Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture

We review recent developments in the study of culture and personality measurement. Three approaches are described: an etic approach that focuses on establishing measurement equivalence in imported measures of personality, an emic (indigenous) approach that studies personality in specific cultures, and a combined emic-etic approach to personality. We propose the latter approach as a way of combining the methodological rigor of the etic approach and the cultural sensitivity of the emic approach. The combined approach is illustrated by two examples: the first with origins in Chinese culture and the second in South Africa. The article ends with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the combined emic-etic approach for the study of culture and personality and for psychology as a science.     

Personality dimensions across cultures

In order to generalize the dimensional structure of personality-relatively independent groups of covarying traits-across languages and cultures, a large number of cultures must be studied. Until recently only a few worldwide personality datasets have been available. The first large-scale studies indicate that the pattern of covariation between personality traits is universal and is relatively easily generalizable across languages and cultures. In contrast to the structure of personality, the comparison of the mean trait scores across cultures is much more problematic because cross-cultural differences turned out to be very small in their magnitude, about one-third of the magnitude of individual differences within culture. More integral (e.g., the similarity between personality profiles) or subtle (e.g., the disparity between positively and negatively worded items) measures can reveal more systematic relationships with relevant socioeconomic and geographic variables than the mean scores themselves. Relatively modest sizes of cross-cultural differences in the mean values may imply that a reasonable scalar equivalence can be achieved, and all individuals, irrespective of their language and culture, can be represented in a common metric.     

Compiling Measurement Invariant Short Scales in Cross-Cultural Personality Assessment Using Ant Colony Optimization

Examining the influence of culture on personality and its unbiased assessment is the main subject of cross-cultural personality research. Recent large-scale studies exploring personality differences across cultures share substantial methodological and psychometric shortcomings that render it difficult to differentiate between method and trait variance. One prominent example is the implicit assumption of cross-cultural measurement invariance in personality questionnaires. In the rare instances where measurement invariance across cultures was tested, scalar measurement invariance—which is required for unbiased mean-level comparisons of personality traits—did not hold. In this article, we present an item sampling procedure, ant colony optimization, which can be used to select item sets that satisfy multiple psychometric requirements including model fit, reliability, and measurement invariance. We constructed short scales of the IPIP-NEO-300 for a group of countries that are culturally similar (USA, Australia, Canada, and UK) as well as a group of countries with distinct cultures (USA, India, Singapore, and Sweden). In addition to examining factor mean differences across countries, we provide recommendations for cross-cultural research in general. From a methodological perspective, we demonstrate ant colony optimization's versatility and flexibility as an item sampling procedure to derive measurement invariant scales for cross-cultural research. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology     

Current Controversies in the Study of Personality across Cultures

Research on culture and personality is thriving. In this article, I address several prominent controversies, including: (a) alternative perspectives on the relationship between culture and personality; (b) the cross‐cultural universality versus specificity of personality structure; (c) whether comparisons of mean inventory profiles reveal valid cultural differences in trait levels; and (d) the importance and role of the trait concept across cultures. Greater consensus regarding the relationship between culture and personality will likely be achieved if researchers clarify which aspects of personality they are addressing (e.g., basic tendencies vs. characteristic adaptations). Recent lexical and indigenous studies have weakened consensus regarding the universality and comprehensiveness of the Five‐Factor Model. The validity of cultural mean profiles remains unresolved. Research on the importance of traits across cultures provides support for both trait and cultural psychology perspectives, although more culture‐comparative studies of consistency and predictive validity are needed. Suggestions for research are offered.     

Cross‐cultural Generalizability of the Alternative Five‐factor Model Using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire

Several personality models are known for being replicable across cultures, such as the Five‐Factor Model (FFM) or Eysenck's Psychoticism–Extraversion–Neuroticism (PEN) model, and are for this reason considered universal. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cross‐cultural replicability of the recently revised Alternative FFM (AFFM). A total of 15 048 participants from 23 cultures completed the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja Personality Questionnaire (ZKA‐PQ) aimed at assessing personality according to this revised AFFM. Internal consistencies, gender differences and correlations with age were similar across cultures for all five factors and facet scales. The AFFM structure was very similar across samples and can be considered as highly replicable with total congruence coefficients ranging from .94 to .99. Measurement invariance across cultures was assessed using multi‐group confirmatory factor analyses, and each higher‐order personality factor did reach configural and metric invariance. Scalar invariance was never reached, which implies that culture‐specific norms should be considered. The underlying structure of the ZKA‐PQ replicates well across cultures, suggesting that this questionnaire can be used in a large diversity of cultures and that the AFFM might be as universal as the FFM or the PEN model. This suggests that more research is needed to identify and define an integrative framework underlying these personality models. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology     

什么是“中国人”的个性？——《中国人个性测量表CPAI-2》的分组差异

《中国人个性测量表CPAI-2》是一套本土化发展而成的个性量表,涵盖包括中国文化独有以及在大多数文化共有的性格维度。该文认为结合文化特定与文化共通的研究方法能全面地反映心理现实,亦能加深我们对跨文化心理学的理解。该研究分析了CPAI-2常模的几个子组别,以展示在同一文化之内,性格特质的差异及连续性。性别及年龄组别间的平均分差异均符合相应的社化过程及人生发展阶段所预期的结果。而中国香港及中国不同地区在平均分的差异上则没有特定的模式。文化内及跨文化的差异展示了个人性格差异的连续性,以及文化特定与文化共通概念的相互关系。     

Age differences in the sixth personality factor: age differences in interpersonal relatedness among Canadians and Hong Kong Chinese

Cross-cultural studies on personality in which a combined etic-emic approach has been used have found a 6th personality factor--Interpersonal Relatedness--in addition to the usual Big Five. The authors examined age differences in Interpersonal Relatedness among Canadians and Hong Kong Chinese after statistically controlling for the Big Five. Age differences in some aspects of Interpersonal Relatedness were found among Hong Kong Chinese but not among Canadians, suggesting that development of some personality characteristics may differ across cultures.     

Culture and Personality: Variability across Universal Motives as the Missing Link

What is the relation between culture and personality? I argue that to address this question, it is necessary to meet five criteria: (1) to identify universal principles of human functioning that underlie both culture and personality; (2) to treat those principles at different levels of analysis for culture and personality; (3) to define culture and personality in terms of those principles in a manner that maintains the integrity of these concepts; (4) to select specific psychological factors that, because of their survival value, are present in every culture and individual, although to varying degrees; and (5) to postulate how different cultures and personalities emerge from variability in the predominance of those specific psychological factors. I then propose that these criteria can be met by identifying specific human motives that are both universal and vary across individuals, situations, and groups. I propose a five‐step model that describes how cultures influence the personalities that emerge among its members, with particular emphasis on the human‐defining period of development between 3 and 6 years of age, and how those personalities in turn influence the culture (from effects of regulatory fit). As initial support for the model, evidence is reviewed for commonality among cultures in the existence of promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment motives; for variability across cultures in the predominance of these motives as modal personalities; and for universality in the relations between each motive and Big Five and self‐esteem trait characteristics. Combining the latter universal relations with the cultural variability in modal personalities yields cultural differences in manners of goal pursuit.     

Tell me where you come from and I know what makes you tick: Managing the consumer personality–satisfaction link in diverse cultures

Marketing programs that evoke high satisfaction and marketing success in one culture often fail in others, but the understanding of those cultural differences is insufficient. The question of how culture is linked to consumer satisfaction is still not answered satisfactorily. One promising paradigm for exploring such questions comes from progress in cross-cultural personality psychology. Thus, we examine the influence of individual-level cultural orientations on personality, and the role of personality and affect in satisfaction formation across cultures. Based on experimental data, we show that a high individualism orientation triggers higher levels of extraversion; a high uncertainty-avoidance orientation triggers higher levels of neuroticism. Based on field data from Japan, Spain, and the United States, we identify equivalent relationships amongst personality-related antecedent processes shaping satisfaction indicating universality across these cultures. The findings demonstrate the usefulness of cross-cultural personality psychology theory and methods for understanding and predicting consumer responses to marketing actions across cultures.     

Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits

Personality profiles of cultures can be operationalized as the mean trait levels of culture members. College students from 51 cultures rated an individual from their country whom they knew well (N=12,156). Aggregate scores on Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) scales generalized across age and sex groups, approximated the individual-level 5-factor model, and correlated with aggregate self-report personality scores and other culture-level variables. Results were not attributable to national differences in economic development or to acquiescence. Geographical differences in scale variances and mean levels were replicated, with Europeans and Americans generally scoring higher in Extraversion than Asians and Africans. Findings support the rough scalar equivalence of NEO-PI-R factors and facets across cultures and suggest that aggregate personality profiles provide insight into cultural differences.     

Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men's personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.     

Personality and Culture: Demarcating Between the Common and the Unique

Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives, (ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) situationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of inclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situationist interpretation of cross-cultural differences. Finally, three possible strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as well as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are taken seriously.     

Experience Sampling Methods: A Modern Idiographic Approach to Personality Research

Experience sampling methods are essential tools for building a modern idiographic approach to understanding personality. These methods yield multiple snapshots of people's experiences over time in daily life and allow researchers to identify patterns of behavior within a given individual, rather than strictly identify patterns of behavior across individuals, as with standard nomothetic approaches. In this article, we discuss the origin and evolution of idiographic methods in the field of personality and explain how experience sampling methods function as modern day idiographic methods in this field. We then review four primary ways in which experience sampling methods have been used to foster idiographic approaches in personality research. Specifically, we highlight approaches that examine individual differences in temporal and behavioral distributions, situation–behavior contingencies, daily processes, and the structure of daily experience. Following a brief methodology primer, we end by discussing future directions for idiographic experience sampling approaches in personality psychology and beyond.     

Ubiquitous Personality-Trait Concepts in 13 Diverse and Isolated Languages: A Cluster–Classification Approach

There is longstanding interest in the generalizability of personality across diverse cultures. To investigate the generalizability of personality concepts, we examined the English translations of individual-difference entries from the dictionaries of 12 small-scale societies previously studied for ubiquity of individual differences plus the dictionary of an additional society not previously studied in this manner. These 13 societies are highly diverse in geographical location, culture, and language family; their languages developed in isolation from modern-world languages. The goal of our exploratory research was to discover ubiquitous personality concepts in these 13 independent societies and their languages, providing a window into personality concepts across a broad range of cultures and languages. This study used clusters of empirically related terms (e.g. brave, courageous, and daring), based on a taxonomy of English-language personality concepts that consisted of 100 personality-trait clusters. English-language definitions of dictionary entries from the 13 languages were matched to the meanings of the synonym clusters. The cluster–classification method uncovered nine ubiquitous personality concepts, plus six that were present in at least 12 of the 13 languages. The nine ubiquitous personality concepts include some not previously identified and suggest a core of possibly universal concepts. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology     

A dynamic view of cultural influence: A review

Static models of culture's influence have given way to a dynamic view, which identifies not only differences across cultures in people's judgments and decisions, but also the situations and conditions in which these differences do or do not appear. Theory and evidence developed from a cognitive psychological perspective underlie this dynamic approach, including research emerging from the “dynamic constructivist” and “situated cognition” models. In the present review, we focus on findings that confirm the utility of this cognitively oriented approach, and briefly discuss the advantages and complementary nature of the “social collective” and neuroscience approaches to understanding culture.     

Personality Measurement in Cross-Cultural Perspective

I first provide an overview of general issues in personality measurement across cultures (e.g., measurement bias and equivalence, levels of test adaptation or indigenization). Then, in keeping with the organization of this special issue, I discuss personality measurement from alternative theoretical perspectives that have addressed, in varying degrees, personality and its measurement in cross-cultural perspective (i.e., trait perspectives, projective techniques, cultural psychology and constructivist perspectives, evolutionary perspectives). An integrated measurement approach is advocated, incorporating diverse aspects or levels of personality, while drawing on the complementary strengths of alternative approaches.     

文化与人格研究中的几个问题

“文化与人格”包含着“文化中的人格”和“人格中的文化”两个命题。当今人格与文化研究中存在几个问题:人格特质的跨文化普遍性问题;人格与文化研究中的文化问题;人格与文化的作用机制问题。要解决这些问题:1.将主位研究与客位研究结合起来;2.将文化看作动态的过程;3.考虑到文化与人格之间起作用的中间机制;4.加强人格心理学与其它学科的联系。     

The Validity and Structure of Culture‐Level Personality Scores: Data From Ratings of Young Adolescents

ABSTRACT We examined properties of culture‐level personality traits in ratings of targets (N=5,109) ages 12 to 17 in 24 cultures. Aggregate scores were generalizable across gender, age, and relationship groups and showed convergence with culture‐level scores from previous studies of self‐reports and observer ratings of adults, but they were unrelated to national character stereotypes. Trait profiles also showed cross‐study agreement within most cultures, 8 of which had not previously been studied. Multidimensional scaling showed that Western and non‐Western cultures clustered along a dimension related to Extraversion. A culture‐level factor analysis replicated earlier findings of a broad Extraversion factor but generally resembled the factor structure found in individuals. Continued analysis of aggregate personality scores is warranted.     

National Character and Personality

ABSTRACT— People in all cultures have shared perceptions about the personality characteristics of the typical member of their own culture and of typical members of other cultures. Recent collaborative work has provided validated assessments of the personality profiles of over 50 cultures, and judged by these criteria, perceptions of national character are unfounded stereotypes. An appreciation of that fact by the public might improve international relations, so research is needed to understand the origins and persistence of national-character stereotypes. Psychologists have begun to explore the utility of aggregate personality profiles, which reflect subtle but real differences between cultures in mean levels of personality traits.     

Cultural contributions to constructing locus-of-control attributions

Locus of control attribution patterns have been demonstrated to predict a variety of behavioral and adaptational characteristics in a number of societies. As a consequence, questions concerning the comparability of those attributions across cultures have been of interest to social and personality theorists as well as to their more action-oriented colleagues. In the present study, the processes used by Indian college students to form those attributions have been studied and compared with those used by a similar sample in the United States. A structure-factor approach was used, because it allowed for a comparison of attribution patterns within and between cultures as well as the drawing of inferences about locus-of-control attributions that are theoretically and practically important. Results supported the utility of such an approach, identified culturally syntonic patterns in both samples, and also identified cross-cultural similarities and differences in locus-of-control attributions.