Dominance in human (Homo sapiens) personality space and in hominoid phylogeny.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Comparative Psychology Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1037/com0000322
Alexander Weiss
{"title":"Dominance in human (Homo sapiens) personality space and in hominoid phylogeny.","authors":"Alexander Weiss","doi":"10.1037/com0000322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Unlike nonhuman primates, individual differences between humans in dominance do not appear as broad personality factors. This may be attributable to differences between the questionnaires used to study human and nonhuman primate personality. Alternatively, this may reflect differences in the organization of personality in humans and nonhuman primates. To determine which of these possibilities was most likely, 1,147 participants were recruited and asked to rate their personality and/or that of somebody else on the Hominoid Personality Questionnaire (HPQ), which has been used to study nonhuman primate personality. A large subset of these participants (~80%) also completed self- and/or rater reports of one of three questionnaires used to measure human personality. Exploratory factor analyses of HPQ rater report data yielded five factors. These factors correlated mostly in expected ways with scales from questionnaires used to study human personality. Exploratory factor analyses of HPQ self-report data yielded no clear number of factors and no consistent evidence with respect to the presence of a dominance factor. Subsequent analyses compared HPQ scales that represented dominance factors in chimpanzees, bonobos, mountain gorillas, and orangutans to scales derived from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, including Fearless Dominance, which combined Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion facets, Emotional Stability (the inverse of Neuroticism), and Extraversion's Assertiveness facet. Fearless Dominance and Assertiveness were most like the great ape dominance factors. The absence of human dominance factors, therefore, appears to reflect present or past social conditions of our species. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000322","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Unlike nonhuman primates, individual differences between humans in dominance do not appear as broad personality factors. This may be attributable to differences between the questionnaires used to study human and nonhuman primate personality. Alternatively, this may reflect differences in the organization of personality in humans and nonhuman primates. To determine which of these possibilities was most likely, 1,147 participants were recruited and asked to rate their personality and/or that of somebody else on the Hominoid Personality Questionnaire (HPQ), which has been used to study nonhuman primate personality. A large subset of these participants (~80%) also completed self- and/or rater reports of one of three questionnaires used to measure human personality. Exploratory factor analyses of HPQ rater report data yielded five factors. These factors correlated mostly in expected ways with scales from questionnaires used to study human personality. Exploratory factor analyses of HPQ self-report data yielded no clear number of factors and no consistent evidence with respect to the presence of a dominance factor. Subsequent analyses compared HPQ scales that represented dominance factors in chimpanzees, bonobos, mountain gorillas, and orangutans to scales derived from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, including Fearless Dominance, which combined Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion facets, Emotional Stability (the inverse of Neuroticism), and Extraversion's Assertiveness facet. Fearless Dominance and Assertiveness were most like the great ape dominance factors. The absence of human dominance factors, therefore, appears to reflect present or past social conditions of our species. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类(智人)人格空间和类人猿系统发育中的支配地位。
与非人类灵长类动物不同,人类在支配地位方面的个体差异并不表现为广泛的人格因素。这可能是由于用于研究人类和非人类灵长类动物性格的问卷存在差异。或者,这可能反映了人类和非人类灵长类动物在人格组织上的差异。为了确定哪一种可能性最大,研究人员招募了1147名参与者,并要求他们在类人猿人格问卷(HPQ)上对自己和/或其他人的人格进行打分,该问卷已被用于研究非人类灵长类动物的人格。这些参与者中的很大一部分(约80%)还完成了用于测量人类性格的三份问卷中的一份自我和/或评分报告。对HPQ评分报告数据进行探索性因素分析,得出五个因素。这些因素与用于研究人类个性的问卷中的尺度主要以预期的方式相关。对HPQ自述数据的探索性因素分析没有得出明确的因素数量,也没有一致的证据表明存在优势因素。随后的分析将代表黑猩猩、倭黑猩猩、山地大猩猩和猩猩的优势因素的HPQ量表与来自修订NEO人格量表的量表进行了比较,其中包括无畏的优势,它结合了神经质、随和性、尽责性和外向性方面、情绪稳定性(与神经质相反)和外向性的自信方面。无所畏惧的优势和自信最接近类人猿的优势因素。因此,人类主导因素的缺失似乎反映了我们这个物种现在或过去的社会状况。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Comparative Psychology publishes original research from a comparative perspective on the behavior, cognition, perception, and social relationships of diverse species.
期刊最新文献
Cross-modal perception of puppies and adult conspecifics in dogs (Canis familiaris). Putting the best foot forward: Limb lateralization in the Goffin's cockatoo (Cacatua goffiniana). Guatemalan beaded lizards (Helodermatidae: Heloderma charlesbogerti) navigate and follow a scent trail in maze tasks. Contrafreeloading in umbrella cockatoos (Cacatua alba): Further evaluation of the play hypothesis. Implementation of automated cognitive testing systems for socially housed rhesus (Macaca mulatta) and squirrel (Saimiri spp.) monkeys: Age differences in learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1