The DOI matches its Crossref record; 290 of the 290 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Individual differences in behavioural plasticities
Abstract
Interest in individual differences in animal behavioural plasticities has surged in recent years, but research in this area has been hampered by semantic confusion as different investigators use the same terms (e.g. plasticity, flexibility, responsiveness) to refer to different phenomena. The first goal of this review is to suggest a framework for categorizing the many different types of behavioural plasticities, describe examples of each, and indicate why using reversibility as a criterion for categorizing behavioural plasticities is problematic. This framework is then used to address a number of timely questions about individual differences in behavioural plasticities. One set of questions concerns the experimental designs that can be used to study individual differences in various types of behavioural plasticities. Although within‐individual designs are the default option for empirical studies of many types of behavioural plasticities, in some situations (e.g. when experience at an early age affects the behaviour expressed at subsequent ages), ‘replicate individual’ designs can provide useful insights into individual differences in behavioural plasticities. To date, researchers using within‐individual and replicate individual designs have documented individual differences in all of the major categories of behavioural plasticities described herein. Another important question is whether and how different types of behavioural plasticities are related to one another. Currently there is empirical evidence that many behavioural plasticities [e.g. contextual plasticity, learning rates,IIV(intra‐individual variability), endogenous plasticities, ontogenetic plasticities) can themselves vary as a function of experiences earlier in life, that is, many types of behavioural plasticity are themselves developmentally plastic. These findings support the assumption that differences among individuals in prior experiences may contribute to individual differences in behavioural plasticities observed at a given age. Several authors have predicted correlations across individuals between different types of behavioural plasticities, i.e. that some individuals will be generally more plastic than others. However, empirical support for most of these predictions, including indirect evidence from studies of relationships between personality traits and plasticities, is currently sparse and equivocal. The final section of this review suggests how an appreciation of the similarities and differences between different types of behavioural plasticities may help theoreticians formulate testable models to explain the evolution of individual differences in behavioural plasticities and the evolutionary and ecological consequences of individual differences in behavioural plasticities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior
Weaver, I. C. G., Cervoni, N., Champagne, F. A., D'Alessio, A. C., Sharma, S., Seckl, J. R., Dymov, S., Szyf, M., & Meaney, M. J. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1276 · Cited by 6,177
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
GHALAMBOR, C. K., McKAY, J. K., CARROLL, S. P., & REZNICK, D. N. (2007) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01283.x · Cited by 3,658
Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0017376 · Cited by 3,039
Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology
Koolhaas, J. M., Korte, S. M., De Boer, S. F., Van Der Vegt, B. J., Van Reenen, C. G., Hopster, H., De Jong, I. C., Ruis, M. A. W., & Blokhuis, H. J. (1999) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(99)00026-3 · Cited by 2,999 · cited 1×
“…correlations across individuals between specific personality traits (e.g. aggressiveness or exploratory behaviour) and flexibility, in the sense that term is used herein (Benus et al., 1987; Verbeek, Drent & Wiepkema, 1994; Koolhaas et al., 1999; Coppens et al., 2010, see also Section VI.2).”
BackgroundThe g factor: the science of mental ability
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-2443 · Cited by 2,746
Costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity
DeWitt, T. J., Sih, A., & Wilson, D. S. (1998) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01274-3 · Cited by 2,282
GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION AND THE EVOLUTION OF PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY
Via, S., & Lande, R. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00391.x · Cited by 2,154
Behavioral Syndromes: An Integrative Overview
Sih, A., Bell, A. M., Johnson, J. C., & Ziemba, R. E. (2004) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/422893 · Cited by 2,048
Adaptation, Plasticity, and Extinction in a Changing Environment: Towards a Predictive Theory
Chevin, L.-M., Lande, R., & Mace, G. M. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000357 · Cited by 1,962
Cited by
Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity
Pluess, M. (2015) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12120 · Cited by 549
Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context
Schriber, R. A., & Guyer, A. E. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.009 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Stamps, J. A.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-10
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 534-567
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W1953673598
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 290
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual differences in behavioural plasticities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/brv.12186
- The paper
- Stamps, J. A. (2016). Individual differences in behavioural plasticities. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12186
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.