Search

Personality is essential for understanding the evolution of cooperation and conflict in behavior. However, personality science remains disconnected from the field of social evolution, limiting our ability to explain how personality and plasticity shape phenotypic adaptation in social behavior. Researchers also lack an integrative framework for comparing personality in the contextualized and multifaceted behaviors central to social interactions among humans and other animals. Here we address these challenges by developing a social evolutionary approach to personality, synthesizing theory, methods, and organizing questions in the study of individuality and sociality in behavior. We critically review current measurement practices and introduce social reaction norm models for comparative research on the evolution of personality in social environments. These models demonstrate that social plasticity affects the heritable variance of personality, and that individual differences in social plasticity can further modify the rate and direction of adaptive social evolution. Future empirical studies of frequency- and density-dependent social selection on personality are crucial for further developing this framework and testing adaptive theory of social niche specialization.

A central premise of the science of comparative affect is that we can best learn about the causes and consequences of affect by comparing affective phenomena across a variety of species, including humans. We take as a given that affect is widely shared across animals, but a key challenge is to accurately represent each species' affective experience. A common approach in the comparative study of behavior and cognition is to develop standardized experimental paradigms that can be used across species, with the assumption that if the same task is being used, we can directly compare behavioral responses. This experimental approach rests on two underlying assumptions: first, that different species' perception of and affective response to these paradigms are the same; and second, that behavioral and physiological (including endocrine and neural) responses to these paradigms are homologous; if either of these assumptions is not true, then the comparison becomes much less straightforward. Our goal in the present paper is to summarize the dominant paradigms that have been used for such comparative research, with a particular focus on paradigms common in the cooperation literature, and to critically discuss dominant assumptions about what affective states these tasks can or should measure. We then consider the advantages and drawbacks of this experimental method, and consider alternatives that may improve our understanding. We hope that this will help scholars recognize and avoid pitfalls inherent in studying affect, and stimulate them to create novel, ecologically relevant paradigms for examining affect across the animal kingdom.