Abstract
Individuals of many animal species are said to have a personality. It has been shown that some individuals are bolder than other individuals of the same species, or more sociable or more aggressive. In this paper, we analyse what it means to say that an animal has a personality. We clarify what an animal personality is, that is, its ontology, and how different personality concepts relate to each other, and we examine how personality traits are identified in biological practice. Our analysis shows that biologists often study specific personality traits, such as boldness, sociability or aggressiveness, rather than personalities in general. We claim that personality traits are best understood as dispositions and that they are operationally defined in terms of certain sets of behaviours, which are studied in specific experimental set-ups. Furthermore, we develop an integrative philosophical account that specifies and formalises three criteria for identifying personality traits, which are used in biological practice. For an individual animal to have a personality trait it must, first, behave differently than others (Individual Differences). Second, these behavioural differences must be stable over a certain time (Temporal Stability), and third, they must be consistent in different contexts (Contextual Consistency).
Highlights
Human personalities have been studied for a long time and are a central topic of contemporary psychological research
What does it mean to say that some individual animals have a personality? In this paper we answer this question by clarifying three concepts that are central to studying animal personality: behaviour, personality trait and personality in general
Personality traits are inferred from observing and measuring behaviours. We show that this means that personality traits are operationalised in terms of specific sets of behaviours and experimental set-ups
Summary
Human personalities have been studied for a long time and are a central topic of contemporary psychological research. Page 3 of 25 1 remains unclear how the different criteria for animal personality should be spelled out in detail and be integrated into a formal definition At this point, philosophers can contribute to clarifying the involved concepts and their relation to each other. Philosophers can contribute to clarifying the involved concepts and their relation to each other They can reveal the ontological and epistemological assumptions involved in studying animal personalities and establish coherence between them. Among the empirical sources we focus on biological review papers that are frequently cited when the concept of animal personality is introduced and defined (e.g., Carter et al 2013; Gosling 2001; Réale et al 2007; Sih et al 2004b; Stamps and Groothuis 2010; Wolf and Weissing 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
