In a study, it wasn't the bravest mice, but rather the shy ones, that proved to be the most persistent tinkerers
A house mouse in a targeted attempt to solve an experimental problem.
© MPI f. Evolutionary Biology/ Alexandros Vezyrakis
To the point
- More successful: Shy mice visited problem-solving tasks more often than their bold counterparts, giving them more chances to succeed.
- Testing conditions matter: mice performed differently in natural environments compared to laboratory settings - and not always in predictable ways.
- Personality matters: Traits affect who tries, not necessarily who succeeds: problem-solving depends on exposure and opportunity, not just smarts or bravery.
Why do some animals solve problems while others don't? The new study from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, now featured on the cover of Oikos, tackles this question with an unexpected star: the wild house mouse. This research dives into how different personality types - especially traits like boldness and shyness - influence innovation. Led by Alexandros Vezyrakis, with Anja Guenther and Valeria Mazza, the team tested over 100 mice both in semi-natural enclosures (mimicking their wild habitats) and later in controlled lab arenas. The result? Shyer mice, not the bold ones, were more likely to visit problem-solving tasks repeatedly, increasing their chance of success.
This challenges a common assumption in animal behavior science: that bold, exploratory individuals are more likely to solve new problems. Instead, this study shows that being shy doesn't mean being slow - it can mean being thorough. These mice simply kept coming back to the puzzles, gaining more opportunities to eventually solve them. "Innovation, it turns out, may be less about who's bold and more about who shows up often enough to get lucky," says lead author Alexandros Vezyrakis. "Persistence, not just personality, plays a central role in problem-solving."
Context Changes Everything
The research also highlights a bigger issue: where animals are tested can drastically affect the results. In the quiet lab arenas, 60 percent of the mice managed to solve at least one problem. But in the socially dynamic, real-world-style enclosures, only about 21 percent did. The same individuals often behaved very differently depending on the environment. This suggests that many lab-based studies might be missing the bigger picture. "Real-life conditions are messy," explains co-author Anja Guenther. "If we only look at behaviour in simplified, isolated lab settings, we risk misunderstanding how animals actually respond to challenges in nature."
Interestingly, mice didn't behave consistently across environments - success in the lab didn't predict success in the semi-natural setting. That difference reveals two key components of innovation: ability (can an animal solve a problem?) and propensity (will it actually try?). The study suggests that lab tests may reveal what animals can do under ideal conditions - but not necessarily what they will do in the wild. To truly understand innovation, scientists need to consider not only the cognitive skills of animals, but also the ecological and social factors that influence behavior.
