Personality Judgments in Dogs and Humans

Personality Judgments in Dogs and Humans

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Personality Judgments in Dogs and Humans

A Dog’s Got Personality: A Cross-Species Comparative Approach to

Personality Judgments in Dogs and Humans

Samuel D. Gosling

University of Texas at Austin

Virginia S. Y. Kwan

Princeton University

Oliver P. John

University of California, Berkeley

This research offers a blueprint for how a cross-species comparative approach can be realized empirically. In a single design, parallel procedures and instruments were used in 2 species, dogs (Canis

familiaris) and humans (Homo sapiens), to test whether personality differences exist and can be judged

in dogs as accurately as in humans. Personality judgments of humans and dogs were compared on 3

accuracy criteria: internal consistency, consensus, and correspondence. Results showed that, on all 3

criteria, judgments of dogs were as accurate as judgments of humans. These findings are consistent with

the evolutionary continuity hypothesis and suggest an important conclusion not widely considered by

either personality or animal researchers: Personality differences do exist and can be measured in animals

other than humans.

“A dog’s got personality and personality goes a long way.” So

said Jules Winnfield, a gangster from the movie Pulp Fiction.

Fictional gangsters are not the only ones concerned with personality in nonhuman animals. Robert Fagen, a professor of Biometry,

used the personality traits “irascible, irritable, manipulative, and

grumpy” to describe Suzy June, a brown bear he had observed for

several years (Aschenbach, 1995). Although scientists such as

Fagen are beginning to apply personality constructs to animals, a

systematic empirical evaluation of such personality judgments has

yet to be performed. In this report, we focus on personality

judgments of domestic dogs, directly comparing them with personality judgments of humans.

Animal models have played a central role in much psychological science (Domjan & Purdy, 1995). Yet, although scientists

widely accept the idea that the anatomy and physiology of humans

show considerable continuity to other mammals, most have been

reluctant to ascribe emotions and personality traits to animals. As

a result, there are few systematic studies on animals and crossdisciplinary bridges between personality psychologists and

animal-behavior researchers are virtually nonexistent (Gosling,

2001). Most questions about animal personality remain untested,

and a field of animal personality remains to be developed.

However, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to suggest that

only physical traits are subject to selection pressures. Indeed,

Darwin (1872/1998) argued explicitly that emotions exist in both

human and nonhuman animals, including primates, cats, and dogs.

Similarly, personality traits like Neuroticism, Extraversion, and

Agreeableness may not be as uniquely human as once was thought

(Buss, 1988; Gosling & John, 1999; Hogan, 1996). In this article,

we examine a core issue for animal-personality research: whether

differences in personality traits exist and can be measured in

animals.

To show that personality traits exist in nonhuman animals,

assessments of animal personality must be proven accurate. A

small number of studies have reported reliabilities, but systematic

efforts to examine the accuracy of assessment methods have been

rare (see Gosling, 2001, for a review of the studies available). This

dearth of studies may reflect the challenges of assessing creatures

that cannot speak to us and may not have the mental or physical

faculties (e.g., conceptions of self, autobiographical memory) required by the tests of personality developed for humans. However,

there is one method that may be suited for use in animals—

judgments made by informants who are well acquainted with the

target individuals. It should be noted that this personality-judgment

approach (Funder, 1999) is far from a method of last resort. As

Hofstee (1994) noted about personality in humans, “The averaged

judgment of knowledgeable others provides the best available

point of reference for both the definition of personality structure in

general and for assessing someone’s personality in particular” (p.

149). Thus, many human-personality researchers consider judgSamuel D. Gosling, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at

Austin; Virginia S. Y. Kwan, Department of Psychology, Princeton University; Oliver P. John, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.

Preparation of this article was supported by a research grant from the

University of Texas College of Liberal Arts to Samuel D. Gosling and by

National Institutes of Mental Health Grants MH43948 and MH49255 for

the work of Oliver P. John and Virginia S. Y. Kwan. We are grateful to

Asenath Bartley, Allison Bonburg, and Angela Huddleston for their help in

collecting some of the data reported here, and to Dan Ozer for his

thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samuel

1. Gosling, Department of Psychology, 1 University Station A8000,

University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712-0187. E-mail: gosling@

psy.utexas.edu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2003, Vol. 85, No. 6, 1161–1169 0022-3514/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1161

1161

ments by knowledgeable informants or observers the sine qua non

of personality (Funder, 1995; Kenny, 1994; McCrae, 1982; Wiggins, 1973), making such judgments a logical candidate for studies

of animals. We thus propose to extend the personality-judgment

approach to research on animals; specifically, we test whether

personality traits exist and can be judged in one particular nonhuman species, dogs.

Introducing a Cross-Species Comparative Approach to

Personality

How should such research be performed? The logic of comparative research suggests that multiple species should be examined,

preferably using at least one well-studied species. Such crossspecies designs are useful because they provide researchers with a

benchmark against which to evaluate results for a newly examined

species. Given that we know more about the personality of humans

than of any other species, humans should be one of the species

included.

What should the other species be? Animal-personality research

is most likely to be conducted in research facilities, zoos, farms,

and animal shelters, on species such as rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, sheep, and dogs. We focus on domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) because (a) they are widely owned, making them a readily

available source of subjects, (b) they can safely and naturally

engage in wide array of behaviors, (c) their behavioral repertoire is

well understood by a large pool of observers, and (d) they can

travel safely to research sites without specialist care. Together,

these reasons make them a manageable species for research purposes (cf. lions, elephants), especially in the nascent stages of

research on animal personality.

Domestic dogs are found throughout the world, living alongside

humans, an association traced as far back as 14,000 to 20,000 years

ago. The evolutionary origins of domestic dogs are still subject to

debate (Nowak, 1999). Some authorities have suggested that modern dogs were derived from one or a few wolf subspecies and then

spread throughout the world in association with people (Nowak,

1979). Others have suggested that domestication occurred at different times and different locations with humans domesticating

whichever local species of canid happened to be around (Coren,

1994). In any event, many of the modern morphological and

behavioral characteristics associated with modern domestic dogs

have been selected within the context of human–dog relationships

since domestication (Hare, Brown, Williamson, & Tomasello,

2002).

Criteria for Evaluating Accuracy

If we are going to use human judgments as data for animalpersonality research, these judgments need to be subjected to the

same rigorous accuracy evaluations as judgments of human personality (Funder, 1995). Although the specific criteria and how

they are labeled vary somewhat from theorist to theorist, human

personality judgments have been evaluated with respect to three

major accuracy criteria: internal consistency, consensus, and correspondence (e.g., Kruglanski, 1989; Robins & John, 1997). Internal consistency reflects the degree to which judgments about an

individual’s personality are consistent across observations or items

thought to reflect the same behavioral dimension (Robins & John,

1997; Wiggins, 1973). Consensus implies agreement among independent informants or observers, and is often considered the hallmark of accuracy (e.g., Block, 1961; Funder, 1995; Kenny, 1994;

Kruglanski, 1989; McCrae, 1982). Correspondence refers to the

extent to which judgments predict an external criterion for “reality” (Kruglanski, 1989); perhaps the most valuable external criterion is independent observations of behaviors (Funder, 1995;

Kenny, 1994). In the present research, we use these three accuracy

criteria, developed in human research, to evaluate the accuracy of

personality judgments of dogs. For each criterion, we compare the

dog findings with parallel findings from humans. If personality

traits do not exist in dogs, then judgments of dogs should fall short

on these criteria when compared with judgments of humans.

The most knowledgeable informants about dogs are typically

their owners, who have extensively observed the animals in their

care, across both situations and time. Therefore, we focused our

judgment approach on how the personality of dogs is judged by

their owners. To estimate consensus between the owner and an

independent judge, we obtained judgments of the dogs by a second

person familiar with the target animals (a “peer”). Internal consistency was studied in the judgments of both informants (owners

and peers). Finally, we tested the correspondence of the owner’s

judgments by comparing them with the dog’s behavior rated by

independent observers in a local dog park.

Judgments of dogs, just like judgments of people, may be based

on physical and appearance characteristics, rather than actual behavior. Thus, we also took photographs of the dogs, permitting us

to obtain personality assessments on the basis of appearance alone;

these data allowed us to test the extent to which assessments of

dogs are affected by breed and other appearance stereotypes. In

addition, we controlled for such other background characteristics

as sex and age that can influence personality judgments.

To implement a cross-species comparative approach, we obtained personality judgments not only of the dogs but also of their

human owners. In this cross-species design, we used parallel

procedures, instruments, and constructs for both dogs and humans,

allowing us to compare dog findings directly with human findings

within the same study.

Lessons Learned From Previous Research

Studies of animal personality are isolated and few and far

between. Reports are scattered across a multitude of disciplines

and journals, ranging from veterinary medicine and zoology to

agricultural science and psychology (e.g., Capitanio, 1999; Fairbanks, 2001; King & Figueredo, 1997; Sinn, Perrin, Mather, &

Anderson, 2001). With few systematic attempts to assess personality in dogs and other nonhuman species, comprehensive evaluations of the accuracy of personality judgments have not been

possible. Nonetheless, a number of useful lessons can be learned

by surveying the limitations of the few studies that do exist. These

lessons have guided the design of the present research.

Previous studies of personality in dogs have not been comprehensive in their coverage of relevant traits (e.g., Murphy, 1995)

and behavioral domains (e.g., Cattell & Korth, 1973), even though

the importance of examining a broad array of trait dimensions is

now widely understood in the human literature (John & Srivastava,

1999). Another important reason for examining multiple traits in

the same study is to address discriminant validity. Are personality

1162 GOSLING, KWAN, AND JOHN

ratings on multiple dimensions independent and valid, or do they

simply reflect a single evaluative dimension, such as “like–

dislike”? To address this possibility, human research on personality judgments has assessed multiple traits simultaneously, permitting an evaluation of each dimension while controlling for

judgments of the other dimensions. The same now needs to be

done with personality dimensions in dogs.

In some cases, previous studies of dogs have assessed personality dimensions using only one item (e.g., Murphy, 1995; Slabbert

& Odendaal, 1999). Single items are problematic because they

provide less reliable measurements than do multiple indicators and

do not permit the assessment of internal consistency (Gosling,

Rentfrow, & Swann, in press). Thus, personality dimensions

should be estimated using multiple items.

Moreover, research on dogs has focused on only one accuracy

criterion at a time, rather than systematically testing all the important aspects of accuracy. For example, there may be internal

consistency, or there may be consensus, but if judgments reflect

only shared stereotypes about breed, then there may be little

correspondence. Similarly, if consensus is low, correspondence

might be severely underestimated. Thus, all three accuracy criteria

need to be tested in the same study.

Most previous studies of dogs have been done in applied contexts where the behavior of dogs is of interest in and of itself (e.g.,

Slabbert & Odendaal, 1999; Svartberg, 2002). By focusing on one

species, rather than taking the comparative approach proposed

here, these studies make it difficult to evaluate the broader significance of the findings. Should a consensus correlation of .40 be

considered large or small? Some kind of benchmark is needed

against which the findings from dogs can be evaluated. The accuracy of personality judgments has been studied most extensively in

humans, making them the most appropriate benchmark species.

One limitation of some of the previous research is that it has

examined dog breeds globally, rather than judgments of individual

dogs (e.g., Coren, 1998; Hart & Miller, 1985). These studies have

shown good consensus among experts in judging breed-typical

characteristics; however, they do not address the accuracy of

judgments of individual dogs. To illustrate this point, consider that

judges might well agree about the stereotypical traits associated

with the peoples of England, Hong Kong, and Germany, yet

relying on these national stereotypes may be of little value for

judging the personalities of particular individuals. Indeed, such

national stereotypes may even lead judges to overlook the individuating behaviors of the individuals. Nonetheless, the previous

work showing personality differences among dog breeds is important for interpreting findings on differences among individual

dogs; researchers must ensure that personality judgments indeed

reflect real behaviors, rather than impressions based on breed

differences or other stereotypes and biases (e.g., based on sex, age,

size, or appearance).

In conclusion, to achieve a more complete understanding and

evaluation of dog-personality judgments, research should: (a) include a comprehensive set of trait dimensions, (b) measure each

dimension with multiple items, (c) evaluate multiple accuracy

criteria, (d) assess two or more species in a comparative design,

and (e) assess judgments of individuals (rather than groups or

breeds) while controlling for the potentially biasing effects of

stereotypes, such as those related to sex, age, and physical appearance. This kind of comprehensive species-comparative design has

not yet been implemented but is urgently needed if the field of

animal personality is to emerge from its infancy.

Overview of Studies

Dog owners and their dogs were recruited in a local dog park to

participate in three studies. In Study 1, each owner provided

personality judgments of their dog as well as of their own personality. The owners also identified another person (a “peer”) who

was familiar with both the target dog and the owner and could thus

judge both their personalities. This cross-species design allowed us

to compare (a) the internal consistency of dog and human personality judgments and (b) the consensus between owner and peer in

judging either dog or human personality. In Study 2, owners

brought their dogs to a field-testing enclosure located at a dog

park, where the dogs’ behaviors were observed and rated by three

independent observers in an observational field-testing session. To

assess the correspondence criterion of accuracy, we tested how

well the owners’ personality judgments of their dogs predicted the

behavior ratings obtained in the field-testing sessions. In Study 3,

photographs of the dogs (taken at the dog park) were rated by a

new set of observers. These photo-based ratings allowed us to

examine the effects of breed and appearance characteristics.

Personality Judgments by Owner and Peer Informants:

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) as a Framework

Which personality dimensions should be assessed? Although

several factor-analytic studies have identified dimensions of dog

personality (e.g., Cattell & Korth, 1973; Svartberg & Forkman,

2002), no single model has been adopted by the field. Using the

FFM as an organizing framework, Gosling and John (1999) summarized the structural findings from the factor analytic studies of

dogs and 11 other species. One of the most striking findings to

emerge was that Conscientiousness did not appear as an independent personality dimension in dogs; in fact, Conscientiousness

appeared only in humans and humans’ closest relatives, namely

chimpanzees (King & Figueredo, 1997). This pattern of findings

suggests that Conscientiousness appeared as a distinct dimension

of personality relatively recently in evolutionary history, long after

canid ancestors diverged from hominid ancestors (Gosling & John,

1999).

These review findings, along with the results of a series of

comprehensive trait studies (Gosling & John, 1998), suggest that at

this point, a four-dimensional model is the most promising for

personality traits in dogs. These four dimensions represent canine

analogs of four of the five human FFM factors: Energy (analogous

to human Extraversion), Affection (analogous to human Agreeableness), Emotional Reactivity (analogous to human Neuroticism), and Intelligence (analogous to human Openness/Intellect).

Thus, we focused on these four dimensions, which currently provide the most reasonable, albeit provisional, model for organizing

personality judgments of dogs. With no evidence for a separate

Conscientiousness dimension in any species other than humans

and chimpanzees, it would make little sense to assess this trait in

dogs.

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

 

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!