Most global environmental problems hinge on people developing a stronger sense of empathy and stewardship for protecting the natural world. Humans have a long history of separating themselves from other species. Up to around Victorian times, for example, there was very little acknowledgement or regard for animals being anything more than machines guided by instinct rather than flexible decision-making derived from their own conscious thoughts.

The notion that animals have personality, for example, has traditionally received much resistance from scientists because it was viewed as being too anthropomorphic to be an objective field of science. Even today, you can go to a scientific conference and talk about animal personality and still find some scientists challenging the notion. Researchers have gone from calling it different names (e.g., dispositions, temperaments, syndromes) to putting the word in quotation marks (“personality”). But while it is indeed important to always be vigilant against anthropomorphism, it is equally important not to be “anthropo-phobic”, and one of the biggest curiosities, despite many scientists’ resistance, is the fact that they themselves can accurately gauge the personalities of other species when you ask them! This latter point can be illustrated by two examples from my own research:

In 2013, my colleagues and I gave questionnaires to people who had been working with monkeys for over a year, to test whether they could reliably rate the personalities of those monkeys. The questionnaire asked the people to rate on a scale from 1 to 7 how much certain behaviours were expressed by each monkey. To determine whether the questionnaire responses were valid, we quantified behavioural observations on the same monkeys to see whether individual differences in monkeys’ behaviour reflected the raters’ scores from the survey. We found that both measures reflected each other, demonstrating that the raters gave an accurate portrayal of monkeys’ personalities (SEE HERE). Similarly, in 2020, we assessed whether human raters could reliably rate monkeys for levels of innovative behavior and motivation. We found that rated innovation predicted performance on a learning task, and rated motivation predicted participation in the task (SEE HERE).

Collectively, what these and other studies suggest is that, in at least some respects, humans do indeed have the capacity to accurately perceive psychological traits in other species. Such abilities may be a key factor in helping our society restore its sense of empathy and connection to the natural world.

But, importantly, how does greater awareness of animal psychology change people’s views and connection with wildlife? Research on the psychological abilities of animals indeed receives major global media attention, and educational talks on the intelligence and personality of animals can, in some cases, encourage people to learn about and support their welfare and conservation. However, educating people about animal psychology could have limited impact because, for example, many species are often regarded as dangerous or pests to society. Thus, getting local communities to support the conservation and general well-being of these animals can be difficult because it comes at a perceived cost.

Thus, to better understand the relationships between animal psychology, human-wildlife conflict, and people’s willingness to tolerate and support local wildlife, I established two research programmes in 2018 and 2021, respectively, focusing on wild free-ranging carnivores due to their incredible behavioural adaptability and highly polarised reputation in human society. If you’d like to learn more about both of these programmes, check out the CASE STUDIES page!

Animals’ minds are like black boxes – we cannot see directly inside their heads to know  what they are thinking. Consider, for instance, your own observations of people: if you observe someone smiling, how do you know they’re actually happy versus pretending ? Thus, given the difficulty of being able to interpret the emotional and cognitive underpinnings of behaviour, my team and I use a combination of methods to help infer the existence of psychological abilities in animals, much like human psychologists do with their participants. One common approach includes the use of psychometric tests, i.e., tasks designed to measure a specific ability in animals. For instance, the puzzle feeder you see in the photo to your right was designed to test whether wild raccoons naturally possess knowledge on how to use sticks to retrieve an out-of-reach food reward, which several species of primates and birds are famous for doing (called “spontaneous tool use”). However, despite sticks being widely available throughout their habitat and possessing many of the physical, cognitive, and behavioural traits as other tool-using species, raccoons were interested in the food rewards but mostly ignored the sticks, suggesting that other factors are needed for tool use. To read more about this study, SEE HERE.

Ethical Note: My team’s top priority is the safety and well-being of the people and animals we study. None of the work we do is invasive to wildlife; it is entirely observational and on wild free-ranging animals. Part of our extended research network includes several world-leading animal welfare scientists, and our methods are ethically reviewed and approved by the Animal Welfare & Ethics Research Board at the University of Hull. Our methods also follow all ethical guidelines set out by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Finally, we work very closely with a range of government and scientific officials (e.g., wildlife biologists, park managers, and city council members) who keep us updated on the most recent wildlife policies and legislation.