research methods for studying cultural influences on personality

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Conceptual and methodological issues in the study of the personality-and-culture relationship

Robert r mccrae.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Edited by: Guillermo Felipe López Sánchez, University of Murcia, Spain

Reviewed by: Sergei Shchebetenko, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia; Arturo Z. Vasquez, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, United States

*Correspondence: Jüri Allik, [email protected]

† ORCID: Jüri Allik, orcid.org/0000-0002-8358-4747 ; Anu Realo, orcid.org/0000-0003-0649-274X ; Robert R. McCrae, orcid.org/0000-0003-1325-1485

This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

Received 2022 Oct 23; Accepted 2023 Feb 27; Collection date 2023.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Culture-and-personality studies were central to social science in the early 20th century and have recently been revived (as personality-and-culture studies) by trait and cross-cultural psychologists. In this article we comment on conceptual issues, including the nature of traits and the nature of the personality-and-culture relationship, and we describe methodological challenges in understanding associations between features of culture and aspects of personality. We give an overview of research hypothesizing the shaping of personality traits by culture, reviewing studies of indigenous traits, acculturation and sojourner effects, birth cohorts, social role changes, and ideological interventions. We also consider the possibility that aggregate traits affect culture, through psychological means and gene flow. In all these cases we highlight alternative explanations and the need for designs and analyses that strengthen the interpretation of observations. We offer a set of testable hypotheses based on the premises that personality is adequately described by Five-Factor Theory, and that observed differences in aggregate personality traits across cultures are veridical. It is clear that culture has dramatic effects on the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from which we infer traits, but it is not yet clear whether, how, and in what degree culture shapes traits themselves.

Keywords: culture, personality, Five-Factor Theory, characteristic adaptations, basic traits, convergent and discriminant validity

Conceptual and methodological issues in the study of the personality-culture-relationship

After a period of neglect in the second half of the 20th century, the relationship between personality and culture has again become a popular topic ( McCrae and Allik, 2002 ; Triandis and Suh, 2002 ; Diener et al., 2003 ; Benet-Martínez and Oishi, 2008 ; Heine and Buchtel, 2009 ; Church, 2017 ; Allik and Realo, 2019 ; Draguns and Tanaka-Matsumi, 2020 ; Lu et al., 2023 ). Although other variants have been discussed, many researchers were inclined to accept the premise that personality is made from a malleable substance which can be shaped and molded by external forces, including those that spring from culture (e.g., Bleidorn et al., 2019 ). However, there is a possibility that not all parts of personality are equally susceptible to cultural and other external influences.

This article is not an attempt to compile a state-of-the-art review of what we know about how culture can or cannot influence personality. We are more interested in the logical and methodological issues that are raised by culture-and-personality relationships. What are the issues in the definition of personality? In the assessment of traits? In cross-cultural comparisons? In causal analysis? Many of these methodological questions have been ignored, with the result that many deceptively easy answers have been uncritically accepted. Thus, instead of an exhaustive review of literature our goal is to propose more rigorous guidelines for the study of culture-and-personality relationships.

Historically, personality-and-culture studies were guided chiefly by psychodynamic theories ( Malinowski, 1927 ; Whiting and Child, 1953 ), and any theory of personality—self-determination ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ), social-cognitive ( Cervone, 2005 ), or evolutionary ( Buss, 1991 ), just to name a few—could be examined in relation to culture. Even so, in most of what follows we are concerned with a trait model of personality, which is the dominant paradigm in personality psychology and widely used in studies of personality-and-culture.

Conceptual models

To begin with, the principal schemes describing the relationship between culture and personality need to be distinguished.

Culture and personality belong to the same category

There is a view that culture and personality belong to the same semantic, that the products of the human mind and culture are inseparable and mutually constitutive (e.g., Shweder, 1991 , 1999 ). One version of this inseparability concept maintains that as soon as language and other cultural sign systems contact something—including personality—this automatically becomes a part of culture (e.g., Luria, 1976 ). However, if we accept a theoretical position according to which there are no separate “culture things” and “personality things” we will be not able to study how they are related ( McCrae, 2009 ; Allik and Realo, 2019 ). We cannot even talk about them as two different entities (cf. Shweder, 1999 ) or ask whether one depends on or influences the other (cf. McCrae, 2009 ). This position is axiomatic and not subject to empirical test.

In contrast, most researchers in this field assume that culture and personality are separable entities. For this article, we will assume that there is a general consensus on what culture is, but will call attention to different views of personality that have important implications for interpreting the relationship. We have already noted that we will focus on personality as a system of traits, but we will argue that there are at least two different views of traits. In one, traits are construed as the set of habits, styles, interests, and so on that characterize the individual over relatively long periods of time; we call this the phenotypic theory of traits . In the other, traits are seen as underlying dispositions that shape phenotypic traits. This genotypic theory is represented by Five-Factor Theory (FFT; McCrae and Costa, 1999 , 2008 ).

Culture determines personality

As already mentioned, a popular view among personality psychologists is that culture can shape, program, or at least modify human personality (cf. Triandis and Suh, 2002 ; Benet-Martínez and Oishi, 2008 ; Heine and Buchtel, 2009 ; Smaldino et al., 2019 ; Lu et al., 2023 ). This is obviously a continuation of what was dubbed the Standard Social Science Model ( Barkow et al., 1992 ) with the main emphasis on cultural determinism. One famous example of this approach is Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture , which maintains that Dobuans of Melanesia were raised to become suspicious and paranoid, the Kwakiutls were nurtured as autocrats and despots, and the Pueblos of New Mexico were raised to become unemotional and passive as a consequence of their parenting practices ( Benedict, 1934/1959 ).

One of the most influential papers on the personality-and-culture relationship was published by Markus and Kitayama (1991) , who showed that people in different cultures have vastly different self-construals, as for example when they answer the question “Who am I?” 20 times. With an independent self, “interaction with others (actual, imagined, or implied) produces a sense of self as separate, distinct, or independent from others” while with interdependent self, “interaction with others produces a sense of self as connected to, related to, or interdependent with others. These interactions are guided by culturally prescribed tasks that require and encourage fitting in with others” ( Markus and Kitayama, 2010 , p. 423). In other words, culture influences how people view themselves, and how people view themselves may determine their behavior. Thus, culture provides scripts and scenarios, which people learn to think and speak about themselves.

Note that this model does not distinguish between phenotypic and genotypic traits.

Culture influences only the expression of personality

It has been proposed in FFT that cultural variation influences one part of personality without affecting another part. The distinction between two parts of personality, a tangible and a more abstract one, was not new. Allport (1966) had proposed that we can see cognitive, emotional, or behavioral indicators of various personality dispositions, but not traits themselves or their constitutive mechanisms (p. 3). In FFT these two aspects of personality are called characteristic adaptations (the phenotypic indicators of traits) and basic tendencies (the genotypic dispositions), and traits are viewed as basic tendencies. What was novel in FFT was the claim that traits were not merely unobservable, they were also essentially independent of external influences; only characteristic adaptations could be shaped by the environment.

This premise was initially based on demonstrations of the remarkable stability of personality traits ( McCrae et al., 1980 ) despite the accumulation of life experiences. It was also supported by other lines of evidence, such as the repeated finding of behavioral genetic studies that indicated substantial heritability for all traits, and a lack of influence from the environment shared by children in the same family. The isolation of traits from environmental influences had profound consequences for personality-and-culture: It implied that basic trait psychology would be much the same everywhere. That prediction was supported by the ease of developing valid translations of personality questionnaires and by cross-cultural studies showing the near-universality of trait structure, age differences, gender differences, and psychometric properties ( McCrae and Costa, 1997 ; Allik et al., 2013 ). Church et al. (2008) showed that traits functioned similarly in collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

FFT acknowledges the obvious fact that people’s interests, habits, attitudes, and so on vary across time and cultures, but it claims that these features of personality are not traits—they are acquired characteristic adaptations. Characteristic adaptations are shaped in part by traits, and in consequence, they can serve as trait indicators. Having a wide circle of friends is not a trait, but it is a sign of extraversion. Culture can shape one’s friendship network (e.g., women are not allowed to have opposite-sex friends in some traditional cultures), but this is quite different from shaping extraversion itself.

Although the components of FFT are common to many personality theories, the claim that basic traits are immune to external influences has made it highly controversial (cf. Church, 2008 ). However, it should be noted that besides creating a heated polemic, FFT transformed a vague personality-and-culture problem into a directly falsifiable scientific hypothesis. Further, the theory provides guidance for future research. If some traits, or some aspects of traits, can reliably be shown to be subject to cultural influences, this raises a series of questions: Why these traits and not others? What are the relevant features of culture that produce change? By what mechanisms do they alter traits? Can these mechanisms be exploited by interventions to cultivate desirable traits?

In this article we will offer a set of hypotheses that allow empirical tests of FFT’s predictions.

Personality determines culture

The reverse causation hypothesis—the notion that personality traits determine cultural variation—is a less-explored theoretical option, but numerous data seem to suggest that personality traits could indeed shape the cultural environment in which people live. Traits affect what music people prefer to listen to ( Rentfrow and Gosling, 2003 ), what kinds of personal webpages they design ( Vazire and Gosling, 2004 ; Marcus et al., 2006 ), how people organize their homes and offices ( Gosling, 2008 ), and what types of cultural memorabilia they have brought back from vacation ( Carney et al., 2008 ). Although these are rather specific habits and preferences, it seems likely that basic personality dispositions could also determine the cultural environment people create for themselves. Thus, the collective actions of groups of individuals with shared traits might modify the culture of a nation.

For example, Hofstede and McCrae (2004) assumed reversed causation in a paper in which two opposing viewpoints were presented. Based on correlations between personality and value dimensions, Hofstede and McCrae (2004) proposed that power distance—one of the Hofstede’s culture dimensions—may reflect a nation’s mean level on introversion and conscientiousness. A plausible scenario is that if there are many conscientious and introverted people in the society they will build a culture of obedience to authority, coupled with stable social institutions ( Hofstede and McCrae, 2004 ).

Reciprocal causality

Because cultural determination of personality does not exclude reversed causation, it is possible that causal forces operate in both directions simultaneously. This view that culture and personality can influence reciprocally each other seems to be most natural ( Mendoza-Denton and Mischel, 2007 ). Although personality dispositions interacting with the environment shape characteristic adaptations and self-concept ( McCrae and Costa, 1999 ), nothing seems to preclude that cultural, social, or economic environment could be molded by the elevated or lowered level of some personality trait. It is possible that systematic interactions between culture and personality can be observed. Returning to the example presented above ( Hofstede and McCrae, 2004 , p. 77), purposeful and determined individuals are needed to create stable and productive social institutions, but these institutions may nurture people’s conscientiousness as well.

Reciprocal causality at the level of characteristic adaptations is compatible with FFT, but reciprocal causality at the level of basic tendencies is not.

Methodological problems

If we can replace an amorphous “personality-and-culture problem” with more specific and testable questions, that would be itself a non-trivial advancement. But before approaching these problems is necessary to consider several methodological issues.

Research on personality-and-culture is essentially observational. We normally cannot manipulate either traits or cultural institutions and must infer causal relations from the associations we observe. As with construct validation, the inference must be guided by a pattern of evidence that strengthens some interpretations and rules out others. One useful template for collecting and analyzing relevant observations is provided by Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) scheme for convergent and discriminant validation. They argued that personality traits can be validated only if two or more traits are measured each with multiple methods (or indicators); a measure of personality can be called valid only if measures of the same trait correlate more highly with each other than with measures of different traits. Variations on this scheme can be used in studies of personality-and-culture.

Ruling out alternative explanations

As an illustration, let us suppose that extraversion was measured with the same personality scale over a 25 year period ( Twenge, 2001 ). If the extraversion scores had increased over time, for both women and men, it would be tempting to conclude that the level of extraversion was increasing in younger birth cohorts, perhaps due to changes in the socialization process, which is one of the most powerful tools of cultural transmission. However, it is also possible that changes over time do not reflect true shifts in personality dispositions; there are plausible alternative explanations.

Trait specificity . One of these stems from the fact that traits are hierarchical. Extraversion is a broad disposition, typically characterized by several facets such as gregariousness, assertiveness, and positive emotions (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1992 ). If only a global measure is used, it is not clear whether the core of extraversion was involved, or merely one or more of its component facets—perhaps the phenomenon is driven entirely by increases in, say, assertiveness. We need measures of several facets of the same domain to be convinced that the domain itself, not merely some component facets, was affected. The same argument occurs down the trait hierarchy: An increase in assertiveness might be driven by only one of its component nuances ( McCrae, 2015 )—say, self-promotion. Assertions about a trait at any level should be based on the assessment and analysis of its components, to rule out the possibility that the observed effect is specific to some of them.

Response artifacts . Another potential explanation, noted by Twenge (2001) , is an increase in socially desirable responding, which provides an elevated temptation to describe oneself as more extraverted in order to create a more favorable self-presentation. Because the desire to create a favorable impression also dictates, for example, exaggeration of the respondent’s altruism, helpfulness, and sociability, it would be critical to see if similar changes could be observed in the scores of other evaluative personality traits. Thus, assessment of a single trait is not sufficient for distinguishing changes in the trait level from changes in the style and manner of self-presentation.

Response artifacts are a serious concern in cross-cultural comparisons. Cultures are known to differ in the tendency to acquiesce and in extreme responding as well as in socially desirable responding ( Smith, 2004 ; Mõttus et al., 2012 ; Achaa-Amankwaa et al., 2021 ). These problems can be minimized by sound research design (e.g., the use of balanced scales to control for acquiescent responding), by statistical analyses, such as ipsatization, that correct for response styles ( Rammstedt et al., 2010 ), and by the assessment of data quality ( McCrae et al., 2005a ). But in many cases, they will remain as alternative explanations of observed cultural or generational differences.

The duality principle. According to FFT, traits cannot be directly observed; they must be inferred from behaviors, reactions, relationships, and attitudes that are known indicators of the underlying trait. The duality principle ( Costa and McCrae, 2017 ) asserts that the concrete thoughts, feelings, or behaviors serving as trait indicators have a dual nature: They simultaneously assess acquired characteristic adaptations and the underlying trait of which the adaptation is an indicator—just as vocabulary test scores simultaneously reflect the number of words that have been learned and the underlying ability to learn words. Because scores in personality questionnaires represent both basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations, any difference in the scores may represent both or only one of them. Consequently, if personality scores differ across cultures or historical eras, it does not necessarily mean that basic traits differ; it is possible that the observed difference lies merely in the indicators. For example, using social media is an indicator of extraversion ( Bowden-Green et al., 2020 ), and the use of social media has increased dramatically in the past two decades, but this does not imply that extraversion has increased.

The ambiguity caused by duality is normally controlled by aggregation across a diverse set of items. During the COVID-19 pandemic, lowered endorsement of an item like “I often go to large parties” would falsely suggest a marked decline in extraversion. But a scale including items tapping both use of social media and attendance at parties would tend to cancel out these spurious effects, leaving a better assessment of extraversion. The more, and more diverse, item content in a scale, the more likely it is to accurately reflect trait levels.

Duality is a greater problem at the level of nuances. Because nuances are usually assessed by single items, it is not possible to neutralize the explicit item content by aggregation. Instead, scientific judgment may be needed: Is it more likely that the observed cultural difference is due to effects on the overt item content, or on the trait it is intended to assess? One of the items that most discriminates between cultures is “Like to stand during the national anthem” ( Achaa-Amankwaa et al., 2021 , p. 391). This item probably has a drastically different interpretation in totalitarian and democratic countries, and such cultural differences do not require us to assume a difference in the underlying trait. Similarly, an excitement seeking item concerning enjoyment of roller coaster riding had a very low endorsement rate in the Philippines ( Church et al., 2011 ), not because Filipinos were truly low on this nuance, but merely because roller coasters are a relatively rare sight in the Philippines.

Multi-trait, multi-method designs . Besides a general strategy of identifying and assessing alternative explanations, there is also a more specific technique helping to decide whether culture has an impact on some trait or on indicators that were chosen to measure this trait. As was mentioned above, a personality trait can be defined by a common information shared by all indicators used to measure this trait ( Campbell and Fiske, 1959 ). If we want to know how an external, also called criterion, variable is related to this personality trait then we need compare the strength of the correlations between the indicators and external variable with the strength with which the indicators represent the underlying trait [see the method of correlated vectors ( Jensen, 1998 )]. Thus, the logic is very simple: if we want to measure an underlying trait rather than any of its specific indicators, the strength of external correlation must be proportional to the symptomatic power—validity—of these indicators. In addition, to eliminate the measurement method problem we need some other trait, which was not subjected to the same influence, which could indicate a common method bias (cf., Podsakoff et al., 2003 , 2012 ). These simple rules are useful tools for learning how culture can or cannot influence personality traits.

Comments on traits and culture

Controversies about traits.

Although personality traits are real and do exist outside the minds of people who make judgments about these traits ( Funder, 1995 , 1999 ), researchers are in a permanent quest for the best possible indicators for these traits. Unlike physics, personality psychology does not have natural measurement units for personality traits, such as the speed. We may be sufficiently close to the measurement unit for the perceived pitch— mel ( Stevens, 1975 )—but we are still quite far from units for neuroticism or conscientiousness. What we can do is to identify concrete feelings, attitudes, thoughts, and habits in different environments and situations, which are proxies for these traits. Because abstract potentials or dispositions cannot be directly observed, they can only be inferred somehow from their consequences, behaviors, and the experiences that may happen during someone’s life course (e.g., McCrae and Sutin, 2018 ).

Although traits served as a foundations of modern personality psychology ( Allport, 1937 , 1966 ), their existence has repeatedly been questioned ( Mischel, 1968 ; Shweder, 1991 ). One often-repeated argument maintains that there are no global traits; only particular or contextualized traits exist that are capable of guiding human behavior ( Mischel and Shoda, 1998 ; Baumert et al., 2017 ). However, Allik and Realo (2017a) argued that it makes no sense to assume that only specific forms of home or work conscientiousness exist, whereas a generalized conscientiousness transcending many situations and contexts does not. For a physicist that might sound similar to a proposed replacement of the universal Law of Gravitation with multiple local laws of gravitations for different materials, shapes, and weights ( Allik and Realo, 2017a ). Aristotle erroneously believed that in free fall, bodies fall at a speed that is proportional to their weight. Because the vacuum chamber had not yet been invented, there were no tools to control for an unknown factor—air resistance—which obscured the operation of gravity. It is important to notice that no one talks about a gravitation × situation interaction when explaining why a feather falls more slowly toward the earth than a tennis ball, for instance, though many psychologists once saw interactionism as a solution for the personality-situation debate ( Endler and Magnusson, 1976 ; Diener et al., 1984 ; Murtha et al., 1996 ).

Denial of global traits is often motivated by a pressing need to predict human behavior in everyday situations, for which global traits are not always useful. But even physicists found some everyday situations tricky to explain. For example, when shaking a container with a mixture of granules, larger particles rise to the top of the mixture (the Brazil-nut effect). Although seemingly trivial, it still requires care and imagination to learn how to apply well-known laws of physics to this particular situation ( Breu et al., 2003 ). A lesson to be learned is that the well-known physical laws did not need a revision. What is needed is learning how to apply them to obscure situations. Similarly, if a personality theory cannot exactly predict what a person’s favorite color ( Jonauskaite et al., 2021 ) or number is, to say nothing about their favorite combination ( Simon, 1971 ), it does not imply that the model is wrong, or personality traits are useless. It is enough if personality psychologists can forecast, relaying on personality measures, at least some important life outcomes ( Ozer and Benet-Martínez, 2006 ).

If there was any benefit from the person-situation debate ( Kenrick and Funder, 1988 ), then it demonstrated how unproductive it is to think that situations alone, not people’s inclinations or dispositions, determine how people feel, think, and behave ( Ross and Nisbett, 1991 ). Ironically, studies have demonstrated that situations themselves are best conceptualized in terms of traits. For instance, most attempts to develop a taxonomy of situations—the first step of scientific exploration—have resulted in classifications that suspiciously resemble the structure of personality traits ( Guillaume et al., 2017 ). This is not surprising because the environment is always perceived through the lens of its affordances to human needs and aspirations ( Gibson, 1979 ).

Universal and near-universal in personality

Although the exact number of the basic personality traits is still debated ( Ashton and Lee, 2020 ), no one doubts that the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of traits—neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—offers a broad and parsimonious description of the pattern of covariations between personality traits ( McCrae and John, 1992 ; Goldberg, 1993 ). Because the FFM has been shown to be applicable to most studied languages or cultures, it has been proposed that the FFM or Big Five could be human universals ( McCrae and Costa, 1997 ).

Universal means that something is characteristic of all members of a class, without limit or exception ( Allik et al., 2013 ). Because very few things exist without exceptions, the observed regularities are likely to hold not in all members of the class but in most of them. Many psychological phenomena, including personality structure, are near universals ( Allik et al., 2013 ; Allik and Realo, 2017b ).

Also, two forms of universality can be distinguished: there are aspects of personality that may be universal across cultures (cf., McCrae and Costa, 1997 ) without being universal across persons. It is widely believed that it is impossible to test whether the FFM within persons is a near universal, because the factor structure can only be derived from covariation trait-matrices in which individual data are apparently lost. It has been argued that the FFM can characterize the group as a whole, but not any individuals in that group ( Borsboom et al., 2003 ). Yet, this is not entirely true, because a given factor structure can be extracted from covariation matrices only if a large majority of individuals have personality profiles corresponding to the same pattern of covariation ( Allik et al., 2012 ). A good overall fit does not exclude the possibility that a small minority of participants may have an unusual configuration of personality traits, which clearly deviates from the dominant structure ( Allik et al., 2018 ).

The pattern of covariation between personality traits or the FFM is not the only cultural near-universal. Although sex differences in the personality mean scores are small relative to individual variation within sex, these differences have a highly replicable pattern across cultures ( Costa et al., 2001 ; Schmitt et al., 2008 ). Likewise, there is a cross-culturally replicable pattern of difference between how people perceive the personality of others and how they see their own personality ( Allik et al., 2010 ).

Dimensions of culture

The other side of the equation—culture—deserves a few words as well. The most striking property of human culture is its enormous variety. Almost every feature of culture—practices, beliefs, institutions—varies, even when comparing close neighbors. It would be a complicated or even impossible task to find out how this massive variety of cultural artifacts are related to personality. One way to cope with this overwhelming richness of details was by looking for underlying factors or dimensions. As with personality psychology ( Eysenck, 1947/1998 ), a dimensional approach is responsible for progress in understanding human culture. Even though the idea of cultural dimensions was already discussed in mid-20th century by various social scientists, the first empirically based model of national culture dimensions was proposed by Geert Hofstede, who first distinguished four cultural dimensions—individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity—which explained a considerable amount of the usually observed cross-cultural variance ( Hofstede, 1980/2001 ). Hofstede later added two dimensions, long vs. short-term orientation and indulgence vs. restraint ( Hofstede et al., 2010 ). From the four initial dimensions, individualism/collectivism enjoyed a huge popularity ( Triandis et al., 1988 ; Triandis, 1993 , 2001 ) because this dimension usually explained the largest proportions of variance between countries. The World Value Survey identified two dimensions—traditional/secular and survival/self-expression—as coordinates of human values ( Inglehart et al., 2004 ). Bond with colleagues analyzed cross-cultural variation in social axioms—generalized beliefs about the functioning of oneself and the social and physical environment ( Bond et al., 2004 ). These axioms seem to be similar to what McCrae (2009) called ethos—the manners, customs and institutions that embody the characteristic spirit of a culture. Another dimension which has attracted a considerable interest is tightness/looseness ( Gelfand et al., 2011 ; Realo et al., 2015 ; Jackson et al., 2020 ).

Although researchers of culture have not yet reached agreement on what dimensions provide the best description of culture ( Beugelsdijk and Welzel, 2018 ; Minkov, 2018 ; Kaasa and Minkov, 2022 ), no one seems to question that a relatively small number of abstract and directly unobservable factors are the best descriptors of cultural diversity. If the goal is to understand something substantial about the relationship between culture and personality, then it is necessary to concentrate on the underlying dimensions rather than an endless number of small details.

Does culture determine basic traits?

As we said, there are many convincing examples of how cultural practices determine or at least influence people’s habits, beliefs, opinions, personality scripts, and schemas. However, there is less certainty in the claim that culture can determine, modify, or moderate more basic tendencies such as neuroticism or extraversion. In this part, we analyze critically evidence that can demonstrate how cultural variation can or cannot influence basic personality dispositions.

The finding that members of one culture differ from those of another on their aggregate personality profiles is clearly not proof that culture affects personality. The number of alternative explanations is large: The two groups may have different gene pools; the translations may not be fully equivalent; styles of responding, such as social desirability, may vary across cultures; samples may not be representative or comparable. Indeed, Poortinga et al. (2002) argued that the only sensible interpretation from data available today is that all differences are artifacts, and that “the distribution of scores on basic personality dispositions is the same in each culture” (p. 297). Such a view implies that culture does not affect trait levels.

But there are also many reasons to argue that observed differences are real. Church and Katigbak (2002) showed that different Filipino samples had similar profiles whether they completed English or Filipino versions of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992 ). Allik et al. (2017) found meaningful geographical ordering of self-report data from 76 cultures. McCrae et al. (2005b) showed similar aggregate personality profiles across methods of measurement (self-report vs. informant ratings) in 28 cultures. Although various artifacts doubtless distort cross-cultural comparisons to some extent, there do appear to be real substantive differences in the mean levels of traits.

It is helpful to put the effects in perspective. Allik et al. (2017) examined aggregate self-reported trait levels in 76 samples from 62 countries. Data were standardized using American norms to create T -scores with means of 50 and SD s of 10. Across the 30 NEO-PI-R facet scales, national means fell in the range of T = 40–60 for 98% of the cases. The average standard deviation of the mean values across all 76 samples and 30 facets was 3.46. Thus, the difference between any two cultures is about one-third of the difference between individuals within a culture. Note that this in itself goes far toward ruling out a strong form of the culture-creates-personality hypothesis: If personality were shaped entirely by culture, there would be small within-culture differences and large between-culture differences.

The question, then, is whether cultural influences create these modest personality differences. Some designs can shed light on the issue. Evidence of cultural effects could be seen in (a) the identification of qualitatively distinct traits or trait structures in different cultures; (b) personality changes with immersion in a new culture; (c) mean changes in trait level that parallel historical changes within a single culture; and (d) changes in individuals’ trait levels associated with differential culturally-salient life experiences.

Indigenous traits and structures

Cultural and cross-cultural psychologists have often proposed that cultures have distinctive indigenous traits, such as Chinese ren qing , Portuguese saudade , Japanese amae , German Schadenfreude , or Russian dusha but to date, available evidence about indigenous traits is inconclusive. Allik et al. (2011) found no support for the notion that Russian personality profiles correspond to the literary and scholarly notion of a distinctive Russian soul— dusha . It was also proposed that Chinese culture has a unique traditional trait—interpersonal relatedness—not found in other cultures ( Cheung and Leung, 1998 ; Cheung et al., 2001 ). But it was subsequently found that this trait can be found in other cultures as well, although perhaps not with the same degree of salience ( Lin and Church, 2004 ).

A second possibility is that the same traits may appear everywhere but show a different factor structure (e.g., Durkee et al., 2022 ). The usual FFM structure is rather weakly replicated in many African cultures, and it might be supposed that there is a distinctly African variation on the FFM. But studies seeking a unique pan-African personality structure have not succeeded, because deviations from the universal structure seems to be erratic ( Zecca et al., 2013 ). McCrae et al. (2005b) argued that these erratic differences may be due to error of measurement in small samples: When data from five sub-Saharan African nations were pooled, the American FFM structure was clearly replicated.

It has been observed that in one hunter-gatherer society a smaller number of personality traits was needed to describe someone’s self-reported personality ( Gurven et al., 2013 , 2014 ; Smaldino et al., 2019 ). Yet, it is entirely possible that the results in these studies merely reflected the lack of experience that hunter-gatherers have with personality questionnaires. For the same reason, personality structure is not as well-defined in the self-reports of children ( Allik et al., 2004 ). The question of whether the usual structure of personality is or is not replicated in preliterate cultures remains open until informant reports are collected from external observers who are familiar with the use of Western personality questionnaires.

A third possibility is that basic traits are universal, but they have culturally unique indicators. FFT argues that culture may impact characteristic adaptations rather than dispositional traits ( Church, 2010 ; Achaa-Amankwaa et al., 2021 ). McCrae (2000) proposed ethnographic studies in a wide range of cultures to identify “recurrent and culture-specific manifestations of personality” (p. 24). Intracultural researchers might use etic measures of traits to identify high and low scorers, and then conduct case studies of these individuals to see how they typically expressed their traits. These could lead to emic measures of universal traits.

Acculturation and sojourner effects

Acculturation . Without any doubt, acculturation—a process in which an individual adopts, acquires, and adjusts to a new cultural environment—is the prime test case for a demonstration that culture can change personality dispositions. Therefore, it was a surprise to find only a few studies devoted to this important question. In one of the first such studies, personality traits of students of Chinese ancestry living in Canada were studied ( McCrae et al., 1998 ). Students born in Canada were compared to recent and long-term immigrants from Hong Kong, and results suggested that exposure to Canadian culture increased openness, extraversion, and several facets of agreeableness—traits in which European-Canadians scored higher than Hong Kong Chinese. Self-report results were replicated in a second sample using peer ratings. Differences in the sense of competence and vulnerability to stress appeared to be due to different cultural standards for judging these traits ( McCrae et al., 1998 ).

A handful of subsequent studies have provided partial support for these findings. Benet-Martínez and Karakitapoğlu-Aygün (2003) reported that second-generation Asian-Americans had scores on extraversion and openness that were intermediate between those of first-generation Asian-Americans and European-Americans. Leininger (2002) compared Vietnamese immigrants to the US who arrived when they were 9–19 years old vs. 20+ years old, hypothesizing that the younger group would be more affected by American culture. Results were mixed—for example, younger immigrants who settled in North Carolina scored higher than older immigrants in openness, but the pattern was reversed for immigrants who settled in California. Güngör et al. (2013) compared Japanese, Japanese-American, and European-American first-time mothers. To avoid problems of scalar equivalence, similarity was gauged by correlating the pattern of item responses within each of the five personality domains, and the authors concluded that the results supported the hypothesis that American culture affected the personality of Japanese-Americans. However, the results are profoundly ambiguous and say nothing about the direction of personality differences. Japanese-Americans, for example, might have had mean scale scores identical with those of Japanese, but obtained by endorsing different items. In this study, 20% of the Japanese-Americans—but none of the Japanese—were assessed in English; the similarity between Japanese-Americans and European-Americans might be due entirely to shared overlap in language.

Cultural effects on personality might be mediated by language. It has been proposed that switching languages we may also switch personalities ( Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2006 ; Chen and Bond, 2010 ; Lönnqvist et al., 2014 ). Yet, the claim that a different language creates a different personality may be a bit of an overstatement. Bilinguals usually obtain very similar personality scores irrespective of the questionnaire’s language ( Konstabel, 1999 ). Again, it is also necessary to distinguish changes in personality dispositions from linguistic-cultural styles for describing personality traits.

Sojourner studies . In recent years a number of sojourner studies have appeared ( Peltokorpi and Froese, 2012 ; Güngör et al., 2013 ; Zimmermann and Neyer, 2013 ; Niehoff et al., 2017 ; Richter et al., 2021 ), examining the effects on personality of temporary encounters with a foreign culture. Many university students spend a semester or year abroad, and pre-post studies of trait levels provide information on the effects of that experience. Note that these are not acculturation studies, in which changes toward the normative trait profile of the host culture are hypothesized. Here, subjects typically sojourn in a variety of different cultures, with presumably different personality profiles. What all subjects have in common is only immersion for some months in a different culture. These studies address an important issue in personality-and-culture, but not the classical issue of whether personality is shaped by the specific ethos of a culture.

Clearly, a simple comparison of students who have and have not studied abroad is prone to selection biases: Pre-existing personality traits may dispose some students to study and live abroad (see Realo et al., 2023 for a recent review). All recent studies have compared sojourners with stay-at-home controls at baseline, prior to the sojourn experience, and all have reported relatively large effects: Students choosing to study abroad tend to be higher in extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and lower in neuroticism—although Söldner (2013) reported that they were lower in openness.

All these studies are pre- and post-sojourn analyses, but Söldner (2013) reported only baseline data for the control group. Without longitudinal data for controls, change due to sojourning cannot be separated from maturation—an issue in studies of young adults. Significant increases in extraversion, openness, and agreeableness and a significant decrease in neuroticism were seen in at least two of these studies, although the effects were small: Zimmermann et al. (2021) reported | d s| of 0.00 to 0.22 for the five factors.

These studies relied exclusively on self-reports, so the findings might be due to expectancy effects or to superficial changes in the self-concept. The latter possibility is made more plausible by a five-year longitudinal follow-up reported by Richter et al. (2021) , who found that “there were no meaningful (lasting) sojourn effects on most if not all traits, except a small signal for openness” (p. 10).

Studies of acculturation or sojourner adaptation (e.g., Church, 1982 ) are susceptible to a wide range of confounders. If measures in two different languages are used, their comparability must be examined. If immigrants are compared to non-immigrants from the same culture, any differences might be due to self-selection effects ( Söldner, 2013 ; Zimmermann and Neyer, 2013 ). To guard against such selection effects, pre- and post-immigration assessments is needed; even here, apparent changes might be due to changes in response style.

Summarizing personality acculturation studies, it would be important to emphasize the following points. First, because cross-cultural differences in personality mean scores are small compared with between-individual differences, there is a limited range for culture-caused changes. Second, the measures used must show (or be corrected to show) scalar equivalence across languages. Third, it is necessary to consider the initial or pre-departure levels of personality traits to account for selection effects. Fourth, actual change in trait levels should be separated from change in cultural standards for judging or reporting these traits (see McCrae et al., 1998 ). Finally, it may be necessary to separate short-term and long-term effects of acculturation, because only sustained changes reflect personality dispositions, not cultural styles, or traditions.

Birth cohort effects

Cultures—especially modern cultures—are not static, and cultural change across decades could result in changes in collective personality. In a famous series of meta-analyses, Twenge (2000 , 2001) and Twenge and Campbell (2001 , 2010) have reported dramatic cohort effects on many personality traits, such as anxiety, extraversion, and self-esteem ( Twenge, 2000 , 2001 ; Twenge and Campbell, 2001 , 2010 ). In principle, such effects might speak to the influence of changes in culture on successive generations, but it should be also noted that some of the trends reported by Twenge and colleagues have been difficult to replicate in samples that are more representative of the general population ( Robins and Trzesniewski, 2005 ; Pullmann et al., 2009 ; Terracciano, 2010 ; Trzesniewski and Donnellan, 2010 ; Wetzel et al., 2018 ).

As was already mentioned, the observed changes in response scores may be related to response biases such as favorable self-presentation ( Twenge, 2001 ) rather than to more fundamental changes in personality dispositions. It is also necessary to distinguish changes in personality from changes in attitudes and values, which tend to shift across generations. For example, it was noticed that social capital—the networks of reciprocal trust among people enabling society to function effectively—varies by generation although a corresponding personality trait—A1: Trust ( Costa and McCrae, 1992 )—appeared to change very little across time ( Putnam, 2000 ; Schwadel and Stout, 2012 ).

In some designs, birth cohort effects can be studied in cross-sectional data. In one study, college-aged observers rated personality traits of Russians, most of whom were born before Nikita Khrushchev denounced repressions and cult of Joseph Stalin’s personality in 1956, and approximately 10% before Stalin’s purges in 1937 ( Allik et al., 2009 ). These major historical events might have left their imprints on the personality of targets, and uniquely Russian cohort effects might have created a distinctive pattern of Russian age differences. Instead, age differences in general showed the same pattern seen elsewhere ( Allik et al., 2009 ). Age differences in personality are remarkably similar in countries with quite different levels of economic development and cultural settings ( McCrae et al., 1999 , 2004 ; Costa et al., 2000 ; Chan et al., 2012 ). Deviations from the universal pattern are difficult to find, and it is even more difficult to discern what cultural or societal factors might be behind them.

Social roles and the work environment

When individuals move from one major role status to another—from student to worker, single to married, worker to retiree—they encounter a new set of opportunities, responsibilities, and other factors that could be construed as a new subculture. In this sense, role changes are cultural changes, and their effects on personality traits, if any, would suggest a shaping effect of culture on traits.

Certainly, there are normative changes in the mean level of traits across the human lifespan—for example, young adults become less extraverted and more closed to new experiences with age ( McCrae and Costa, 2003 ; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008 ). The social investment principle maintains that such normative changes occur because people develop and adjust their personality dispositions by making psychological commitments to social institutions such as marriage, family, and community ( Roberts et al., 2005 ; Lodi-Smith and Roberts, 2007 ; Wrzus and Roberts, 2017 ). If so, one would expect personality changes to occur exclusively in individuals who in fact change roles. To assess commitment to family we can compare married and divorced individuals and the length of marriage and relationship ( Lodi-Smith and Roberts, 2007 ). Because these variables can be measured independently of self-reported personality traits, one can ask how marriage or divorce changes personality. There is evidence, for instance, that women who have divorced become more dominant over a 16 year period than women who never divorced ( Roberts et al., 2002 ), but overall, the literature on changes in personality associated with marriage and family is fragmented and the observed effects often puzzling in direction ( Costa et al., 2019 ; Denissen et al., 2019 ).

Another promising example is the work environment ( den Boer et al., 2019 ; Roberts and Nickel, 2021 ). For example, according to the trait activation theory ( Tett et al., 2021 ), the work environment promotes personality traits that are relevant to efficient job performance. Using longitudinal data, it is possible to disentangle, partly at least, work environment effects on personality traits from personality preferences for different occupations. Holman and Hughes (2021) reported effects of job characteristics on personality, particularly effects of workload on personality change in openness, extraversion, and agreeableness.

There is also a study in which the convergent and discriminant validation principle was methodically used ( Einat and Suliman, 2021 ). In this study, the impact of prison officers’ time on the job on two basic personality traits—conscientiousness and agreeableness—was observed ( Einat and Suliman, 2021 ). [If a question arises about what a job in prison has to do with culture, then it is helpful to remember that the most influential model of cultural dimensions was developed on the basis of beliefs regarding work goals and values among IBM employees across 50 different countries ( Hofstede, 1980/2001 ).] After 4 years of work, there was a clear difference between prison officers and the control group: The mean scores of the prison officers’ agreeableness and conscientiousness decreased slightly, but only on some of the facets ( Einat and Suliman, 2021 ). From this pattern of results, it is premature to conclude that there was a systematic change in agreeableness or conscientiousness. It is more likely that changes were in some facets, not in the global factors.

At least two studies have examined cultural differences in role transitions. In many traditional cultures, adolescents are required to end education and take on adult responsibilities at an early age; in more affluent cultures there is often a period of prolonged adolescence. If personality change is driven by role requirements, individuals in late-maturing cultures should show slower personality maturation—according to the social investment principle , slower declines in neuroticism and slower increases in agreeableness and conscientiousness. These effects should be seen cross-sectionally. In one multi-national study, Bleidorn et al. (2013) found the predicted effects for neuroticism and conscientiousness in cultures with early job entry, but no effects for early age of marriage. In a second multi-national study, McCrae et al. (2021) examined effects of early marriage, births per thousand women aged 15–19, length of compulsory education, and per capita Gross Domestic Product on cross-sectional rate of change in the age range from 12 to 21. None of the effects predicted by the social investment principle approached significance.

The impact of ideologies and stereotypes on personality traits

The division of Germany between East and West was a historical experiment potentially demonstrating how an ideology could change human personality. One of the explicit goals of the communist rulers of East Germany was to cultivate a new breed of humans who were free from the egoism, greed, and selfishness cultivated by the capitalist system. How successful were they in achieving this? When Angleitner and Ostendorf (2000) studied personality traits of West and East Germans after reunification they found that East Germans scored about one-fifth SD lower than West Germans on openness, but there were no significant differences in any of the other factors. Thus, a half-century-long attempt to nurture a new type of personality was not too successful. This is true despite obvious differences in West and East German attitudes and values that have been preserved decades after unification ( Alesina and Fuchs-Schündeln, 2007 ; Brosig-Koch et al., 2011 ).

There is another interesting opportunity for the study of the impact of an ideological system on personality. Fanny Cheung and colleagues developed the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory to measure indigenous Chinese personality ( Cheung et al., 1996 , 2003 , 2008 ). It is believed that Chinese cultural tradition (e.g., Yang, 1996 ) forms a basis for a Chinese personality emphasizing interpersonal relatedness which appears to transcend all political and ideological differences. Nevertheless, researchers have noticed dissimilarities in personality between Singaporean and Mainland Chinese participants ( Cheung et al., 2006 ). Also, comparative studies of people’s values have demonstrated that participants from Hong Kong and Taiwan are less likely, compared to respondents from the People’s Republic of China, to support statements like “One should give up personal interests to fulfill parental expectations” ( Yeh et al., 2013 ). Of course, the endorsement of filial piety is only one indicator of the absence of openness—conservatism, submission to authority, and traditionality—but it seems more likely that other indicators are also pointing in the direction of conventionality in behavior and conservative outlook ( Jing and Cai, 2022 ). For instance, it would be tantalizing to study if one of the goals of the Cultural Revolution to destroy the Four Olds—old customs, culture, habits, and ideas—has also materialized in changes of the traditional Chinese personality.

Stereotypes

National and regional character stereotypes are shared beliefs about the personality traits of typical citizens ( Realo and Allik, 2020 ). One might suppose that they more-or-less accurately reflect real differences in aggregate personality traits, just as gender stereotypes correspond to assessed gender differences ( Löckenhoff et al., 2014 ). Again, one could hypothesize that they might provide expectations that would influence the self-image and perception of others, and thus self-reported and observer-rated personality assessments. In either case, there should be convergence between national character stereotypes and assessed traits—but this has not been found. Canadians, for example, define themselves as “not Americans,” and their autostereotypes are virtually the opposite of Americans’ autostereotypes ( Terracciano et al., 2005 ). But, when participants from Canada (and the United States) were asked to rate the personality traits of a fellow Canadian (or American) whom they knew well, there was no difference in the mean profiles of personality ( Terracciano et al., 2005 ). Again, a stereotypical Italian—friendly, warm, affectionate, easy-going—lives in Southern Italy and is believed to differ from the more cold, ambitious, and organized Northern Italian. This stereotype, shared by both Southern and Northern Italians and by foreigners, has no kernel of truth: Direct personality ratings show their actual personality profiles cannot be distinguished ( McCrae et al., 2007 ). Similarly, neighbors of Russia think that their national characters are mirror images of their dominating neighbor, but their real personality traits are only trivially different from Russians ( Realo et al., 2009 ).

McCrae (2009 , 2017) proposed that cultures themselves could be viewed within the framework of the FFM. He used the term ethos to express patterns in cultural values, customs, and institutions that could be described in trait terms. For example, the strict law enforcement policies of Singapore might be seen as dutifulness; the American Protestant Ethic might be seen as culture-level achievement striving. McCrae (2017) collected ratings of American, German, Chinese, and Russian ethos from knowledgeable informants, who showed high inter-rater reliability. If culture shapes personality, we would expect that these ratings would be positively correlated with assessed aggregate personality traits ( McCrae and Terracciano, 2008 ). But none of the four countries showed a significant correlation across the 30 facets.

However, correlations of ethos ratings with national character stereotypes were significant and substantial (0.46–0.61) for three of the cultures, and showed a trend ( r = 0.32, p < 0.10) for Russia. In an earlier study ( McCrae, 2009 ), a significant correlation between ethos and stereotypes was also found for Japan. It thus appears that cultural practices and institutions do not influence personality traits but do help shape perceptions of national character.

Although there are currently no purely objective measures of traits, there are potentially objective measures of ethos. One might, for example, take the mean number of hours in a workweek as an indicator of a nation’s achievement striving, or the amount given to charity as an indicator of altruism. Multiple indicators would be needed for each facet of ethos, and confounding variables such as economic development would need to be considered, but this strategy has potential as an approach to the study of personality-and-culture.

The reverse causation hypothesis: Personality traits determine culture

A recent Special Issue of American Psychologist ( Varnum and Grossmann, 2021 ) explored contributions of psychological variables—including personality ( Götz et al., 2021 )—to cultural change. History is full of examples of individuals whose traits had momentous consequences for whole nations. Rousseau’s openness led him to critique society, inspiring the French Revolution ( McCrae, 1996 ). Nelson’s dutifulness sustained British independence during the Napoleonic Wars ( Costa and McCrae, 1998 ). American democracy would be far different if Washington had been as ambitious as Napoleon (cf., Rubenzer et al., 2000 ). Granted, these individuals and their traits did not shape culture single-handedly, but it is hard to deny that they made significant contributions.

Personality’s consequences for culture

It is surely reasonable, then, to propose that the aggregate personality of a group can create or modify its culture. We know from the expeditions of Zheng He (1371–1435 C.E.) that the Chinese could have been world conquerors if they had wished to, but it was Western Europe that eventually colonized the globe. The introversion of the Chinese and extraversion of Europeans ( Allik and McCrae, 2004 ) may well have been contributing causes.

There is as yet little solid evidence that variation in the personality dispositions is in fact responsible for observed differences between cultures. Like direct causation, one of the main obstacles to the demonstration of reversed causation is the universality of basic personality traits. If basic traits exist in only one relatively invariant form, then to detect consequences of these small variations is a complicated exercise. No variation, no causation! Nevertheless, although the mean personality profiles across cultures are similar, the relatively small variations that still exist between them have a systematic geographic pattern ( Allik and McCrae, 2004 ). This pattern, though, is not homologous to the distribution of values around the world ( Allik et al., 2017 ), so it seems unlikely that population personality traits shape national values. Hofstede and McCrae’s (2004) dimensions of culture are robustly associated with aggregate personality traits, but which is cause and which effect remains unclear ( Hofstede and McCrae, 2004 ).

Experimental methods might give some clues. Research participants might be grouped according to assessed personality—say, introverts versus extraverts—and given group tasks. Would these groups evolve replicable interaction patterns that showed the effects of collective traits on spontaneous social organization? Would extraverts form individualistic groups, and introverts collectivistic? If so, it would support the view that, over time, traits might shape culture.

Because all personality traits have substantial heritability, the transfer of genetic material from one population to another—gene flow—could be a mechanism causing geographic differences in personality ( Rentfrow, 2014 ). It has been observed that countries formed from emigrants have higher extraversion than those countries from which the emigrants originated ( Lynn, 1981 ). Perhaps more extraverted individuals migrated, taking their genes with them.

Small populations living on islands provide a good model for the study the effects of gene flow on personality ( Camperio Ciani, 2017 ). In a series of studies, Camperio Ciani and Capiluppi (2010) , Camperio Ciani et al. (2007) and Ciani et al. (2013) demonstrated that islanders who stay have lower levels of extraversion and openness and higher levels of emotional stability and conscientiousness, traits that are all well adapted to the prevalent socio-ecological niche of a small, isolated island. Those who are more ready to escape from a monotonous life have higher levels of extraversion and openness to new experiences.

In these studies, culture and personality become more closely attuned through mechanisms of self-selection and immigration, and it might therefore be argued that culture shapes the collective personality of the population. But there is no evidence here that it affects traits in the individual, which is the usual premise of culture and personality studies.

Personality dispositions required for maintaining social institutions

Interestingly, economists have entertained the idea that personality dispositions can influence cultural practices. McClelland (1961/2010) was the first to argue that a sufficiently high level of a personality trait—achievement motivation—was a necessary condition for the start of economic growth. More recently, economists have taken an interest in altruism. Because altruism seems to prevail over self-interest in all known cultures, it is tempting to conclude that it is human nature shaping social and cultural practices ( Henrich et al., 2001 , 2005 ). Strong reciprocity is a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish those who violate the norms of cooperation. In a series of studies ( Fehr et al., 2002 ; Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004 ; Fehr and Gintis, 2007 ; Gintis et al., 2008 ; Gintis and Fehr, 2012 ), participants played simple economic games revealing whether they considered only self-interest or also the interests of other players—the public good. In all societies studied, decisions were made to increase both self-interested material payoffs and contributions in the public-good, but there were also cross-cultural differences ( Henrich et al., 2001 , 2005 ). Based on these subtle differences, it was proposed that a sufficient number of strong reciprocators in in the population is required for building social institutions carrying the spirit of reciprocity. Modeling demonstrated that a small number of strong reciprocators who could invade a population could make strong reciprocity an evolutionarily stable strategy ( Gintis et al., 2003 ; Fehr and Gintis, 2007 ). Although the culture of reciprocity seems to require individuals with an elevated level of trust and agreeableness, it can be also said that these traits are nourished by prevailing social practices and institutions: the higher the degree of market integration and the higher the payoffs to cooperation in everyday life, the greater the level of prosociality expressed in experimental games ( Henrich et al., 2005 ). These results can be explained by culture-gene co-evolution: Culture is supposed to shape the human genome by developing dispositions of reciprocity and prosociality ( Richerson et al., 2010 ; Chudek and Henrich, 2011 ).

By and large, personality psychologists have relied exclusively on questionnaire methods for studying personality-and-culture. But experimental methods, like the games used by economists, offer some advantages, because they are not susceptible to the same artifacts. Some answers may be easier to obtain by going beyond the habitual territory of personality questionnaires.

Reciprocal determination

Because nothing seems to prevent reverse causation—people choose and create cultural environment, which matches their personality dispositions—it is likely that determination works in both directions. As mentioned above, a good model for reciprocal determination is gene-culture co-evolution ( Lumsden and Wilson, 1981 ; Waring and Wood, 2021 ). Although there is no well-developed methodology for identifying reciprocal impacts, there are several phenomena that can be used as models.

Sex differences and social development

It is tempting to believe that if women and men differ in their basic personality dispositions then it is most likely caused by the different roles they play in the society. Sex differences in personality are apparently near universal: Women report higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than men across in most nations ( Costa et al., 2001 ). Remarkably, it has been found and repeatedly replicated that the gender gap in personality traits is greater in cultures with higher human development, as measured by life expectancy, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ). This surprising result contradicts social role theories, which assume that sex differences in personality traits will be attenuated or disappear in more progressive and gender-egalitarian cultures and will be pronounced in cultures with a more traditional division of roles between sexes (e.g., Eagly and Steffen, 1984 ; Eagly and Wood, 1999 ). Thus, some other sort of explanation is needed here.

One possibility is that gender differences are the same everywhere but are masked by artifacts in traditional cultures. Guimond et al. (2007) argued that in more developed nations respondents compare themselves to people in general, whereas in traditional societies men and women use their own sex as a frame of reference, thus reducing observed gender differences. When explicitly instructed to compare themselves to all other people, respondents in Malaysia (a traditional culture) showed larger gender differences.

Substantive interpretations are also possible. Schmitt et al. (2008) proposed that the widening gender gap in personality traits are caused by an interaction between intrinsic tendencies and the environment. Let us suppose that both men and women have biological and genetic predispositions, the manifestations of which are constrained or supported by the social and economic conditions in which they live. More difficult conditions in less developed human societies might suppress sex differences in personality. In more developed and egalitarian human societies, however, dispositions are not constrained in the development in their natural directions ( Schmitt et al., 2008 ). It is relevant to notice that physiological traits, such as sex differences in blood pressure, demonstrate a similar widening gap with societal development, which is a signature of interaction ( Pollard et al., 1991 ; Dressler, 1999 ).

Self-domestication

Another example of an interaction between dispositions and the environment is a surprising decrease in violence across time. As evidence shows, the current moment is the most peaceful at least in advanced democratic countries ( North et al., 2009 ; Pinker, 2011 ). Although several factors contribute to the decline of violence, Pinker (2011) believed that this could not have happened without changes in human personality. Among these changes the most remarkable are reduction of aggression, which is the primary cause of violence. Because not only emotions but also antecedents of emotional reactions seem to be relatively uniform across cultures, the largest differences are expected to be observed in the process of appraisal ( Scherer, 1997 ; Siemer et al., 2007 ). One of the reasons why violence has decreased is that human beings are becoming more rational and deliberate, which seems to be achieved by better appraisal and control of emotional reactions.

Yet another factor reducing violence, pointed out by Pinker, is feminization . A good example of masculinity is the culture of honor in which a person feels obliged to defend their reputation by aggressive or violent behavior ( Cohen et al., 1996 ; Cohen, 1998 ; Vandello et al., 2008 ). Typical masculine traits include the endorsement of aggression norms, overestimation of the aggressiveness of other people, and encouragement of aggression when witnessing interpersonal conflicts. A clear sign of feminization is avoiding or reducing these reactions.

Of course, the observed decrease of violence in society can happen without changes to basic personality traits. It could have been achieved by adjusting adaptation mechanisms to the current societal and cultural demands. Because the reduction of violence has been a relatively rapid process, changes in the pool of genes are presumably too slow to drive this process. Nevertheless, in one of the most outstanding experiments Dmitry Belyaev showed that the aggressiveness of wild silver foxes can be tamed in only a few generations ( Trut, 1999 ; Dugatkin and Trut, 2017 ). One of the most surprising results of this experiment were changes in the physical appearance of foxes—heads became smaller, white spots appeared in the fur, tails rolled, and ears became floppy—although the only trait selected for was low aggressiveness. Because only one of a closely related group of species may became domesticated—for example, the donkey but not the zebra (e.g., Diamond, 2002 )—it is possible that undomesticated species have no dispositions that can be nurtured. It is more likely that domestication presupposes a certain level of eusociality, which can be activated while aggression is “switched off” by lower levels of circulating testosterone (cf., Cieri et al., 2014 ).

It was noticed that these changes accompanying taming are typical to domestication in general. In addition to self-domestication—the process of adaptation of wild animals to cohabiting humans, without selective breeding of animals—humans also domesticated themselves, becoming more docile and friendly with other human beings ( Hare, 2017 ; Wrangham, 2018 ; Sánchez-Villagra and Van Schaik, 2019 ). This means that domestication has dual consequences, on those who were targets of domestication but also those who domesticated these wild animals.

Changing brain, changing personality

FFT acknowledges that basic personality traits can be altered by the environment, provided that it operates through modifications of their biological bases ( McCrae et al., 2022 ). For culture, the best opportunity to change personality is by changing the brain. For example, smoking has substantial cultural differences. In Armenia over 55% of men are smokers whereas in Peru only about 7% of male population regularly inhale nicotine vapor ( Reitsma et al., 2021 ). Some evidence suggests that besides detrimental health effects, chronic smoking affects personality traits over time, increasing neuroticism and decreasing extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness relative to normative changes ( Lipkus et al., 1994 ; Stephan et al., 2019 ). Effects of smoking on neuroticism have been reported by other investigators ( Sallis et al., 2019 ; Stephan et al., 2019 ), which may explain why a country’s smoking prevalence is related to its elevated level of neuroticism (cf., Lynn, 1971 ). But, neuroticism itself also predisposes for smoking ( Munafo et al., 2007 ). Instead of a one directional path, we have a vicious circle, which sustains the whole complex.

Biologists have noticed that parasites could cause stress, which alters behavior and personality ( Schaller and Murray, 2008 ; Barber and Dingemanse, 2010 ; Buck et al., 2018 ). It has been proposed that parasites can also modify human behavior particularly through higher responsiveness to disgust ( Tybur et al., 2018 ). Because parasite poisoning could increase fear and decrease boldness and openness, these changes could promote ideologies of avoidance, isolation, and hate. Indeed, nations with greater parasite stress are more politically conservative, endorsing traditionalism, intergroup barriers, and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups ( Tybur et al., 2016 ). A mirror side of this conservative ideology is ingroup favoritism, emphasizing familism or religiosity ( Fincher and Thornhill, 2012 ).

Most of the effects noted here are small in magnitude, but brain damage could change personality entirely. Phineas Gage is certainly the best known example of how damage of the left frontal region could produce profound changes in personality ( Damasio et al., 1994 ). In this regard, surgical lobotomy—in the United States alone nearly 20,000 lobotomies were performed in the mid 20th century—was the most brutal experimental intervention to change one’s personality ( Gilbert et al., 2013 ). Considering that alcohol poisoning primarily affects the frontal lobes ( Moselhy et al., 2001 ), one might say that experimenting with lobotomy effects on personality is still in progress. Since alcohol consumption is socially and culturally regulated, culture has a tool for changing—or preserving—personality. Malnutrition in the first years of life may also affect adult personality traits ( Galler et al., 2013 ).

Research hypotheses

In this article we have surveyed a wide variety of approaches to personality traits and culture and made a number of suggestions about how to design studies and interpret results. Here we offer a set of hypotheses that might stimulate future research. The central issue to be explained is why different cultures have consistently different personality trait profiles—why, for example, Americans are more extraverted than Chinese ( Allik and McCrae, 2004 ). We propose that these differences are veridical, not artifactual, and that they can be accounted for in terms of FFT. These premises lead to a number of testable hypotheses.

H1: Cross-cultural differences in trait profiles remain after controlling for artifacts of response style.

H1 can be tested by systematically controlling the effects of acquiescence (by balanced keying), extreme responding (by ipsatization), and self-presentation (by obtaining informant ratings). Frame-of-reference effects can be controlled by providing an explicit reference group (“Compare yourself to all people in the world”) or by using items that call for a comparison of two options (“I prefer reading a book to attending a party”) instead of implicit comparisons to others (“I like parties [more than most people do]”).

H2: Cross-cultural differences in trait profiles remain after controlling for sampling biases.

H2 requires much more attention to sampling than is customary. Ideally, representative probability samples would be obtained in each culture (cf., Lima, 2002 ). Where that is not feasible, samples in each culture could be matched on literacy, education, age, sex, and perhaps occupation (as in Hofstede’s research on IBM employees). Where individual case matching is not feasible, such variables could be used as covariates. Meta-analyses of studies using different samples and sampling strategies (Internet, student samples, oral administration) and would lessen the chance that sampling differences account for observed profile differences.

H3: Cross-cultural differences in trait profiles remain after ruling out measurement inequivalence.

H3 concerns the quantitative and qualitative equivalence of the assessments compared across cultures. Statistical tests of scalar equivalence are commonly demanded, although they are imperfect ( McCrae et al., 2005b ). Administration of both versions of a scale to bilinguals, corrected for retest unreliability ( McCrae et al., 1998 ), can provide evidence on the validity of a translation and its scalar equivalence. Boehnke (2022) argued that emic scales, in which the specific item content differs across cultures, can be shown to have scalar equivalence using an adaptation of confirmatory factor analysis. Emic scales could also be shown to be equivalent using bilinguals.

H4: Acculturation has no effect on trait levels.

FFT asserts that external influences do not affect traits. This is most straightforwardly tested by comparing recent immigrants to long-term immigrants matched on age and sex, provided several conditions are met. In essence, comparison of the two groups is like comparison of two different cultures, and the same considerations apply. Researchers must rule out the possibility that observed differences are due to response styles (which cultures may alter) or sampling biases (if self-selection pressures differed in the two periods of immigration). Measurement equivalence is also needed: Long-term Filipino immigrants to the US may be more likely to endorse enjoyment of roller coasters simply because they have tried them, whereas short-term immigrants have not. Finally, sample size must be large enough to ensure that the smallest meaningful difference (say, ω 2 = 0.01)—if it exists—will be significant. McCrae et al. (1998) used this design and found that Chinese-Canadians born in Canada were higher in Extraversion and Openness than those born in Hong Kong, but did not differ in Neuroticism or Conscientiousness. If this finding is replicated, it argues against a strict form of FFT, and suggests a new hypothesis:

H5: Acculturation effects on trait levels are restricted to extraversion and openness.

Tests of H5 require data from a wide variety of immigrant groups, of which there is no shortage in the modern world. Ideally, data would be accumulated from many countries of origin and many countries of destination. A meta-analysis of such studies could assess whether culture affected only some traits (say, extraversion and openness), whether acculturation effects were proportional to the initial differences between groups, and whether some cultures (perhaps tighter cultures; Gelfand et al., 2011 ) have stronger acculturating effects than other cultures.

H6: Cultures with similar traits have similar gene pools; specifically, Nigerians, Chinese, and Indonesians will score lower than Britons and Australians on polygenic extraversion scores.

It is neither surprising nor very informative to note that the aggregate personality profiles of the United Kingdom and Australia are very similar ( McCrae et al., 2005b ): They share both genetic and cultural heritages. But Nigerians, Chinese, and Indonesians are all introverted relative to English and Australians; would polygenic extraversion scores show the same pattern?

H7: Cultures with similar biological environments will show similar traits; specifically, cultures with high levels of tobacco consumption will be higher in Neuroticism and lower in Conscientiousness than other cultures.

Diet, pathogen prevalence (e.g., Schaller and Murray, 2008 ), climate, substance usage, and a host of other features of the biological environment potentially influence personality traits; the challenge here would be to identify likely candidates worth systematic study.

Some conclusions and prospects

Debates about the personality-and-culture relationship resemble an old parable about a group of blind men who discuss how an elephant looks after each of them has felt a different part of the elephant’s body. Analogously, those who focus on various indicators—characteristic adaptations—are convinced, rightly so, about massive cultural impacts on personality. Those who study basic dispositions are often stunned at how stable they are and how little external influences, including culture, can change them. Hence, there is no contradiction between these two seemingly opposite views. Indeed, cultural variation determines—programs, influences, or moderates—characteristic adaptations such as beliefs, habits, self-schemas, and narratives, but it has been difficult to show that it has any influence on more basic personality dispositions ( McCrae and Costa, 1999 , 2003 , 2008 , 2021 ). According to FFT, personality dispositions are protected from external influences because they are deeply grounded in the organism, where the forces of the psychological environmental do not easily reach.

Perhaps someday it may be possible to assess personality traits, not by questionnaires, but by objective measures, such as brain images or gene expression atlases. Until this time, the main available option is to rely on subjective self- or informant reports about specific feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. These answers are indicators based on which we can infer something about more enduring personality dispositions. Multiple indicators need to agree in pointing to the same trait from slightly different angles, to be sure that we can distinguish changes in dispositions from more superficial changes in indicators.

To bring this story to an end—there is no doubt that culture affects people’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. With regard to the other part—basic personality dispositions—results are fragmentary because only a few studies have followed requirements that are necessary for the measurement changes in personality traits. Available data demonstrate that even if culture can occasionally influence basic personality dispositions, the consequences are rather small. Thus, there is little evidence that culture can have a dramatic impact on the basic personality dispositions. The best chance for a change is somehow to modify the neuronal circuitry and chemistry of the brain. If these modifications involve mechanisms underlying personality dispositions, then it is likely that some personality traits will be changed. A future task is to scrutinize the relatively rare cases where insulation of personality traits was breached, granting access to a potential modification.

The field of personality-and-culture cannot be studied by randomized experiments, so the observed associations must be interpreted with great caution. Most psychologists are environmentalists and are therefore easily persuaded that national differences in aggregate personality traits must be the result of cultural and historical forces. However, there is by now sufficient reason to question that assumption. Instead, alternative explanations must be explored and ruled in or out, using a variety of methods and experimental designs. The distinction between traits and their indicators must be kept in mind; the equivalence of translations must be assessed; simulation studies (such as the group behavior of introverts vs. extraverts) may be helpful. Natural experiments, such as dividing a genetically homogeneous population into different parts, which are subjected to different sociocultural treatments, must be exploited.

Personality-and-culture studies were once conducted by anthropologists in preliterate cultures. Today we have the advantages of well developed and universal models of personality traits, interpretive principles such as construct validation and convergent and discriminant validity, and an Internet that makes multi-national collaborations easy. Given creative research designs and thoughtful analysis, we should be able to figure out the relations between personality and culture.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Funding Statement

This research received support from the Estonian Research Council grant PRG1151. RRM received royalties on the NEO Inventories.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Achaa-Amankwaa P., Olaru G., Schroeders U. (2021). Coffee or tea? Examining cross-cultural differences in personality nuances across former colonies of the British Empire. Eur. J. Pers. 35 383–397. 10.1177/0890207020962327 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alesina A., Fuchs-Schündeln N. (2007). Goodbye Lenin (or not?): The effect of communism on people’s preferences. Am. Econ. Rev. 97 1507–1528. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1507 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Church A. T., Ortiz F. A., Rossier J., Hřebíčková M., de Fruyt F., et al. (2017). Mean profiles of the NEO personality inventory. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 47 457–478. 10.1177/0022022116628671 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Hřebíčková M., Realo A. (2018). Unusual configurations of personality traits indicate multiple patterns of their coalescence. Front. Psychol. 9:187. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00187 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Laidra K., Realo A., Pullmann H. (2004). Personality development from 12 to 18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits. Eur. J. Pers. 18 445–462. 10.1002/per.524 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., McCrae R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35 13–28. 10.1177/0022022103260382 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A. (2017a). The elusive theory of everything. Eur. J. Pers. 31 529–530. 10.1002/per.2128 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A. (2017b). “Universal and specific in the five-factor model of personality,” in The Oxford handbook of the five factor model of personality , ed. Widiger T. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 175–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A. (2019). “Culture and personality,” in Oxford handbook of culture and psychology , 2nd Edn, eds Matsumoto D., Hwang H. C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 407–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A., McCrae R. R. (2013). “Universality of the five-factor model of personality,” in Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality , eds Costa P. T., Widiger T. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 61–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A., Mõttus R., Borkenau P., Kuppens P., Hřebíčková M. (2010). How people see others is different from how people see themselves: A replicable pattern across cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99 870–882. 10.1037/a0020963 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A., Mõttus R., Borkenau P., Kuppens P., Hřebíčková M. (2012). Person-fit to the five factor model of personality. Swiss J. Psychol. 71 35–45. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000066 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A., Mõttus R., Pullmann H., Trifonova A., McCrae R. R., et al. (2009). Personality traits of Russians from the observer’s perspective. Eur. J. Pers. 23 567–588. 10.1002/per.721 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allik J., Realo A., Mõttus R., Pullmann H., Trifonova A., McCrae R. R., et al. (2011). Personality profiles and the “Russian Soul”: Literary and scholarly views evaluated. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 42 372–389. 10.1177/0022022110362751 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allport G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allport G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. Am. Psychol. 21 1–10. 10.1037/h0023295 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Angleitner A., Ostendorf F. (2000). “The FFM: A comparison of German speaking countries (Austria, former East and West Germany, and Switzerland),” in Proceedings of the contribution to the symposium “personality and culture” at the XXVII international congress of psychology , Sweden. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashton M. C., Lee K. (2020). Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure-and why those objections fail. Eur. J. Pers. 34 492–510. 10.1002/per.2242 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barber I., Dingemanse N. J. (2010). Parasitism and the evolutionary ecology of animal personality. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365 4077–4088. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0182 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkow J. H., Cosmides L., Tooby J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumert A., Schmitt M., Perugini M., Johnson W., Blum G., Borkenau P., et al. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. Eur. J. Pers. 31 503–528. 10.1002/per.2115 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benedict R. (1934/1959). Patterns of culture (with a new preface by Margaret mead). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benet-Martínez V., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z. (2003). The interplay of cultural syndromes and personality in predicting life satisfaction: Comparing Asian Americans and European Americans. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 34 38–60. 10.1177/0022022102239154 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benet-Martínez V., Oishi S. (2008). “Culture and personality,” in Handbook of personality: Theory and research , 3 Edn, eds John O. P., Robins R. W., Pervin L. A. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 542–567. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beugelsdijk S., Welzel C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing hofstede with inglehart. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 49 1469–1505. 10.1177/0022022118798505 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Hill P. L., Back M. D., Denissen J. J. A., Hennecke M., Hopwood C. J., et al. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. Am. Psychol. 74 1056–1067. 10.1037/amp0000503 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bleidorn W., Klimstra T. A., Denissen J. J. A., Rentfrow P. J., Potter J., Gosling S. D. (2013). Personality maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychol. Sci. 24 2530–2540. 10.1177/0956797613498396 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boehnke K. (2022). Let’s compare apples and oranges! A plea to demystify measurement equivalence. Am. Psychol. 77 1160–1168. 10.1037/amp0001080 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond M. H., Leung K., Au A., Tong K.-K., de Carrasquel S. R., Murakami F., et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35 548–570. 10.1177/0022022104268388 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borsboom D., Mellenbergh G. J., Van Heerden J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychol. Rev. 110 203–219. 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowden-Green T., Hinds J., Joinson A. (2020). How is extraversion related to social media use? A literature review. Pers. Individ. Dif. 164:110040. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110040 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breu A. P. J., Ensner H. M., Kruelle C. A., Rehberg I. (2003). Reversing the Brazil-nut effect: Competition between percolation and condensation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90:014302. 10.1103/physrevlett.90.014302 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brosig-Koch J., Helbach C., Ockenfels A., Weimann J. (2011). Still different after all these years: Solidarity behavior in East and West Germany. J. Public Econ. 95 1373–1376. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.06.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buck J. C., Weinstein S. B., Young H. S. (2018). Ecological and evolutionary consequences of parasite avoidance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33 619–632. 10.1016/j.tree.2018.05.001 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42 459–491. 10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell D. T., Fiske D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56 81–105. 10.1037/h0046016 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camperio Ciani A. (2017). “Adaptive personality differences revealed by small island population genetics: Testing the personality gene flow hypothesis,” in The praeger handbook of personality across cultures: Evolutionary, ecological, and cultural context of personality , Vol. 2 ed. Church A. T. (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; ), 31–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Camperio Ciani A., Capiluppi C. (2010). Gene flow by selective emigration as a possible cause for personality differences between small islands and mainland populations. Eur. J. Pers. 24 53–64. 10.1002/per.1774 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camperio Ciani A., Capiluppi C., Veronese A., Sartori G. (2007). The adaptive value of personality differences revealed by small island population dynamics. Eur. J. Pers. 21 3–22. 10.1002/per.595 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carney D. R., Jost J. T., Gosling S. D., Potter J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Polit. Psychol. 29 807–840. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cervone D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-Person structures and processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56 423–452. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070133 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan W., McCrae R. R., De Fruyt F., Jussim L., Löckenhoff C. E., De Bolle M., et al. (2012). Stereotypes of age differences in personality traits: Universal and accurate? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103 1050–1066. 10.1037/a0029712 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S. X., Bond M. H. (2010). Two languages, two personalities? Examining language effects on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 1514–1528. 10.1177/0146167210385360 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F. M., Cheung S. F., Leung K., Ward C., Leong F. (2003). The English version of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 34 433–452. 10.1177/0022022103034004004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F. M., Fan W., To C. (2008). The Chinese personality assessment inventory as a culturally relevant personality measure in applied settings. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2 74–89. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00045.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F. M., Leung K. (1998). Indigenous personality measures - Chinese examples. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29 233–248. 10.1177/0022022198291012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F. M., Leung K., Fan R. M., Song W. Z., Zhang J. X., Zhang J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 27 181–199. 10.1177/0022022196272003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung F. M., Leung K., Zhang J. X., Sun H. F., Gan Y. Q., Song W. Z., et al. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs - Is the five-factor model complete? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 32 407–433. 10.1177/0022022101032004003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung S. F., Cheung F. M., Howard R., Lim Y.-H. (2006). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: Are “Chinese Traits” uniquely Chinese? Pers. Individ. Dif. 41 467–477. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.023 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chudek M., Henrich J. (2011). Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15 218–226. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychol. Bull. 91 540–572. 10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.540 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T. (2008). Current controversies in the study of personality across cultures. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2 1930–1951. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00132.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T. (2010). Current perspectives in the study of personality across cultures. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 441–449. 10.1177/1745691610375559 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T., Alvarez J. M., Mai N. T. Q., French B. F., Katigbak M. S., Ortiz F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the revised neo personality inventory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 1068–1089. 10.1037/a0025290 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T., Anderson-Harumi C. A., del Prado A. M., Curtis G. J., Tanaka-Matsumi J., Valdez Medina J. L., et al. (2008). Culture, cross-role consistency, and adjustment: Testing trait and cultural psychology perspectives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 739–755. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.739 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T. (ed.). (2017). The praeger handbook of personality across cultures , Vol. 1-3. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Church A. T., Katigbak M. S. (2002). “The five-factor model in the Philippines: Investigating trait structure and levels across cultures,” in The five factor model of personality across cultures , eds McCrae R. R., Allik J. (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; ), 129–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ciani A. S. C., Edelman S., Ebstein R. P. (2013). The dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) exon 3 VNTR contributes to adaptive personality differences in an Italian small Island population. Eur. J. Pers. 27 593–604. 10.1002/per.1917 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cieri R. L., Churchill S. E., Franciscus R. G., Tan J., Hare B. (2014). Craniofacial feminization, social tolerance, and the origins of behavioral modernity. Curr. Anthropol. 55 419–443. 10.1086/677209 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen D. (1998). Culture, social organization, and patterns of violence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75 408–419. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.408 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen D., Bowdle B. F., Nisbett R. E., Schwarz N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of Honor: An “experimental ethnography”. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 945–960. 10.1037//0022-3514.70.5.945 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the explication of facet-level traits: Examples from conscientiousness. Eur. J. Pers. 12 117–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R. (2017). “The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory,” in The Oxford handbook of the five factor model of personality , ed. Widiger T. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 11–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R., Löckenhoff C. E. (2019). Personality across the life span. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70 423–448. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103244 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R., Martin T. A., Oryol V. E., Senin I. G., Rukavishnikov A. A., et al. (2000). “Personality development from adolescence through adulthood: Further cross-cultural comparisons of age differences,” in Temperament and personality development across the life span , eds Molfese V. J., Molfese D. L. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ), 235–252. [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa P. T., Jr., Terracciano A., McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 322–331. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damasio H., Grabowski T., Frank R., Galaburda A. M., Damasio A. R. (1994). The return of Gage, Phineas: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. Science 264 1102–1105. 10.1126/science.8178168 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11 227–268. 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• den Boer L., Klimstra T. A., Branje S. J. T., Meeus W. H. J., Denissen J. J. A. (2019). Personality maturation during the transition to working life: Associations with commitment as a possible indicator of social investment. Eur. J. Pers. 33 456–467. 10.1002/per.2218 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denissen J. J. A., Luhmann M., Chung J. M., Bleidorn W. (2019). Transactions between life events and personality traits across the adult lifespan. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116 612–633. 10.1037/pspp0000196 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond J. (2002). Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. Nature 418 700–707. 10.1038/nature01019 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Larsen R. J., Emmons R. A. (1984). Person×Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 47 580–592. 10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.580 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener E., Oishi S., Lucas R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54 403–425. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Draguns J. G., Tanaka-Matsumi J. (2020). “Personality in cross-cultural perspective,” in Cambridge handbook of personality psychology , 2nd Edn, eds Corr P. J., Matthews G. (Cambridge: Cambridge university press; ), 400–412. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dressler W. W. (1999). Modernization, stress, and blood pressure: New directions in research. Hum. Biol. 71 583–605. 10.2307/41465764 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dugatkin L. A., Trut L. N. (2017). How to tame a fox (and build a dog): Visionary scientists and a Siberian tale of jump- started evolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durkee P. K., Lukaszewski A. W., von Rueden C. R., Gurven M. D., Buss D. M., Tucker-Drob E. M. (2022). Niche diversity predicts personality structure across 115 nations. Psychol. Sci. 33 285–298. 10.1177/09567976211031571 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Steffen V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 735–754. 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly A. H., Wood W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54 408–423. 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Einat T., Suliman N. (2021). Prison changed me—and i just work there: Personality changes among prison officers. Prison J. 101 166–186. 10.1177/0032885521991091 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Endler N. S., Magnusson D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychol. Bull. 83 956–974. 10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.956 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eysenck H. J. (1947/1998). Dimensions of personality. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr E., Fischbacher U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8 185–190. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr E., Fischbacher U., Gachter S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Hum. Nat. 13 1–25. 10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fehr E., Gintis H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33 43–64. 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131812 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincher C. L., Thornhill R. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behav. Brain Sci. 35 61–79. 10.1017/S0140525X11000021 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychol. Rev. 102 652–670. 10.1037//0033-295X.102.4.652 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funder D. C. (1999). Personality judgement: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galler J. R., Bryce C. P., Zichlin M. L., Waber D. P., Exner N., Fitzmaurice G. M., et al. (2013). Malnutrition in the first year of life and personality at age 40. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 54 911–919. 10.1111/jcpp.12066 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science 332 1100–1104. 10.1126/science.1197754 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert F., Vranic A., Hurst S. (2013). Involuntary & voluntary invasive brain surgery: Ethical issues related to acquired aggressiveness. Neuroethics 6 115–128. 10.1007/s12152-012-9161-9 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gintis H., Bowles S., Boyd R., Fehr E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 24 153–172. 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00157-5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gintis H., Fehr E. (2012). The social structure of cooperation and punishment. Behav. Brain Sci. 35 28–29. 10.1017/s0140525x11000914 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gintis H., Henrich J., Bowles S., Boyd R., Fehr E. (2008). Strong reciprocity and the roots of human morality. Soc. Just. Res. 21 241–253. 10.1007/s11211-008-0067-y [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48 26–34. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gosling S. D. (2008). Snoop: What your stuff says about you. New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Götz F. M., Gvirtz A., Galinsky A. D., Jachimowicz J. M. (2021). How personality and policy predict pandemic behavior: Understanding sheltering-in-place in 55 countries at the onset of COVID-19. Am. Psychol. 76 39–49. 10.1037/amp0000740 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guillaume E., Stauner N., Funder D. C. (2017). “Towards a psychology of situations across cultures,” in The praeger handbook of personality across cultures: Trait psychology across cultures , Vol. 1 ed. Church A. T. (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers; ), 309–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guimond S., Branscombe N. R., Brunot S., Buunk A. P., Chatard A., Desert M., et al. (2007). Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 1118–1134. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Güngör D., Bornstein M. H., De Leersnyder J., Cote L., Ceulemans E., Mesquita B. (2013). Acculturation of personality: A three-culture study of Japanese, Japanese Americans, and European Americans. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44 701–718. 10.1177/0022022112470749 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurven M., von Rueden C., Massenkoff M., Kaplan H., Lero Vie M. (2013). How universal is the big five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 354–370. 10.1037/a0030841 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gurven M., von Rueden C., Stieglitz J., Kaplan H., Rodriguez D. E. (2014). The evolutionary fitness of personality traits in a small-scale subsistence society. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35 17–25. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hare B. (2017). Survival of the friendliest: Homo sapiens evolved via selection for prosociality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68 155–186. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine S. J., Buchtel E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60 369–394. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Fehr E., Gintis H., et al. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 73–78. 10.1257/aer.91.2.73 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henrich J., Boyd R., Bowles S., Camerer C., Fehr E., Gintis H., et al. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behav. Brain Sci. 28 795–855. 10.1017/S0140525X05000142 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival , 3rd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G., McCrae R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross Cult. Res. 38 52–88. 10.1177/1069397103259443 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. (1980/2001). Culture consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations , 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holman D. J., Hughes D. J. (2021). Transactions between Big-5 personality traits and job characteristics across 20 years. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 94 762–788. 10.1111/joop.12332 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Inglehart R., Basanez M., Diez-Medrano J., Halman L., Luijkx R. (2004). Human beliefs and values: A cross-cultural sourcebook based on the 1999-2002 values surveys. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson J. C., Gelfand M., Ember C. R. (2020). A global analysis of cultural tightness in non-industrial societies. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 287:20201036. 10.1098/rspb.2020.1036 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen A. R. (1998). The g factor. The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jing Y., Cai H. (2022). “Understanding the cultural diversity of Chinese morality,” in The Routledge international handbook of morality, cognition, and emotion in China , ed. Nichols R. (Abingdon: Routledge; ), 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonauskaite D., Thalmayer A. G., Müller L., Mohr C. (2021). What does your favourite colour say about your personality? Not much. Pers. Sci. 2 1–23. 10.5964/ps.6297 33680184 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaasa A., Minkov M. (2022). Are different two-dimensional models of culture just a matter of different rotations? Evidence from the analysis based on the WVS/EVS. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol . 53, 127–156. 10.1177/00220221211072790 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenrick D. T., Funder D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. Am. Psychol. 43 23–34. 10.1037/0003-066X.43.1.23 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Konstabel K. (1999). A bilingual retest study of the revised NEO personality inventory: A comparison of Estonian and Russian versions . Master’s thesis. Tartu: University of Tartu. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leininger A. (2002). “Vietnamese-American personality and acculturation: An exploration of relation between personality traits and cultural goals,” in The five factor model of personality across cultures , eds McCrae R. R., Allik J. (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; ), 197–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima M. P. (2002). “Personality and culture: The Portuguese case,” in The five-factor model of personality across cultures , eds McCrae R. R., Allik J. (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; ), 249–260. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin E. J.-L., Church A. T. (2004). Are indigenous Chinese personality dimensions culture-specific?: An investigation of the Chinese personality assessment inventory in Chinese American and European American samples. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35 586–605. 10.1177/0022022104268390 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipkus I. M., Barefoot J. C., Williams R. B., Siegler I. C. (1994). Personality measures as predictors of smoking initiation and cessation in the UNC alumni heart study. Health Psychol. 13 149–155. 10.1037/0278-6133.13.2.149 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Löckenhoff C. E., Chan W., McCrae R. R., De Fruyt F., Jussim L., De Bolle M., et al. (2014). Gender stereotypes of personality universal and accurate? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 45 675–694. 10.1177/0022022113520075 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodi-Smith J., Roberts B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11 68–86. 10.1177/1088868306294590 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lönnqvist J. E., Konstabel K., Lönnqvist N., Verkasalo M. (2014). Accuracy, consensus, in-group bias, and cultural frame shifting in the context of national character stereotypes. J. Soc. Psychol. 154 40–58. 10.1080/00224545.2013.843500 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu J. G., Benet-Martínez V., Wang L. C. (2023). A socioecological-genetic framework of culture and personality: Their roots, trends, and interplay. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 74 363–390. 10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-032631 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumsden C. J., Wilson E. O. (1981). Genes, mind, and culture: The coevolutionary process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luria A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynn R. (1971). Personality and national character. Oxford: Pergamon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynn R. (1981). “Cross-cultural differences in neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism,” in Dimensions of personality. Papers in honour of H. J. Eysenck , ed. Lynn R. (Oxford: Pergamon Press; ), 263–286. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski B. (1927). Sex and repression in savage society. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcus B., Machilek F., Schütz A. (2006). Personality in cyberspace: Personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90 1014–1031. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.1014 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H. R., Kitayama S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98 224–253. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H. R., Kitayama S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 420–430. 10.1177/1745691610375557 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McClelland D. C. (1961/2010). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychol. Bull. 120 323–337. 10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personality and culture studies. Am. Behav. Sci. 44 10–31. 10.1177/00027640021956062 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R. (2009). Personality profiles of cultures: Patterns of ethos. Eur. J. Pers. 23 205–227. 10.1002/per.712 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R. (2015). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 19 97–112. 10.1177/1088868314541857 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R. (2017). “The five-factor model across cultures,” in The praeger handbook of personality across cultures: Trait psychology across cultures , Vol. 1 ed. Church A. T. (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers; ), 47–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Allik J. (eds). (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am. Psychol. 52 509–516. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (1999). “A five-factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of personality: Theory and research , Vol. 2 eds Pervin L. A., John O. P. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 139–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York, NY: Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (2008). “The five-factor theory of personality,” in Handbook of personality: Theory and research , eds John O. P., Robins R. W., Pervin L. A. (New York, NY: Guilford; ), 159–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr. (2021). Understanding persons: From Stern’s personalistics to Five-Factor Theory. Pers. Individ. Dif. 169:109816. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109816 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr., Hrebickova M., Urbanek T., Martin T. A., Oryol V. E., et al. (2004). Age differences in personality traits across cultures: Self-report and observer perspectives. Eur. J. Pers. 18 143–157. 10.1002/per.510 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Jr., Pedroso de Lima M., Simoes A., Ostendorf F., Angleitner A., et al. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Dev. Psychol. 35 466–477. 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Costa P. T., Arenberg D. (1980). Constancy of adult personality structure in males: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and times-of-measurement analyses. J. Gerontol. 35 877–883. 10.1093/geronj/35.6.877 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., De Bolle M., Löckenhoff C. E., Terracciano A. (2021). “Lifespan trait development: Towards an adequate theory of personality,” in Handbook of personality dynamics and processes , ed. Rauthmann J. F. (Amsterdam: Elsevier; ), 621–641. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., John O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60 175–215. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Sutin A. R. (2018). A five-factor theory perspective on causal analysis. Eur. J. Pers. 32 151–166. 10.1002/per.2134 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Terracciano A. (2008). “The five-factor model and its correlates in individuals and cultures,” in Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures , eds van de Vijver F., van Hemert D. A., Poortinga Y. H. (New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 249–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Terracciano A. 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005a). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 547–561. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Terracciano A. 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005b). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89 407–425. 10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Terracciano A., Realo A., Allik J. (2007). Climatic warmth and national wealth: Some culture-level determinants of national character stereotypes. Eur. J. Pers. 21 953–976. 10.1002/per.647 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Yik M. S. M., Trapnell P. D., Bond M. H., Paulhus D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 1041–1055. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.1041 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae R. R., Zawadzki B., Toeplitz Z., Oniszczenko W., Cyniak-Cieciura M., Kaczmarek M. (2022). Jan Strelau: Two perspectives. Pers. Individ. Dif. 185:111252. 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111252 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendoza-Denton R., Mischel W. (2007). “Integrating system approaches to culture and personality: The cultural cognitive-affective processing system,” in Handbook of cultural psychology , eds Kitayama S., Cohen D. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 175–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minkov M. (2018). A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: Old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 25 231–256. 10.1108/ccsm-03-2017-0033 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W., Shoda Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49 229–258. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moselhy H. F., Georgiou G., Kahn A. (2001). Frontal lobe changes in alcoholism: A review of the literature. Alcohol Alcohol. 36 357–368. 10.1093/alcalc/36.5.357 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mõttus R., Allik J., Realo A., Rossier J., Zecca G., Ah-Kion J., et al. (2012). The effect of response style on self-reported conscientiousness across 20 countries. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 1423–1436. 10.1177/0146167212451275 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Munafo M. R., Zetteler J. I., Clark T. G. (2007). Personality and smoking status: A meta-analysis. Nicotine Tob. Res. 9 405–413. 10.1080/14622200701188851 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murtha T. C., Kanfer R., Ackerman P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and situations: An integrative situational—dispositional representation of personality traits. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71 193–207. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.193 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niehoff E., Petersdotter L., Freund P. A. (2017). International sojourn experience and personality development: Selection and socialization effects of studying abroad and the big five. Pers. Individ. Dif. 112 55–61. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.043 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• North D. C., Wallis J. J., Weingast B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozer D. J., Benet-Martínez V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57 401–421. 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peltokorpi V., Froese F. J. (2012). The impact of expatriate personality traits on cross-cultural adjustment: A study with expatriates in Japan. Int. Bus. Rev. 21 734–746. 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.08.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York, NY: Viking. [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9101.88.5.879 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard T. M., Brush G., Harrison G. A. (1991). Geographic distributions of within-population variability in blood-pressure. Hum. Biol. 63 643–661. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poortinga Y. H., van de Vijver F. J. R., van Hemert D. A. (2002). “Cross-cultural equivalence of the big five,” in The five-factor model of personality across cultures , eds McCrae R. R., Allik J. (New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; ), 281–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pullmann H., Allik J., Realo A. (2009). Global self-esteem across the life span: A cross-sectional comparison between representative and self-selected internet samples. Exp. Aging Res. 35 20–44. 10.1080/03610730802544708 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Putnam R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramirez-Esparza N., Gosling S. D., Benet-Martínez V., Potter J. P., Pennebaker J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. J. Res. Pers. 40 99–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rammstedt B., Goldberg L. R., Borg I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of big-five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. J. Res. Pers. 44 53–61. 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Realo A., Allik J. (2020). “National character”, in Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences , eds Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. K. (Cham: Springer; ). 10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_475 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Realo A., Allik J., Verkasalo M., Lönnqvist J. E., Kwiatkowska A., Kööts L., et al. (2009). Mechanisms of the national character stereotype: How people in six neighboring countries of Russia describe themselves and the typical Russian. Eur. J. Pers. 23 229–249. 10.1002/per.719 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Realo A., Linnamägi K., Gelfand M. J. (2015). The cultural dimension of tightness-looseness: An analysis of situational constraint in Estonia and Greece. Int. J. Psychol. 50 193–204. 10.1002/ijop.12097 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Realo A., Silm S., Tiru M., Allik J. (2023). Does personality predict traveling abroad as indicated by mobile phone data? The idea of the mobile personality revisited. J. Res. Pers . 10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104355 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reitsma M. B., Kendrick P. J., Ababneh E., Abbafati C., Abbasi-Kangevari M., Abdoli A., et al. (2021). Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: A systematic analysis from the Global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet 397 2337–2360. 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01169-7 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rentfrow P. J. (2014). “Geographical differences in personality,” in Geographical psychology: Exploring the interaction of environment and behavior , ed. Rentfrow P. J. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 115–137. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rentfrow P. J., Gosling S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 1236–1256. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richerson P. J., Boyd R., Henrich J. (2010). Gene-culture coevolution in the age of genomics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 8985–8992. 10.1073/pnas.0914631107 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richter J., Zimmermann J., Neyer F. J., Kandler C. (2021). Do sojourn effects on personality trait changes last? A five–year longitudinal study. Eur. J. Pers. 35 358–382. 10.1002/per.2291 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Helson R., Klohnen E. C. (2002). Personality development and growth in women across 30 years: Three perspectives. J. Pers. 70 79–102. 10.1111/1467-6494.00179 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Mroczek D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17 31–35. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Nickel L. B. (2021). “Personality development across the life course: A neo-socioanalytic perspective,” in Handbook of personality: Theory and research , 4 Edn, eds John O. J., Robins R. W. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press; ), 259–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts B. W., Wood D., Smith J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. J. Res. Pers. 39 166–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robins R. W., Trzesniewski K. H. (2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 14 158–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross L., Nisbett R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubenzer S. J., Faschingbauer T. R., Ones D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO personality inventory. Assessment 7 403–420. 10.1177/107319110000700408 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sallis H. M., Smitho G. D., Munafo M. R. (2019). Cigarette smoking and personality: Interrogating causality using mendelian randomisation. Psychol. Med. 49 2197–2205. 10.1017/s0033291718003069 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Villagra M. R., Van Schaik C. P. (2019). Evaluating the self-domestication hypothesis of human evolution. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 28 133–143. 10.1002/evan.21777 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaller M., Murray D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 212–221. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.212 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer K. R. (1997). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 902–922. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.902 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt D. P., Realo A., Voracek M., Allik J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94 168–182. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwadel P., Stout M. (2012). Age, period and cohort effects on social capital. Soc. Forces 91 233–252. 10.1093/sf/sos062 32080734 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shweder R. A. (1991). “Cultural psychology: What is it?,” in Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology , ed. Shweder R. A. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; ), 73–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shweder R. A. (1999). Why cultural psychology? Ethos 27 62–73. 10.1525/eth.1999.27.1.62 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siemer M., Mauss I., Gross J. J. (2007). Same situation–different emotions: How appraisals shape our emotions. Emotion 7 592–600. 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.592 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon W. E. (1971). Number and color responses of some college students: Preliminary evidence for a “blue seven phenomenon”. Percept. Mot. Skills 33 373–374. 10.2466/pms.1971.33.2.373 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smaldino P. E., Lukaszewski A., von Rueden C., Gurven M. (2019). Niche diversity can explain cross-cultural differences in personality structure. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3 1276–1283. 10.1038/s41562-019-0730-3 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35 50–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Söldner T. M. L. (2013). Personality, values, and cultural perception in the sojourner context: A new perspective on acculturation in Germany, Japan, and the US. (Doctor rerum naturalium). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephan Y., Sutin A. R., Luchetti M., Caille P., Terracciano A. (2019). Cigarette smoking and personality change across adulthood: Findings from five longitudinal samples. J. Res. Pers. 81 187–194. 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.06.006 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Terracciano A. (2010). Secular trends and personality: Perspectives from longitudinal and cross-cultural studies-commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 93–96. 10.1177/1745691609357017 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Terracciano A., Abdel-Khalek A. M., Adam N., Adamovova L., Ahn C., Ahn H. N., et al. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science 310 96–100. 10.1126/science.1117199 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tett R. P., Toich M. J., Ozkum S. B. (2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 8 199–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross Cult. Res. 27 155–180. 10.1177/106939719302700301 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. J. Pers. 69 907–924. 10.1111/1467-6494.696169 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C., Bontempo R., Villareal M. J., Asai M., Lucca N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 323–338. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C., Suh E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53 133–160. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trut L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: The farm-fox experiment. Am. Sci. 87 160–169. 10.1511/1999.20.813 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trzesniewski K. H., Donnellan M. B. (2010). Rethinking “generation me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976-2006. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 58–75. 10.1177/1745691609356789 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 1007–1021. 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.1007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge J. M. (2001). Birth cohort changes in Extraversion: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1966-1993. Pers. Individ. Dif. 30 735–748. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00066-0 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge J. M., Campbell W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5 321–344. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_3 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twenge J. M., Campbell W. K. (2010). Birth cohort differences in the monitoring the future dataset and elsewhere: Further evidence for generation me-commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5 81–88. 10.1177/1745691609357015 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tybur J. M., Cinar C., Karinen A. K., Perone P. (2018). Why do people vary in disgust? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373:20170204. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0204 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tybur J. M., Inbar Y., Aaroe L., Barclay P., Barlow F. K., de Barra M., et al. (2016). Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 12408–12413. 10.1073/pnas.1607398113 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vandello J. A., Cohen D., Ransom S. (2008). U.S. Southern and Northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression: Mechanisms for the perpetuation of a culture of Honor. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 39 162–177. 10.1177/0022022107313862 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varnum M. E. W., Grossmann I. (2021). The psychology of cultural change: Introduction to the special issue. Am. Psychol. 76 833–837. 10.1037/amp0000898 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vazire S., Gosling S. D. (2004). e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87 123–132. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.123 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waring T. M., Wood Z. T. (2021). Long-term gene-culture coevolution and the human evolutionary transition. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288:20210538. 10.1098/rspb.2021.0538 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wetzel E., Donnellan M. B., Robins R. W., Trzesniewski K. H. (2018). “Generational changes in self-esteem and narcissism,” in The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: Origin of personality and individual differences , eds Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. K. (Los Angeles, CA: Sage; ), 132–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiting J. W. M., Child I. L. (1953). Child training and personality; a cross-cultural study. New York, NY: Yale University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrangham R. W. (2018). Two types of aggression in human evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115 245–253. 10.1073/pnas.1713611115 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzus C., Roberts B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood: The TESSERA framework. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 21 253–277. 10.1177/1088868316652279 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang K. S. (1996). “Psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization,” in The handbook of Chinese psychology , ed. Bond M. H. (Hong Kong: Oxford University; ), 479–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeh K.-H., Yi C.-C., Tsao W.-C., Wan P.-S. (2013). Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. Int. Sociol. 28 277–296. 10.1177/0268580913484345 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zecca G., Verardi S., Antonietti J.-P., Dahourou D., Adjahouisso M., Ah-Kion J., et al. (2013). African cultures and the five-factor model of personality: Evidence for a specific pan-African structure and profile? J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44 684–700. 10.1177/0022022112468943 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmermann J., Greischel H., Jonkmann K., Neyer F. J. (2021). Growth all along the road? Personality development and international contacts of (in)experienced sojourners. Eur. J. Pers. 35 581–597. 10.1177/0890207020988439 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmermann J., Neyer F. J. (2013). Do we become a different person when hitting the road? Personality development of sojourners. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105 515–530. 10.1037/a0033019 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (759.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Meta-Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Research Methodology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics and Religion
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 The Cultural Perspective in Personality Assessment

Fanny M. Cheung, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

• Published: 18 September 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Culture affects personality through the ways that people are represented psychologically. Global or etic approaches to the study of culture and personality compare universal dimensions across cultures, whereas focal or emic approaches interpret and identify indigenous dimensions on the basis of local phenomena and experiences. This article reviews the relationship between culture and personality, as well as the impact of cultural factors on personality assessment. It discusses practical and methodological issues of personality assessment across cultures, including issues of equivalence and cross-cultural validation in test translation and adaptation, using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) as an example. At the theoretical level, the article compares the etic and emic approaches to personality assessment and highlights the contributions of a combined emic–etic approach in developing culturally relevant personality assessment based on the experience of the Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory. These issues highlight the need for incorporating cross-cultural training as an integral part of psychology in order to enhance the cultural relevance of the practice of, and research in, personality assessment.

At the time when I graduated from University of Minnesota in 1975 and returned to work in Hong Kong, I believed I would not be using the MMPI again. I thought that an English test with 566 items, the contents of some of which were very foreign to the Chinese people, would not be very useful there. Upon my return, I discovered that the local clinical psychologists were administering the MMPI to their patients, reading out their own translations of the items on the spot. I was not sure how many different versions of these translations there were among the practicing psychologists. I was doubtful that these versions could be taken as the standardized administration of what was expected in objective psychological assessment. I decided to do a proper translation of the MMPI into Chinese and develop the local norms.

When mainland China resumed the study of psychology in the 1980s, I collaborated with the psychologists at the Institute of Psychology to develop the standardized Chinese version of the MMPI (Cheung, 1995 ) and later the MMPI-2 (Cheung, Zhang, & Song, 2003 ) with national norms that would be applicable to Hong Kong and China. We noted cross-cultural similarities and differences in the test results and conducted a number of validation studies. Through our work, the Chinese University Press received permission from the University of Minnesota to publish the Chinese MMPI and Chinese MMPI-2.

Now and then, I received inquiries from North American practitioners about the Chinese MMPI when they were assessing ethnic Chinese clients. Those who took the initiative to inquire about the Chinese versions noted that the test results that they obtained when the English version of the MMPI was used did not always fit their clinical observations. The differences in the test results obtained when different language versions were used have serious implications for clinical and forensic decisions. I was struck by the apparent lack of familiarity among practitioners with the available measures and the knowledge base in culturally relevant personality assessment. There is a definite need for enhancing training and research in the cultural perspectives of personality assessment.

Learning about the strengths and limitations of translated instruments, our research team went on to develop an indigenously derived personality inventory suitable for the Chinese cultural context, the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; Cheung et al., 1996 ). This is one of the few comprehensive personality measures developed in a non-English language that have been studied across cultures. Comparing the CPAI with Western personality measures and using the CPAI with non-Chinese samples enlightened our understanding of personality structure, and functioning and measurement across cultures. Work with the CPAI illustrates the reverse side of the coin in cross-cultural personality assessment, when an indigenously derived measure in the Chinese culture is compared to well-established personality measures in mainstream psychology. In a way, the English-language personality tests could also be considered as indigenous measures originating in the Western culture. This broader context offers us a more balanced view to discuss the cultural perspective in personality assessment.

There is now a growing literature on cross-cultural studies in personality and personality assessment. There are also international guidelines for adapting tests for use in various different linguistic and cultural contexts. In this chapter, I review the relationship between culture and personality, and the impact of cultural factors in personality assessment. I discuss the methodological and theoretical issues of personality assessment across cultures, and make recommendations on the training needs for enhancing the cultural perspective in personality assessment.

Culture and Personality

Buss (2001) postulated that culture poses “puzzles for personality theories that aspire to explain human nature and individual differences” at the same time (p. 975). Buss defined culture as a set of “ideas, beliefs, representations, behavior patterns, practices, artifacts, and so forth that are transmitted socially across generations within a group, resulting in patterns of within-group similarity and between-group differences” (pp. 955–956). While personality psychology seeks to integrate both human nature and individual differences, studies of cultural differences in personality are useful in understanding whether certain prevalent features of personality are universal and common among all people, and whether the level of these personality features differs across cultures.

Approaches to Describe Culture

In their book Social Psychology and Culture , Chiu and Hong (2006) constructed the definition of culture as “a set of shared meanings, which provides a common frame of reference for a human group to make sense of reality, coordinate their activities in collective living, and adapt to the external environment” (pp. 16–17 ). They summarized different strategies that psychologists have used to describe culture: In the global approach, universal dimensions are assumed to be part of human nature and have the same meaning in all cultures. Variations along these dimensions may be found in different cultures. Cross-cultural psychologists have often referred to this approach as the “etic” approach (the term is derived from “phonetics”), which attempts to compare universal preestablished constructs across cultures. Some psychologists have criticized the Western bias in the etic approach in that most etic or “universal” dimensions originate in Western cultural traditions and are imposed on other cultures (Gergen, Gulerce, Lock, & Misra, 1996 ).

In contrast, the focal approach to cultural description uses local or indigenous concepts originating within a culture to interpret and organize the data for that cultural group. This approach highlights culturally relevant meanings and allows the examination of the variations of these meanings in different contexts and in response to social changes. In cross-cultural psychology, the indigenous concepts are often referred to as “emic” concepts (the term is derived from “phonemics”). The development of indigenous psychologies has adopted a bottom-up approach, building theories on the basis of local phenomena and experiences. These indigenous approaches could contribute to the development of more comprehensive universal theories in mainstream psychology (Allwood & Berry, 2006 ). However, at the early stage of development when cultural psychologists focus on their emic approaches, there is the danger of cultural relativity and “intellectual provincialism” that limits comparisons across cultures (Triandis, 2000 ).

Impact of Culture on Personality

Culture per se is not a causal agent of cultural differences in personality. Culture affects personality through the ways that people are represented psychologically, including descriptions of the self, others, and groups (Chiu & Hong, 2006 ). People are socialized in a unique family and social environment that influences the ways they behave and view the world. Cross-cultural psychologists have studied specific cultural features affecting these cognitive representations of persons.

Hofstede (1991) identified major cultural dimensions that differentiated organizations globally. One such dimension, individualism versus collectivism, has been studied extensively in relation to cultural differences in personality. For example, people in collectivistic cultures tend to perceive themselves as members of communal groups. Their roles and behaviors are affected by their relationships with in-group members. They would give priority to in-group goals. They focus more on the context and the situation in making attributions (Triandis, 2001 ). Markus and Kitayama (1991) further delineated the relationship between individualism-collectivism and personality in their model of independent versus interdependent self-construals. These two self-construals are considered overarching schemata of self-regulation and have been used to explain observed cultural differences in cognition, emotion, and motivation. Independent self-construals are commonly found in Western cultures that emphasize the inherent separateness of individuals. The view of the self is derived from each individual's unique internal attributes, which are independent from others. On the other hand, interdependent self-construals are represented in many non-Western cultures that emphasize the interconnectedness between people. The self is viewed as a part of a social relationship and is not considered as separate or differentiated from others in the group. Markus and Kitayama suggested that people who endorse independent self-construals tend to be more optimistic and more consistent in their self-perceptions, whereas those who endorse the interdependent self-construals emphasize maintaining harmony and collective goals.

People in different cultures also differ in their implicit theories of the consistency and malleability of personality. Cultures that emphasize the interdependent self-construal would expect less consistency between internal personality attributes and social behavior. Research also confirmed that East Asians from collectivistic cultures were more likely to believe that individual persons were relatively malleable whereas the world was relatively stable. Thus, they were less likely to explain social behavior in terms of global traits and were more inclined to attribute to external forces. On the other hand, North Americans who are from individualistic cultures believed more strongly in the person's unique and fixed personality traits and were more likely to make internal attributions (Chiu & Hong, 2006 ).

Culture and personality further interact to affect the manifestation of psychopathology in the context of behavioral environments, which consist of culturally constituted self-orientations, objects, space, time, and social norms. One dimension of cultural influence on the perception of psychopathology that has been discussed extensively in cultural psychiatry is the biased observation of somatization among Chinese persons with depressive disorders. The cultural bias in this discussion is rooted in the Western philosophical tradition of Cartesian dualism. In dualistic thinking, psychopathology is viewed in terms of distinct organic and psychological problems (Lewis-Fernandez & Kleinman, 1994 ). On the other hand, Chinese dialectical thinking encompasses the context and allows for the simultaneous expression of psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms (Cheung, 1998 ). When the medical model of psychopathology is imposed, the somatic presentation of distress among Chinese patients is construed by Western-trained practitioners as the somatization tendency in which psychological affects were allegedly denied or suppressed. In the medical model of psychopathology, indigenous cultural beliefs are often reduced to misinformed or superstitious obstacles that interfere with proper diagnosis and treatment of real diseases. These ethnocentric assumptions in understanding psychopathology focus on the self, individual experiences and internal attributes, ignoring the social and interpersonal contexts that affect the conceptualization and manifestation of a range of physical and psychological symptoms. When practitioners understand the cultural values and holistic health beliefs of the Chinese people, somatization may be reconceptualized as a metaphor of distress in the cultural context of an illness experience with implications to social relationships, coping, and help-seeking behavior. In studies of Chinese personality and psychopathology, somatization was found to be related to culturally related personality features that emphasize harmony and traditionalism (Cheung, Gan, & Lo, 2005 ).

These cultural differences highlight the need to integrate a cultural perspective in understanding personality. Matsumoto (2007) proposed a comprehensive model that illustrates the interaction among human nature (universal processes), culture (via social roles and contexts), and personality (via individual role identities) on behavior. Culture mediates human nature and provides the meaning to the ecological and situational contexts in which individuals of that cultural group adopt their prescribed social roles. Individuals respond to these culturally prescribed social roles by developing their own role identities to form a core set of dispositional traits. In this multilevel model, basic human nature explains the universal psychological processes, cultural influences explains what is “true” for some people of the same group, while the individual's personality addresses what is unique to the person. This complex model may account for individual differences within cultures that contradict the expected cultural differences between cultural groups.

Recent advances in research methodology provide statistical tools to analyze cross-cultural data at the individual as well as the group level (Cheung, Leung, & Au, 2006 ; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 , 2001 ). Since individuals are nested within cultures, cross-cultural data are hierarchically structured and multilevel analyses should be used. At the individual-level analysis, researchers focus on the cross-cultural similarities and differences to which individuals vary on the personality constructs within each culture. At the culture-level analysis, countries are the unit of analysis and comparisons focus on the means across national groups. Cross-cultural psychologists have cautioned that studies of the equivalence of a psychological construct across two or more cultures should take into account this multilevel structure.

Globalization and Cultural Diversity

Early attempts to study culture and personality in cultural anthropology have tried to describe national characters (Barnouw, 1963 ). The interests in these approaches have since waned, as the simplistic generalizations often led to stereotypic notions of personality (Terracciano et al., 2005 ). Recent studies of cross-cultural differences in personality tend to explore variations in universal dimensions of personality characteristics across cultures (McCrae & Terracciano, 2006 ), while indigenous approaches to personality studies try to identify culture-specific or culturally relevant dimensions that are not sufficiently covered by the universal characteristics (Cheung et al., 2001 ).

With the trends of globalization, migration, and cultural diversity within geographical boundaries, there is a growing recognition of the development of multicultural identities. The development of multicultural identities does not reduce the need to highlight cultural sensitivity in the study of personality. On the contrary, the greater mobility of individuals across cultures has accentuated the interaction of cultural characteristics. With globalization, psychology is rapidly becoming a popular discipline and practice in different parts of the world where professionals and professional tools still lag far behind the demand (Cheung, 2004 ). Use of objective tests in the guise of scientific methods of assessment enhances the status of the fledging professionals. As a result, the adoption of Western psychological tests has proliferated in these countries. With few local instruments available, most psychologists depend on the importation of well-developed Western personality tests (Cheung, 1985 ; Cheung et al., 1996 ). During the early days of test importation, practices guiding the translation and adaptation of Western instruments varied greatly. Researchers or practitioners typically translated a popular test and used it as if it were the original test. Little consideration was given to the quality of the translation or the equivalence of the translated instrument.

The challenge for multicultural assessment is not limited to psychologists in the countries where psychology is an emerging discipline. Well-trained psychologists are increasingly working in international and multicultural settings where they address psychological needs in different cultural contexts. For example, industrial-organizational psychologists working for multinational companies may be brought on site to assess personnel who are posted in different parts of the world. The personnel include locals and expatriate staff relocated to international sites. Decisions on selection and development are made on the basis of the results of the psychological assessment which may be developed originally in a different culture.

Even when they do not travel away from their own cultures, psychologists also have to attend to individuals who migrate from other cultures. Greater respect for cultural diversity also means that they now recognize the relevance of ethnic and other cultural backgrounds among members from different subgroups of their own community (Sue et al., 1991 ). For example, clinical psychologists practicing in California may have a clientele consisting of a majority of ethnic Asians whose first language or only language is not English. Their levels of acculturation to the host culture vary widely. Diagnostic, treatment, and forensic decisions on these clients are often made on the basis of results of objective personality tests. These cultural exchanges have increased the awareness that cultural contexts need to be taken into account in personality assessment and the study of personality. The cultural perspective is particularly relevant when we consider the widespread application of personality instruments on multicultural test users in occupational, academic, and health settings. Practitioners need to consider the basic parameters of their tools and methods: Are the existing psychological tests useful and relevant? Are there suitable language versions of these tests? Are the translated versions valid?

The broader issue behind these practical questions lies in the challenge posed by the cultural perspective to the mainstream knowledge base in personality psychology. Butcher, Mosch, Tsai, and Nezami (2006) summarized the tension between cultural influences and personality psychology in a series of questions: Is personality universal or culture-specific? Do the same personality traits manifest themselves differently across cultural contexts? How do culture and personality interact to influence behavior as well as psychopathology? Can personality be adequately measured across cultural groups? These cultural considerations can no longer be ignored in the study of personality and personality assessment. It is in this contemporary context that we discuss the impact of cultural factors on personality assessment and approaches to adapt personality assessment across cultures.

Impact of Cultural Factors on Personality Assessment

Marsella and Leong (1995) referred to two major problems of ethnocentricism in cross-cultural psychological assessment: the error of omission and the error of commission. The error of omission refers to “the failure to conduct cross-cultural comparison in reaching conclusions about human behavior” (p. 203 ), with the assumption that conclusions drawn from psychological studies conducted usually in Western cultures can be generalized without cultural variations. In the error of commission, researchers include different cultural groups for comparison, but neglect the cultural differences in the psychological measures that they use in making the comparison. Measures or instruments that are developed in Western cultures are imposed on the other cultural groups with the assumption that these measures are valid for all groups. Early cross-cultural studies generally adopt these imposed etic measures to identify and reify cross-cultural similarities and differences in the attributes being studied.

Recent advances have highlighted important considerations in cultural differences that need to be taken into account in cross-cultural personality assessment. In the first place, testing itself is not a universally familiar practice. Paper-and-pencil tests require test users to be able to read and write. The test users also need to respond to a forced choice format of yes or no answers or a number on a rating scale. Response bias such as the tendency toward acquiescence or extremity ratings have been noted in different cultures. For example, cultural differences have been observed in the response style of Asian participants who tend to adopt the midpoint in responding to rating scales under the influence of the moderation norm (Hamid, Lai, & Cheng, 2001 ). Studies with Chinese bilingual participants also showed that the Chinese version of an instrument produced more culturally accommodating responses than the English version of the same test, which could affect the results of a cross-cultural study (Ralston, Cunniff, & Gustafson, 1995 ).

The matching of the ethnic background of the assessor and the client is another source of administration bias that may affect the outcome of the assessment. Russell and his group of researchers (1996) have found that ethnic matching of therapist and client results in higher ratings of client functioning. Hence, difference from or unfamiliarity with the client's cultural background may limit the therapist's ability to assess optimal client functioning.

Other than response biases and therapist variables, how can differences in test results be explained? In cross-cultural applications of translated personality tests, such as the MMPI-2, differences in the mean scores among normal samples of participants have been observed. One of the inquiries I have received on the Chinese version of the MMPI-2 came from an American forensic expert working on the case of a Chinese plaintiff in a lawsuit. The psychologist described to me the difficulty he encountered when he administered the English MMPI-2 on this Chinese client before he learnt about the availability of the Chinese MMPI-2:

VRIN was about 70T and the clinical scales did not resemble how she actually was. I consulted with a Chinese-speaking psychologist here who offered to read the items to her in Chinese and to help her understand the linguistic nuances of the questions. The result was even worse. VRIN was about 80T and now she looked overtly psychotic, which she clearly was not, and almost all the clinical scales were elevated.

This example illustrates the many problems inherent in cross-cultural assessment, including the problems of language proficiency, translation, and equivalence of the measures. Research on the Chinese MMPI with normal Chinese participants showed that the mean scores on several MMPI-2 clinical and content scales, including 2 (D), 7 (Pt), 8 (Sc), and Depression, were higher than those obtained by their American counterparts (Cheung, Song, & Zhang, 1996 ; Kwan, 1999 ). Do the elevated scores on these scales mean greater psychopathology among the Chinese normal samples? Or are there other cultural factors that affect their responses to some of the items on these scales? If that is the case, there may be a risk of overestimating psychopathology if the test scores are interpreted directly according to the original norms. Careful analyses of the contents of the MMPI scales showed that the endorsement rates of some of the items in these scales differed among Chinese and American normal participants, and the social desirability ratings of these items indicated that the items might not reflect psychopathology in the same way as in the American culture. For example, one item on scale 2 (D) that was endorsed by the majority of Chinese college students, “Most anytime I would rather sit and daydream than do anything else,” was also rated by them as socially desirable, suggesting that this item does not reflect psychopathology in the Chinese cultural context (Cheung, 1985 ). Cultural differences in the perception of the meaning of and responses to some other items on the MMPI-2 scales suggest that these items may not reflect psychopathology among Chinese clients in the ways that they work with American clients.

These examples illustrate that cross-cultural testing is not simply presenting the test items in the local language. They point to the need for a systematic approach to the translation, adaptation, and validation of psychological measures from one culture to another before these measures could be considered cross-culturally valid.

Cross-cultural Validity of Personality Assessment

In the early stages of importing Western personality assessment measures, projective techniques had been widely adopted, given the advantage in their use of nonlinguistic stimuli that avoids the problem of translation and the requirement of literacy (Church, 2001 ). However, the linguistic content of the stimuli is not the only source of cultural bias. The elaborate coding and interpretive system as well as the lack of scientific support for the validity of the projective measures themselves have led to the decline in the use of these methods of assessment. The structured and standardized format of objective personality instruments and the available research database on their reliability and validity led to their popularity in cross-cultural adoption. One of the most widely translated personality measures that has been exported internationally is the MMPI. Since its first adoption in Italy in 1948 and Germany in 1954, the MMPI/MMPI-2 has been translated into over 150 versions and is used in almost 50 countries in the world (Butcher, 2004 ).

A number of cross-cultural psychologists have discussed the methodological considerations in translating and adapting personality assessment across cultures (Marsella, Dubanoski, Hamada, & Morse, 2000 ; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997 ). Based on the experience of the international applications of the MMPI/MMPI-2, Butcher and his associates have formulated a comprehensive system of cross-cultural adaptation of objective personality tests. Butcher et al. (2006) outlined the major methodological problems and the technical resolutions to these problems. The key issues are summarized in this section, but readers are referred to the original chapter by Butcher et al. for a comprehensive review.

In adapting the MMPI-2 from the source culture, i.e. the United States, to a target culture, e.g. China, the greatest challenge is to assure “equivalence” between the translated version and the original version of the MMPI-2. Equivalence consists of several levels of focus: “linguistic equivalence” refers to items conveying the same literal meaning in both language versions; “construct equivalence” refers to similar concepts being conveyed in both versions of the MMPI-2; “psychometric equivalence” refers to both versions of the MMPI-2 possessing similar psychometric properties so that the reliability and validity of the original MMPI-2 could be applicable to the target culture; “psychological equivalence” refers to the similarity in meaning or cultural significance of the test items in both versions.

Linguistic Equivalence

Butcher et al. (2006) refers to linguistic equivalence as the most basic level of equivalence between translated versions of a psychological test at the level of the item and instructions. The linguistic aspects of an item include vocabulary, idioms, and grammatic structure. Accurate translation requires the use of multiple independent translators who are truly bilingual and experienced in both cultures. After the initial translation, independent translators are engaged in the process of back-translation, which involves retranslation of translated items back to the source language in order to determine if the translated items retain their meaning. Items that are difficult to translate or mistranslated are discovered and retranslated. This translation-back-translation process is repeated until the discrepancies between the items of the source language and back-translation versions are minimized.

Particular attention should be paid to idiomatic use of the language that may not be readily picked up in back-translation. For example, in the MMPI-2, expressions like “I feel blue” could be translated literally into the color blue and back-translated accurately, but the meaning of the emotional state may be lost in this literal translation. In the translation of the Chinese MMPI-2, the translators consulted the original authors to ensure that the nuances of the language were accurately reflected in the translation. Careful choice of translators who are proficient in both languages and consultation with bilingual experts have been recommended as necessary procedures in test adaptation.

Given the increasing adaptation of tests for use in various different linguistic and cultural contexts, a 13-person committee representing a number of international organizations at the International Test Commission has developed a set of guidelines. These guidelines are grouped under four main categories: the cultural context, the technicalities of instrument development and adaptation, test administration, and documentation and interpretation. For details of the guidelines, readers are referred to the ITC Guidelines on Adapting Tests (International Test Commission, www.intestcom.org ; Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger, 2005 ; Van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996 ).

Construct Equivalence

Construct equivalence or conceptual equivalence refers to the generalizability of the personality variables or constructs being examined from the source culture to the target culture. Personality variables may differ in form and quantity across cultures and constructs may not have the same psychological meaning across cultures. To test for construct equivalence in adapted personality measures, one of the recommended approaches is to use bilingual test-retest studies (Butcher et al., 2006 ). In these studies, a group of bilinguals in the target culture would take the original form and the translated version of the test within 1–2-week intervals (Butcher, Nezami, & Exner, 1998 ). The correlations between the bilingual results may be compared to the test-retest reliability of the single-language versions to determine if the translated version could be considered to be an alternate form of the original version (Butcher, Derksen, Sloore, & Sirigatti, 2003 ).

In the case of the international versions of the MMPI, programs are also available to compare the differences in item endorsement between two cultural groups (Butcher & Pancheri, 1976 ). Items showing large discrepancies in endorsement rates between the cultural groups may suggest either errors in translation, or differences in the relevance of the item to the construct being measured. As shown in the earlier example of the item on the MMPI scale 2 (D), the higher rate of endorsement of that item among Chinese college students compared to that of the American college students, and the results that showed that the item was rated as more socially desirable by the Chinese students suggested that this item did not reflect depression in the Chinese cultural context (Cheung, 1985 ).

In addition to bottom-up approaches, recent studies have also adopted the top-down approach to establish construct equivalence by multilevel analysis (McCrae et al., 2005 ). To test for cross-cultural equivalence of the underlying structure of the constructs being measured, some researchers recommended the use of exploratory factor analysis with country-level data in addition to individual-level data (Van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002). The use of structural equation modeling within the framework of a multilevel model provides the most rigorous approach to testing for cross-level equivalence. Structural equation modeling allows the researcher to consider both the individual and the cultural group level of the data simultaneously (Cheung et al., 2006 ). However, one critical restriction of this approach is the need for large samples of cross-cultural groups, which is often not the purpose for establishing construct equivalence in translating and adapting a personality test.

Psycbometric Equivalence

Psychometric equivalence refers to an instrument possessing similar psychometric properties in different cultures (Butcher & Han, 1996 ), which includes reliability, item-scale correlation, item endorsement frequencies, inter-item correlations, interscale correlations, and factor structure of the scales. Butcher et al. (2006) described a variety of objective indices used to demonstrate the congruence of factors between different samples, including the congruence coefficient, factor score correlations, and confirmatory factor analysis. Item response theory has also been used in the investigation of psychometric equivalence between test translations. By examining the item characteristic curves for two different language versions of an item, it is possible to determine the equivalence of the item meanings in relation to the trait being measured.

Related to psychometric equivalence is “scalar equivalence,” i.e. the scores on the translated and the original instruments express the same level of intensity of that trait (Butcher & Han, 1996 ). Scalar equivalence is demonstrated by administering the test to similar groups (e.g., persons with psychiatric disorders) in the two cultural samples in order to determine if similar scores on the same scales are achieved. If the two groups achieved very different levels of scores on that scale, then it may be more appropriate to collect a culture-specific norm instead of using the norms developed for the original instrument. For example, with the Chinese MMPI-2, Chinese normals scored significantly higher than American normals on a number of clinical scales, even though Chinese persons with psychiatric disorders scored even higher on these scales (Cheung, Zhang, & Song, 2003 ). When the Chinese norms are used, persons without psychiatric disorders scored within the normal range. Cheung et al. recommended using both the U.S. and the Chinese norms with the Chinese MMPI-2 to provide a more accurate interpretation of the clinical profile.

Psycbological Equivalence

Psychological equivalence refers to the similarity in meaning or cultural significance of test items that are familiar to the real experiences of the target and source cultures (Butcher, 1996 ). Related to the idea of psychological equivalence is the issue of “functional equivalence,” meaning that the function of a behavior depicted in the item in the source culture is equivalent to that contained in a related but different item in the target culture. For example, some of the MMPI-2 items are idioms which have specific cultural meaning. The item depicting a superstition about being careful to step over sidewalk cracks when walking is unfamiliar in the Chinese culture. To depict a similar superstitious behavior, the item is substituted by an item that describes avoiding to walk under a ladder.

The ultimate demonstration of the functional utility of the adapted instrument in the target culture lies in cross-cultural validation studies that show similar test patterns are correlated with similar outcomes as in the source culture. Studies with international versions of the MMPI-2 show that with careful translation and adaptation, and using appropriate norms, the MMPI-2 can be used effectively for clinical assessment as it is originally intended. Butcher et al. (2006) summarized the internal validity, convergent validity, and interpretive accuracy of these international versions. In the validation of the Chinese MMPI, studies were conducted to demonstrate the usefulness of the MMPI in differentiating between psychiatric and normal groups (Cheung & Song, 1989 ). In additional to empirical studies, clinical case studies also provide useful illustrations of the clinical utility of the MMPI-2 in the target culture. Butcher and Cheung 2006 , May) showed that there was more convergence than divergence in the clinical interpretation of cases that used computerized reports using US norms and the clinicians' observations of the cases based on the test results scored on the Chinese norms of the Chinese MMPI-2.

Even when imported constructs are demonstrated to be present in the target culture does not mean they are universally relevant in psychological meaning. For example, Cheung, Cheung et al. (2008) showed that a distinct Openness factor in the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Digman, 1990 ) was not found in indigenous studies of personality in the Chinese culture even though it could be extracted in imposed etic studies using translated measures of FFM. Instead, using a combined emic-etic approach, they extracted a Social Potency/ Expansiveness factor in the indigenously derived CPAI-2 that combined extraversion and openness-related scales. This complex construct denoted a more interpersonal dimension that characterized dynamic and charismatic leadership, as opposed to a more introspective and individual-level construct of openness in the Five-Factor Model.

Emics Versus Etics Personality Measure

Value and limitations of universal constructs.

International applications of the MMPI-2 illustrate the value of using common psychological measures across cultures. Cross-cultural validation of the international versions allows access to the rich research database accumulated on the MMPI-2. The range of clinical studies on the MMPI-2 provides test users the scientific basis for their assessment, which would be difficult to match if indigenous tools were developed in different cultures. The importation of well-established tests provides psychologists in countries where assessment is only beginning to develop with an efficient repertory of assessment tools (Cheung, 2004 ).

These imported instruments also allow for cross-cultural comparison of common personality constructs (Cheung & Leung, 1998 ). The personality model that has been studied most widely across culture is the FFM using the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). McCrae et al. (2005) studied personality profiles of 51 cultures by using mean trait levels of culture members by asking college students from their countries to rate an individual whom they knew well. While cultural variations were found on the mean levels of the five personality factors, the FFM structure was found to be a universally valid taxonomy of personality (McCrae & Allik, 2002 ). McCrae asserted that these etic or universal traits are rooted in biology while culture shapes their expressions (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004 ).

When importing etic personality measures, cross-cultural psychologists usually ask the following questions: How well do the personality dimensions assessed by the imported tests replicate across cultures? What are the significant differences in personality traits that are identified by the imported measures? Can imported tests predict relevant criteria across cultures (Church, 2001 )? Cross-cultural research on the well-established personality measures such as the MMPI-2 and the NEO PI-R have replicated the factor structure and the relationships with external correlates, supporting the relevance and usefulness of these imported measures. However, different factor structures could also be extracted in cross-cultural studies, and some of the factors in the NEO PI-R, such as Openness, did not replicate well in European and Asian cultures, suggesting that the imported measures may be imposing their model of factor structure in the new cultural context (Cheung, Cheung et al., 2008 ; Church, 2001 ). There may be other personality constructs that are important to the local cultures that are not covered in the imported measures, or are not construed in the same taxonomy that is meaningful to the local culture. The rise of indigenous movements in psychology has led to the development of emic personality measures which derive the constructs from within the culture.

Indigenous Measures of Personality

In the movement toward indigenization of psychology since the 1970s, psychologists in non-Western cultures have proposed indigenous personality theories and attempted to develop their own personality measures (Enriquez, 1993 ; Yang, 1997 ). Ho (1998) defined an indigenous psychology as “the study of human behavior and mental processes within a cultural context” in which cultural “conceptions and methodologies rooted in that cultural group [are] employed to generate knowledge” (p. 94 ). Personality constructs are derived from the local cultural perspective instead of being imported. Many of the indigenous personality constructs derived in Asia reflect the relational nature of human experience in a social and interpersonal context (Cheung, Cheung, Wada, & Zhang, 2003 ). Examples include the Chinese concepts of “harmony” and “face” (public sense of self) (Cheung et al., 2001 ), the Japanese concept of amae (“sweet indulgence”), the Korean concept of chong (“affection”) (Kim, Park, & Park, 1999 ), and the concept of selflessness, or “selfless-self” in Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism (Verma, 1999 ).

Some of the early indigenous personality measures modified imported instruments by selecting relevant scales and collecting data to establish local norms. Others made use of the lexical approach to extract personality dimensions that are relevant to the local culture (Guanzon-Lapeña, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998 ; Isaka, 1990 ; Yang & Bond, 1990 ).

However, few of the indigenous measures have been followed through with a program of research on its development and validation that is necessary for its utility as an assessment tool. Nor have they addressed satisfactorily the questions posed by cross-cultural psychologists (Church, 2001 ): How culture-specific are the indigenous personality constructs and measures? Do these constructs and measures provide incremental validity beyond that provided by the imported measures? Church concluded that most indigenous measures did not identify culture-specific constructs that could not be subsumed under the universal FFM. He acknowledged that the best support for the incremental validity of indigenously derived personality measures came from the CPAI.

Combined Emic-Etic Approach

The CPAI was developed to measure Chinese personality from an indigenous perspective, using a combined emic-etic approach (Cheung et al., 1996 , 2001 ). Universal and indigenous personality traits considered to be important in the Chinese culture were generated in a bottom-up approach to develop a set of normal personality and clinical scales for comprehensive personality assessment. Borrowing from the experience of adapting the MMPI, validity scales were included to enhance the accuracy of assessment. Four normal personality factors and two clinical factors were extracted from the CPAI scales. In a joint factor analysis between the CPAI and the NEO PI-R (Cheung et al., 2001 ), it was found that the indigenous Interpersonal Relatedness factor did not load on any of the NEO factors. In that study, the NEO Openness factor did not load on any of the CPAI factors.

In the subsequent revision of the CPAI, a set of indigenously derived openness scales were added (Cheung, Cheung, & Zhang, 2004 ; Cheung, Cheung et al., 2008 ). Originally, it was expected that a separate openness factor would be extracted from the CPAI-2 after adding these scales. However, some of the individually oriented openness scales loaded with extraversion to form the expanded Social Potency/ Expansiveness factor, which depicts dynamic leadership, while the other interpersonally related openness scales loaded with the Accommodation factor and the Interpersonal Relatedness factor. The replication of a four-factor structure in the CPAI-2 even after the addition of openness-related scales suggests that the lack of loading on Openness in the joint analysis between the original CPAI and the NEO PI-R may reflect cultural differences in the psychological meaning of Openness. Openness is not an inherently distinct dimension in the implicit theory and taxonomy of personality in the Chinese culture, although characteristics of people who are regarded as open could be described. Instead, these openness-related characteristics coexisted with other traits to define the personality taxonomy that is relevant to the local reality.

A program of research to validate the utility of the CPAI/CPAI-2 has been conducted to support its usefulness as a personality assessment tool in clinical and organizational settings (Cheung, 2007 ; Cheung, Fan, & To, 2008 ; Cheung, Kwong, & Zhang, 2003 ; Cheung, Cheung, & Leung, 2008 ; Kwong & Cheung, 2003 ). The indigenously derived CPAI-2 personality factors contributed additional value to the prediction of social behavior in the Chinese cultural context (Cheung et al., 2001 , 2008 ). To test the cross-cultural relevance of its indigenously derived personality constructs, the CPAI has been translated into English, Korean, and Japanese, and cross-cultural samples have confirmed the congruence of the factor structure, especially among Asian and Asian-American samples (Cheung, Cheung, Leung, Ward, & Leong, 2003 ; Cheung, Cheung, Howard, & Lin, 2006 ). Lin and Church (2004) found that the indigenously derived Interpersonal Relatedness factor replicated well among Asian-Americans and fairly well among European-Americans, supporting its cross-cultural relevance. However, Asian-Americans who were less acculturated to the American culture scored higher on this factor than the Asian-American participants who were more acculturated and the European-American participants. This result demonstrated the stronger salience of the Interpersonal Relatedness factor in traditional Chinese culture. Current research on the CPAI includes the development of an adolescent version, the CPAI-A, and studies on the cross-cultural utility of the CPAI-2/ CPAI-A in career counseling.

Although the original objective of developing the CPAI was to offer Chinese psychologists an instrument that was culturally relevant to their applied needs, cross-cultural research with the CPAI provides an opportunity to explore the emic and etic dimensions of Chinese personality. The combined emic-etic approach allows cross-cultural researchers to compare personality constructs derived from different cultural perspectives and to examine the additional contributions of indigenous constructs to existing mainstream models of personality that are mostly rooted in Western culture. Cheung (2002) observed that the CPAI “research findings have led us down a more theoretical path to look at how the cultural reality that is cut by this indigenous instrument reflects upon the imposed reality that we used to know, based on borrowed instruments and borrowed theories” (p. 155 ). The extension of the CPAI beyond the Chinese context has led to the renaming of the CPAI-2 as the Cross-cultural Personality Assessment Inventory. The culturally relevant personality constructs in the CPAI-2 may fill the gap in the interpersonal dimensions in Western personality theories.

The combined emic-etic approach adopted by the CPAI is currently being used as a framework in developing the national South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) as a set of comprehensive personality questionnaires for all South African language groups. The South African psychologists considered that imported questionnaires based on a Western model of independence would not be appropriate for describing the African personality in which interdependence (Ubuntu) was more salient. This ambitious project aims at deriving a culturally relevant measure for the multiethnic communities of South Africa with 11 language versions and ensuring equivalent constructs and measures for the different tribes and ethnic groups (Meiring, van de Vijver, Rothmann, & Bruin, 2008 , July).

Training Needs in Enhancing the Cultural Perspective in Personality Assessment

The increasing use of personality assessment across cultures illustrates the need to develop culturally sensitive measures. Recent advances in cross-cultural psychology have introduced useful methodological and statistical tools for research in this area. The American Psychological Association has published two important documents to promote scholarship on multicultural awareness: Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists (American Psychological Association, 2003 ) and Resolution on Culture and Gender Awareness in International Psychology (American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, 2004 ). It has established a task force initiated by the Division of International Psychology (Division 52) and the Division of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics (Division 5). The purpose of the task force was to identify methodological aspects of cross-cultural research that were in need of improvement and to promote training in these aspects. In addition to training offered by the APA, other international professional organizations such as the International Test Commission, International Association of Applied Psychology, International Congress of Psychology, and the European Congresses of Psychology also offer training workshops on cross-cultural testing and measurement during their conventions.

At a more practical level, it is imperative that practitioners become familiarized with the literature on cross-cultural validity and applications of the instruments that they intend to use across cultures. It is insufficient to be only familiar with the original tests that they may be trained to administer. They should consult the test publishers on the language versions of the tests that are available in the cultures in which they intend to administer their assessment. They should be wary of cross-cultural biases and incorporate their knowledge of cross-cultural differences in their interpretation of test results. The MMPI-2 international conferences and workshops are examples of the venue where practitioners can gain such knowledge.

As psychology joins the global village, the discipline can no longer ignore the cultural contexts that inform our knowledge base. The cultural perspective is not a sideline to mainstream psychology. Cross-cultural training should become an integral part of graduate and professional training, not only for students interested in cross-cultural psychology, but also as a basic tenet of training in psychological assessment and research methodology.

Acknowledgments

The CPAI projects reported in this chapter were partially supported by the Hong Kong Government Research Grants Council Earmarked Grants CUHK4333/00H, CUHK4326/01H, CUHK4259/ 03H, CUHK4254/03H, and CUHK4715/06H, and by Direct Grants #89106, 91113, 2020662, 2020745, 2020717, and 2020871 of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Allwood, C. M., & Berry, J. W. ( 2006 ). Origins and development of indigenous psychologies: An international analysis.   International Journal of Psychology, 41, 243–268.

American Psychological Association ( 2003 ). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.   American Psychologist, 58, 377–402.

American Psychological Association Council of Representatives ( 2004 ). Resolution on culture and gender awareness in international psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Barnouw, V. ( 1963 ). Culture and personality . Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Buss, D. M. ( 2001 ). Human nature and culture: An evolutionary psychological perspective.   Journal of Personality, 69, 955–978.

Butcher, J. N. ( 2004 ). Personality assessment without borders: Adaptation of the MMPI-2 across cultures.   Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 90–104.

Butcher, J. N., & Cheung, F. M. ( 2006 , May). Discussion and Case Interpretation . Presentation at the Workshop on MMPI-2 Jointly Organized by the Clinical Psychological Service Branch of Social Welfare Department and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Butcher, J. N., Derksen, J., Sloore, H., & Sirigatti, S. ( 2003 ). Objective personality assessment of people in diverse cultures: European adaptations of the MMPI-2.   Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 819–840.

Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. ( 1996 ). Methods of establishing cross-cultural equivalence. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 44–63). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., Mosch, S. C., Tsai, J., & Nezami, E. ( 2006 ). Cross cultural applications of the MMPI-2. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioner's guide (pp. 505–537). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J. N., Nezami, E., & Exner, J. ( 1998 ). Psychological assessment of people in diverse cultures. In S. Kazarian & D. R. Evans (Eds.), Cross-cultural clinical psychology (pp. 61–105). New York: Oxford University Press.

Butcher, J. N. & Pancheri, P. ( 1976 ). Handbook of cross-national MMPI research . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cheung, F. M. ( 1985 ). Cross-cultural considerations for the translation and adaptation of the Chinese MMPI in Hong Kong. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 131–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cheung, F. M. ( 1995 ). Administration manual of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Chinese ed.). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Cheung, F. M. ( 1998 ). Cross-cultural psychopathology. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical psychology , Vol. 10: Sociocultural and individual differences (pp. 35–51). Oxford: Pergamon.

Cheung, F. M. ( 2002 ). Universal and indigenous dimensions of Chinese personality. In K. S. Kurasaki, S. Okazaki, & S. Sue (Eds.), Asian American mental health: Assessment theories and methods (pp. 141–157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Cheung, F. M. ( 2004 ). Use of western and indigenously-developed personality tests in Asia.   Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 173–191.

Cheung, F. M. ( 2007 ). Indigenous personality correlates from the CPAI-2 profiles of Chinese psychiatric patients.   World Cultural Psychiatry Research Review, 2(4), 114–117.

Cheung, F. M., & Leung, K. ( 1998 ). Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 233–248.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Leung, F. ( 2008 ). Clinical utility of the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2) in the assessment of substance use disorders among Chinese men.   Psychological Assessment, 20, 103–113.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F. ( 2003 ). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory: Derived etics in a mirror position.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 433–452.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S., & Zhang, J. X. ( 2003 ). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review.   Psychological Assessment, 15, 280–289.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Zhang, J. X. ( 2004 ). What is “Chinese personality”? Subgroup differences in the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2).   Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 491–499.

Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J. X., Leung, K., Leong, F. T. L., & Yeh, K. H. ( 2008 ). Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 81–108.

Cheung, F. M., Fan, W. Q., & To, C. W. W. ( 2008 ). The CPAI as a culturally relevant personality measure in applied settings.   Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 74–89.

Cheung, F. M., Gan, Y. Q., & Lo, P. M. ( 2005 ). Personality and psychopathology: Insight from Chinese studies. In W. S. Tseng, S. C. Chang, & M. Nishizono (Eds.), Asian culture and psychotherapy: Implications for East and West (pp. 21–39). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Cheung, F. M., Kwong, J., & Zhang, J. X. ( 2003 ). Clinical validation of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI).   Psychological Assessment, 15, 89–100.

Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. ( 1996 ). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI).   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.

Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., et al. ( 2001 ). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor Model complete?   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407–433.

Cheung, F. M., & Song, W. Z. ( 1989 ). A review on the clinical applications of the Chinese MMPI.   Psychological Assessment, 1, 230–237.

Cheung, F. M., Song, W. Z., & Zhang, J. X. ( 1996 ). The Chinese MMPI-2: Research and applications in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: A handbook of research and applications (pp. 137–161). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cheung, F. M., Zhang, J. X., & Song, W. Z. ( 2003 ). Manual of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) (Chinese). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Cheung, M. W. L., Leung, K., & Au, K. ( 2006 ). Evaluating multilevel models in cross-cultural research: An illustration with social axioms.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 522–541.

Cheung, S. F., Cheung, F. M., Howard, R., & Lin, Y. H. ( 2006 ). Personality across ethnic divide in Singapore: Are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese?   Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 467–477.

Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. ( 2006 ). Social psychology of culture . New York: Psychology Press.

Church, A. T. ( 2001 ). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective.   Journal of Personality, 69, 979–1006.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. ( 1992 ). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Digman, J. M. ( 1990 ). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five Factor Model.   Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Enriquez, V. G. ( 1993 ). Developing a Filipino psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 152–169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gergen, K. J., Gulerce, A., Lock, A., & Misra, G. ( 1996 ). Psychological science in cultural context.   American Psychologist, 51, 496–503.

Guanzon-Lapeña, M. A., Church, A. T., Carlota, A. J., & Katigbak, M. S. ( 1998 ). Indigenous personality measures: Philippine examples.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 249–270.

Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). ( 2005 ). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hamid, P. N., Lai, J. C. L., & Cheng, S. T. ( 2001 ). Response bias and public and private self-consciousness in Chinese.   Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 733–742.

Ho, D. ( 1998 ). Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 88–103.

Hofstede, G. ( 1991 ). Culture and organizations . London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. ( 2004 ). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits with dimensions of culture.   Cross-cultural Research, 38, 52–88.

International Test Commission. ITC guidelines for adapting tests . Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://www.intestcom.org/itc_projects.htm#ITC%20Guidelines%20on%20Adapting%20Tests

Isaka, H. ( 1990 ). Factor analysis of trait terms in everyday Japanese language.   Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 115–124.

Kim, U., Park, Y. S., & Park, D. ( 1999 ). The Korean indigenous psychology approach: Theoretical considerations and empirical applications.   Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 451–464.

Kwan, K. L. K. ( 1999 ). MMPI and MMPI-2 performance of the Chinese: Cross-cultural applicability.   Professional Psychology: Research and Practices, 30, 260–268.

Kwong, J., & Cheung, F. M. ( 2003 ). Prediction of performance facets using specific personality traits in the Chinese context.   Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 99–110.

Lewis-Fernandez, R., & Kleinman, A. ( 1994 ). Culture, personality, and psychopathology.   Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 67–71.

Lin, E. J., & Church, A. T. ( 2004 ). Are indigenous Chinese personality dimensions culture-specific? An investigation of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory in Chinese American and European American samples.   Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35, 586–605.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. ( 1991 ). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.   Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Marsella, A., & Leong, F. T. L. ( 1995 ). Cross-cultural issues in personality and career assessment.   Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 202–218.

Marsella, A. J., Dubanoski, J., Hamada, W. C., & Morse, H. ( 2000 ). The measurement of personality across cultures: Historical, conceptual, and methodological issues and considerations.   American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 41–62.

Matsumoto, D. ( 2007 ). Culture, context, and behavior.   Journal of Personality, 75, 1285–1319.

McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (Eds.). ( 2002 ). The Five-Factor Model across cultures . New York: Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. ( 2006 ). National character and personality.   Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 156–161.

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Projects. ( 2005 ). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407–425.

Meiring, D., van de Vijver, F. , Rothmann, I., & de Bruin, D. ( 2008 , July). Uncovering the Personality Structure of the 11 Language Groups in South Africa: SAPI Project. In F. M. Cheung (Chair), Testing and assessment in emerging and developing countries. II: Challenges and recent advances . Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 29th International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.

Ralston, D. A., Cunniff, M. K., & Gustafson, D. J. ( 1995 ). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers.   Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 714–727.

Russell, G. L., Fujino, D. C., Sue, S., Cheung, M., & Snowdon, L. R. ( 1996 ). The effects of therapist-client ethnic match in the assessment of mental health functioning.   Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 598–615.

Sue, S., Fujino, D. C., Hu, L., Takeuchi, D. T., & Zane, N. ( 1991 ). Community mental health services for ethnic minority groups: A test of the cultural responsiveness hypothesis.   Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 533–540.

Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C. K., Ahn, H. N., et al. ( 2005 ). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures.   Science, 310, 96–100.

Triandis, H. C. ( 2000 ). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology.   Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185–197.

Triandis, H. C. ( 2001 ). Individualism-collectivism and personality.   Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.

Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. ( 1996 ). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines.   European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. ( 1997 ). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. ( 2001 ). Personality in cultural context: Methodological issues.   Journal of Personality, 69, 1007–1031.

Verma, J. ( 1999 ). Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism: The source of Asian values. In K. Leung, U. Kim, S. Yamaguchi, & U Kashima (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychologies (pp. 23–36). Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Yang, K. S. ( 1997 ). Theories and research in Chinese personality: An indigenous approach. In H. S. R. Kao & D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 236–262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. ( 1990 ). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087–1095.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.