Networks of Meaning: Intergroup Relations, Cultural Worldviews, and Knowledge Activation Principles

In this article, we bring advances in the fields of social cognition, personality, and culture to bear on the topic of intergroup relations. Specifically, principles of knowledge activation ( Higgins, 1996 ), and of the architecture of knowledge networks ( Cervone, 2005; Mischel & Shoda, 1995 ) are applied to understanding how cultural groups develop divergent worldviews. We discuss these principles within a recently proposed model of culture and person dynamics, the Cultural Cognitive-Affective Processing System ( Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007 ). It is argued that the underlying psychological principles that govern knowledge acquisition and activation may be universal, but that the manifestations of these processes are culture specific. More precisely, culture impacts the availability, applicability, and accessibility of knowledge, as well as the organizational relationships among constructs. Together, these processes give rise to complex networks of meaning that, despite diverging across cultures, can nevertheless be communicated and understood by non-natives of that culture.     

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     

Personality and gender differences in global perspective

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross‐cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality—Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self‐esteem, subjective well‐being, depression and values—are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically‐evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.     

Cross‐cultural similarities and differences in motives to forgive: A comparison between and within cultures

Recently, researchers have begun to explore people's motives to forgive those who have offended them. Using a recall method, we examined whether such motives (relationship‐, offender‐ or self‐focused) differ between and within cultures that are more collectivistic (Moluccan Islands in Indonesia) or more individualistic (the Netherlands) and whether this depends on people's relationship with the offender. More specifically, we examined the idea that other‐focused motives should be more important in cultures that are more collectivistic and that self‐focused motives should prevail in more individualistic cultures. We found that Moluccan participants indeed endorsed relationship‐ and offender‐focused motives more than Dutch participants. Moluccan and Dutch participants did not, however, differ in the extent to which they endorsed self‐focused motives. Furthermore, Dutch participants were more likely to endorse relationship motives (especially in close relations) than self‐focused motives. For Moluccan participants, relationship‐, offender‐ and self‐focused motives were equally important and also did not depend on how close they were with the offender. Differences between the samples could not be explained by the extent to which people defined themselves as more independent or interdependent. The implications of these findings for future research on forgiveness motives are discussed.     

Culture, context, and behavior

In this article I propose a model that posits three major sources of influence on behavior-basic human nature (via universal psychological processes), culture (via social roles), and personality (via individual role identities) and argue that individual behaviors are the products of the interaction between the three. I discuss how culture emerges from the interaction of basic human nature and the ecological contexts in which groups exist, and how social roles are determined by culture-specific psychological meanings attributed to situational contexts. The model further suggests that situational context moderates the relative contributions of the three sources in influencing behavior. I provide examples of apparent contradictory findings in the study of emotion that can be explained by the model proposed.     

Lay Personality Theories in Interactive Decisions: Strongly Held,Weakly Supported

In interactive decisions, cues to what others will do are important in forming a strategy. Information about others' personalities appears to be potentially valuable for this purpose. We report a series of four studies examining how information about another actor's personality influences people's own choices in interactive decisions. The studies found widespread beliefs that others' personality characteristics are strongly predictive both of broad classes of decision behavior (competition/cooperation, risk‐seeking/risk‐aversion) (Study 1) and of specific choices (Study 2) in single‐agent settings. These beliefs extended to predicting others' choices in interactive decisions (Study 3) and to shaping the predictor's own decisions in interactive play in Chicken and Assurance games (Study 4). Overall, we found extensive evidence that laypeople believe that the personality traits we selected (angry‐hostility, anxiety, assertiveness, excitement‐seeking, and warmth) have substantial effects on behavior in interactive decisions and they act on those beliefs when making their own decisions. The empirical evidence supporting the predictive validity of these traits was, however, quite weak. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Beliefs about aggression in British students from individualist and collectivist cultures

This study assessed the hypothesis that people from an individualist culture (100 British Anglo‐Saxon students) would show higher instrumental (I) and lower expressive (E) beliefs about aggression than those from a collectivist culture (100 British Asian students). The hypothesis was not supported and, at an individual level, there was no association between cultural orientation and beliefs about aggression. Asians showed higher I beliefs about their aggression than did Anglo‐Saxons, and the typical sex differences in I and E beliefs were more pronounced in the Asian than the Anglo‐Saxon sample. The study also assessed the relationship between I and E beliefs and instrumental and expressive personality traits in the two cultures. Moderate associations were found between I and E beliefs and the corresponding instrumental and expressive personality traits, which were unrelated to measures of cultural orientation. These findings show that despite superficial similarities in measures of cultural orientation, beliefs about aggression, and gender stereotypic traits, they are relatively unrelated constructs. Aggr. Behav. 31:000–000, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

ON AGGRESSION TURNED AGAINST THE SELF

Deliberate self‐harm is a common presenting problem suffered by young people. Several patients referred to the NHS outpatient clinic where I work have been able to stop harming themselves during intensive psychoanalytic psychotherapy. In this paper, I shall discuss a variety of motives for persistent cutting by one adolescent girl. I am most interested to show how the healthier part of her personality overcame her motives for harming herself, and eventually allowed her to make use of my understanding of a sadomasochistic internal object that worked against us.     

Human Nature and Culture: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective

Personality psychology is the broadest of all psychological subdisciplines in that it seeks a conceptually integrated understanding of both human nature and important individual differences. Cultural differences pose a unique set of problems for any comprehensive theory of personality—how can they be reconciled with universals of human nature on the one hand and within‐cultural variation on the other? Evolutionary psychology provides one set of conceptual tools by which this conceptual integration can be made. It requires jettisoning the false but still‐pervasive dichotomy of culture versus biology, acknowledging a universal human nature, and recognizing that the human mind contains many complex psychological mechanisms that are selectively activated, depending on cultural contexts. Culture rests on a foundation of evolved psychological mechanisms and cannot be understood without those mechanisms.     

General self‐efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries

Based on social‐cognitive theory ( 1 Bandura, 1997), this paper examined whether perceived self‐efficacy is a universal psychological construct that accounts for variance within various domains of human functioning. Perceived self‐efficacy is not only of a task‐specific nature, but it can also be identified at a more general level of functioning. General self‐efficacy (GSE) is the belief in one's competence to tackle novel tasks and to cope with adversity in a broad range of stressful or challenging encounters, as opposed to specific self‐efficacy, which is constrained to a particular task at hand. The study aimed at exploring the relations between GSE and a variety of other psychological constructs across several countries. Relations between general self‐efficacy and personality, well‐being, stress appraisals, social relations, and achievements were examined among 8796 participants from Costa Rica, Germany, Poland, Turkey, and the USA. Across countries, the findings provide evidence for associations between perceived general self‐efficacy and the selected variables. The highest positive associations were with optimism, self‐regulation, and self‐esteem, whereas the highest negative associations emerged with depression and anxiety. Academic performance is also associated with self‐efficacy as hypothesized. The replication across languages or cultures adds significance to these findings. The relations between self‐efficacy and other personality measures remained stable across cultures and samples. Thus, perceived general self‐efficacy appears to be a universal construct that yields meaningful relations with other psychological constructs.     

Trait Psychology and Culture: Exploring Intercultural Comparisons

Personality traits, studied for decades by Western personality psychologists, have recently been reconceptualized as endogenous basic tendencies that, within a cultural context, give rise to habits, attitudes, skills, beliefs, and other characteristic adaptations. This conceptualization provides a new framework for studying personality and culture at three levels. Transcultural research focuses on identifying human universals, such as trait structure and development; intracultural studies examine the unique expression of traits in specific cultures; and intercultural research characterizes cultures and their subgroups in terms of mean levels of personality traits and seeks associations between cultural variables and aggregate personality traits. As an example of the problems and possibilities of intercultural analyses, data on mean levels of Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales from college age and adult samples (N = 23,031) of men and women from 26 cultures are examined. Results showed that age and gender differences resembled those found in American samples; different subsamples from each culture showed similar levels of personality traits: intercultural factor analysis yielded a close approximation to the Five-Factor Model; and factor scores were meaningfully related to other culture-level variables. However, mean trait levels were not apparent to expert raters, casting doubt on the accuracy of national stereotypes. Trait psychology can serve as a useful complement to cultural perspectives on human nature and personality.     

Things I've learned about personality from studying political leaders at a distance

Studying the personalities of political leaders requires methods of measuring personality at a distance. One such method is content analysis of speeches, interviews, and other texts. This article reviews the author's research on achievement, affiliation, and power motives of U.S. presidents and other leaders and draws the following conclusions: (1) motivation and personality can be objectively and reliably measured at a distance; (2) personality is complex, consisting of several different elements or kinds of variables (e.g., motives and cognitions as well as traits); (3) personality exists in social contexts, and past social contexts are embodied in personality; (4) political behaviors and outcomes can be predicted from personality, but only in contingent ("if/then") ways.     

Exploring Personality with the Interpersonal Circumplex

The interpersonal circumplex can serve as both companion and guide for those interested in exploring the interpersonal domain of personality. This article offers a relatively nontechnical overview of the model and its various applications in the study of personality. I begin by defining the interpersonal circumplex, its structure and in what sense it is 'interpersonal'. As part of that, I will briefly consider how circumplex measures of personality, such as the Interpersonal Adjective Scales, are typically evaluated for fit to the model. I will next describe applications of the model for exploring both the idiographic (person-centered) and nomothetic (variable-centered) realms of personality. In person-centered research, the circumplex leads to useful ways of summarizing the basic interpersonal features of a given individual. In variable-centered research, the circumplex can help elucidate the essential interpersonal meaning of personality constructs such as traits, problems, and motives. To explain how the circumplex can help us explore personality – idiographically and nomothetically – I will draw on a variety of studies, including several recent studies that extend the model in new ways.     

Attraction, personality, and prejudice: liking none of the people most of the time

Unfavorable evaluations of others reflect both specific prejudice and generalized negativity. Study 1 examined self-reported norms and personal endorsement of prejudices to various social groups. Study 2 used judgments of overweight persons to examine links among prejudice, personality, and prosocial motives. Study 3 examined negative evaluations and social distancing during interpersonal interaction. Study 4 observed the translation of negative evaluations into overt discrimination. Study 5 experimentally manipulated the behavior of the target and observed its interactive effects with weight, personality, and prosocial motives. Results suggest that prejudice can emerge from otherwise unprejudiced persons when situations permit justification. Patterns in negative evaluations are linked distinctively to (a) the Big Five dimension of Agreeableness, (b) proximal social cognition and motives, and (c) discrimination.     

With the future behind them: convergent evidence from aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time

Cognitive research on metaphoric concepts of time has focused on differences between moving Ego and moving time models, but even more basic is the contrast between Ego‐ and temporal‐reference‐point models. Dynamic models appear to be quasi‐universal cross‐culturally, as does the generalization that in Ego‐reference‐point models, FUTURE IS IN FRONT OF EGO and PAST IS IN BACK OF EGO. The Aymara language instead has a major static model of time wherein FUTURE IS BEHIND EGO and PAST IS IN FRONT OF EGO; linguistic and gestural data give strong confirmation of this unusual culture‐specific cognitive pattern. Gestural data provide crucial information unavailable to purely linguistic analysis, suggesting that when investigating conceptual systems both forms of expression should be analyzed complementarily. Important issues in embodied cognition are raised: how fully shared are bodily grounded motivations for universal cognitive patterns, what makes a rare pattern emerge, and what are the cultural entailments of such patterns?     

Brand personality,self‐congruity,and preference: A knowledge structures approach

Using the construct of brand personality to measure automobile and soft drink personalities, two studies represented self‐congruity by combining brands and the self‐image into Pathfinder associative networks (Schvaneveldt et al., 1989 ). Self‐congruity, the number of links between the self and each brand, was predictive of preference and ideal brand. Because brand personality and self‐image are knowledge structures, and facets of brand personality also describe the self, self‐congruity can be represented and measured in networks. This approach could be helpful to marketers studying how the self is related to each brand and how brands interrelate. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The face of personality: Adaptive inferences from facial cues are moderated by perceiver personality and motives

Humans have historically been interested in understanding stable individual differences in behavioral tendencies, often referred to as personality traits. Recent work suggests that between‐person personality variability may be adaptive insofar as certain variations in personality constellations facilitate survival and reproduction across various types of groups and ecological niches. While past research has demonstrated that personality can be accurately inferred from self‐reports, other‐reports, and targets' past behavior, we discuss a more contemporary, yet understudied, means of personality inference: facial structure. We summarize research on personality traits that can be accurately inferred from facial structure, as well as how aspects of individuals' own personality, chronically accessible motives, and acutely activated goals lead to preferences for facially communicated personality that would aid in the satisfaction of these goals (e.g., higher need to belong predicts a stronger preference for faces whose structure communicates greater extraversion). We also discuss limitations of current approaches to understanding the relationship between perceiver personality and motives and their relation to perceptions of facially communicated personality as well as fruitful directions for future research.     

Personality psychology as the integrative study of traits and worldviews

Personality psychology inevitably studies human beings not just as mechanical systems, but also as rational agents, whose experiences and actions are imbued with meaning. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the implications of taking this core element of personality psychology seriously, and to thereby contribute to the development of an integrative and normative framework for the field. I argue that personality can be studied both through trait constructs, referring to objective behavioral regularities, and through worldview constructs, referring to subjective sources of meaning, and try to show that worldviews are, contrary to popular belief, not inherently less universal, or in other ways less basic, than traits. I conclude by emphasizing the importance of more systematic study of worldviews, integration across the trait-worldview divide, and complementing the individual differences approach with personalistic methodology, for the development of richer and more unified portraits of personalities.     

Meaning making,self‐determination theory,and the question of wisdom in personality

Self‐determination theory (SDT) has advanced the most comprehensive model of motives for human flourishing in the field of personality psychology and beyond. In this article, we evaluate SDT relative to the process of meaning making, particularly from a narrative perspective, showing what SDT can and cannot explain about the construction of self‐identity and its relation to human flourishing. On the one hand, SDT explains how subjective assessments of need fulfillment drive the process of self‐determined living. The internal motives that follow such fulfillment serve as important themes in people's life stories that predict several markers of hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being. On the other hand, SDT's focus on subjective fulfillment limits what SDT can explain about how wisdom, which is a canonical good of both eudaimonia and meaning making, helps people make sense of life's more difficult or unfulfilling events. SDT may facilitate a facet of wisdom that is more subjective and experiential but not the critical facet of wisdom defined by objectively more complex structures of interpretation.