Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 677–684 | Cite as

Taking personality selection bias seriously in animal cognition research: a case study in capuchin monkeys (Sapajusapella)

  • F. Blake Morton
  • Phyllis C. Lee
  • Hannah M. Buchanan-Smith
Original Paper

Abstract

In most experimental work on animal cognition, researchers attempt to control for multiple interacting variables by training subjects prior to testing, allowing subjects to participate voluntarily, and providing subjects with food rewards. However, do such methods encourage selection bias from subjects’ personalities? In this study, we trained eighteen zoo-housed capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) for two experiments, under conditions of positive reinforcement (i.e. food rewards) and free-choice participation. Using a combination of behavioral and rater-based methods, we identified and validated five personality dimensions in these capuchins (Assertiveness, Openness, Neuroticism, Sociability, and Attentiveness). Scores on Openness were positively related to individual differences in monkey task participation, reflecting previous work showing that such individuals are often more active, curious, and willing to engage in testing. We also found a negative relationship between scores on Assertiveness and performance on tasks, which may reflect the trade-offs between speed and accuracy in these animals’ decision-making. Highly Assertive individuals (the most sociable within monkey groups) may also prioritize social interactions over engaging in research. Lastly, monkeys that consistently participated and performed well on both tasks showed significantly higher Openness and lower Assertiveness compared to others, mirroring relationships found between personality, participation, and performance among all participants. Participation and performance during training was clearly biased toward individuals with particular personalities (i.e. high Openness, low Assertiveness). Results are discussed in light of the need for careful interpretation of comparative data on animal cognition and the need for researchers to take personality selection bias more seriously.

Keywords

Platyrrhines Temperament Cognitive experiment Selection bias Associative learning Training 

Supplementary material

10071_2013_603_MOESM1_ESM.docx (150 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 150 kb)

References

  1. ASAB (2012) Guidelines for the treatment of animals in behavioural research and teaching. Anim Behav 83:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacon ES (1980) Curiosity in the American black bear. Bears: their biology and management, vol. 4, a selection of papers from the fourth international conference on bear research and management, Kalispell, Montana, USA, February 1977, pp 153–157Google Scholar
  3. Bates TC, Shieles A (2003) Crystallized intelligence as a product of speed and drive for experience: the relationship of inspection time and openness to g and Gc. Intelligence 31:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson-Amram S, Holekamp KE (2012) Innovative problem solving by wild spotted hyenas. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1450 Google Scholar
  5. Bergman TJ, Kitchen DM (2009) Comparing responses to novel objects in wild baboons (Papio ursinus) and geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Anim Cogn 12:63–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biondi LM, Bo MS, Vassallo AI (2010) Inter-individual and age differences in exploration, neophobia and problem-solving ability in a neotropical raptor (Milvago chimango). Anim Cogn 13:701–710. doi:10.1007/s10071-010-0319-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biro PA, Dingemanse NJ (2009) Sampling bias resulting from animal personality. Trends Ecol Evol 24:66–68. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaney PH, Millon T (2009) Oxford textbook of psychopathology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Boogert NJ, Reader SM, Laland KN (2006) The relation between social rank, neophobia and individual learning in starlings. Anim Behav 72:1229–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornehag CG, Sundell J, Sigsgaard T, Janson S (2004) Potential self- selection bias in a nested case-control study on indoor environmental factors and their association with asthma and allergic symptoms among pre-school children. Scand J Public Health 34(5):534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns JG, Rodd FH (2008) Hastiness, brain size and predation regime affect the performance of wild guppies in a spatial memory task. Anim Behav 76:911–922. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM (2008) The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learn Memory 15:516–523. doi:10.1101/lm.987808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cahan S, Gamliel E (2006) Definition and measurement of selection bias: from constant ratio to constant difference. J Edu Meas 43:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell AM, Davalos DB, McCabe DP, Troup LJ (2011) Executive functions and extraversion. Pers Individ Dif 51:720–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carere C, Locurto C (2011) Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr Zool 57:491–498Google Scholar
  16. Clark FE (2011) Great ape cognition and captive care: can cognitive challenges enhance well-being? Appl Anim Behav Sci 135:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawkins R, Carlisle TR (1976) Parental investment, mate desertion, and a fallacy. Nature 262:131–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deaner R, van Schaik C, Johnson V (2006) Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Evol Psychol 4:149–196Google Scholar
  19. Evans TA, Beran MJ, Chan B, Klein ED, Menzel CR (2008) An efficient computerized testing method for the capuchin monkey (Cebus apella): adaptation of the LRC-CTS to a socially housed nonhuman primate species. Behav Res Methods 40:590–596. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.2.590 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fagot J, Paleressompoulle D (2009) Automatic testing of cognitive performance in baboons maintained in social groups. Behav Res Methods 41:396–404. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.2.396 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, Fedigan LM (2004) The complete capuchin: the biology of the genus Cebus. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Garamszegi LZ, Eens M, Török J (2009) Behavioural syndromes and trappability in free-living collared flycatchers, Ficedula albicollis. Anim Behav 77:803–812. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.12.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garber PA, Gomes DF, Bicca-Marques JC (2012) Experimental field study of problem-solving using tools in free-ranging capuchins (Sapajus nigritus, formerly Cebus nigritus). Am J Primatol 74:344–358. doi:10.1002/ajp.20957 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gosling SD, John OP (1999) Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: a cross-species review. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrelko ES, Vick S-J, Buchanan-Smith HM (2012) Cognitive research in zoo-housed chimpanzees: influence of personality and impact on welfare. Am J Primatol. doi:10.1002/ajp.22036 Google Scholar
  26. Kashdan TB, Rose P, Fincham FD (2004) Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J Pers Assess 82:291–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leonardi R, Buchanan-Smith HM, Dufour V, MacDonald C, Whiten A (2010) Living together: behavior and welfare in single and mixed species groups of capuchin (Cebus apella) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Am J Primatol 72:33–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacDonald C, Whiten A (2011) The ‘Living Links to Human Evolution’ Research Centre in Edinburgh Zoo: a new endeavour in collaboration. Int Zoo Yearbook 45:1–17. doi:10.111/j.1748-1090.2010.00120.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malani A (2008) Patient enrollment in medical trials: selection bias in a randomized experiment. J Econom 144:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morton FB, Lee PC, Buchanan-Smith HM, Brosnan S, Thierry B, Paukner A, de Waal FBM, Widness J, Essler J, Weiss A (2013) Personality structure in brown capuchin monkeys: comparisons with chimpanzees, orangutans, and rhesus macaques. J Comp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0031723
  31. Rehbein L, Moss MB (2002) Explorations of three modes of spatial cognition in the monkey. Psicológica 23:139–163Google Scholar
  32. Reid GMcG, Macdonald AA, Fidgett AL, Hiddinga B, Leus K (2008) Developing the research potential of zoos and aquaria. The EAZA research strategy EAZA executive office, Amsterdam. ISBN: 978-90-77879-10-8Google Scholar
  33. Sih A, Del Giudice M (2012) Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: a behavioural ecology perspective. Phil Trans R Sci B. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0216 Google Scholar
  34. Watson SL, Ward JP (1996) Temperament and problem solving in the small- eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii). J Comp Psychol 110:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weiss A, Inoue-Murayama M, Hong K-W et al (2009) Assessing chimpanzee personality and subjective well-being in Japan. Am J Primatol 71:283–292. doi:10.1002/ajp.v71:4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weiss A, Adams MJ, Widdig A, Gerald MS (2011) Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) as living fossils of hominoid personality and subjective well-being. J Comp Psychol 125:72–83. doi:10.1037/a0021187 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson ADM, Thomas RB, Keegan PM, Cooke SJ, Godin J-GJ (2011) Capture technique and fish personality: angling targets timid bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:749–757. doi:10.1139/F2011-019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Blake Morton
    • 1
  • Phyllis C. Lee
    • 1
  • Hannah M. Buchanan-Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Behaviour and Evolution Research Group and Scottish Primate Research Group, Psychology, School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK

Personalised recommendations