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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder characterized by stereotypies or repetitive behaviors and impairments in social behavior and socio-communicative skills. One hallmark phenotype of ASD is poor joint attention skills compared to neurotypical controls. In addition, individuals with ASD have lower scores on several of the Big 5 personality dimensions, including Extraversion. Here, we examine these traits in a nonhuman primate model (chimpanzees; Pan troglodytes) to further understand the relationship between personality and joint attention skills, as well as the genetic and neural systems that contribute to these phenotypes. We used archival data including receptive joint attention (RJA) performance, personality based on caretaker ratings, and magnetic resonance images from 189 chimpanzees. We found that, like humans, chimpanzees who performed worse on the RJA task had lower Extraversion scores. We also found that joint attention skills and several personality dimensions, including Extraversion, were significantly heritable. There was also a borderline significant genetic correlation between RJA and Extraversion. A conjunction analysis examining gray matter volume showed that there were five main brain regions associated with both higher levels of Extraversion and social cognition. These regions included the right posterior middle and superior temporal gyrus, bilateral inferior frontal gyrus, left inferior frontal sulcus, and left superior frontal sulcus, all regions within the social brain network. Altogether, these findings provide further evidence that chimpanzees serve as an excellent model for understanding the mechanisms underlying social impairment related to ASD. Future research should further examine the relationship between social cognition, personality, genetics, and neuroanatomy and function in nonhuman primate models.

While the field of personality neuroscience has extensively focused on humans and, in a few cases, primates and rodents, a wide range of research on fish personality has emerged in the last decades. This research is focused mainly on the ecological and evolutionary causes of individual differences and also aimed less extensively at proximal mechanisms (e.g., neurochemistry or genetics). We argue that, if consistent and intentional work is made to solve some of the meta-theoretical issues of personality research both on fish and mammals, fish personality research can lead to important advances in personality neuroscience as a whole. The five dimensions of personality in fish (shyness-boldness, exploration-avoidance, activity, aggressiveness, and sociability) need to be translated into models that explicitly recognize the impacts of personality in psychopathology, synergizing research on fish as model organisms in experimental psychopathology, personality neuroscience, and ecological-ethological approaches to the evolutionary underpinnings of personality to produce a powerful framework to understand individual differences.

The Roman high-avoidance (RHA) and low-avoidance (RLA) rat lines/strains were established in Rome through bidirectional selection of Wistar rats for rapid (RHA) or extremely poor (RLA) acquisition of a two-way active avoidance task. Relative to RHAs, RLA rats exhibit enhanced threat sensitivity, anxiety, fear and vulnerability to stress, a passive coping style and increased sensitivity to frustration. Thus, RLA rats’ phenotypic profile falls well within the “internalizing” behavior spectrum. Compared with RLAs and other rat strains/stocks, RHAs present increased impulsivity and reward sensitivity, deficits in social behavior and attentional/cognitive processes, novelty-induced hyper-locomotion and vulnerability to psychostimulant sensitization and drug addiction. Thus, RHA rats’ phenotypes are consistent with a “disinhibiting externalizing” profile. Many neurobiological/molecular traits differentiate both rat lines/strains. For example, relative to RLA rats, RHAs exhibit decreased function of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), hippocampus and amygdala, increased functional tone of the mesolimbic dopamine system, a deficit of central metabotropic glutamate-2 (mGlu2) receptors, increased density of serotonin 5-HT2A receptors in the PFC, impairment of GABAergic transmission in the PFC, alterations of several synaptic markers and increased density of pyramidal immature dendrític spines in the PFC. These characteristics suggest an immature brain of RHA rats and are reminiscent of schizophrenia features like hypofrontality and disruption of the excitation/inhibition cortical balance. We review evidence supporting RLA rats as a valid model of anxiety/fear, stress and frustration vulnerability, whereas RHA rats represent a promising translational model of neurodevelopmental alterations related to impulsivity, schizophrenia-relevant features and comorbidity with drug addiction vulnerability.

When looking at others, primates primarily focus on the face – detecting the face first and looking at it longer than other parts of the body. This is because primate faces, even without expression, convey trait information crucial for navigating social relationships. Recent studies on primates, including humans, have linked facial features, specifically facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR), to rank and Dominance-related personality traits, suggesting these links’ potential role in social decisions. However, studies on the association between dominance and fWHR report contradictory results in humans and variable patterns in nonhuman primates. It is also not clear whether and how nonhuman primates perceive different facial cues to personality traits and whether these may have evolved as social signals. This review summarises the variable facial-personality links, their underlying proximate and evolutionary mechanisms and their perception across primates. We emphasise the importance of employing comparative research, including various primate species and human populations, to disentangle phylogeny from socio-ecological drivers and to understand the selection pressures driving the facial-personality links in humans. Finally, we encourage researchers to move away from single facial measures and towards holistic measures and to complement perception studies using neuroscientific methods.

We examine some of the genetic features of neuroticism (N) taking as an animal model the Maudsley Reactive (MR) and Maudsley Nonreactive (MNR) rat strains which were selectively bred, respectively, for high and low open-field defecation (OFD) starting in the late 1950s. To draw analogies with human genetic studies, we explore the genetic correlation of N with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We review progress with the rat model and developments in the field of human complex trait genetics, including genetic association studies that relate to current understanding of the genetics of N. The widespread differences in the tone of the peripheral sympathetic nervous system that have been found between the Maudsley strains, particularly those observed in the colon, may underly the differences in OFD (MNR, higher sympathetic tone and zero defecation). In humans, a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) reported six genes contributing to IBS, four of which were implicated in mood and anxiety disorders or were expressed in the brain, with three of the four also expressed in the nerve fibers and ganglia of the gut. Heritability of N is estimated at around 50% in twin and family studies, and GWASs identified hundreds of loci, enabling estimation of genome-wide correlations (rg) with other traits. Significantly, the estimate for rg between risk of IBS, anxiety, N, and depression was >0.5 and suggested genetic pleiotropy without evidence for causal mechanisms. Findings on the adrenergic pharmacology of the colon, coupled with new understanding of the role of the locus ceruleus in modifying afferent information from this organ, generate hypotheses that challenge traditional cause/effect notions about the relationship of the central nervous system to peripheral events in response to stress, suggest specific targets for gene action in the Maudsley model and emphasize the value of reciprocal evaluation of genetic architecture underlying N in rodents and humans.

The most fundamental emotional systems that show trait control are evolutionarily old and extensively conserved. Psychology in general has benefited from non-human neuroscience and from the analytical simplicity of behaviour in those with simpler nervous systems. It has been argued that integration between personality, psychopathology, and neuroscience is particularly promising if we are to understand the neurobiology of human experience. Here, we provide some general arguments for a non-human approach being at least as productive in relation to personality, psychopathology, and their interface. Some early personality theories were directly linked to psychopathology (e.g., Eysenck, Panksepp, and Cloninger). They shared a common interest in brain systems that naturally led to the use of non-human data; behavioural, neural, and pharmacological. In Eysenck’s case, this also led to the selective breeding, at the Maudsley Institute, of emotionally reactive and non-reactive strains of rat as models of trait neuroticism or trait emotionality. Dimensional personality research and categorical approaches to clinical disorder then drifted apart from each other, from neuropsychology, and from non-human data. Recently, the conceptualizations of both healthy personality and psychopathology have moved towards a common hierarchical trait perspective. Indeed, the proposed two sets of trait dimensions appear similar and may even be eventually the same. We provide, here, an introduction to this special issue of Personality Neuroscience, where the authors provide overviews of detailed areas where non-human data inform human personality and its psychopathology or provide explicit models for translation to human neuroscience. Once all the papers in the issue have appeared, we will also provide a concluding summary of them.