![2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15 2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15](https://softserialskey.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/cyberlink-powerdirector-Free-Crack.jpg)
Assessing primate personality in the wild, usually by means of behavioral observations, behavioral testing, or questionnaires is not very commonly done, most likely due to logistical reasons (Tkaczynski et al., 2019). Thus, to investigate the evolutionary and ecological significance of personality structure, results from captivity should be compared with those obtained under natural settings (Adriaenssens & Johnsson, 2013 Herborn et al., 2010), but such studies are still quite rare (e.g., Fisher et al., 2015).
![2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15 2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15](https://i1.wp.com/windows-cdn.softpedia.com/screenshots/CyberLink-TrueTheater-Enhancer_2.png)
It has been argued that personality structure as described in captivity could potentially show less behavioral variability than under field conditions and, in fact, be an adaptation to the particular environment (McDougall et al., 2006), as selection pressures largely differ between these distinct environments (Adriaenssens & Johnsson, 2009 Smith & Blumstein, 2008). Personality trait correlations are likely maintained by mechanisms that may either constrain behavioral changes (i.e., “constraint hypothesis” Bell, 2005 Lande, 1979) or particular traits may be selected for in some distinct environments (i.e., “adaptive hypothesis” Bell, 2005 Lande & Arnold, 1983). Nonhuman primate personality has usually been studied in captivity (e.g., Capitanio 1999, 2004 Koski, 2011 Masilkova et al., 2018 Šlipogor et al., 2016, 2020 Stevenson‐Hinde & Zunz, 1978 Stevenson‐Hinde et al., 1980a, 1980b Uher & Visalberghi, 2016 Uher et al., 2008 Uher et al., 2013 Wilson et al., 2018), and, to a somewhat lesser extent, also in the wild (e.g., Fernández‐Bolaños et al., 2020 Carter et al., 2014b Dammhahn & Almeling, 2012 Ebenau et al., 2020 Eckardt et al., 2015 Garai et al., 2016 Konečná et al., 2008 Manson & Perry, 2013). Personality has been linked with fitness (Adriaenssens & Johnsson, 2013 Seyfarth et al., 2012 Smith & Blumstein, 2008), development (Delval et al., 2020 Polverino et al., 2016 Stamps & Groothuis, 2010 von Borell et al., 2019 Wuerz & Krüger, 2015), longevity (Altschul et al., 2018 Careau et al., 2010), subjective well‐being (Gartner et al., 2016 Robinson et al., 2016 Weiss et al., 2009), choice of social partners (Ebenau et al., 2019 Massen & Koski, 2014 Verspeek et al., 2019), social information use (Carter et al., 2013 Carter et al., 2014a Kurvers et al., 2010) and increasingly also cognition (Altschul et al., 2017 Dougherty & Guillette, 2018 Mazza et al., 2018), and genetics (Staes et al., 2019 Wilson et al., 2017). Taken together, our results contribute to the discussion about the reliability and ecological validity of personality structures in nonhuman primates.Īnimal personality has been extensively researched in recent decades and described in many species, from invertebrates to humans (Freeman & Gosling, 2010 Gartner & Weiss, 2013 Koski, 2014 Kralj‐Fišer & Schuett, 2014 Réale et al., 2007 Weiss, 2018 Wilson et al., 2019).
![2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15 2.309 cyberlink powerdirector ultimate 15](https://1progs.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CyberLink-PowerDirector.png)
Nevertheless, whether the structure in the wild is suppressed or expanded in comparison to captivity, and in which way the social setting influences personality structure, should be further explored. Under field conditions, we found a somewhat similar personality structure as compared to the laboratory, which to some extent corroborates ecological validity of our personality test design. Further, we found high long‐term temporal consistency in the first two personality components, Boldness and Exploration however, monkeys that changed their social (i.e., breeding) status between the two testing periods showed a significant increase in Boldness scores. Under captive conditions, we found a remarkably similar personality structure across 4 testing years. Therefore, we conducted a battery of personality tests on common marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus) ( N = 27), compared it with a test battery conducted 4 years beforehand on a subset of animals in captivity ( N = 13) and ran an adapted version under field conditions at Baracuhy Biological Field Station, Brazil ( N = 18). Further, little is known on whether the personality structures obtained in the laboratory reflect the structures obtained under ecologically relevant conditions in the wild. However, it is still unclear whether the obtained personality constructs are stable across several years, which might be especially important for long‐living animals, such as primates. Temporal consistency of behaviors is almost always part of the personality definition and is usually explored in several different testing sessions or observation periods. Personality in animals has been extensively researched in recent decades.