Spotlight

Why personality differences matter for social

functioning and social structure
Max Wolf and Jens Krause
Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Mueggelseedamm 310,
12587 Berlin, Germany

We outline three main ways how personality differences

can affect social functioning and social structure. By
highlighting the broad and significant consequences
that personality differences can have for social processes, our article might serve as a starting point for a
research focus that aims at a systematic understanding
of these consequences.

Personality differences and social processes: a two-way

interaction
Personality differences, between-individual differences in
behaviour that are consistent over time, are widespread in
the animal kingdom. Over the last years, much research
has focussed on the ecological and evolutionary causes of
such differences. A key result of this research is that a
variety of social processes such as frequency-dependent
selection, reputation-building, or social niche specialisation have been found to be important factors causing the
emergence of personality differences within populations
[1]. However, this is only one side of the coin. While social
processes can cause personality differences, the existence
of personality differences can be expected to have substantial consequences for social processes within animal groups
and populations. In our view, this latter issue has received
far too little attention in the past. What are the consequences of personality differences for social functioning
and social structure? We here provide a first conceptual
framework for a research focus centred on this question. In
particular, we outline three main ways in which personality differences can affect social processes at different levels
of social organisation (see Table 1 for a brief summary).
Social responsiveness, behavioural coordination and
social competition
Firstly, the presence of personality differences within
groups and populations is predicted to promote the emergence of socially responsive individuals, that is, individuals
that adjust their behaviour in response to the past behaviour (or reputation) of their interaction partners. The
presence of socially responsive individuals, in turn, can
increase both the degree of behavioural coordination and
the level of social competition within groups and
Corresponding author: Wolf, M. (m.wolf@igb-berlin.de).
Keywords: individual differences; social responsiveness; coordination; social competition; swarm intelligence; social network.
0169-5347/
2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.03.008

306

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, June 2014, Vol. 29, No. 6

populations. While a series of recent theoretical models

has investigated this link between personality differences,
social responsiveness and social functioning, to date little
is known about this relationship in natural systems. We
here provide a brief summary of the main theoretical
predictions.
One key prediction from a series of different models is
that, in a range of contexts including aggressive and
cooperative interactions, the existence of personality differences selects for socially responsive individuals [2,3].
The logic underlying this prediction is as follows. When
choosing an action, a socially responsive individual takes
into account the past behaviour (or reputation) of its
interaction partners. Social responsiveness is thus predicted to be particularly beneficial when (i) different interaction partners differ in their behaviour, since this makes
it beneficial to fine-tune the behaviour to particular interaction partners and (ii) when such differences are consistent over time, since this allows a socially responsive
individual to use past behaviour as a predictor for future
behaviour.
The presence of socially responsive individuals, in turn,
is predicted to increase the levels of behavioural coordination within groups and populations, since socially responsive individuals match their behaviour to the behaviour of
their interaction partners. In situations where individuals
within a group have the choice between taking the lead or
following, for example, the presence of socially responsive
individuals can promote a high degree of coordinated
behaviour among individuals within that group [4]. In
hawk-dove like contest situations, the presence of socially
responsive individuals can increase the frequency of coordinated hawk-dove interactions, and decrease the frequency of uncoordinated hawk-hawk and dove-dove
interactions [2].
The presence of socially responsive individuals is also
predicted to increase social competition within groups and
populations. This is caused by the fact that socially responsive individuals might interrupt an interaction and look for
a new interaction partner. This implicit threat inherent in
interactions with socially responsive individuals puts pressure on their interaction partners which, in turn, can give
rise to social outcomes that differ substantially from those
achieved in the absence of socially responsive individuals
[3]. In the context of cooperation, for example, the presence
of socially responsive individuals can give rise to high
levels of cooperation in situations where very little cooperation is expected in the absence of socially responsive
individuals [3].

Spotlight

Trends in Ecology & Evolution June 2014, Vol. 29, No. 6

Table 1. Three main ways how personality differences can affect social functioning and social structure at different levels of social
organisation
Aspect
Social responsiveness,
behavioural coordination
and social competition

Problem-solving ability

Social structure

Implications
Personality differences select for socially responsive individuals. The presence of socially responsive
individuals, in turn, is predicted to
(i) increase the levels of behavioural coordination within groups and populations,
(ii) increase the social competition within groups and populations, thereby giving rise to social outcomes
(e.g., high levels of cooperation) that differ substantially from those achieved in the absence of socially
responsive individuals.
(i) Pool of competence hypothesis: the more diverse a group, the more likely it is to harbour the specialist
for any given problem.
(ii) Personality differences are associated with differences in experience, information acquisition and/or
information use. Such differences can promote the ability of groups to make use of swarm intelligence.
(iii) Personality differences can give rise to communication problems and in-group/out-group
categorization processes hampering group performance.
Personality types differ in the number and the frequency of interactions with others, the responsiveness to
previous social experiences and their preferred social interaction partners. As a consequence of these
differences, the composition of personality types within a group or population can have substantial
consequences for the emerging social fine structure.

Problem-solving ability
Secondly, personality differences can be expected to affect
the problem-solving ability of groups. Different personality
types often differ in their relative ability to solve different
ecological problems. In fish, birds and rodents, for example,
proactive types tend to outperform reactive types under
stable environmental conditions, whereas reactive types
outperform proactive types under changing environmental
conditions [5]. Analogous context-dependent differences in
the relative performance of personality types can be
expected to be present in many other contexts. Consequently, for any given ecological problem, the more diverse
a group, the higher its chance that it harbours the specialist for that problem (pool of competence hypothesis [6]). If
a group can capitalize on this pool of abilities (e.g., via
social learning), more diverse groups should thus be better
problem solvers than less diverse groups; first evidence in
birds is in line with this hypothesis [6].
The presence of personality differences might also affect
the ability of groups to develop swarm intelligence (aka
collective intelligence and wisdom of the crowd). In brief,
swarm intelligence occurs whenever for a given cognitive
problem a group can outperform even the best of its
members [7]. Importantly, many of the mechanisms underlying swarm intelligence require that individuals differ
in their experience and/or in the way they acquire or
evaluate information [7]. Put simply, whenever individuals
within a group are too similar, the swarm intelligence
potential is diminished. Personality differences can be
expected to be an important source of this required between-individual variation, since different personality
types often differ systematically in experience, information
acquisition and information use [5]. The presence of different personality types within a group might thus be a key
factor promoting the ability of that group to make use of
swarm intelligence. To the best of our knowledge, this link
between personality differences and swarm intelligence
remains largely unexplored in the animal literature.
Before moving on, we stress that the existence of personality differences might not only have positive effects on the
problem-solving ability of groups. In humans, for example,
between-individual diversity can give rise to communication
problems and in-group/out-group categorization processes,

Refs
[24]

[68]

[911]

hampering group performance [8]; similarly, between-individual diversity might weaken group cohesion in many nonhuman species, thereby decreasing performance in tasks
where cohesion is important.
Social structure
Thirdly, personality differences can be expected to be an
important factor underlying the emerging social fine structure (i.e., social interaction network) within groups and
populations. Personality types differ in the number and
the frequency of interactions with others, the responsiveness to previous social experiences, and their preferred
interaction partners [1,5]. As a consequence, the composition of personality types within a group or population can be
expected to be a key determinant of its emerging social fine
structure. To date, few studies in the animal literature have
explicitly addressed this potentially important relationship
between personality types and social fine structure.
In one of these studies, bold sticklebacks, Gasterosteus
aculeatus, have been shown to have fewer interaction than
their shy conspecifics, but to distribute these interactions
more evenly across all group members [9]. Shy individuals,
in contrast, associated preferentially with a small number
of other group members. As a result, groups composed of
bold individuals were characterized by a relatively low
number of interactions and a uniform distribution of these
interactions whereas groups of shy individuals were characterized by more long-lasting associations between individuals and highly non-uniform interaction distributions.
Different personality types differ consistently in their
responsiveness to previous social experiences. Whether or
not individuals in a group or population respond to previous social experiences (e.g., via breaking interactions), and
how frequent such responsive individuals are, can have
substantial consequences for social network dynamics and
the emerging social fine structure. For example, in an
experiment with humans, when given the chance to break
interaction links, compared to a situation where individuals could not break interaction links, highly clustered
networks emerged which, in turn, promoted high levels
of cooperation [10].
Personality types might also differ in their preferred
social interaction partners. Homophily, for example, refers
307

Spotlight
to the observation that humans tend to associate with
others that are similar to themselves. Such systematic
differences in partner preferences, in turn, can give rise
to non-random mixing of individuals in social networks and
assortment based on personality types, a phenomenon that
has been observed in a wild population of Trinidadian
guppies, Poecilia reticulata [11].
To sum up, we have discussed three main ways in which
the existence of personality differences can affect the social
functioning and the social structure of groups and populations. While certainly not being comprehensive, the above
discussion highlights the broad and significant consequences that personality differences can have for social
processes and we hope that our article serves as a starting
point for a research focus that aims at a systematic understanding of these consequences.
Acknowledgments
We thank Paul Craze and two anonymous reviewers for constructive
criticism and valuable comments, we also thank the participants of the
Symposium Personality: causes and consequences of consistent behavioural variation and the Volkswagen Foundation for funding this
Symposium. This work was part of the B-Types project funded through
the Leibniz Competition (SAW-2013-IGB-2).

308

Trends in Ecology & Evolution June 2014, Vol. 29, No. 6

References
1 Wolf, M. and Weissing, F.J. (2010) An explanatory framework for
adaptive personality differences. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 39593968
2 Wolf, M. et al. (2011) On the coevolution of social responsiveness and
behavioural consistency. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 440448
3 McNamara, J.M. and Leimar, O. (2010) Variation and the response to
variation as a basis for successful cooperation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
365, 26272633
4 Johnstone, R.A. and Manica, A. (2011) Evolution of personality
differences in leadership. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 8373
8378
5 Coppens, C.M. et al. (2010) Coping styles and behavioural flexibility:
towards underlying mechanisms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 4021
4028
6 Morand-Ferron, J. and Quinn, J.L. (2011) Larger groups of passerines
are more efficient problem solvers in the wild. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 108, 1589815903
7 Krause, J. et al. (2010) Swarm intelligence in animals and humans.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 2834
8 Van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007) Work group diversity.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 515541
9 Pike, T.W. et al. (2008) Behavioural phenotype affects social
interactions in an animal network. Proc. R. Soc. B 275, 25152520
10 Fehl, K. et al. (2011) Co-evolution of behaviour and social network
structure promotes human cooperation. Ecol. Lett. 14, 546551
11 Croft, D.P. et al. (2009) Behavioural trait assortment in a social
network: patterns and implications. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63,
14951503