Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The ‘Feline Five’: An exploration of personality
in pet cats (Felis catus)
Carla A. Litchfield
1
*, Gillian Quinton
1
, Hayley Tindle
2
, Belinda Chiera
3
, K. Heidy Kikillus
4
,
Philip Roetman
2
1Centre for Social Change, School of Psychology, Social Work & Social Policy, University of South Australia,
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 2Discovery Circle, School of Natural and Built Environments, University
of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 3School of Information Technology and
Mathematical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 4Centre for
Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
*Carla.Litchfield@unisa.edu.au
Abstract
The idea of animals possessing personalities was once dismissed by the scientific commu-
nity, but has since gained traction with evidence for potential application to improve captive
animal management and welfare. Although domestic cats are popular companion animals,
research has tended to overlook the value of personality assessment for management and
care of pet cats. The aim of this study was to investigate personality in a large sample of pet
cats with a view to understanding practical implications for pet cats in the home. Personality
of 2,802 pet cats, from South Australia and New Zealand, was rated by their owners utilising
a survey measuring 52 personality traits. Five reliable personality factors were found using
principal axis factor analysis: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Dominance, Impulsiveness and
Agreeableness. Implications for the ‘Feline Five’ are discussed in relation to their potential
application to improving the management and welfare of pet cats. Highly Impulsive cats for
example, may be reacting to something stressful in their environment, whereas cats with
low Agreeableness scores, showing irritability may indicate underlying pain or illness. Thus,
the need for a systematic and holistic approach to personality that includes both the individ-
ual pet cat and its environment is recommended, and opens the door to future interdisciplin-
ary intervention.
Introduction
Domestic cats have been companion animals for thousands of years [1], and are popular pets
in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, North America and elsewhere [2]. Yet, we know little
about typical pet cat behaviour, with most behavioural studies conducted in laboratories, shel-
ters or on free-ranging feral cat colonies [3]. This gap in knowledge is problematic since the
typical environment for domestic cats is arguably the home, with tens of millions of pet cats,
some kept exclusively indoors [3]. Cat owners, veterinarians, animal behaviourists and scien-
tists often focus on the behavioural problems of stressed cats rather than on the behaviour of
psychologically healthy cats and their inter- and intra-species interactions. Development of an
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 1 / 17
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Litchfield CA, Quinton G, Tindle H, Chiera
B, Kikillus KH, Roetman P (2017) The ‘Feline Five’:
An exploration of personality in pet cats (Felis
catus). PLoS ONE 12(8): e0183455. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455
Editor: Christopher A. Lepczyk, Auburn University,
UNITED STATES
Received: August 3, 2016
Accepted: August 4, 2017
Published: August 23, 2017
Copyright: ©2017 Litchfield et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The Domestic Cat
Personality data are available from the University of
South Australia database and has a DOI (DOI:10.
4226/78/58b65fc48a5f0, link: https://doi.org/10.
4226/78/58b65fc48a5f0).
Funding: The project (PR) received funding from
the South Australian Dog and Cat Management
Board (http://www.dogandcatboard.com.au/). The
project (PR) was also funded by the University of
South Australia’s Discovery Circle Initiative (http://
www.discoverycircle.org.au) which receives
external funding from the Adelaide and Mt Lofty
accurate standardised ethogram (inventory of species-specific behaviours) for pet cats would
facilitate creation of standards for optimal housing and welfare, like the Five Freedoms for cap-
tive animals [4].
It is possible for cats living in a multi-cat household to time-share favourite places [5],
choose to spend time in close proximity with another cat [6], or play with a dog companion,
with both species able to interpret each other’s behaviour correctly if they have been together
from a young age [7]. Cats are more sociable than many people realise [8], and a basic under-
standing of cat behaviour [9] and signals (e.g. vocalisations) can allow owners to assess social
stress in their cats [8], with veterinarians and other professionals able to provide this informa-
tion to kitten or cat owners [10]. Understanding social interactions between cats (in the same
household or neighbourhood) and between cats and their owners is important since many
urban pet cats may be suffering chronic stress, as a result of lack of control over their environ-
ment [8]. A better understanding of cat personality by means of assessment could help owners
improve conditions for their cats at home, thereby supporting the optimal wellbeing of their
feline companions.
Personality in animals
Personality refers to consistent individual differences in behavioural patterns [11] and is some-
times labelled as temperament [12] or behavioural syndromes [13], although a standardised
term, personality, should be applicable in all cases. Personality in animals has been investigated
by scientists in various fields [14], with a bias towards species considered most useful to
humans, such as primates for their genetic closeness [15] and canids for their working ability
[16]. However, as popular pets, an understanding of domestic cat personality could improve
domestic cat welfare, by allowing carers to tailor management strategies to suit individual cats,
since animal personality has been shown to influence behaviour [17], health outcomes [18],
wellbeing [19], and welfare [20]. In Australia, research has tended to focus on behavioural
problems related to owned and un-owned/stray cats [21,22] rather than on the potential value
of personality assessment. In Australia, almost 53,000 cats were received by RSPCA shelters in
2014–2015, with about a third of these cats eventually euthanized [23], and in the United
States, an estimated 3.4 million cats enter animal shelters annually, with about 41% of these
euthanized [24]. Personality assessment may increase compatibility of cat-owner placements
through shelter adoption [2], with the understanding that personality of owners also influences
cat behaviour [25] and therefore ideally both personality of prospective owner and cat would
be assessed for compatibility [26]. For example, people scoring high on Neuroticism may have
fewer and less complex interactions with their cats [25]. Cat owners through use of informed
management practices, such as appropriate housing, enrichment, grouping, health and wellbe-
ing strategies related to individual cat personalities may enhance the quality of life of their cats.
Measures of cat personality
Early cat personality studies relied on systematic observation of cat behaviour and coding
methods, which involves generating an ethogram, and then systematically recording frequency
or duration of behavioural categories [16,27,28], such as a cat’s responses to presentations of
novel objects [29,30] or unfamiliar persons [2,31,32]. Though coding was considered to be
objective [14], the subjective rating of comprehensive personality traits by people (usually car-
ers) who know the animals well (the rating method), is now used more frequently [8,25], and
is considered a more reliable, practical and time-efficient approach [33]. Following the genera-
tion of a comprehensive list of species-relevant behavioural traits [34], rating usually occurs
along a Likert scale to indicate the level of trait expression generally demonstrated by the
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 2 / 17
Ranges Natural Resources Management Board;
Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources;City of Marion;and City of Salisbury.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
animals [16]. Data are then typically reduced into a consolidated number of personality
dimensions or factors, each comprising reflective personality traits using dimension reduction
statistics, such as principal components analysis [28,35].
Research on personality in domestic cats
Investigations of cat personality have focused on either: the continuum of one personality
dimension, such as dominance-warmth [36], which may allow for a more thorough investiga-
tion; or more commonly on multiple dimensions at once [37,38], typically adapting the com-
monly used approach in human personality research, the Five-Factor Model (FFM),
sometimes known as the Big Five [37,39]. The FFM model is comprised of the dimensions
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.
The theory behind the model suggests an individual’s personality is determined by where they
exist along each factor continuum [34] (see Fig 1 adapted from [40]).
Domestic cat personality research has tended to explore development of behaviour directed
at humans, socialisation, and the shy-bold continuum of cat personality in relation to humans
[30–32,35,41]. Individual differences exist in the extent to which cats accept the approach of,
or handling by an unfamiliar person [32,35], which is potentially influenced by the friendliness
of a cat’s sire as well as socialisation effects [30,41]. The shy-bold continuum in relation to
inter-cat social behaviour has also been investigated [42], with bolder cats more vulnerable to
feline immunodeficiency virus, which has potential health implications for pet cats in the home.
Methodological challenges facing studies of cat personality
A multidimensional examination of personality in cats [43] served as a foundational study
design, which used subjective trait ratings in a personality survey designed for rhesus monkeys
(Macaca mulatta), which was modified following behavioural observation of cats in a laboratory
over three months. Despite the limited generalizability of the sample (n= 14, female only, and
laboratory environment), inter-cat social behaviour was observed and recorded, allowing suc-
cessful validation of initial subjective assessments. Some of the methodological limitations or
weaknesses of domestic cat personality studies conducted to date include: (1) lack of information
on length of familiarity between cats and the people rating them [41]; (2) lack of acknowledge-
ment of possible influence that researchers may have on cat behaviour when observing them in
their homes [25]; (3) small sample sizes, such as 14 cats [43] or 40 cats [25,41], with 440 cats rep-
resenting the largest sample rated by their owners following recruitment over the Internet [38];
Fig 1. The FFM continuum and an example of how an individual’s personality might be scored (based
on terminology from John & Srivastava, 1999).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455.g001
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 3 / 17
and (4) insufficient reporting of reliability assessments with inter-rater/observer reliability coeffi-
cients the most commonly reported values, conveying varying levels of agreement between rat-
ers/observers in their impressions of cat personality trait expression [25,37,41,43].
Another problem concerns the inconsistent nomenclature or labelling used for cat person-
ality trait and factors. The dimension reduction technique principal components analysis
(PCA), coupled with exploratory factor analysis (EFA), is recommended to analyse statistical
correlations among personality traits that cluster together creating overall components [34].
For example, the highest factor loadings on traits such as anxious, insecure, tense, and so on,
have resulted in labelling the factor as Neuroticism [37]. The labelling of a factor as Feeding in
one study [25], with its behavioural inclination makes its applicability to personality question-
able [16]. Moreover, a lack of standardised personality factor labels and their corresponding
traits is obstructing replication studies and consequently progress in cat personality research
[38]. Thus, a standardised use of terms guided by previous research [44], such as the well-
established human FFM nomenclature is recommended.
Following identification of personality factors, researchers should assess consistency of
these factors across situations [45], with evaluation of validity to determine whether the assess-
ment tool actually measures personality [46]. For example, the two-step process [25,43] allows
subjective ratings to be converged with coded behaviours, in order to identify and validate per-
sonality factors with some respectable coefficients (e.g. >.70), thereby strengthening accuracy
of findings. Content validity was likely compromised in one application of human personality
traits to cats [38] since not all domains of cat personality may have been captured in their use
of only the human FFM.
Application of personality assessment for improved cat management
and welfare
Previous research on captive wild felids has led to suggestions of potential application of personal-
ity assessment to captive animal management and welfare, such as socially compatible enclosure
groupings created for Scottish wildcats (Felis silvestris) [19] and provision of ample hiding places
for highly tense-fearful cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) [20]. These applications may also be relevant
to domestic pet cat management, particularly for grouping of compatible cats in multi-cat house-
holds, or providing neurotic pet cats with additional hiding places. To facilitate the use of person-
ality assessment as a means of improving pet cat management and welfare, the methodological
challenges facing research in this area, including small sample sizes, must be addressed.
Research aims
As an exploratory study, this study aimed to analyse personality in a large sample of pet cats,
utilising a personality inventory completed by cat owners about their cats. The study followed
on from previous research on felid personality, which has typically found between three [37]
and five factors [38], with the personality dimensions Sociable, Dominant and Curious emerg-
ing with high validity across felid species [46]. The research question that this study sought to
answer was: how many reliable and interpretable factors depict personality in pet cats and
what traits do they represent?
Materials and methods
Ethics statement and study subjects
The study was conducted in New Zealand and South Australia. The methods and materials
used in this study were approved by the University of South Australia’s Human Research
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 4 / 17
Ethics Committee (#33220) and the Victoria University of Wellington Human Research Ethics
Committee (#21064) with all cat owners consenting to participate in the study. All issues
related to participant recruitment and consent were approved by Human Research Ethics
Committees. Data were collected through an online survey instrument. Participants voluntar-
ily self-selected to complete the survey and they were provided with information regarding the
project and consent at the beginning of the online survey. It was a requirement for participants
to confirm that they consented to being involved in the project and that they met inclusion cri-
teria (being at least 16 years old and currently living in South Australia, for the Australian sur-
vey; being at least 18 years old and currently living in New Zealand, for the New Zealand
survey) before being able to undertake the survey. As an example, a copy of the South Austra-
lian participant information for the online survey is provided (S1 Appendix).
The Human Research Ethics Committee approved 16 years and older as a participation cri-
terion for the South Australian research as 16 year olds were able to register cats in some local
council areas in South Australia and it was considered important to understand their attitudes
to cat management. The Human Research Ethics Committee agreed that a 16 year old could
reasonably decide to participate in the social survey and answer the questions.
Subjects included 2,802 domestic cats of varying breeds from private homes in South Aus-
tralia (SA; n= 1,687) and New Zealand (NZ; n= 1,115). This included 1,377 male, 1,387 female
and 38 cats of unknown sex, ranging in age from 1–20 years, with a median age of 5 years. Cats
under one year of age were excluded and only surveys where respondents had answered all
personality items needed for analyses were included.
Design, measures and materials
The current study utilised a 52-item (variable/trait) survey based on a recent comprehensive
Scottish wildcat personality survey [19], which pooled items from previous personality assess-
ments on felids [20,43,47] and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) [48]. Minor changes to wording
were made in our survey to minimise confusion and increase applicability to pet cats. ‘Friendly
to conspecifics’, ‘aggressive to conspecifics’ and ‘stingy’ were replaced with ‘friendly to other
cats’, ‘aggressive to other cats’ and ‘greedy’, respectively. The survey included specific defini-
tions alongside each item, such as insecure (‘seems scared easily, jumpy and fearful in general’)
to ensure a uniform understanding of the terms among participants, who were asked to rate
the extent to which their cat demonstrated each personality item/trait along a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much so’ (S1 Appendix).
This personality survey was part of a larger online survey (using SurveyMonkey [49]) created
for a citizen science project called Cat Tracker, a collaborative initiative to further the under-
standing of domestic cats and community views on their ownership and management. Cat
Tracker also tracked pet cats utilising small Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking units. The
results of the larger study will be used to inform cat management. Only the cat personality com-
ponent of the online survey is provided here for analysis. The other parts of the survey are not
included, nor are details about the tracking of cat movement, as they are relevant to other parts
of the larger study. For reference, the larger survey included sections related to cat ownership,
attachment to cats, participant demographics (such as age and sex), general opinions on cats,
and cat stories (provided by the participant). To be involved in the larger survey, individuals
could be either cat owners or non-cat owners (although many questions including the cat per-
sonality questions, the focus of this study, were only asked of cat owners). Participants were
recruited through an open invitation to participate in the project, which was promoted by proj-
ect leaders in SA and NZ through partner organisations (including academic, government and
animal-focused organisations), social, and traditional media. Although the project was promoted
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 5 / 17
in multiple ways (including e-newsletters to organisational mailing lists), no participants were
recruited directly. The media release that was used in SA is provided as an example of promo-
tional material (S2 Appendix). In addition, the project’s popularity saw it promoted by other
individuals, companies, organisations, government departments, and media outlets in various
formats and locations (including those outside the study areas). The study areas of SA and NZ
were selected for convenience and due to funding conditions. Project funders were based in SA
and NZ, which saw research limited to these locations. The survey was open in SA from Febru-
ary 2015 until September 2016 (a total of 20 months), whilst in NZ data collection began at the
end of 2014 and continued until the end of 2015 (a total of 12 months). Although it was sug-
gested that participants completed the survey online, it was also available in paper format and
was posted (reply paid) to potential participants upon request. Any completed paper-based sur-
veys received by the research team were transcribed into the online survey instrument.
Procedure
Survey data from both SA and NZ (n= 4,842) were downloaded from SurveyMonkey [49] and
initial data screening was conducted in Microsoft Excel. Many survey respondents had not
answered all of the cat personality items (n= 1,780) as they did not have a cat, had a cat but
decided not to complete the (optional) cat personality section, or had neglected to answer
some of the items. Data from those respondents were removed. The survey responses were
also checked for unengaged participants (no variation in their responses to the 52 cat personal-
ity items as indicated by standard deviations of <.50), which resulted in two being excluded
from analysis. The remaining sample (n= 3,060) was analysed in IBM SPSS Statistics V21.0. A
filter was applied to conservatively exclude cats less than one year old (n= 258), as personalities
may still be developing prior to a minimum age of four months [35]. The relationship between
the length of the personality survey and the number of missed responses to survey items was
investigated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The last item ‘eccentric’ was not included
as it was found to be an outlier, with 132 missed responses.
Initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) utilising principal axis factoring was conducted on
two independent samples of personality ratings in pet cats from SA (n= 1,687) and NZ
(n= 1,115). Initial results (Table 1) show the orthogonally (varimax) rotated four-factor solu-
tions, initial and rotated eigenvalues, and percentages of variance revealing moderate-high
internal consistencies, and highly similar factor extractions between both data sets. For SA, the
items that clustered on factor 1 represent Neuroticism; factor 2, Dominance; factor 3, Extraver-
sion; factor 4, Impulsiveness, and cumulatively explain an initial variance of 41.58%. A similar
factor structure was revealed for NZ, cumulatively explaining an initial variance of 41.35%, but
the items on factor 3 represent Self-control and factor 4, Extraversion; however, factors 3 and 4
for NZ were presented adjacently to factors 3 and 4 for SA to enable meaningful comparison
(Table 1). The high similarity between factor structures cross-validated the results [50], thus
justifying further analysis using a combined sample (n= 2,802).
Preliminary analyses involved examination of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bart-
lett’s test of sphericity to determine if the data were appropriate for factor analysis (S3 Appen-
dix). The overall KMO measures of .92 and .91 respectively, confirmed sampling adequacy for
both analyses with values exceeding the minimum level of .50 [51], and Bartlett’s Tests of Sphe-
ricity [52] were significant (p<.001), thus the data were considered appropriately correlated
for factor analysis. The KMO values for individual items were over .72 (S3 Appendix), which is
greater than the accepted level of .50 [50].
Initial analyses were run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Ten factors had
eigenvalues greater than Kaiser’s criterion of one that cumulatively explained a variance of
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 6 / 17
Table 1. Cross-validation of the cat personality measurement scale using two independent samples: South Australia (SA; n= 1,687) and New Zea-
land (NZ; n= 1,115).
Rotated Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings
Item Neuroticism Dominance Extraversion Impulsiveness;
Self-Control
SA NZ SA NZ SA NZ SA NZ
Insecure .78 .77 -.03 -.05 -.04 .06 .20 -.22
Fearful of people .77 .77 .05 .05 -.08 -.02 -.08 .03
Suspicious .76 .78 .12 .04 -.11 -.05 -.12 .13
Anxious .75 .74 .03 .02 -.07 .02 .22 -.23
Trusting -.74 -.77 -.16 -.04 .18 .09 .11 -.05
Shy .72 .71 -.04 -.07 -.17 -.15 .08 -.05
Calm -.66 -.66 -.15 -.10 -.06 -.12 -.17 .16
Stable -.62 -.62 -.19 -.14 -.02 -.16 -.30 .31
Friendly to people -.59 -.64 -.22 -.13 .21 .19 .17 -.09
Tense .56 .57 .15 .17 -.05 .03 .15 -.21
Self-assured -.51 -.51 .07 .11 .25 .16 -.43 .50
Bold -.48 -.53 .27 .24 .40 .33 -.11 .25
Fearful of other cats .46 .44 -.09 -.13 -.10 -.05 .08 -.20
Cool -.42 -.40 -.00 .02 -.08 -.16 -.22 .22
Excitable .36 .29 .14 .19 .33 .38 .31 -.22
Solitary .34 .39 .27 .17 -.26 -.18 -.06 .04
Bullying -.06 -.09 .69 .76 .09 .04 -.00 .07
Dominant -.21 -.19 .66 .69 .10 .09 -.12 .19
Aggressive to other cats .02 .04 .65 .66 .03 -.02 -.05 .07
Defiant -.05 -.08 .64 .67 .21 .14 -.02 .05
Irritable .22 .17 .61 .62 -.02 .01 .10 -.06
Gentle -.30 -.25 -.58 -.59 .06 -.06 -.06 .02
Aggressive to people .19 .17 .49 .50 .00 .12 .13 -.06
Jealous .08 .05 .48 .48 .09 .07 .08 -.04
Erratic .24 .25 .47 .47 .19 .23 .41 -.37
Cooperative -.18 -.18 -.44 -.43 .10 .06 -.11 .17
Submissive .24 .20 -.44 -.52 -.03 .04 .25 -.26
Friendly to other cats -.25 -.25 -.41 -.34 .19 .22 .14 -.06
Reckless -.04 -.08 .41 .47 .35 .37 .34 -.19
Affectionate -.32 -.36 -.38 -.30 .22 .17 .06 .04
Greedy -.01 -.08 .34 .39 .10 .02 .19 -.15
Curious -.22 -.18 -.04 -.06 .69 .59 -.12 .32
Inventive -.19 -.14 -.03 .03 .64 .52 -.15 .33
Inquisitive -.30 -.21 -.08 -.03 .64 .59 -.09 .28
Playful -.19 -.15 -.23 -.16 .58 .50 .08 .11
Active -.12 .00 -.03 -.03 .53 .55 -.19 .25
Impulsive .05 .12 .31 .31 .42 .41 .32 -.21
Persevering -.11 -.08 .16 .19 .39 .33 -.20 .26
Vigilant .15 .23 .05 .06 .39 .39 -.27 .30
Constrained .02 -.04 -.23 -.28 -.36 -.38 -.16 .15
Vocal -.05 -.05 .01 -.01 .31 .23 .00 -.02
Eccentric .11 .06 .16 .22 .29 .31 .22 -.16
Individualistic .06 .06 .15 .23 .25 .31 -.03 .02
Aimless .08 .07 .10 .17 -.09 .03 .58 -.56
Decisive -.12 -.14 .08 .06 .40 .23 -.55 .59
(Continued)
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 7 / 17
56.95% for SA and 57.22% for NZ. For SA and NZ as independent samples, the scree plots dis-
play the eigenvalues associated with the components in descending order against the number
of the components revealed inflexion points that justified retaining four factors for each data
set (S4 Appendix; [53]), whereas parallel analysis [54] justified retaining up to seven factors for
SA and eight for NZ (S4 Appendix).
The factorability of the 52 cat personality survey items was also examined using several
well-known criteria (S3 Appendix), and based on these preliminary analyses the 52 cat person-
ality survey items were subjected to EFA. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted (S5
Appendix). Principal components analysis (PCA) was initially used to determine the potential
number of factors within the data set, and as a result of this process four items (independent,
individualistic, eccentric and vocal) were excluded (S5 Appendix). Finally, a principal axis fac-
tor analysis (PAF) was conducted on the final 48-item sample. The justifications used for each
step of the preliminary and final analysis processes are outlined in detail in this section, the
results section, or are provided in S3 Appendix,S4 Appendix, and S5 Appendix.
Results
Cat owner participants
The 2,802 cats (study subjects) were owned by 2,291 survey participants, members of the gen-
eral public of SA and NZ. Participants were male (n= 308), female (n = 1,850) or did not
answer (n = 133). About 60% of participants were aged between 21 and 50 years, with approxi-
mately 16% of participants on either side of this age range (Table 2).
The Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed there was a strong correlation between the
number of missed survey items and the length of the cat personality survey using the com-
bined SA and NZ data, r= .73, n= 51, p<.01. A final PAF was conducted on the 48-item cat
personality dataset with five factors cumulatively explaining a variance of 47.43%. Orthogonal
(varimax) and oblique (direct oblimin) rotations were explored and resulted in similar factor
extractions, as minimal correlations (<.30) were present between factors ranging from .01 to
.28 (S5 Appendix). Consistent with previous research [19,37], other recommendations [55–
Table 1. (Continued)
Rotated Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings
Item Neuroticism Dominance Extraversion Impulsiveness;
Self-Control
SA NZ SA NZ SA NZ SA NZ
Clumsy .03 .03 -.03 .02 -.02 .00 .52 -.48
Smart -.08 -.02 -.00 .03 .36 .25 -.50 .59
Deliberate -.01 -.09 .10 -.02 .24 .10 -.49 .52
Distractible .11 .06 .15 .17 .17 .30 .47 -.41
Quitting .17 .12 .14 .13 -.14 -.04 .30 -.36
Independent -.16 -.08 .22 .18 .03 .01 -.28 .37
Predictable .03 -.03 -.22 -.27 -.18 -.24 -.27 .20
Initial eigenvalues 9.04 8.58 5.86 6.18 3.49 3.08 3.24 3.66
% of variance 17.38 16.50 11.28 11.89 6.71 7.03 6.22 5.93
Rotated eigenvalues 6.90 6.92 4.93 5.14 4.09 3.38 3.36 3.69
% of variance 13.27 13.30 9.48 9.89 7.86 6.50 6.43 7.09
Cronbach’s α.90 .91 .85 .85 .77 .75 .72 .72
Note. Salient factor loadings (.30) are in boldface.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455.t001
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 8 / 17
57] and for ease of interpretation and understanding [58], the orthogonally rotated (varimax)
solutions are presented, cumulatively explaining a variance of 41.53%. All items had salient
loadings over .30 and some cross-loadings, but following previous studies [19,37,59], items
with multiple salient loadings were assigned to the factor that had the highest corresponding
loading. We refer to this final five-factor solution as the Feline Five. The factor-loading matrix
after rotation, the initial and rotated eigenvalues, and percentages of variance explained by the
factors determining their importance are presented below (Table 3).
In order to choose suitable labels for each of the five personality factors, a comparison of
labels used in other animal and particularly felid studies was undertaken (S6 Appendix). Thus,
factor 1 represents Neuroticism, factor 2 represents Extraversion, factor 3 represents Dominance,
factor 4 represents Impulsiveness, and factor 5 represents Agreeableness. The initial eigenvalues
showed that the factors explained a variance of 18.24%, 12.03%, 6.97%, 6.51% and 3.67% respec-
tively, which levels out on rotation (Table 3). The internal consistencies of each of the five factors
was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha to determine their reliabilities and resulted in a high coeffi-
cient of .90 for Neuroticism and acceptable/moderate [60] coefficients of .80 for Extraversion
and Dominance, and .72, and .78 for Impulsiveness and Agreeableness, respectively. No consid-
erable increases in alpha levels could have been accomplished by further item removal.
In summary, following the removal of four of the 52 cat personality survey items, the final
analysis yielded five distinct factors that depict personality in pet cats from the combined SA
and NZ sample and determined the factors were moderately to highly consistent.
Factor scores
Weighted sum factor scores were created in Microsoft Excel. The salient item loadings in each
factor were multiplied by the Likert scale score for each corresponding survey item. The result-
ing values were then summed together to create factor scores for individual cats on all five fac-
tors [61]. These results were then provided to cat owners, who had opted to receive the results,
through individual reports that illustrated their cats’ score on each of the five factors, and how
this compared to other cats using a low, typical, and high format. The report also contained a
brief description of what the personality results may mean in terms of application to cat man-
agement, particularly if their cat had extreme scores on any of the personality factors.
Discussion
This study sought to determine the number of reliable and interpretable factors that depict
personality in pet cats and analyse what traits the factors represent. The results suggest that
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for participant age (n= 2,291).
Age range nPercentage
16–17 72 3.1%
18–20 312 13.6%
21–30 533 23.3%
31–40 457 19.9%
41–50 393 17.2%
51–60 269 11.7%
61–70 89 3.9%
71–80 19 0.8%
81+ 1 0.0%
Unknown 146 6.4%
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455.t002
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 9 / 17
Table 3. Combined South Australian and New Zealand pet cat personality factor structures (n= 2,802).
Rotated Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings
Item Neuroticism Extraversion Dominance Impulsiveness Agreeableness
Insecure .81 -.14 -.03 .06 -.03
Anxious .77 -.17 .02 .07 -.06
Fearful of people .73 .04 -.02 -.05 -.27
Suspicious .71 .06 .02 -.09 -.31
Shy .70 -.13 -.06 -.09 -.17
Trusting -.69 .00 -.02 .07 .36
Calm -.68 .04 -.09 -.18 .09
Stable -.64 .15 -.11 -.26 .08
Tense .56 -.13 .11 .12 -.14
Self-assured -.53 .46 .13 -.12 .04
Bold -.52 .37 .17 .28 .02
Fearful of other cats .46 -.14 -.10 -.03 -.04
Cool -.45 .08 .01 -.17 -.05
Excitable .39 .04 .15 .38 .15
Decisive -.14 .62 .16 -.17 .03
Smart -.09 .60 .02 -.11 -.02
Curious -.17 .59 -.03 .28 .29
Inventive -.14 .56 .03 .22 .26
Active -.09 .53 -.12 .28 .09
Inquisitive -.21 .53 -.03 .27 .32
Vigilant .16 .48 .01 .13 -.03
Deliberate -.05 .48 .14 -.23 -.01
Aimless .11 -.45 .06 .37 .06
Clumsy .11 -.40 .03 .21 .22
Persevering -.09 .40 .19 .11 .08
Quitting .16 -.31 .07 .18 -.06
Bullying -.04 .06 .79 .14 -.07
Dominant -.19 .16 .70 .11 -.11
Aggressive to other cats .04 .04 .69 .10 -.15
Jealous .13 -.02 .59 .10 .04
Defiant -.09 .16 .56 .30 -.19
Submissive .25 -.19 -.46 .02 .17
Greedy .02 -.11 .45 .15 .11
Friendly to other cats -.21 .04 -.37 .10 .28
Impulsive .07 .10 .12 .60 -.02
Erratic .21 -.13 .23 .60 -.21
Reckless -.04 .04 .31 .55 .02
Predictable .05 .02 -.02 -.48 .13
Distractible .13 -.18 .07 .48 .10
Constrained .01 -.15 -.10 -.47 .01
Affectionate -.19 .06 -.07 -.14 .61
Friendly to people -.50 -.02 .01 .05 .52
Gentle -.19 .00 -.33 -.32 .49
Playful -.08 .34 -.09 .22 .47
Solitary .26 -.09 .06 .00 -.44
Irritable .12 -.04 .39 .32 -.43
(Continued)
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 10 / 17
there are five factors of domestic cat personality and that these represent traits related to Neu-
roticism, Dominance, Impulsiveness, Agreeableness, and Extraversion. This study is the first
of its kind to utlilise a transnational sample of this magnitude (n= 2,802) and build on previ-
ous research to fill in a number of methodological gaps. The cross-validation technique analys-
ing data from two independent samples (SA and NZ) strengthened the research providing a
reliable and valid measure of pet cat personality upon which future animal personality research
can build. Management and welfare implications for pet cats in the home have been largely
neglected, and how this research can be used within this field is discussed subsequently. How-
ever, there are some limitations of the study which can be addressed in future research. Survey
length may affect rater accuracy and engagement if they are too long [62,63]. We found that
the final item ‘eccentric’ was missed often enough to become an outlier. However, this was the
only item that had an additional open-ended response option (to explain any unusual behav-
iour in their cat), which may have confused raters or as the final question in a list of 52 items,
the survey may have been too burdensome to complete. This item is still worth including, as
unusual or idiosyncratic aberrant behaviour may be an indicator of stress, but may be better
placed elsewhere in the measure. The elimination of four items during statistical data reduc-
tion has the potential to address the limitation of length. Next, the majority of survey respon-
dents were female, which is consistent with some previous research finding females typically
complete surveys more often than males [64], and some argue that adult women are generally
‘predestined’ to be the main human companion in human-cat dyads [65]. Future research
could aim to have a more representative sample by setting target sex/gender ratios aligned
with population data. Finally, not asking raters how long they had known the cats prior to rat-
ing their personalities may also be a limitation to the validity of the measure. However, this
issue is most likely to be prevalent for animals in zoos or in shelter environments, where keep-
ers or staff may rotate frequently, or spend little time with individual animals, rather than with
pets who have the opportunity to behave more naturally in their environment [46].
Domestic pet cat personality structure: The feline five
Pet cat personality ratings from SA and NZ revealed five factors with acceptable-high internal
consistency: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Dominance, Impulsiveness and Agreeableness. Based
on the clusters of traits, previous research and the FFM nomenclature, the labelling of four out
of the five cat personality factors was clear, namely: (1) Neuroticism- reflects strongest levels
of traits, such as insecure, anxious, fearful of people, suspicious and shy; (2) Dominance-
reflects bullying, dominant and aggressive to other cats; (3) Impulsiveness- reflects impulsive,
erratic and reckless; and (4) Agreeableness- reflects affectionate, friendly to people and gentle.
Table 3. (Continued)
Rotated Principal Axis Factor Analysis Loadings
Item Neuroticism Extraversion Dominance Impulsiveness Agreeableness
Cooperative -.12 .12 -.26 -.24 .34
Aggressive to people .12 -.02 .30 .32 -.33
Initial eigenvalues 8.78 5.77 3.35 3.13 1.76
% of variance 18.24 12.03 6.97 6.51 3.67
Rotated eigenvalues 6.43 3.88 3.62 3.32 2.68
% of variance 13.40 8.08 7.55 6.92 5.58
Cronbach’s α.90 .80 .80 .72 .78
Note. Salient factor loadings (.30) are in boldface.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455.t003
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 11 / 17
However, our fifth factor Extraversion also revealed traits normally associated with Self-con-
trol in Scottish wildcats [19] including decisive, aimless, persevering and quitting. Our deci-
sion to label the factor Extraversion (S6 Appendix) was based on the fact that traits reflecting
Extraversion, including: active, vigilant, curious, inquisitive, inventive, and smart all loaded
onto this factor and have also been reported for other pet cats [25], captive wild felids [20,47,
66] and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii) [59].
Our Feline Five factors of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Agreeableness appear generally
consistent with the Big Five human personality assessments, along with the addition of Domi-
nance in nonhuman animal personality assessments [67]. The Feline Five introduces a more
comprehensive overall structure of pet domestic cat personality based on the largest sample
size to date. The similarities between our factor structures and those reported in other studies
of animal and domestic cat personality (S6 Appendix), suggest that some factor labels could be
standardised, enabling comparison and discussion of their practical implications. Individual
cats will exist somewhere along a continuum between low and high scores for each of the five
factors. Since cross-species similarities in personality exist between pet cats and captive wild
felids [19,20] or other mammals [59], and personality has played an important role in the
health and wellbeing outcomes of captive animals, personality is likely to have similar implica-
tions for pet cats. Being able to accurately assess personality of pet cats, and consider possible
suggestions for improvements in pet cat management, may help owners manage individual
cats in a way that optimizes their welfare.
Applications of feline five personality scores to management of pet cats
The personality profiles of their cats may not only be interesting to cat owners, but may be used to
improve welfare, particularly when an individual cat has unusually high or low scores on a factor.
Awareness of results being considered extreme on a scale, compared to a sample of 2000+ pet
cats, allows the owner to seek advice and consider changes to the environment or management of
their cat. Personality profiling may be particularly useful for managing multi-cat households, ide-
ally before obtaining a new cat. The following information provides specific examples.
Cats that score high on Neuroticism (shy) may be stressed and benefit from an assessment
of social stress [8] by observing any interactions between the neurotic cat and others (human
or non-human animals). These cats may benefit from additional hiding places around the
home or access to quiet areas (like cheetahs with high tense-fearful scores [20]). All cats that
are allowed to roam outside are at greater risk of disease transmission [42] or injury (road
deaths or fights). Cats with low scores for Neuroticism (i.e., they are bold) may travel further
(if not confined), compounding this risk.
Cats with high scores for Extraversion (smart, curious, inventive) may need additional stim-
ulation and more complex environmental enrichment to avoid boredom [9], such as extra
room to play, additional sensory items or toys, and social interactions with humans and/or
other animals [3]. Low scores for Extraversion (clumsiness, aimlessness) may indicate age-
related health issues, such as cognitive dysfunction [68], or other health problems, thus requir-
ing further individual assessment from a veterinarian.
High scores on Impulsiveness (erratic, reckless) may also indicate a stressful environment
[8,69], with negative effects on a cat’s health and welfare [70,71], and owners may need to
seek advice from an animal behaviourist to locate the source of stress. Low scores for Impul-
siveness are likely to be indicative of cats that are well adjusted to their environment and enjoy
routine.
High scores for Agreeableness (friendly) are likely to represent cats that are well adjusted
and ‘happy’, potentially serving as a source of enrichment for other cats (see captive elephants
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 12 / 17
(Loxodonta africana) [72] and tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) [73]). Owners typically desire
friendly cats [30] for their therapeutic benefits [69], and as a result friendly cats are more likely
to be adopted from shelters [2]. Low scores for Agreeableness (irritable/aggressive towards
people) may reflect poor socialisation [30], frustration [71], or underlying pain or illness [74].
Further research is needed to understand how extreme scores for the Feline Five factor of
Dominance may be used for improving cat welfare. Most of our knowledge about sociality of
domestic cats comes from behavioural observations of free-living (feral) colonies, where related
adult females cooperate in raising kittens, while there is competition between adult males [8].
High scores for Dominance reflect a cat that is likely to bully other cats in the household, poten-
tially causing stress, aggression or injury [75], with object (food) and social (inter-cat) domi-
nance behaviours observed in situations with forced grouping of cats [29]. This particular
personality factor may have a biological basis as oxytocin (a neuropeptide) has been associated
with Roughness (consisting of traits irritable, dominant, forceful & moody) in cats [76].
In summary, our Feline Five factors were: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Dominance, Impul-
siveness and Agreeableness. Accurate assessment of pet cat personality may help owners man-
age their cats in a way that optimises cat welfare. Additionally, a greater understanding of cat
personality may help owners notice changes in their cat and seek professional assessment by a
veterinarian and/or animal behaviour specialist [8,17,77].
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Relevant survey information.
(PDF)
S2 Appendix. Media release for SA cat tracker project.
(PDF)
S3 Appendix. Preliminary analyses.
(PDF)
S4 Appendix. South Australia and New Zealand as independent samples.
(PDF)
S5 Appendix. Exploratory factor analysis.
(PDF)
S6 Appendix. Comparison of factor labels used in other animal and particularly felid stud-
ies compared with the current study.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the cat owners for their participation in this study. The Cat Tracker project
commenced in North Carolina, led by staff from the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sci-
ences and the North Carolina State University, where it was primarily focussed on the tracking
of pet cats (http://cats.yourwildlife.org/). We duplicated the cat tracking project in South Aus-
tralia and New Zealand and added the social and cat personality research. We thank Karina
Burgess for help with the early survey design. Supporting organisations in South Australia
were: Dog and Cat Management Board; University of South Australia; City of Marion; City of
Salisbury; City of Mitcham; Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Manage-
ment Board; and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Supporting
organisations in New Zealand were: Wellington City Council, Victoria University of
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 13 / 17
Wellington; and World Wildlife Fund. We are grateful to the Academic Editor and two anony-
mous reviewers for their time, thoroughness and useful comments.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Carla A. Litchfield, Philip Roetman.
Data curation: Gillian Quinton, Hayley Tindle, Belinda Chiera, K. Heidy Kikillus, Philip
Roetman.
Formal analysis: Gillian Quinton, Hayley Tindle, Belinda Chiera, Philip Roetman.
Funding acquisition: K. Heidy Kikillus, Philip Roetman.
Investigation: Carla A. Litchfield, Gillian Quinton, Hayley Tindle, K. Heidy Kikillus, Philip
Roetman.
Methodology: Carla A. Litchfield, Hayley Tindle, Philip Roetman.
Project administration: Hayley Tindle, K. Heidy Kikillus, Philip Roetman.
Resources: K. Heidy Kikillus, Philip Roetman.
Supervision: Carla A. Litchfield, Hayley Tindle, Philip Roetman.
Validation: Gillian Quinton, Belinda Chiera, Philip Roetman.
Writing – original draft: Carla A. Litchfield, Gillian Quinton, Hayley Tindle.
Writing – review & editing: Carla A. Litchfield, Hayley Tindle, Belinda Chiera, K. Heidy
Kikillus, Philip Roetman.
References
1. Faure E, Kitchener AC. An archaeological and historical review of the relationships between felids and
people. Anthrozoo¨s. 2009; 22: 221–238.
2. Siegford JM, Walshaw SO, Brunner P, Zanella AJ. Validation of a temperament test for domestic cats.
Anthrozoo
¨s. 2003; 16: 332–351.
3. Bernstein PL, Friedmann E. Social behaviour of domestic cats in the human home. In: Turner DC, Bate-
son P, editors. The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour, 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press; 2014. pp. 71–80.
4. Rochlitz I. A review of the housing requirements of domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus) kept in the
home. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005; 93: 97–109.
5. Bernstein PL, Strack M. A game of cat and house: spatial patterns and behaviour of 14 domestic cats
(Felis catus) in the home. Anthrozoo
¨s. 1996; 9: 25–39.
6. Barry KJ, Crowell-Davis SL. Gender differences in the social behaviour of the neutered indoor-only
domestic cat. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1999; 64: 193–211.
7. Feuerstein N, Terkel J. Interrelationships of dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus L.) living under
the same roof. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 113: 150–165.
8. Bradshaw JWS. Sociality in cats: a comparative review. J Vet Behav. 2016; 11: 113–124.
9. Ellis SLH, Rodan I, Carney HC, Heath S, Rochlitz I, Shearburn LD, Sundahl E, Westropp JL. AAFP and
ISFM feline environmental needs guidelines. J Feline Med Surg. 2013; 15: 219–230. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1098612X13477537 PMID: 23422366
10. Gazzano A, Bianchi L, Campa S, Mariti C. The prevention of undesirable behaviors in cats: effective-
ness of veterinary behaviorists’ advice given to kitten owners. J Vet Behav. 2015; 10: 535–542.
11. Koski SE. Broader horizons for animal personality research. Front Ecol Evol. 2014; 2: 1–6.
12. Locurto C. Individual differences and animal personality. Comp Cogn Behav Rev. 2007; 2: 67–78.
13. Bell AM, Sih A. Exposure to predation generates personality in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus
aculeatus). Ecol Lett. 2007; 10: 828–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01081.x PMID:
17663716
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 14 / 17
14. Gosling SD. From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol
Bull. 2001; 127: 45–86. PMID: 11271756
15. Freeman HD, Gosling SD. Personality in nonhuman primates: A review and evaluation of past research.
Am J Primatol. 2010; 72: 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20833 PMID: 20568079
16. Gartner MC. Pet personality: A review. Pers Individ Dif. 2015; 75: 102–113.
17. Powell DM, Gartner MC. Applications of personality to the management and conservation of nonhuman
animals. In: Inoue-Murayama M, Kawamura S, Weiss A, editors. From genes to animal behavior.
Tokyo: Springer; 2011. pp. 185–199.
18. Wielebnowski NC, Fletchall N, Carlstead K, Busso JM, Brown JL. Noninvasive assessment of adrenal
activity associated with husbandry and behavioral factors in the North American clouded leopard popu-
lation. Zoo Biol. 2002; 21: 77–98.
19. Gartner MC, Weiss A. Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris grampia) personality and subjective well-being:
Implications for captive management. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2013a; 147: 261–267.
20. Wielebnowski NC. Behavioral differences as predictors of breeding status in captive cheetahs. Zoo
Biol. 1999; 18: 335–349.
21. Barratt DG. Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. I. Prey composition and
preference. Wildl Res. 1997; 24: 263–277.
22. Molsher R, Dickman C, Newsome A, Muller W. Home ranges of feral cats (Felis catus) in central-west-
ern New South Wales, Australia. Wildl Res. 2005; 32: 587–595.
23. RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Australia National Statistics 2014–
2015. Available: http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/The-facts/Statistics/RSPCA_
Australia-Report_on_animal_outcomes-2014-2015.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2016.
24. ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Shelter intake and surrender: Pet
statistics. Available: http://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-
statistics. Accessed 21 May 2016.
25. Wedl M, Bauer B, Gracey D, Grabmayer C, Spielauer E, Day J, Kotrschal K. Factors influencing the
temporal patterns of dyadic behaviours and interactions between domestic cats and their owners.
Behav Processes. 2011; 86: 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.09.001 PMID: 20837114
26. Kotrschal K, Day J, McCune S, Wedl M. Human and cat personalities: building the bond from both
sides. In: Turner DC, Bateson P, editors. The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour, 3rd ed. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 113–127.
27. Bradshaw JWS, Cook SE. Patterns of pet cat behaviour at feeding occasions. Appl Anim Behav Sci.
1996; 47: 61–74.
28. van den Bos R, de Vries H. Clusters in social behaviour of female domestic cats (Felis silvestris catus)
living in confinement. J Ethol. 1996; 14: 123–131.
29. Durr R, Smith C. Individual differences and their relation to social structure in domestic cats. J Comp
Psychol. 1997; 111: 412–418. PMID: 9419885
30. McCune S. The impact of paternity and early socialisation on the development of cats’ behaviour to peo-
ple and novel objects. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1995; 45: 109–124.
31. Mertens C, Turner DC. Experimental analysis of human-cat interactions during first encounters. Anthro-
zoo
¨s. 1988; 2: 83–97.
32. Podberscek AL, Blackshaw JK, Beattie AW. The behaviour of laboratory colony cats and their reactions
to a familiar and unfamiliar person. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1991; 31: 119–130.
33. Vazire S, Gosling SD, Dickey AS, Schapiro SJ. Measuring personality in nonhuman animals. In: Robins
RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, editors. Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New
York: The Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 190–206.
34. Watters JV, Powell DM. Measuring animal personality for use in population management in zoos: Sug-
gested methods and rationale. Zoo Biol. 2012; 31: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20379 PMID:
21370251
35. Lowe SE, Bradshaw JWS. Ontogeny of individuality in the domestic cat in the home environment. Anim
Behav. 2001; 61: 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1545 PMID: 11170712
36. Zeiger-Hill V, Highfill L. Applying the interpersonal circumplex to the behavioral styles of dogs and cats.
Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010; 124: 104–112.
37. Gartner MC, Powell DM, Weiss A. Personality structure in the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus), Scot-
tish wildcat (Felis silvestris grampia), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), snow leopard (Panthera
uncia), and African lion (Panthera leo): A comparative study. J Comp Psychol. 2014; 128: 414–426.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037104 PMID: 25111629
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 15 / 17
38. Gosling SD, Bonnenburg AV. An integrative approach to personality research in anthrozoology: Ratings
of six species of pets and their owners. Anthrozoo
¨s. 1998; 11: 148–156.
39. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Individ Dif. 1992; 13: 653–665.
40. John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspec-
tives. In Pervin LA, editor. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford
Press; 1999. pp. 102–138.
41. Turner DC, Feaver J, Mendl M, Bateson P. Variation in domestic cat behaviour towards humans: A
paternal effect. Anim Behav. 1986; 34: 1890–1892.
42. Natoli E, Ludovic S, Cafazzo S, Bonanni R, Schmid M, Pontier D. Bold attitude makes male urban feral
domestic cats more vulnerable to Feline Immunodeficiency Virus. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005; 29:
151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.06.011 PMID: 15652262
43. Feaver J, Mendle M, Bateson P. A method for rating the individual distinctiveness of domestic cats.
Anim Behav. 1986; 34: 1016–1025.
44. David M, Dall SRX. Unravelling the philosophies underlying ‘animal personality’ studies: a brief re-
appraisal of the field. Ethology. 2016; 122; 1–9.
45. Capitanio JP. (1999). Personality dimensions in adult male rhesus macaques: Prediction of behaviors
across time and situation. Am J Primatol. 1999; 47: 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345
(1999)47:4<299::AID-AJP3>3.0.CO;2-P PMID: 10206208
46. Gartner MC, Weiss A. Personality in felids: A review. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2013b; 144: 1–13.
47. Gartner MC, Powell DM. Personality assessment in snow leopards (Uncia uncia). Zoo Biol. 2012; 31:
151–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20385 PMID: 21455952
48. Weiss A, Inoue-Murayama M, Hong KW, Inoue E, Udono T, Ochiai T,. . . King JE. Assessing chimpan-
zee personality and subjective well-being in Japan. Am J Primatol. 2009; 71: 283–292. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ajp.20649 PMID: 19199350
49. SurveyMonkey Inc. 1999. Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com.
50. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage; 2013.
51. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39: 31–36.
52. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat
Methodol. 1954; 16: 296–298.
53. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966; 1: 245–276. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 PMID: 26828106
54. Watkins MW. Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College, PA: Ed &
Psych Associates; 2000.
55. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual. 4th ed. Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill; 2010.
56. Rockwell RC. Assessment of multicollinearity the Haitovsky test of the determinant. Sociol Methods
Res. 1975; 3: 308–320.
57. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
58. Weiss A, Adam MJ, Widdig A, Gerald MS. Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) as living fossils of homi-
noid personality and subjective well-being. J Comp Psychol. 2011; 125: 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0021187 PMID: 21341912
59. Weiss A, King JE, Perkins L. Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus
and Pongo abelii). J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006; 90: 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.501
PMID: 16594834
60. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage;
2003.
61. DiStefano C, Zhu M, Mindrila D. Understanding and using factor scores: considerations for the applied
researcher. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2009; 14: 1–11.
62. Hosey G, Melfi V, Pankhurst S. Zoo animals: behaviour, management, and welfare. 2nd ed. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press; 2013.
63. Plowman A, Hosey G, Stevenson M, Whitehouse-Tedd K. Surveys and Questionnaires. In: Bishop J,
Hosey G, Plowman A, editors. BIAZA Handbook of Zoo and Aquarium Research Guidelines for con-
ducting research in zoos and aquariums. London, UK: British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquari-
ums; 2013. pp. 134–153.
64. Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper
Surveys. Res High Educ. 2003; 44: 409–432.
65. Mertens C. Human-cat interactions in the home setting. Anthrozoo
¨s. 1991; 4: 214–231.
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 16 / 17
66. Phillips C, Peck D. The effects of personality of keepers and tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) on their behav-
iour in an interactive zoo exhibit. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 106: 244–258.
67. Gosling SD, John OP. Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A cross-species review. Curr Dir
Psychol Sci. 1999; 8: 69–75.
68. Landsberg GM, Denenberg S, Araujo JA. Cognitive dysfunction in cats: A syndrome we used to dismiss
as ‘old age’. J Feline Med Surg. 2010; 12: 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfms.2010.09.004 PMID:
20974401
69. Johnson-Bennett P. Think like a cat. New York: Penguin; 2011.
70. Iki T, Ahrens F, Pasche KH, Bartels A, Erhard MH. Relationships between scores of the feline tempera-
ment profile and behavioural and adrenocortical responses to a mild stressor in cats. Appl Anim Behav
Sci. 2011; 132: 71–80.
71. Reisner IR, Houpt KA, Erb HN, Quimby FW. Friendliness to humans and defensive aggression in cats:
The influence of handling and paternity. Physiol Behav. 1994; 55: 1119–1124. PMID: 8047579
72. Horback KM, Miller LJ, Kuczaj SA. Personality assessment in African elephants (Loxodonta africana):
Comparing the temporal stability of ethological coding versus trait rating. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2013;
149: 55–62.
73. De Rouck M, Kitchener AC, Law G, Nelissen M. A comparative study of the influence of social housing
conditions on the behaviour of captive tigers (Panthera tigris). Anim Welf. 2005; 14: 229–238.
74. Hellyer P, Rodan I, Brunt J, Downing R, Hagedorn JE, Robertson SA, AAHA/AAFP Pain Management
Guidelines Task Force Members. AAHA/AAFP pain management guidelines for dogs and cats. J Feline
Med Surg. 2007; 9: 466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfms.2007.09.001 PMID: 17997339
75. Lindell EM, Erb HN, Houpt KA. Intercat aggression: A retrospective study examining types of aggres-
sion, sexes of fighting pairs, and effectiveness of treatment. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1997; 55: 153–162.
76. Arahori M, Hori Y, Saito A, Chijiiwa H, Takagi S, Ito Y, Watanabe A, Inoue-Murayama M, Fujita K. The
oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) polymorphism in cats (Felis catus) is associated with “Roughness”
assessed by owners. J Vet Behav. 2016; 11: 109–112.
77. Razal CB, Pisacane CB, Miller LJ. Multifaceted approach to personality assessment in cheetahs (Acino-
nyx jubatus). Anim Behav Cogn. 2016; 3: 22–31.
The ’Feline Five’
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183455 August 23, 2017 17 / 17
