A Comparison of the Personality
Dimensions of Wild and Captive
Sulawesi Crested Black Macaques
Grace Hussey1,2, Joanna Newbolt2 and Kathy Baker2
1University
of Bath 2 Whitley Wildlife Conservation Trust
What is Animal Personality?
“Individual differences in behaviour that are consistent
over time and across situations” (Réale et al., 2007)
What is Animal Personality?
“Individual differences in behaviour that are consistent
over time and across situations” (Réale et al., 2007)
Identified in a range of animals across numerous taxa
Beadlet Anemone
(Briffa and Greenaway, 2011)
Great Tit
(Dingemanse et al., 2002)
Primates
(Dingemanse et al., 2002)
What is Animal Personality?
“Individual differences in behaviour that are consistent
over time and across situations” (Réale et al., 2007)
Personality dimension: quantitative description of
consistent individual differences in a specific
characteristic or a group of characteristics (Itoh, 2002)
Young discipline – ensuring reliability and validity of
methodology is very important (Freeman and Gosling, 2010)
Why study Animal Personality?
Research:
Health
Glucocorticoids
Management:
Evolutionary Study
Personality Structure
Baker et al., 2015
‘Roles’
Visitor Experiences
Watters and Powell, 2012
Cavigelli and McClintock, 2003
Conservation:
Enrichment Schedules
Fixed or Variable
Horback et al., 2013
Breeding Success
Reintroduction
Social compatibility
Bolder = Higher Mortality
Carlstead et al., 1999
Bremner-Harrison et al. (2004)
Aims:
1. To compare the personality dimensions of
captive and wild Macaca nigra
- Desirable for captive animals to maintain ‘wild-like’ behaviours
and characteristics (for welfare, visitor experience and
conservation)
- Implications for conservation and management
2. Evaluate the reliability and validity of
personality assessment methodology
- Contribute to the evolving discipline of animal personality
Sulawesi Crested Black Macaque
Macaca nigra
X
Sulawesi Crested Black Macaque
Macaca nigra
• Critically endangered (IUCN, 2016)
• Over 250 in captivity worldwide (ZIMS, 2016)
• Managed as part of European Endangered Species
Programme (EEP)
• Relatively little studied in terms of personality
compared to other macaque species
Measuring Personality
Subjective:
• Trait Rating via the
Hominoid Personality
Questionnaire (King and Figueredo,
1997; Weiss et al., 2011)
Measuring Personality
Subjective:
• Trait Rating via the
Hominoid Personality
Questionnaire (King and Figueredo,
1997; Weiss et al., 2011)
Objective:
• Behavioural Observations
• Novelty Tests
Measuring Personality
Subjective:
• Trait Rating via the
Hominoid Personality
Questionnaire (King and Figueredo,
Use a combination
method
1997; Weiss et al., 2011)
Objective:
• Behavioural Observations
• Novelty Tests
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY correspondence
between ratings and
observed behaviour
(Carter et al., 2013)
Hominoid Personality Questionnaire
• 54 personality trait adjectives
Hominoid Personality Questionnaire
• 54 personality trait adjectives
“Inquisitive”
“Friendly”
“Intelligent”
“Gentle”
“Timid ”
“Conventional”
1
3
2
5
4
7
6
Hominoid Personality Questionnaire
Hominoid Personality Questionnaire
• Sent out to 25 zoos across Europe
• Response rate of 32% (8 out of 25 zoos
replied)
• Personality data obtained for 58 macaques
• At 5 zoos, multiple keepers responded to the
survey
1. Assess inter- rater
reliability
2. Create
personality
dimensions and
score individuals
Results
1. Intra – class correlation was carried out on
trait ratings from Hominoid Personality
Questionnaire
ICC(3,1)
ICC(3,k)
Mean
Range
Mean
Range
0.68
0.30, 0.96
0.68
-0.93, 0.99
Traits with negative reliability removed from
further analysis:
Clumsy
Quitting
Stable
Results
2. Principal Component Analysis carried out on
the mean traits scores (51 remaining traits) for
each animal
Clustered the traits into personality dimensions
= 5 dimension structure for captive macaques
Aggressiveness
Friendliness
Shyness
Stability
Withdrawnness
Results
Wild: 53 macaques, 25 male, 28
female
Captive: 58 macaques, 30 male, 28
female
Captive:
Aggressiveness
14: 2
+ Aggressive
+ Bullying
+ Manipulative
- Gentle
- Sympathetic
Wild:
Aggressiveness
7: 8
+ Dominant
+ Independent
+ Cool
- Fearful
- Vulnerable
- Timid
Aggressiveness
Captive:
Wild:
Depressed
Aggressive
Irritable
Cool
Dominant
Stingy/greedy
Bullying
Gentle
Independent
Manipulative
Timid
Autistic
Decisive
Submissive
Innovative
Jealous
Persistent
Vulnerable
Intelligent
Individualistic
Sympathetic
Anxious
Defiant
Dependent
Active
Fearful
9 shared
traits
Captive:
Aggressiveness
14: 2
Friendliness
15: 2
+ Aggressive
+ Bullying
+ Manipulative
+ Imitative
+ Playful
+ Inquisitive
- Gentle
- Sympathetic
- Lazy
- Solitary
Wild:
Aggressiveness
Friendliness
7: 8
12: 2
+ Dominant
+ Independent
+ Cool
+ Sympathetic
+ Friendly
+ Affectionate
- Fearful
- Vulnerable
- Timid
- Lazy
- Solitary
Friendliness
Captive:
Wild:
Sympathetic
Excitable
Impulsive
Imitative
Helpful
Playful
Inquisitive Lazy
Protective
Friendly
Sociable Reckless
Curious
Active
Solitary
Distractible
Inventive
Dependant
Sensitive
Anxious
Affectionate
Conventional
13 shared
traits
Captive:
Aggressiveness
14: 2
Friendliness
15: 2
Shyness
Stability
8: 0
4: 0
+ Aggressive
+ Bullying
+ Manipulative
+ Imitative
+ Playful
+ Inquisitive
+ Fearful
+ Vulnerable
+ Submissive
+ Unemotional
+ Predictable
+ Cool
- Gentle
- Sympathetic
- Lazy
- Solitary
Confidence
Excitability
Withdrawnness
5: 0
+ Unperceptive
+ Disorganised
+ Thoughtless
+ Depressed
+ Erratic
+ Irritable
Wild:
Aggressiveness
Friendliness
7: 8
12: 2
10: 2
5: 3
+ Dominant
+ Independent
+ Cool
+ Sympathetic
+ Friendly
+ Affectionate
+ Erratic
+Reckless
+ Defiant
+ Decisive
+ Manipulative
+ Individualistic
- Fearful
- Vulnerable
- Timid
- Lazy
- Solitary
- Cautious
- Gentle
- Unemotional
- Conventional
No parallel
dimension!
1. To compare the personality dimensions of
captive and wild Macaca nigra
2. Evaluate the reliability and validity of
personality assessment methodology
Measuring Personality
Subjective:
• Trait Rating via the
Hominoid Personality
Questionnaire
Objective:
• Behavioural Observations
• Novelty Tests
Use a combination
method
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY correspondence
between ratings and
observed behaviour
(Carter et al., 2013)
Behavioural Coding
• Carried out on 10 macaques
from Paignton Zoo (7m, 3f,
aged from 3 to 18)
• 20 minute focal observations
• Instantaneous sampling
every 30 seconds to record
state behaviours
• All occurrence sampling to
record event behaviours
Behavioural Coding
• Allowed production of an activity budget for
each individual
100%
90%
80%
70%
Out of Sight
Rest
Interaction with Enrichment
Interaction with Enclosure
60%
50%
40%
Social Agg
Social Play
Social Continued
Groom Mutual
30%
Groom Received
20%
Groom Given
10%
0%
Groom Self
Feed/Foraging
Locomotion
Behavioural Coding
• Kendall’s Tau correlation to look for correlations
in dimension scores and observed behaviour
Aggressiveness↑ Social behaviour ↓
p < 0.05
Friendliness↑ Positive Social behaviour ↓
Novel Object Tests
• 10 macaques at Paignton Zoo exposed to:
a) Novel object
b) Novel food
c) Novel threat
•
-
Novel Object Tests
Measured:
Latency (time elapsed until first contact)
Duration spent in contact
Frequency of contact
p < 0.05 Shyness↑ Latency to Approach ↑
Friendliness↑ Frequency of contacts ↑
Conclusions
1. To compare the personality dimensions of
captive and wild Macaca nigra
• Captive macaques exhibit similar personality
dimensions to their wild counterparts
• Withdrawnness dimension apparent only in
captive macaques – why?
- Effect of captivity?
- More contact between keepers and captive macaques
(identify more subtle behaviours)
- Keepers more likely to consider animals individually
Conclusions
2. Evaluate the reliability and validity of
personality assessment methodology
• Hominoid personality questionnaire provides
acceptable inter-rater reliability (ICC (3,k), 0.68)
• Some construct validity provided by behavioural
coding but may need a larger, more balanced
sample
• Novel object tests can provide construct validity
• Animal personality measurements can be reliable
and valid but some improvements can be made
Acknowledgements
My lovely supervisors Dr Kathy Baker and Dr
Joanna Newbolt
Staff at Paignton Zoo, Newquay Zoo, Dudley Zoo,
Zoo Vivarium Darmstadt, Marwell Zoo, ZSL
London Zoo, Drusillas Park, Artis Royal Zoo for
taking time to fill in the Questionnaire
All my friends and colleagues at the Whitley
Wildlife Conservation Trust
Mammal department at Paignton Zoo –
particularly Lewis Rowden, Nadia Gould and Kate
Jenner
Chris Rockey for photos
Thank you for listening