Interspecific interactions are important in shaping ecosystems (Ings et al., 2009). The behaviour and subsequent success of both predators and prey is a significant component of predator-prey interactions. Despite this, intraspecific variation has long been disregarded in studies of predator-prey interactions, and instead species or population averages have been the focus (Bolnick et al., 2011). Intraspecific variation can be very important in interspecific interactions (Kalinkat, 2014). For example, individual predation risk varies depending on body size (Remmel & Tammaru, 2009), and therefore, how a prey population interacts with predators is not only affected by the mean size of the prey, but also variation in size of the prey (Bolnick et al., 2011).

Recently, intraspecific variation in animal personality (i.e. among individual consistent behavioural differences, Dall et al., 2004; Sih et al., 2004; Réale et al., 2007) and its effects on species interactions have been explored to some extent (Toscano & Griffen, 2014; Chang et al., 2017; Start & Gilbert, 2017, but see: Viglione, 2020). Réale et al. (2007) suggest a focus on ecologically relevant personality traits, namely exploration (in novel environment), activity (in familiar environment), boldness (risk-taking propensity), aggression, and sociability. By affecting foraging behaviour and locomotion (activity and exploration), personality can affect distribution and movement patterns (e.g. Wilson & Godin, 2009). By affecting risk-taking behaviour (boldness), personality can affect the probability of prey being caught by a predator, as well as affecting prey behaviour indirectly (Réale et al., 2007; Juette et al., 2014). For example, risk-taking can link to movement patterns in the form of ‘landscapes of fear’, where prey spend less time in risky and dangerous areas and more time in safe areas (Laundré et al., 2001). Through landscapes of fear, perceived predation risk can affect many aspects of prey behaviour (Toscano et al., 2016). Just as individual prey can vary in how they respond to the proximity of predators, they can also vary in how they respond to predators over time. Consequently, personality differences may also have implications for the predator-prey interactions.

Personality-related variation in prey response to predators can help us improve our understanding of the evolution of personality. Currently, the explanations for why individuals display personality differences, including differences in behavioural plasticity, are unclear. Equal success of different personality types across habitats or contexts could explain maintenance of variation (Dall et al., 2004; Dingemanse et al., 2004). Exploring the relationship between personality and responses to predators can, thus, provide insights to the processes that maintain different personality types in animal populations. Individuals with different personalities may differ in their approach to predators in such a way that they are overall equally successful across different situations.

Habituation, a gradual decrease in the magnitude of response to a repeating stimulus, is an important process in allowing individuals to save time and energy by ignoring harmless stimuli (Groves & Thompson, 1970). The counterpart of habituation, sensitisation, is important because it enables individuals to stay safe by responding strongly to dangerous stimuli (Groves & Thompson, 1970). While the differences between habituation and sensitisation propensity in individuals have not been studied, it can be hypothesised that individuals must balance the two processes carefully to respond optimally, especially when it comes to potentially dangerous stimuli.

Therefore, I explored the relationship between personality variation and response to perceived threats, in a prey species. I did this by measuring the antipredator response to multiple repeated simulated predator attacks and the personality traits exploration, activity, and boldness in the Mediterranean field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus . Crickets are commonly used in studies of animal personality (e.g. Hedrick & Kortet, 2006; Kortet & Hedrick, 2007; Niemelä et al., 2012, Abbey-Lee et al., 2018), and display an antipredator behaviour called ‘freezing’, meaning that when attacked they stay completely still in order to not be detected by predators (Horch et al., 2017). I predicted that exploration would have limited influence on habituation of freezing, as exploration is linked to responses to novelty, and not risk-taking (Réale et al., 2007). However, it is possible for crickets to perceive potentially threatening stimuli as both novel and threatening, in which case more exploratory crickets should habituate more readily to the repeated stimuli, as it gradually reduces in novelty. I predicted that activity would have limited influence on habituation, as it is generally not linked to risk-taking (Réale et al., 2007). However, because the typical response to predator attacks in crickets, freezing, results in immobility, it may be that more active crickets habituate more readily if they are less likely to stay still for extended periods of time. Finally, because habituation to predator attacks can be described as risk-taking, I predict that bolder crickets should habituate to threatening stimuli more readily, compared to shyer crickets.