On Great Ape Personality Structure: Problems in Minkov (2026)
Abstract
A recent paper (Minkov, 2026) claimed that great ape personality is not well-described by the five personality dimensions found in humans, those being Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. To support this claim, the author analyzed personality factor structures obtained in studies of great apes in which personality was assessed using rating scales. The analyses tested for ‘configural invariance’ by computing the percentage of traits that loaded on the same factor as in humans in chimpanzees, orangutans, mountain gorillas, and bonobos, and the percentage of traits that loaded on the same factor across four studies of chimpanzees. The paper also reviewed the evidence for Conscientiousness in chimpanzees, including by citing the results of studies that used other ratings scales, and concluded that this factor’s evidentiary basis was weak. The paper concluded by proposing an alternative approach to studying personality in great apes. This commentary exposes fundamental problems with the article. First, I show that the paper’s author mischaracterized the research program of comparative psychologists who study personality. Second, I review the evidence the paper uses to support its claim that there is little evidence for configural invariance, highlighting problems and errors in the analyses and reporting of results. Third, I review the evidence presented against the presence of Conscientiousness in chimpanzees and find it problematic. Finally, I demonstrate that the literature review lacks due care. I conclude by dispelling a misunderstanding about comparative research on personality and reaffirm the importance and promise of pluralism in the study of the phenomenon.
Related
- Learning the Shared Latent Structure of Cryo-EM Inverse Problems
- Active centromeres share a conserved array-architecture signature across great ape genomes
- Expecting the unexpected: Great apes anticipate surprise in others
- Intelligence and the Big Five personality traits share a genetic and biological basis
- Environmental chemicals cause changes in animal personality that can destabilize populations
BibTeX
@misc{weiss2026great,
title = {{On Great Ape Personality Structure: Problems in Minkov (2026)}},
author = {Alexander Weiss},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/yhjga_v4},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/yhjga_v4/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - On Great Ape Personality Structure: Problems in Minkov (2026)
AU - Alexander Weiss
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/31
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/yhjga_v4
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/yhjga_v4/
AB - A recent paper (Minkov, 2026) claimed that great ape personality is not well-described by the five personality dimensions found in humans, those being Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. To support this claim, the author analyzed personality factor structures obtained in studies of great apes in which personality was assessed using rating scales. The analyses tested for ‘configural invariance’ by computing the percentage of traits that loaded on the same factor as in humans in chimpanzees, orangutans, mountain gorillas, and bonobos, and the percentage of traits that loaded on the same factor across four studies of chimpanzees. The paper also reviewed the evidence for Conscientiousness in chimpanzees, including by citing the results of studies that used other ratings scales, and concluded that this factor’s evidentiary basis was weak. The paper concluded by proposing an alternative approach to studying personality in great apes. This commentary exposes fundamental problems with the article. First, I show that the paper’s author mischaracterized the research program of comparative psychologists who study personality. Second, I review the evidence the paper uses to support its claim that there is little evidence for configural invariance, highlighting problems and errors in the analyses and reporting of results. Third, I review the evidence presented against the presence of Conscientiousness in chimpanzees and find it problematic. Finally, I demonstrate that the literature review lacks due care. I conclude by dispelling a misunderstanding about comparative research on personality and reaffirm the importance and promise of pluralism in the study of the phenomenon.
ER -