This article discusses dominance personality dimensions found in primates, particularly in the great apes, and how they compare to dominance in humans. Dominance traits are seen in virtually all primate species, and these dimensions reflect how adept an individual is at ascending within a social hierarchy. Among great apes, dominance is one of the most prominent personality factors but, in humans, dominance is usually modeled as a facet of extraversion. Social, cultural, and cognitive differences between humans and our closest ape relatives are explored, alongside humanity’s hierarchical and egalitarian heritage. The basic characteristics of dominance in humans and nonhuman great apes are then described, alongside the similarities and differences between great apes. African apes live in societies each with its own hierarchical organization. Humans were a possible exception for some of our history, but more recently, hierarchies have dominated. The general characteristics of high-dominance humans, particularly those living in industrialized nations, are described. Dominance itself can be subdivided into correlated subfactors: domineering, prestige, and leadership. Various explanations have been posed for why dominance has declined in prominence within human personality factor structures, and several possibilities are evaluated. The value of dominance in personality research is discussed: dominance has links to, for instance, age, sex, aggression, self-esteem, locus of control, stress, health, and multiple socioeconomic status indicators. The piece concludes with recommendations for researchers who wish to assess dominance in personality.

An altered behavioral response to positive reinforcement has been proposed to be a core deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR), a congenic animal strain, displays a similarly altered response to reinforcement. The presence of this genetically determined phenotype in a rodent model allows experimental investigation of underlying neural mechanisms. Behaviorally, the SHR displays increased preference for immediate reinforcement, increased sensitivity to individual instances of reinforcement relative to integrated reinforcement history, and a steeper delay of reinforcement gradient compared to other rat strains. The SHR also shows less development of incentive to approach sensory stimuli, or cues, that predict reward after repeated cue-reward pairing. We consider the underlying neural mechanisms for these characteristics. It is well known that midbrain dopamine neurons are initially activated by unexpected reward and gradually transfer their responses to reward-predicting cues. This finding has inspired the dopamine transfer deficit (DTD) hypothesis, which predicts certain behavioral effects that would arise from a deficient transfer of dopamine responses from actual rewards to reward-predicting cues. We argue that the DTD predicts the altered responses to reinforcement seen in the SHR and individuals with ADHD. These altered responses to reinforcement in turn predict core symptoms of ADHD. We also suggest that variations in the degree of dopamine transfer may underlie variations in personality dimensions related to altered reinforcement sensitivity. In doing so, we highlight the value of rodent models to the study of human personality.

Like other animals, fish have unique personalities that can affect their cognition and responses to environmental stressors. These individual personality differences are often referred to as “behavioural syndromes” or “stress coping styles” and can include personality traits such as boldness, shyness, aggression, exploration, locomotor activity, and sociability. For example, bolder or proactive fish may be more likely to take risks and present lower hypothalamo–pituitary–adrenal/interrenal axis reactivity as compared to shy or reactive individuals. Likewise, learning and memory differ between fish personalities. Reactive or shy individuals tend to have faster learning and better association recall with aversive stimuli, while proactive or bold individuals tend to learn more quickly when presented with appetitive incentives. However, the influence of personality on cognitive processes other than cognitive achievement in fish has been scarcely explored. Cognitive bias tests have been employed to investigate the interplay between emotion and cognition in both humans and animals. Fish present cognitive bias processes (CBP) in which fish’s interpretation of stimuli could be influenced by its current emotional state and open to environmental modulation. However, no study in fish has explored whether CBP, like in other species, can be interpreted as long-lasting traits and whether other individual characteristics may explain its variation. We hold the perspective that CBP could serve as a vulnerability factor for the onset, persistence, and recurrence of stress-related disorders. Therefore, studying fish’s CBP as a state or trait and its interactions with individual variations may be valuable in future efforts to enhance our understanding of anxiety and stress neurobiology in animal models and humans.

Human personality generally refers to coherent individuating patterns in affect, behavior, and cognition. We can only observe and measure behavior, from which we then infer personality and other psychological processes (affect, cognition, etc.). We emphasize that the study of personality always explains or summarizes patterns not only in behavior but also in these other psychological processes inferred from behavior. We thus argue that personality should be attributed only to nonhuman animals with behaviors from which we can infer a sufficiently rich set of psychological processes. The mere inference of a biological trait that explains behavioral variability, on our view, is not sufficient to count as a personality construct and should be given a different term. Methodologically, inferring personality in nonhuman animals entails challenges in characterizing ecologically valid behaviors, doing so across rich and varied environments, and collecting enough data. We suggest that studies should gradually accumulate such corpora of data on a species through well-curated shared databases. A mixture of approaches should include both top-down fit with extant human personality theories (such as the Big Five) as well as bottom-up discovery of species-specific personality dimensions. Adopting the above framework will help us to build a comparative psychology and will provide the most informative models also for understanding human personality, its evolution, and its disorders.

This special issue attempts to integrate personality, psychopathology, and neuroscience as means to improve understanding of specific traits and trait structures in humans. The key strategy is to dive into comparative research using a range of species to provide simple models. This strategy has, as its foundation, the fact that the most basic functions, and their supporting neural systems, are highly conserved in evolution. The papers collected in the issue show that, from fish, through rats, to primates, the homologies in brain systems and underlying functions (despite species-specific forms of expression) allow simpler cases to provide insights into the neurobiology behind more complex ones including human. Our introductory editorial paper to this special issue took a bottom-up approach, starting with the genetics of conserved brain systems and working up to cognition. Here, we deconstruct the different aspects of personality, progressing from more complex ones in primates to least complex in fish. With the primate section, we summarize papers that discuss the factors that contribute to sociability in primates and how they apply to healthy and pathological human personality traits. In the rat section, the focus is driven by psychopathology and the way that “high” strains selected for extreme behaviors can illuminate the neurobiology of motivated responses to environmental cues. The section on fish summarizes papers that look into the most fundamental emotional reactions to the environment that are governed by primitive and conserved brain structures. This raises metatheoretical questions on the nature of traits and to a section that asks “which animals have personalities.” We believe that the issue as a whole provides a nuanced answer to this question and shines a new, comparative, light on the interpretation of personality structure and the effects on it of evolution.

Despite being one of the main components of anxiety and playing a pivotal role in how an individual perceives and copes with anxiogenic situations or responds to a given treatment, trait anxiety is paradoxically omitted in most animal models of anxiety. This is problematic and particularly more concerning in models that are used to screen drugs and other treatments for specific anxiety disorders and to investigate their neurobiological mechanisms. Our group has been engaged in the search for specific anxiety-related traits in animal models of anxiety. We developed two new lines of rats with strong phenotypic divergence for high (Carioca High-conditioned Freezing [CHF]) and low (Carioca Low-conditioned Freezing [CLF]) trait anxiety as expressed in the contextual fear conditioning paradigm. Here, we summarize key behavioral, pharmacological, physiological, and neurobiological differences in one these lines, the CHF rat line, relative to randomized-cross controls and discuss how far they represent a valid and reliable animal model of generalized anxiety disorder and so high trait anxiety.

Psychiatric illnesses form spectra rather than categories, with symptoms varying continuously across individuals, i.e., there is no clear break between health and disorder. Dimensional measures of behaviour and brain activity are promising targets for studying biological mechanisms that are common across disorders. Here, we assessed the extent to which neural measures of the sensitivity of the three biological systems in the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) could account for individual differences in a latent general factor estimated from symptom counts across externalising disorders (EXTs). RST explanatory power was pitted against reduced P300, a reliable indicator of externalising per previous research. We assessed 206 participants for DSM-5 EXTs (antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, intermittent explosive disorder symptoms, alcohol use disorder, and cannabis use disorder). Of the final sample, 49% met diagnostic criteria for at least one of the EXTs. Electroencephalographic measures of the sensitivities of the behavioural activation system (BAS), the fight/flight/freeze system, and the behavioural inhibition system (BIS), as well as P300 were extracted from the gold bar-lemon and stop-signal tasks. As predicted, we found that low neural BIS sensitivity and low P300 were uniquely and negatively associated with our latent factor of externalising. Contrary to prediction, neural BAS/“dopamine” sensitivity was not associated with externalising. Our results provide empirical support for low BIS sensitivity and P300 as neural mechanisms common to disorders within the externalising spectrum; but, given the low N involved, future studies should seek to assess the replicability of our findings and, in particular, the differential involvement of the three RST systems.

Dimensional psychopathology scores measure symptom severity; cutting across disorder categories. Their clinical utility is high given comorbidity, but their neural basis is unclear. We used scalp electroencephalography (EEG) to concurrently assess neural activity across internalizing and externalizing traits. “Theta rhythm” (4–7 Hz) spectral power at the frontal midline site Fz in specific goal conflict and action error phases within a trial of a Stop-Signal Task was extracted using process-specific contrasts. A final sample of 146 community participants (63 males, 83 females; mean age = 36; SD = 9; range = 18 – 56), oversampled for externalizing disorder (49% diagnosed with a DSM-5 externalizing disorder), also supplied psychopathology and personality data. We used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory−3 (MMPI-3) to measure symptoms and traits of psychopathology. An MMPI-3 measure of the higher-order internalizing psychopathology spectrum was positively correlated with action error theta. An MMPI-3 measure of the higher-order spectrum of externalizing psychopathology was negatively correlated with goal-conflict theta. We showed that goal-conflict and error theta activity are higher-order processes that index psychopathology severity. The associations extend into the nominally healthy range, and so reflect theta-related factors that apply to the general population as well as patients with sub-threshold diagnoses.