Do Animals Have Personality - Coursework Example

Do animals have a personality? Student Name Student Number: Course: Tutor: Tutorial: Due Date: Date Submitted: Word Count: Abstract Personality is a term used to describe the differences seen among people in terms of behavior patterns, emotions and cognition. Different theorists on personality present different definitions based on their particular theoretical positions. While the study on personality has mainly been based on humans, a lot of study has been done concerning animal personality and many theories have been formulated on the same. This study of personality focuses on two areas: One is the study and understanding of individual differences in characteristics such as irritability or sociability. The other involves understanding of how various parts of an individual’s personality come together to form a whole personality. Introduction This paper will provide a thorough argument on the question whether animals have a personality. It will discuss the different theories formulated by various theorists over time, concerning the possibilities of the existence of personalities in non-human species. Furthermore, the paper will explore the similarities and differences of the various theories, while critically analyzing and explaining the mentioned theories in the context of research done so far. In addressing the question, the paper will highlight some of the theories on human personality psychology and the various theorists who took centre-stage in this field. In arguing about animal psychology, parallels will be drawn to human personality studies. Various research works will be highlighted and the findings critically analyzed. Additionally, relevant examples will be drawn from the research work and from general information on the same. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn based on the arguments and discussion. Ideally, this paper will come out in support of the argument question, citing the overwhelming evidence from research and day-to-day life that proves that animals indeed have personalities, equitable to the human idea of personality differences. Definitions of Personality Personality has been generally defined as an organized, dynamic set of characteristics that are possessed by an individual and that have unique influence on his or her emotions, cognitions, motivations and behaviors in varying situations (Thomas et al., 2006, p.12). Most of the ideas that have been developed by both historical and modern theorists stem from simple philosophical assumptions held. However, the field of personality is not purely empirical given that it combines the elements of science, art and philosophy to draw varying conclusions. Theorists disagree on some fundamental philosophical assumptions, which include: Heredity versus environment, freedom versus determinism, uniqueness versus universality, optimistic versus pessimistic and active versus reactive (Thomas et al., 2006, p.23). The study and research on personality is based on the essential assumption that all individuals are similar in some ways, yet very different in others. A number of theories on personality have been proposed by various famous thinkers such as Erik Erikson and Sigmund Freud among others. Biological theories suggest that individual genetics are directly responsible for personality. Hans Eysenck was one of the well known biological theorists. He linked aspects of individual personality to certain biological processes. For instance, Eysenck argued that extroverts have low cortical stimulatory arousal, hence causing them to seek stimulating experiences. On the other hand, introverts have higher cortical arousal; hence they avoid stimulation (Schultz et al., 2012). On the other hand, Behavioral theories bring forth the idea that personality results from individual interaction with the environment. Theorists John Watson and B.F. Skinner studied the measurable and observable behaviors in relation to environmental influences, consequently rejecting any theory that takes feelings and internal thoughts into account (Hiriyapa, 2012, p.23). In contrast, Psychodynamic theories on personality explore the influence of childhood experiences and the unconscious mind on personality (Schultz et al., 2012). These theories are largely influenced by the works of Sigmund Freud, who believed in three personality components namely: id, ego and the superego. He theorized that the id caters for needs and urges while the superego takes care of morals and ideals. The ego acts as a moderator between the two while checking on reality (Thomas et al., 2006, p.76). The trait theories suggest that a personality is composed of a number of constituent traits while humanist theories explore the importance and role of free will and individual experiences in the development of personality. Comparative study has been done on animals and many similarities and differences have been drawn on the corresponding theories and explanations of animal personalities. Notwithstanding all the above, the Evolution theory introduces an evolutionary twist based on the concept of natural selection as explained in Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species (Schultz et al., 2012). Personality in animals To people who own pets and those that work closely with various animals, it is rather obvious that animals have varying individual differences in behavior. This means that they exhibit consistent patterns of behavior which would be classified as ‘personality traits’ when referring to humans (Goosling, 2001, p.44). However, most people have shown reluctance to agree that indeed non-human animal species exhibit personalities. Empirical research done on animal personality is mainly composed of studies on traits, which can be seen as behavioral regularities that are considerably consistent across varying time and contexts. Research on differences in individual animals has early beginnings, such as the work done by Ivan Pavlov. Ivan did a number of studies on dogs (Pavlov, 1906), where he identified four basic personality types, grounded on three properties in the nervous system, i.e. Force, Mobility and Equilibrium. From this, Pavlov recognized how these variations affected the qualities of the involved individual animals (Pavlov, 1928). Much later, researchers Goosling, Marino and Lilienfeld (2003) evaluated varying evidence as pertains to the existence of animal personalities. Additionally, a lot of studies have shown the temporal stability in animal personality traits e.g. Stevenson-Hinde et al., (1980); Capitano, (1999); Uher et al., (2008). Put together, this research provides compelling evidence that animals do indeed have personalities. Furthermore, personality traits have been tested in varying species, such as hyenas (Gosling, 1998), rhesus monkeys (Stevenson-Hinde & Zunz, 1978) and octopuses (Mather & Anderson, 1993, p.67). Conversely, no research has objectively compared animal and human assessments in one design. As a result, Kwan, Goosling and John (2003) investigated, concurrently, the accuracy, similarities and differences of 78 dogs and their respective owners. Parallel procedures and instrumentation were used in comparing the ratings based on three criteria of accuracy. On all criteria, the judgments of the dogs were quite similar to those of humans, hence once more suggesting that personality differences exist in animals and can be measured. In contrast, some researchers beg to differ on the existence of personalities in animals as we know them in humans. In making comparisons across species, questions do arise on the equivalence of observable traits in varying species. (Beer, Shimamura & Knight, 2004) ask how it can be determined precisely that what seems like boldness in trout or squid is by any means similar to boldness as known in humans? However, a comparative researcher asking if the sociable behavior of a colobus monkey reflects the same sociability as we know in humans is quite analogous to a cross-culture researcher asking if the angry expressions of an isolated human group reflects the same anger known in our cultures. Yet, in the midst of doubting voices, I once saw a goat so striking in character that it seemed strikingly human. The goat wondered the streets of Nairobi, Kenya, approaching people boldly and defiantly, even arrogantly refusing to move out of the way of oncoming traffic. On the other hand, I have seen timid goats that lack in ‘confidence’ and shy away from humans and are generally reserved in nature. Are these not examples of ‘goat personality’ as we would describe in a human case? Ogden (2014) talks of how elephant groups are led by an elder female, who has great influence over the decision making of the particular herd. In the research at Amboseli National Park in Kenya, multiple elephant families engage in characteristic friendly associations such as ceremonial greeting and even touching between bond groups. As such, elephants exhibit peculiar personalities and various character traits associated with leadership have been noted in leading matriarchs in herds. A.T.A Ritchie, in his observations of rhinos noted that some were irritable, some even-tempered, some brave, volatile and some phlegmatic, much like you would expect with humans. Perhaps the question to ask is it that determines personality? It follows that, in human circles, personality emanates from past experiences, inherited tendencies and education over time. The same can be said of animals. Therefore, it is worth concluding that any person opposed to the idea of animal personality doesn’t have a problem with the idea per se, but the problem is in using the same word to refer to the set of traits that are particular to each human and non-human animal (Hiriyapa, 2012, p.62). Until the 1990’s, many psychologists argued that, in order for the term personality to make sense, it had to refer to humans. However, a graduate student named Berkeley changed this biased view by adopting the strategy of reduction to absurdity. Today, many researchers and people in general are coming to terms with the ‘absurdity’ of personalities in animals. Conclusion From the overwhelming evidence presented in the text, it is convincingly clear that animals have personalities. Perhaps the bone of contention arises from the definition of that word ‘personality’ and whether it should mean the same for animals as it does for humans. All things being equal, animals can be said to have individual personality as argued. References Beer, J. S., Shimamura, A.P., & Knight, R.T. (2004). Frontal lobe contributions to executive control of cognitive and social behavior. In M. S. Gazzaniga, (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences III (pp. 1091–1104). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Capitanio, J.P., Mendoza, S.P., & Baroncelli, S. (1999). The relationship of personality dimensions in adult male rhesus macaques to progression of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus disease. In S. Cain, Brain Behaviour. (pp 138– 154). Gosling, S.D. (1998). Personality dimensions in spotted hyenas. In J. Comp, Crocuta Crocuta ( pp.107-118). Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: what can we learn about personality from animal research. Brooklyn, NY: Hang Loose Press. Gosling, S.D., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Marino, L. (2003). Personality. In D. Maestripieri, (Ed.), Primate Psychology: The Mind and Behavior of Human and Non-human Primates (pp. 254–288). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gosling, S. D. & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in non-human animals: A cross-species review. Journal of Psychological Science. 8, 69–75. Hiriyapa, B. (2012). Development of Personality and its Theories. Bloomington, IN: Booktango. Mather, J. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Personalities of Octopuses. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 336–340. Ogden, L. (2014). Pachyderm politics. New Scientist, 221(2950), 42–45. Pavlov, I. P. (1906). The scientific investigation of the psychical faculties or processes in the higher animals. Science, 24, 613–619. Pavlov, I. P. (1928). The inhibitory type of nervous systems in the dog. In I. P. Pavlov & W. H. Gantt (Eds.), Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity Behaviour of Animals (pp. 363–369). New York: Liverwright Publishing Corporation. Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Zunz, M. (1978). Subjective assessment of individual rhesus monkeys. Primates, 19, 473–482. Schultz, D. & Schultz S. (Ed). (2012). Theories of Personality. London: Cengage Learning. Thomas, J.C. & Segal, D.L. (2006). Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology: Personality and Everyday Functioning. Hoboken, NJ: John wiley & Sons. Uher, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Call, J. (2008). Personality in the behaviour of great apes: Temporal stability, cross-situational consistency and coherence in response. Animal Behaviour, 75, 99–112. Read More

The study and research on personality is based on the essential assumption that all individuals are similar in some ways, yet very different in others. A number of theories on personality have been proposed by various famous thinkers such as Erik Erikson and Sigmund Freud among others. Biological theories suggest that individual genetics are directly responsible for personality. Hans Eysenck was one of the well known biological theorists. He linked aspects of individual personality to certain biological processes.

For instance, Eysenck argued that extroverts have low cortical stimulatory arousal, hence causing them to seek stimulating experiences. On the other hand, introverts have higher cortical arousal; hence they avoid stimulation (Schultz et al., 2012). On the other hand, Behavioral theories bring forth the idea that personality results from individual interaction with the environment. Theorists John Watson and B.F. Skinner studied the measurable and observable behaviors in relation to environmental influences, consequently rejecting any theory that takes feelings and internal thoughts into account (Hiriyapa, 2012, p.23). In contrast, Psychodynamic theories on personality explore the influence of childhood experiences and the unconscious mind on personality (Schultz et al., 2012). These theories are largely influenced by the works of Sigmund Freud, who believed in three personality components namely: id, ego and the superego.

He theorized that the id caters for needs and urges while the superego takes care of morals and ideals. The ego acts as a moderator between the two while checking on reality (Thomas et al., 2006, p.76). The trait theories suggest that a personality is composed of a number of constituent traits while humanist theories explore the importance and role of free will and individual experiences in the development of personality. Comparative study has been done on animals and many similarities and differences have been drawn on the corresponding theories and explanations of animal personalities.

Notwithstanding all the above, the Evolution theory introduces an evolutionary twist based on the concept of natural selection as explained in Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species (Schultz et al., 2012). Personality in animals To people who own pets and those that work closely with various animals, it is rather obvious that animals have varying individual differences in behavior. This means that they exhibit consistent patterns of behavior which would be classified as ‘personality traits’ when referring to humans (Goosling, 2001, p.44). However, most people have shown reluctance to agree that indeed non-human animal species exhibit personalities.

Empirical research done on animal personality is mainly composed of studies on traits, which can be seen as behavioral regularities that are considerably consistent across varying time and contexts. Research on differences in individual animals has early beginnings, such as the work done by Ivan Pavlov. Ivan did a number of studies on dogs (Pavlov, 1906), where he identified four basic personality types, grounded on three properties in the nervous system, i.e. Force, Mobility and Equilibrium.

From this, Pavlov recognized how these variations affected the qualities of the involved individual animals (Pavlov, 1928). Much later, researchers Goosling, Marino and Lilienfeld (2003) evaluated varying evidence as pertains to the existence of animal personalities. Additionally, a lot of studies have shown the temporal stability in animal personality traits e.g. Stevenson-Hinde et al., (1980); Capitano, (1999); Uher et al., (2008). Put together, this research provides compelling evidence that animals do indeed have personalities.

Furthermore, personality traits have been tested in varying species, such as hyenas (Gosling, 1998), rhesus monkeys (Stevenson-Hinde & Zunz, 1978) and octopuses (Mather & Anderson, 1993, p.67). Conversely, no research has objectively compared animal and human assessments in one design.

Read More