters, J.V.; Powell, D.M. Measuring Animal Personality for Use in Population Management in Zoos: Suggested Methods and Rationale. Zoo Biol. 2011, 31, 1–12.
  41. Bremner-Harrison, S.; Cypher, B.L.; Job, C.V.H.; Harrison, S.W.R. Assessing personality in San Joaquin kit fox in situ: Efficacy of field-based experimental methods and implications for conservation management. J. Ethol. 2018, 36, 23–33.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback