Chapter 15

Personality Across Cultures:

A Critical Analysis of Big
Five Research and Current
Directions
Gustavo Carlo, George P. Knight, Scott C. Roesch, Deanna Opal, and Alexandra Davis
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I am, because we are; and since we are conceptions of personality or traits (see Funder, 1991).
therefore I am. (Mbiti, 1969, p. 108) In this chapter, we use the terms Big Five and five-
factor personality model (FFM) interchangeably,
Research and theory in personality has continued
although the former refers mainly to the theoretical
to garner much interest since the writings of early
approach and the latter to the methodological approach.
Greek philosophers and psychologists. Scholars have
A comprehensive review of cross-cultural
linked personality to virtually every aspect of human
research on personality is nearly impossible given
behavior, and personality has even been cited as an
the limited space afforded in this handbook. An
individual characteristic of people from all cultures
­adequate critique and analysis of this large body of
and in many animal species. However, the extensive
research requires several volumes, especially if one
literature on this topic has also been the focus of
includes personality, traits, temperament, attitudes,
much debate and controversy. Furthermore, despite
beliefs, emotions, and other cognitive and emotive
the extensive writings on this topic, many challenges
constructs that are relatively enduring and consti-
remain in understanding personality in cultural
tute holistic or partial aspects of a person. Further-
­contexts. These challenges include definitional
more, many thorough reviews and critiques exist
issues, measurement challenges, and mixed empirical
and are highly recommended (e.g., Heine & Buchtel,
­findings. Of particular relevance to this handbook,
2009; Piekkola, 2011; Triandis & Suh, 2002). The
research and theory on the role of personality across
need to focus on the Big Five in this chapter is partly
cultures is limited, and an understanding of the inter-
a function of the vast number of traits that can be
play between personality and culture remains a goal
considered personality and the different conceptions
not likely to be reached in the near future.
of culture. However, much of what we discuss can
In this chapter, we provide an overview of person-
be applied to the study of other conceptions of per-
ality research across cultures. We begin the chapter
sonality. Moreover, we limit ourselves to research
by addressing definitional and measurement chal-
on the FFM across ethnic/racial groups from differ-
lenges in personality research in different cultures.
ent countries rather than that examining within-
In doing so, we review different conceptions of per-
country cultural differences or differences resulting
sonality and present definitions that help integrate
from other demographics (e.g., sex, social class).
the existing literatures. Given the necessarily limited
Thus, we focus on a brief overview of cross-cultural
space, we focus on the global notion of personality—
research on the FFM because it is perhaps the lon-
namely, the Big Five dimensions (i.e., neuroticism, extra­
gest running systematic area of research in person-
version, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness;
ality across cultures.
McCrae & Costa, 1997) rather than more narrow

This chapter was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 1022744 to Gustavo Carlo.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14189-015
APA Handbook of Multicultural Psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and Research, F. T. L. Leong (Editor-in-Chief)
285
Copyright © 2014 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
 Carlo et al.

In the second major section of the chapter, we environmentally based. The difference in highlighting
discuss challenges and concerns in the study of the the biological basis of personality versus the environ-
Big Five personality dimensions across cultures. In mental basis of traits is a traditional distinction that
the third section, we present recommendations for has important theoretical and practical consequences.
future theory and research. For many years, scholars distinguished trait variables
from personality variables. Often, on the one hand,
personality variables were posited to be explicitly
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT
linked to biological mechanisms such as temperament
ISSUES
or genes. On the other hand, traits were viewed as
Very few constructs in psychology have been studied variables that were either explicitly linked to envi-
as much as personality. However, definitions of per- ronmental processes or not uniquely linked to biology
sonality abound despite many efforts to consolidate or environment. In both cases, however, traits and
such varied definitions. One of the recurring themes personality characteristics were considered relatively
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

in defining personality is the differing conceptions of independent of culture and context. Indeed, recent
personhood or self. Traditionally, personality evolved approaches to the study of personality have concep-
from philosophical conceptions of personhood that tualized Person × Situation (context) interactive
stress the autonomous and independent sense of self effects (Bem & Funder, 1978; Kenrick & Funder, 1988)
that is emphasized in many Western cultures. Often, that assume that personality and situations (includ-
the term personality emphasizes relatively enduring ing cultural context) are independent entities.
tendencies that are primarily biologically based. A In more recent years, an interesting (though not
closely related term is temperament, whose definition new) conception of personality has taken root in
overlaps substantially with that of personality. Tem- many areas of personality research. According to
perament may refer to universal, underlying biologi- many cultural anthropologists and psychologists,
cally based elements that constitute personality (e.g., personality is embedded in culture (Markus &
Buss & Plomin, 1984; see Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, & ­Kitayama, 1991; Shweder, 1977; Super & Harkness,
Rothbart, 1987), but sometimes the terms are used 1997; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). To these scholars,
interchangeably or almost synonymously (see, e.g., the distinction between personality and culture is
McCrae, 2004). superficial because cultural processes help define
In early definitions of personality (e.g., Freud, one’s sense of self. That is, cultural processes afford
1938), individuals were thought to have a cluster of some specific opportunities and mitigate other spe-
personal characteristics that were primarily biologi- cific manifestations of personhood. Thus, personal-
cally or genetically based, relatively stable through- ity and culture cannot be fully disentangled. This
out the life span, and minimally influenced by their cultural psychological conception of personality
environment. Indeed, contemporary perspectives presents some serious challenges in the measure-
consistent with this approach still exist (Buss & ment and cross-cultural examination of global per-
Plomin, 1975; Chess & Thomas, 1996; Eysenck, 1952; sonality, which we discuss in greater detail in later
McCrae, 2004). More recent modifications of earlier sections.
approaches began to consider the influence of one’s Personality researchers often use questionnaires
environment (socialization) on personality. Although (mostly self-report measures) to assess personality
these perspectives spurred research that considers and factor analytic statistical techniques to discern
the role of culture in personality, these perspectives the specific dimensions of the construct. The literature
still treated personality as somewhat independent of contains many measures of personality, but some of
culture. That is, culture and personality each still the best-known and most commonly used measures
contribute somewhat unique and interactive predic- are the Neuroticism–Extraversion–Openness Per-
tive power to understand behavioral outcomes. sonality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI–R; Costa &
The term trait, in contrast, is used to depict McCrae, 1992), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
behavioral tendencies that are considered primarily (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), the Big Five Inventory

286
 Personality Across Cultures

(John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), and the Minne- of personality and culture are available. See e.g.,
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Butcher, Levine, 2001 ; Piekkola, 2011). Briefly, Conscien-
Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). tiousness refers to an orientation toward persistent,
Other closely related, but perhaps less commonly goal-directed behaviors. Extraversion is defined as
used, measures are measures of temperament (includ- behaviors that seek social stimulation and affiliation
ing the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impul- with others. Neuroticism characterizes individuals
sivity Temperament Survey; Buss & Plomin, 1984), who are affectively reactive, anxious, hostile, and
the Child Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart, Ahadi, tense. The tendency to be accepting, curious, and
Hershey, & Fisher, 2001), and an observation mea- imaginative is referred to as Openness. Finally,
sure (Thomas et al., 1963). In addition, we should Agreeableness is characteristic of individuals who are
note that many other measures too numerous to dis- sympathetic, compassionate, warm, and kind. These
cuss assess individual personality traits. After several five constructs were empirically derived primarily
decades of research in psychology, personality remains from several large surveys across different nationali-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

one of the largest areas of research in the discipline. ties. In most studies, participants were college or
Common to most of these instruments, however, university students, and responses to the survey
is the assumption that personality is distinguishable were analyzed mostly via factor analytic techniques
from culture and context. As noted earlier, for example, (see Measurement Concerns section).
this implies that to better predict human behavior, Costa and McCrae (1994; McCrae, 2001; McCrae &
one could adopt a Person × Situation paradigm (for Costa, 1996) have repeatedly articulated their stance
a derivation of this approach to the Person × Person on their conception of personality and its link to
paradigm, see Carlo, Okun, Knight, & de Guzman, culture in several seminal articles. In their view, per-
2005; Knight, Johnson, Carlo, & Eisenberg, 1994). sonality is distinct from culture and independent of
In this approach, the researcher would perform any environmental influence. Personality is consid-
independent assessments of personality traits and of ered to be basic tendencies that are ­genetically deter-
social context and then examine their possible inter- mined and not distinguishable from ­temperament
active effects on behavior. Indeed, this approach became (McCrae, 2004). As in some conceptions of temper-
a widespread practice as psychologists attempted to ament, personality is considered transcultural—that
explain the often weak or nonsignificant relations is, consistent across cultural groups. McCrae and
between personality and behavior (see, e.g., Bem & Costa also asserted that personality traits do develop
Funder, 1978; Kenrick & Funder, 1988). This approach (at least through young adulthood), although devel-
is still used in contemporary personality research. opment stems from physical (internal) maturational
We now present a synopsis of research in one impor- processes.
tant area of cross-cultural research in personality—the According to these scholars, five-factor theory
work on the FFM (based primarily on the NEO PI–R). also proposes that personality helps to account for
As mentioned earlier, we limit ourselves to the FFM human universals that transcend cultural boundaries
because it is perhaps the most extensive theoretical (McCrae, 2000). Personality (the FFM) is thought
and measurement framework of personality. of as a structure that can be represented not only
in humans but in many other animal species as
well. That there may be different manifestations or
RESEARCH ON BIG FIVE PERSONALITY
expression of personality in different cultures does
DIMENSIONS ACROSS CULTURES
not deter from the basic human universal premise
The FFM consists of the constructs of Conscien- of the structure of personality (McCrae, 2004).
tiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, Indeed, as in the case of the universality of human
and Agreeableness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).1 language, the universal structure of personality can
(Excellent articles on the history and development be extracted from any natural language and thus

Excellent articles on the history and development of personality and culture are available. See, for example, Levine (2001) and Piekkola (2011).
1

287
 Carlo et al.

reflects the universality of personality (McCrae & expectations, McCrae et al. (2005) attributed the
John, 1992). findings to lower quality methodology. In addition,
Compatible with these assertions, McCrae and they suggested that the inconsistent findings were
Costa (1994) proposed that cultural differences may possibly because of the “developing” status of the
exert their influence at the level of characteristic people in those cultures and unfamiliarity with
adaptations. That is, people from different cultures Western measures (McCrae et al., 2005). These two
may express or manifest their basic personalities in explanations might explain the findings in some of
different ways to adapt to their cultural context. For these cultural groups; however, it seems an unlikely
example, people who are neurotic may show vulner- explanation for the findings in Puerto Rico. Puerto
ability to anxiety, but whether anxiety is expressed Rico is not only a Westernized cultural group (a
through biting their fingernails or sleeplessness or ­territory of the United States), but it is also a well-
binge eating will depend on the constraints or affor- industrialized society that has a Western-based
dances of one’s cultural environment. However, education system (thus, Puerto Ricans are likely
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

those adaptations are driven by the more basic per- familiar with Western-formatted measures).
sonalities of individuals (see also McAdams & Pals, Other research based on the FFM has focused on
2006). Therefore, apparent cultural differences across exploring cross-cultural differences in mean levels
groups are reflective of the same underlying Big Five of the Big Five. In general, findings have indicated
personality dimensions found in every culture. some cross-cultural mean-level differences in some
personality factors across some cultures. For exam-
Brief Review of Cross-Cultural Research ple, European Americans score higher on Extraver-
on the Five-Factor Personality Model sion than East Asians and Africans (McCrae et al.,
As surmised by Big Five theory, cross-cultural 2005). Other research has suggested that Japanese
research on personality has been conducted to are relatively low on Conscientiousness, Austrians
­examine the universality of the FFM. In sheer num- are relatively high on Openness to Experience,
ber of cultures included in FFM research, compara- Malaysians are relatively high on Agreeableness,
ble examples in the psychological literature are Spanish are relatively high on Neuroticism, and
few. Over the years, researchers worldwide have Norwegians are relatively extraverted (see McCrae,
amassed numerous samples from various countries 2002, for an overview). However, cross-cultural
to ­examine the psychometric properties of the mean-level differences in the Big Five do not directly
NEO PI, NEO PI–R, and the NEO PI self-report. address the question of universals in personality
In early studies of the FFM (using the NEO PI–R), because such differences are likely adaptations to
four (of the five) factors replicated in East Asian different cultural environments.
­cultures, including Japan, Hong Kong, and the Phil- Finally, in recent studies, Big Five scholars have
ippines (Bond, 1979; G. M. Guthrie & Bennett, presented evidence that cultural differences in Big
1971). Other studies yielded stronger evidence Five personality are not linked to stereotypes about
such that all five factors emerged in Turkish, different cultural groups. In these studies, research-
Korean, and Israeli cultures (Montag & Levin, 1994; ers have asked participants to describe the average
Piedmont & Chae, 1997; Somer & Goldberg, 1999). person from their own country (i.e., a national ste-
McCrae and Costa (1997) reported a similar factor reotype) and link the description to the average
structure in a sample of German, Portuguese, score on the NEO PI–R (e.g., McCrae et al., 2005;
Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese college stu- Realo et al., 2009). If self-ratings of personality are
dents. In an ambitious study of 50 different culture related to national stereotypes, then such findings
groups, researchers showed replicability of the Big might call into question the validity of those person-
Five factors across almost all the cultures except ality self-ratings. In one large study, investigators
Botswana, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Puerto Rico, found that people’s ratings of the typical personality
and Uganda (McCrae et al., 2005). Although results of people from their own country were not signifi-
in these latter cultures were not consistent with cantly associated with self-ratings of personality by

288
 Personality Across Cultures

people from their own country (Terracciano et al., for personality. To summarize, these conceptions of
2005 ). On the basis of this and other similar stud- relatively enduring person qualities that are biologi-
ies, these scholars asserted that national stereotypes cally (or genetically) based fit closely with some
are not based on accurate perceptions of the person- aspects of the Big Five. If the Big Five are really
ality of people of those nationalities (McCrae & ­temperament qualities, then one could raise questions
­Terracciano, 2006). However, in a recent study, about the exact number of basic personalities. Indeed,
Realo et al. (2009) found significant positive rela- some researchers have reported different factor solu-
tions between self-ratings and national stereotypes tions in different societies (Benet-Martínez & Waller,
in some countries (implying the national stereo- 1997; Church, 2000).
types were valid). Furthermore, these researchers Another concern raised by some scholars regards
found that views of national stereotypes were con- the elements of the Big Five dimensions and their
sistent over time, but views of one’s own personality constituents. For example, one implication of the
changed. Finally, they also found that people rated FFM is that the factors reflect cognitive and affective
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

themselves in a similar way to their ingroup nation elements, which are independent of overt behaviors
ratings (similar factor structures). Clearly, more so that the Big Five can be used to predict such
research is needed to further examine the relations actions (e.g., Johnson, 1997). This issue is important
between national stereotypes and personality ratings. because the orthogonality of cognitive, affective, and
To summarize, the research evidence to date has behavioral characteristics is central to explanatory
been remarkably consistent with the assertion that research (Cervone & Shoda, 1999). Although theoret-
personality is universal across human cultures. ical debate and discussion regarding the components of
However, notable exceptions to the findings call the Big Five exist, comparatively little research has
into question the validity of their assertions. More- directly examined the operational definition of the
over, several concerns have been raised regarding Big Five. In one study, however, investigators had
the interpretation of the findings, the methodologi- novices and experts rate four common Big Five
cal approach, and the strength of the accumulated inventories and demonstrated significant differences
evidence. In addition, in general the findings suggest in the ­operationalization of three of the five dimensions
that personality ratings are not associated with ratings with respect to items that were deemed cognitive,
of people, which suggests that personality ratings are ­affective, or behavioral (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, &
independent of nationality stereotypes. Dienstbier, 2002; see also Werner & Pervin, 1986).
Their findings provide a glimpse into inconsistencies
Conceptual and Methodological Concerns in the operational definition of the Big Five, which
Some theorists and researchers have raised concerns raises questions regarding the ability to test the uni-
about whether personality is really distinct from versality of the Big Five. If the operational definition
other temperament approaches. Indeed, the defini- of the Big Five has substantial variation, then exami-
tion and assumptions underlying the Big Five and nations of the universality assumption are limited by
several temperament theories are quite similar. For the specific definition used in specific assessments.
example, Kagan (2007) noted that the Big Five over- Of particular interest is the fact that cross-cultural
lap with the notion of behavioral inhibition and differences have been reported in the facets that make
emotionality (see also Rothbart’s two dimensions of up the Big Five factors. For example, some studies
temperament; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988). Simi- have shown that specific items load on different fac-
larly, Eysenck’s (1952) temperament framework tors across different cultures, and some items are
identified two broad dimensions, neuroticism–­ multivocal (load on multiple factors; e.g., McCrae &
stability and extraversion–introversion, that overlap Costa, 1997). Moreover, in some investigations, facets
significantly with aspects of the Big Five. Buss and also loaded on different factors in different cultures
Plomin (1975, 1984) asserted that emotionality, (e.g., McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus,
activity, and sociability (and in earlier conceptions, 1998; Piedmont & Chae, 1997). One may propose
impulsivity) are basic temperaments that account that such findings merely reflect cultural differences

289
 Carlo et al.

in characteristic adaptations (McCrae & Costa, reflected adequately in measures such as the
1994). However, at what point do these exceptional ­NEO-PI–R. Moreover, one would expect that inde-
findings become a real threat to the universality pendent conceptions of self might have more mean-
assumption? The tendency to confirm one’s expecta- ing and consequences for adjustment and well-being
tions by minimizing or explaining away contradic- among Westerners than among non-Westerners.
tory findings is a tendency that all scientists must Indeed, evidence has accumulated consistent with
confront. As the evidence on both sides of the this expectation. For example, researchers have dem-
assumption continues to mount, the threshold of onstrated that East Asians are less concerned with
evidence for and against the universality assumption self-enhancement than Westerners (see, e.g., Heine
will need to be addressed. In addition, how does one & Hamamura, 2007), and positive self-views are less
distinguish between the Big Five personality factors associated with outcomes among East Asians than
and characteristic adaptations? The reported differ- among North Americans (e.g., Diener & Diener,
ences (e.g., Pytlik Zillig et al., 2002 ) in how the Big 1995; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999).
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Five are operationally defined in existing measures Clearly, this area needs future research requiring a
such as the NEO PI–R blurs the distinction between more culturally sensitive approach to ensure more
the Big Five and characteristic adaptations. Without ecologically valid measures of personality.
a clearer conceptual and operational distinction, the
utility of the FFM is diminished. Measurement Concerns
The notion that research on personality has been A different set of implications for measuring person-
dominated by Western world belief systems that ality stems from the notion that personality is a
conceptualize the self as distinct from others has reflection of one’s culture. First, although personal-
been pointed out as a major limitation to personality ity can be assessed at a given point in development,
research. As noted earlier, traditional psychological its stability and expression is always subject to
conceptions of the self typically espouse the belief change from the cultural environment. Second,
that the self is a holistic entity separate from others ­cultural processes are reflected in personality
and its natural environment. In contrast, several ­assessments—therefore, personality measures are
scholars have noted that in some cultures (e.g., East necessarily sensitized to the cultural context in which
Asia, Africa), the self is viewed as interdependent on they were developed. Third, cultural processes can
others as well as sometimes related to one’s natural be assessed at a given point in development. Fourth,
world (e.g., Bell, 2002; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; personality measures should be developed and used
Triandis, 1989; Wong, 1984; see Berry, Phinney, with an understanding of the cultural biases and
Sam, & Vedder, 2006). In African cultures, for limitations from whence they originated. Fifth, fac-
example, the notion of personhood (or self) is con- tor analytic techniques can be useful in identifying
ceptualized as the individual inseparable from his general underlying personality traits and dimensions,
or her social role and community (Menkiti, 1984). but they are relatively weak statistical techniques to
A close examination of the definitions of the Big Five uncover cultural variations in personality. Sixth, to
factors has revealed little face validity with a defini- better capture the “personality in context” notion,
tion of self as construed by people from non-Western measures that are sensitive to the cultural context
cultures. The same is true at the operational level. are needed. The use of qualitative research methods
Most items from the NEO PI–R have no reference to (such as narratives, ethnographies, and semistructured
social roles, relationships with others, or the social interviews) can help address this latter objective.
context. Thus, one possible explanation for the dif- The first implication, that personality is in con­stant
ferent findings in the equivalence of the NEO PI–R flux, reflects the needed sensitivity to ­culture- related
across some cultures is the lack of cultural relevance changes resulting from history (cohort effects), the
in the personality items. level of personality development given the individu-
Of equal concern is the possibility that context- al’s developmental status, and the fact that such
specific aspects of personality are missing or not assessments provide a snapshot of an ­individual’s

290
 Personality Across Cultures

behavioral tendencies. Indeed, much has been writ- ­ easurement invariance may be indicative of mea-
m
ten about what an individual’s response to personal- surement equivalence if they expect important
ity assessment truly reflects—the challenge is often ­culture-specific differences in personality
that researchers are uncertain of the time frame of dimensions.
individuals’ responses. Because culture reflects Finally, the fifth and sixth implications directly
social context and time period, ­personality is a man- follow from the previous implications. Principal-
ifestation of both dimensions. ­However, researchers components analyses (the most common form of
often assume that such variation is negligible, factor analyses) using varimax rotation are designed
although there may be important exceptions. The to maximize one’s ability to uncover broad common
use of longitudinal methods can help address this dimensions, which necessarily leads to overinflating
issue (see Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). interrelations among items in personality instruments
The second, third, and fourth implications all and glossing over differences among the items. Thus,
highlight a central theme, namely that personality even when there are strong interrelations resulting
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

and culture can be assessed but are limited to the from shared method variance (common in self-report
context in which the measure originated. The fact questionnaire measures), such relations (and responses)
that most global measures of personality (including are interpreted as reflecting a true pattern of the
the NEO PI–R) were developed in the English lan- common underlying construct of interest. Indeed, we
guage and based on Western, industrialized sample would assert that this form of factor analysis is the
norms raises concerns about their ecological validity least sensitive approach to identifying possible culture-
for other culture groups. Researchers can examine level differences in personality. Researchers need to
whether such instruments have adequate reliability use more sophisticated analytical approaches that
and validity for use in other contexts, but without have the potential to identify differences in the factor
explicit examination of these psychometric proper- structure in some way other than simply eyeballing
ties, they must be cautious in the interpretation of the factor loading across groups. As noted earlier,
research findings across cultures. Several recent in prior research investigators compared varimax-
books and articles have been written on the impor- rotated factor solutions across cultural samples and
tance of examining and techniques to examine ethnic found general agreement in the loadings. However,
measurement equivalence (e.g., Byrne & van de those statistical techniques do not allow for a direct
Vijver, 2010; Knight, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, 2009; comparison of the model fit across those cultures
van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In essence, research- (see, e.g., Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010). Researchers
ers have developed relatively sophisticated tech- should be using confirmatory factor analysis because
niques to better ascertain the adequacy of personality this procedure provides a maximum likelihood sig-
measures for use with different cultural groups. nificance test as well as a number of practical fit
Hence, a variety of research approaches need to be indices for which there are established properties
taken to the study of culture and personality. and rules for evaluating the factor structure. Not
Researchers likely need much more qualitative only does confirmatory factor analysis allow a test of
research to understand what personality dimensions the degree to which the measure produces item-level
might be universal and whether culturally specific responses that conform to the theoretically specified
personality dimensions exist that affect the behavior personality theory, but by using multigroup confir-
of individuals in different cultural groups. Once this matory factor analysis one can obtain a significance
information is available, researchers need to begin test, and practical fit indicators, of the degree to
the empirical examination of the measurement which the item-level responses conform to the theo-
invariance of the instruments (e.g., Byrne & van de retical personality model across groups. Moreover,
Vijver, 2010; Knight et al., 2009) assessing those per- as noted by several scholars, the use of factor analyses
sonality dimensions. They then need to think about the to uncover broad dimensions reflects broad person-
measurement equivalence of these assessment ality dimensions across groups of people rather than
­procedures with the understanding that partial personality dimensions that apply to individuals

291
 Carlo et al.

(Cervone, Shadel, & Jencius, 2001). Thus, person- research for many years (R. V. Guthrie, 2004),
centered statistical approaches (e.g., latent class scholars have recently renewed the concerns and
analyses) may be better suited to more directly limitations of the strong biases introduced by an
addressing individual differences or similarities in overreliance on a relatively narrow methodology
personality than variable-centered approaches. (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). The need
The limitations created by different operational for future research in this area using much more
definitions of the Big Five also have implications for representative samples and methods is great.
assessing the convergent validity of personality Scholars have also pointed out other concerns in
instruments. Evidence of the convergent validity of cross-cultural comparisons of measures using Likert-
the NEO PI–R and other similar personality mea- type scales such as those used in the NEO PI–R (see
sures requires the examination of the correlations Heine & Buchtel, 2009). For example, some investi-
across different personality instruments designed to gators (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995; McCrae &
assess the same personality dimensions. In such Costa, 1992) have noted that people from different
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

studies, the findings have been mixed (see Heine & culture groups have tendencies to use certain parts
Buchtel, 2009). For example, in one study, the of a Likert-type scale (e.g., they do not use extreme
NEO PI–R and the Big Five Inventory (John et al., ends of such scales). Other scholars have noted that
1991) were administered to college students from people from different cultures might not apply
24 countries. John et al. (1991) asked college stu- equivalent standards when responding to the values
dents to rate the “typical” adolescent from their own in such scales (Fischer, 1995; Smith, 2004) or may
country. The investigators showed a median inter- interpret scale anchors in different ways across cul-
class correlation of the five factors of the NEO PI–R of tures (Knight et al., 2009). The challenge in cross-
only .48 (ranging from −.34–.77) across the cultures. cultural research is to demonstrate measurement
Furthermore, correlations across the NEO PI–R and equivalence at all levels of measurement (e.g., item,
the Big Five Inventory were moderate, and some scalar, construct, functional); unfortunately, such
were negatively associated (M = .28, range = −.27– evidence is often lacking (see Knight et al., 2009,
.45)—hardly strong evidence of convergent validity. for a thorough discussion of ethnic measurement
Thus, although multiple methods are desirable to bet- equivalence).
ter assess personality, such measures need to dem- How is personality development or change cap-
onstrate strong evidence of convergent validity. tured? Genetic studies have shown moderate levels
of heritability coefficients, suggesting large environ-
Other Methodological Concerns mental variance. We should note that evidence from
One of the most important concepts in scientific re­­ studies of other animal species (e.g., chimpanzees,
search is representativeness of the samples. In cross- dogs) has shown that several dimensions of the Big
cultural research, this issue is particularly important Five are evident (see Vazire, Gosling, Dickey, &
given the implications regarding the universality of Schapiro, 2007). However, animal studies (e.g.,
human phenomena. Most psychological research is ­Bennett et al., 2002; Lyons et al., 2010; Suomi, 2004)
limited by a lack of adequate representation and have also demonstrated an interplay of gene–
researchers’ limited ability to generalize beyond the environment influences in the expression of person-
specific study sample. However, a perusal of much of ality traits (e.g., aggression, dominance) that may be
the cross-cultural research into the FFM reveals mediated via neurogenetic processes or neuro­
that most studies use college students from different transmitters. Longitudinal studies have shown age-
cultures around the world. The strong reliance on related changes in personality traits and that such
college students places an undue burden of evidence changes are somewhat more prominent in younger
on extremely selective populations (especially in cohorts (see Roberts et al., 2006), suggesting insta-
countries with a low percentage of college-educated bility in personality across time. Indeed, the premise
people). Although the reliance on college students that personality is uniquely genetically determined
has been a known challenge in much psychological seems far fetched given the evidence that later

292
 Personality Across Cultures

b­ iological processes (brain growth spurts, pubertal Emic–Etic Approach to Personality

timing) and social experiences (e.g., training, stress One promising avenue is the use of methods that
exposure) can have a profound influence on person- integrate emic and etic approaches. In cultural
ality changes (Posner & Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, research, an emic approach reflects a focus on study-
2011). Finally, a strong genetic–determinism model ing phenomena within a culture system, whereas the
limits the malleability of personality to intervention etic approach refers to a focus on examining behavior
efforts, including clinical treatment programs. across culture systems (Berry et al., 2006). Fortu-
Finally, is it reasonable to expect that five nately, there are examples of such approaches that
broad personal dimensions can capture all of the provide promise for future cross-cultural research in
unique qualities of humans adequately? On the personality.
basis of the complexity of genetic and biological Cheung et al. (2008) have developed an emic–etic
processes alone, it seems difficult to conceive that approach to the study of personality. These scholars
all the unique complexities in human characteris- extensively considered elements and themes in Chi-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

tics can be adequately reflected in the FFM person- nese culture on the basis of literature reviews (e.g.,
ality dimensions. Temperament researchers have Chinese novels and proverbs; Chinese psychology
for years also grappled with identifying the basic references) and reviews of commonly used Western-
aspects of biologically based individual differences based personality instruments to design an instru-
(Goldsmith et al., 1987). Although several differ- ment to use with Chinese samples (Cheung et al.,
ent conceptions of temperament exist, there is 2008). On the basis of testing with samples from
general consensus regarding its basic features Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China, the
(Goldsmith et al., 1987). For example, most tem- investigators constructed and reported adequate
perament theorists have identified cognitive- and psychometric properties for the Chinese Personality
affective-based mechanisms (e.g., emotional reac- Assessment Inventory. In contrast to the FFM, these
tivity, self-regulation) that underlie overt behav- scholars reported a four-factor model (i.e., depend-
ioral expressions or personality characteristics ability, interpersonal relatedness, individualism,
(Buss & Plomin, 1984; Kagan, 2007; Rothbart, social potency). The Chinese Personality Assessment
2007). Despite the variety of approaches, most Inventory thus represents an indigenous–extrageneous
temperament theorists have acknowledged the approach to the development and validation of
influence of environmental forces that can modify personality.
and shape basic temperament (Chess & Thomas, A similar approach was undertaken by Benet-
1996; Kagan, 2005; Rothbart, 2011). The impor- Martínez and Waller (1997) in the development of
tance of acknowledging the interplay of biology a personality measure to use with a Spanish popula-
and environment helps account for the infinite tion. On the basis of an exhaustive review of terms
manifestations of individual difference qualities from an unabridged Spanish-language dictionary,
and, ultimately, also accounts for the possible trait terms were identified to form an inventory of
novel manifestations of human qualities designed personality. They then examined their indigenous
to adapt to changing conditions. personality instrument with a translated (into Span-
ish) version of a Big Five instrument. Their results
demonstrated seven factors rather than five that did
CURRENT AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
not easily correspond to the Big Five factors. Other
The preceding sections may lead researchers to researchers have reported findings that resulted in
believe that cross-cultural research in personality is qualitatively different factors, a different number
daunting. We do hope that the need for complex, of factors, or both in Filipino and Greek samples
culturally sensitive approaches is clear. Next, we (Church, 2000; Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousos, &
discuss two promising avenues for future research: Goldberg, 2005).
the emic–etic approach and the ecological trait In general, then, these indigenous-based studies
approach. yielded evidence that calls into question Big Five

293
 Carlo et al.

theory and the FFM. The emic–etic integrated meth- and can be distinguished from overt (physical)
odology represents culturally sensitive approaches behaviors. As noted by many scholars (e.g., Heine &
to the study of global notions of personality. Such Buchtel, 2009), the use of overt behaviors to assess
methodology will allow researchers to conduct personality results in conceptual (i.e., circular logic)
­powerful hypothesis testing within cultural groups and methodological confounds. The practice of
while also facilitating the use of standardized, objec- assessing cognitive- and emotion-based traits allows
tive measures to examine the generalizability of for a clearer conceptual distinction between traits
findings across cultures. and behaviors.
Biologically, humans are engineered to adapt
Ecological Trait Approach to changing environmental conditions, and their
Borrowing from social ecology theory (Bronfen- genetic makeup is programmed to derive countless
brenner, 1989) and cultural psychology (Edwards, possible physical, cognitive, emotional, and behav-
2002; Super & Harkness, 1997; Whiting & Whiting, ioral manifestations. However, changing environ-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1975), another approach to studying personality is ments also require traits that allow individuals to
to examine traits in a more behavior-specific manner adapt to those changing conditions. As we noted
within cultural ecologies. That is, rather than pursue earlier, for several scholars the interplay of biological
global traits (as in the FFM, e.g.), consider more and environmental forces shapes and modifies traits.
narrow, specific personality traits or characteristics In some cultures, specific traits may be more common
that may be behavior specific and culturally relevant than other specific traits, corresponding to the adap-
(akin to an emic approach). In this approach, several tive value of those traits. In other cases, some traits
assumptions are adopted: (a) Traits are behavior are commonly found across various cultures, espe-
specific; (b) traits can be cognitive based, emotion cially in cultures with similar ecological characteristics.
based, or both; (c) traits are both biologically and In these cases, cross-cultural comparisons are feasi-
culturally shaped; (d) the development of trait mea- ble. Thus, traits are both biologically and ecologically
sures can be culturally bound; and (e) there are shaped, the developmental manifestation of traits can
cross-cultural group similarities in and differences be culture specific, and both cross-cultural similari-
between traits. ties and differences in traits are possible.
The ecological trait approach, then, is a culturally The hypothesis that traits are ecologically
sensitive extension of the traditional trait approach. bounded and behavior specific allows for a fuller
Although this approach raises the possibility of the understanding and stronger predictive power of
study of thousands of traits, we believe this approach individual differences in human behavior. Indeed,
more adequately reflects the complexity of the human– this approach is compatible with the majority of
culture link. Biologically, humans are engineered to research on personality that does not use a global
adapt to changing environmental conditions, and conception of personality (see Funder, 1991, for a
their genetic makeup is programmed to derive count- discussion of global vs. narrow conceptions of per-
less possible physical, cognitive, emotional, and sonality). One major challenge for the trait approach
behavioral manifestations. The search for a simple is the systematic development of measures of traits
(e.g., five-factor) understanding of personality leads that originate from ecologies other than those traits
researchers to severely restricted manifestations of found in Western industrialized societies. Some
human character. Furthermore, reducing personality examples of traits that appear to be nonuniversal
to a few major dimensions across all human cultures are, for example, the notion of nervios (i.e., a wide-
creates a serious challenge to adequately accounting ranging, somatic response to stress that includes
for novel adaptations to (both biological and social) panic, psychotic symptoms, angina, and mood
evolutionary-based changes. swing; Livanis & Tryon, 2010), bien educado (i.e., a
The second theorem addresses the distinction cultured, well-mannered person; Carlo & de Guzman,
between traits and behaviors. Traits can be consid- 2009 ) and li (i.e., Confucian concept that endears
ered either cognitively based or emotionally based contributions to the shared life of the community;

294
 Personality Across Cultures

Wong, 1984). As researchers turn their attention to As psychologists turn their attention more and
the use of emic-oriented methodologies (including more to the role of culture in understanding human
the use of narratives, ethnographies, and focus behavior, a growing trend is to attend to theoretical
groups), the possibilities for more ecologically valid perspectives from other social science disciplines.
conceptions of personality traits will be enhanced. Multidisciplinary approaches will be necessary to
One example of research in this vein is that con- adequately address the challenges and questions yet
ducted by Knight et al. (2010) on Mexican Ameri- to be answered. With these inevitable changes,
can youths and adults. These investigators conducted diverse methodologies (e.g., narratives, ethnogra-
focus groups with Mexican Americans to identify phies) will need to be used to better conceptualize
the major values associated with their cultural and operationalize the links between personality and
group. Then, on the basis of extensive coding of the culture. To more fully understand the role of per-
qualitative data, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire sonality in human behavior, we identified two
was developed to assess these traits. Their research promising avenues of research in personality: the
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

resulted in the identification of four values associ- emic–etic and the ecological trait approaches. Both
ated with Mexican Americans: familism (includes approaches use culturally sensitive methodologies to
three subdimensions), respeto (i.e., respect), reli- study personality traits, although the emic–etic
giousness, and traditional gender roles. (Three addi- approach searches for global conceptions of person-
tional values associated with mainstream U.S. ality, whereas the ecological trait approach targets
culture were also identified: self-reliance, material the identification of more narrow personal charac-
success, and personal achievement.) Various tests of teristics. Such efforts are likely to expand the under-
the psychometric properties of the measure were standing of human endeavors and to result in more
conducted to examine its internal consistency and complex and comprehensive theories of psychologi-
validity, including confirmatory factor analyses cal functioning. The summative result will no doubt
(Knight et al., 2010). In subsequent research, these lead to a fuller appreciation and a more holistic
and other scholars have found predicted links understanding of human behaviors.
between specific Mexican American cultural values
and different behavioral outcomes (Armenta, References
Knight, Carlo, & Jacobson, 2010; Calderón-Tena, Armenta, B. E., Knight, G. P., Carlo, G., & Jacobson, R. P.
Knight, & Carlo, 2011). Although some cultural (2011). The relation between ethnic group attachment
values may be equally endorsed in other cultural and prosocial tendencies: The mediating role of eth-
ecologies, some values may be strongly endorsed in nically related cultural values. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 41, 107–115. doi:10.1002/ejsp.742
specific cultures. Moreover, some cultural values
Bell, R. H. (2002). Understanding African philosophy: A
may conceivably have little, or no, cultural meaning
cross-cultural approach to classical and contemporary
in some ecologies. issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Further
evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
big seven factor model: Indigenous and imported
Personality and cross-cultural research have a long Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality,
65, 567–598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00327.x
tradition in the psychological sciences. In this chap-
Bennett, A. J., Lesch, K. P., Heils, A. A., Long, J. C.,
ter, we provided a brief overview of cross-cultural
Lorenz, J. G., Shoaf, S. E., . . . Higley, J. D. (2002).
research in the FFM. Although we focused on Big Early experience and serotonin transporter gene
Five theory and FFM methodologies, the lessons variation interact to influence primate CNS function.
learned are relevant to understanding the roles of Molecular Psychiatry, 7, 118–122. doi:10.1038/
sj.mp.4000949
personality and culture in understanding humans.
In short, the evidence has demonstrated substantial Bern, D. J., & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more
of the people more of the time: Assessing the per-
commonalities across many cultures but, at the same sonality of situations. Psychological Review, 85,
time, some differences are apparent as well. 485–501. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.6.485

295
 Carlo et al.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J., Leung, K.,
(2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, Leong, F., & Huiyeh, K. (2008). Relevance of open-
and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303–332. ness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 81–108.
doi:10.1177/0022022107311968
Bond, M. H. (1979). Dimensions of personality used in
perceiving peers: Cross-cultural comparisons of Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward
Hong Kong, Japanese, American, and Filipino uni- an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal
versity students. International Journal of Psychology, of Personality, 68, 651–703. doi:10.1111/1467-
14, 47–56. doi:10.1080/00207597908246711 6494.00112
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and
In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: change in personality from adolescence through
Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 185–246). adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, &
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of
­temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of
(pp. 139–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
personality development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect,

Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early
and attention as components of temperament.
developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ:. Erlbaum.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, 958–966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.958
A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural cor-
Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI–2): Manual for
relates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal
administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.
of Minnesota Press.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653
Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for
Edwards, C. (2002). Evolving questions and comparative
measurement and structural equivalence in large-
perspectives in cultural/historical research. Human
scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of
Development, 45, 307–311. doi:10.1159/000064994
non-equivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10,
107–132. doi:10.1080/15305051003637306 Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of personality.
London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Calderón-Tena, C. O., Knight, G. P., & Carlo, G. (2011).
The socialization of prosocial behaviors among Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). The Eysenck
Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism. Personality Questionnaire. London, England: Hodder &
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, Stroughton.
98–106. doi:10.1037/a0021825
Fischer, G. H. (1995). Some neglected problems in IRT.
Carlo, G., Okun, M., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. Psychometrika, 60, 459–487. doi:10.1007/BF02294324
T. (2005). Prosocial value motivation as a mediator
Freud, S. (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud
and moderator of the relations between agreeable-
(A. A. Brill, Trans.). New York, NY: Modern Library.
ness, extraversion and volunteering. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1293–1305. doi:10.1016/j. Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian
paid.2004.08.012 approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2,
31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00093.x
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-
cognitive theory of personality assessment. Personality Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., & Rothbart,
and Social Psychology Review, 5, 33–51. doi:10.1207/ M. K. (1987). What is temperament? Four
S15327957PSPR0501_3 approaches. Child Development, 58, 505–529.
doi:10.2307/1130527
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social-cognitive theo-
ries and the coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Guthrie, G. M., & Bennett, A. B. (1971). Cultural
Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social– differences in implicit personality theory.
cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organi- International Journal of Psychology, 6, 305–312.
zation (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi:10.1080/00207597108246697
Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response Guthrie, R. V. (2004). Even the rat was white: A historical
style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales review of psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
among East Asian and North American students. Education.
Psychological Science, 6, 170–175. doi:10.1111/ Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The
j.1467-9280.1995.tb00327.x universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory of Psychology, 60, 369–394. doi:10.1146/annurev.
and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. psych.60.110707.163655

296
 Personality Across Cultures

Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East adult monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy
Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social of Sciences of the United States of America, 107,
Psychology Review, 11, 4–27. doi:10.1177/ 14823–14827.
1088868306294587 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
(1999). Is there a universal need for positive motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766 Mbiti, J. (1969). African religions and philosophy. London,
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The England: Heinemann.
weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big 5:
Sciences, 33, 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09991 Fundamental principles for an integrative science
52X of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: McCrae, R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival
University of California, Berkeley, Institute of of personality and culture studies. American
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Personality and Social Research. Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10–31. doi:10.1177/000276400

Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description 21956062
and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture:
Johnson, S. R. Briggs, R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychol- Personality, 69, 819–846. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.
ogy (pp. 73–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 696166
doi:10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50004-4
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO PI–R data from 36 cultures:
Kagan, J. (2007). A trio of concerns. Perspectives on Further intercultural comparisons. In R. R. McCrae &
Psychological Science, 2, 361–376. doi:10.1111/ J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personal-
j.1745-6916.2007.00049.x ity across cultures (pp. 105–125). New York, NY:
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_6
controversy: Lessons from the person–situation McCrae, R. R. (2004). Human nature and culture: A trait
debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34. doi:10.1037/ perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
0003-066X.43.1.23 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.009
Knight, G. P., Gonzales, N. A., Saenz, D. S., Bonds, D., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait
German, M., Deardorff, J., . . . Updegraff, K. A. (2010). structure as a human universal. American Psycho­
The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for logist, 52, 509–516. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
­adolescents and adults. Journal of Early Adolescence,
30, 444–481. doi:10.1177/0272431609338178 McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction
to the five-factor model its applications. Journal of
Knight, G. P., Johnson, L. G., Carlo, G., & Eisenberg, N. Personality, 60, 175–215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.
(1994). The multiplicative relations of cognitive 1992.tb00970.x
and affective antecedents to prosocial behavior:
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2006). National character
Predicting more of the people more of the time.
and personality. Current Directions in Psychological
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
Science, 15, 156–161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.
178–183. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.178
00427.x
Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 members of the
(2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005).
disadvantaged populations: Methodological challenges
Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality
and best practices. Washington, DC: American
traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11887-000
407–425. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407
LeVine, R. A. (2001). Culture and personality studies,
McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., &
1918–1960: Myth and history. Journal of Personality,
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality
69, 803–818. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696165
profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation,
Livanis, A., & Tryon, G. (2010). The development of and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates.
the Adolescent Nervios Scale: Preliminary findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 1041–1055. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.1041
9–15. doi:10.1037/a0014905
Menkiti, I. (1984). Person and community in African
Lyons, D. M., Buckmaster, P. S., Lee, A. G., Wu, C., ­traditional thought. In R. A. Wright (Ed.), African
Mitra, R., Duffey, L. M., & Schatzberg, A. F. (2010). philosophy, an introduction (3rd ed., pp. 171–181).
Stress coping stimulates hippocampal neurogenesis in New York, NY: University Press of America.

297
 Carlo et al.

Montag, I., & Levin, J. (1994). The five-factor personal- Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as
ity model in applied settings. European Journal of an aspect of cultural communication style.
Personality, 8, 1–11. doi:10.1002/per.2410080102 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50–61.
doi:10.1177/0022022103260380
Piedmont, R. L., & Chae, J. (1997). Cross-cultural gen-
eralizability of the five-factor model of personality: Somer, O., & Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The structure
Development and validation of the NEO PI-R for of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives. Journal of
Koreans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 431–450.
131–155. doi:10.1177/0022022197282001 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.431
Piekkola, B. (2011). Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian Suomi, S. J. (2004). Aggression, serotonin, and gene-
perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical environment interactions in rhesus monkeys. In J. T.
Psychology, 31, 2–24. doi:10.1037/a0022478 Cacioppo & G. G. Berntson (Eds.), Essays in social
neuroscience (pp. 15–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Genes and Press.
environment. In M. I. Posner & M. K. Rothbart
(Eds.), Educating the human brain (pp. 99–119). Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1997). The cultural structur-
Washington, DC: American Psychological ing of child development. In J. W. Berry, P. Dasen &
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Association. doi:10.1037/11519-005 T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural

psychology: Vol. 2. Basic processes and human develop-
Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. ment (pp. 1–39). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
(2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5
trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, Terracciano, A., & 86 members of the Personality Profiles
and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 of Cultures Project. (2005). National character
personality inventories. Personality and Social does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858. doi:10.1177/ ­cultures. Science, 310, 96–100. doi:10.1126/
0146167202289013 science.1117199
Realo, A., Allik, J., Lonngvist, J., Verkasalo, M., Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in
Kwiatkowska, A., Koots, L., . . . Renge, V. (2009). differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96,
Mechanisms of the national character stereotype: 506–520. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506
How people in six neighbouring countries of Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences
Russia describe themselves and the typical Russian. on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
European Journal of Personality, 23, 229–249. 133–160. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
doi:10.1002/per.719 135200
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2001). Personality
Patterns of mean level change in personality traits in cultural context: Methodological issues. Journal
across the life course: A meta-analysis of longi- of Personality, 69, 1007–1031. doi:10.1111/1467-
tudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. 6494.696173
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Vazire, S., Gosling, S. D., Dickey, A. S., & Schapiro, S. J.
Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: Temperament (2007). Measuring personality in nonhuman ani-
and personality in development. New York, NY: mals. In R. W. Robins, R. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger
Guilford Press. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. psychology (pp. 190–206). New York, NY: Guilford
(2001). Investigations of temperament at three Press.
to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Werner, P. D., & Pervin, L. A. (1986). The con-
Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. tent of personality inventory items. Journal of
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00355 Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 622–628.
Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousos, I., & Goldberg, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.622
L. R. (2005). The factor structure of Greek per- Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of
sonality adjectives. Journal of Personality and six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge,
Social Psychology, 88, 856–875. doi:10.1037/0022- MA: Harvard University Press.
3514.88.5.856

298