Stress & Cultural Differences in Self-Concept PDF

Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain the recorder and concertina. I have a taste for the unique. I am very friendly and in most situations very self- confident. (Markus & Kitayama, 1998, p. 63) I cannot decide quickly...

Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain the recorder and concertina. I have a taste for the unique. I am very friendly and in most situations very self- confident. (Markus & Kitayama, 1998, p. 63) I cannot decide quickly what I should do, and am often swayed by other people’s opinions, and I cannot oppose the opinions of people who are supposed to be respected because of age or status. Even if I have displeasure, I compromise myself to the people around me without getting rid of the displeasure. Also, I am concerned about how other people think about me. (p. 64) Notice the different themes that run through the self-descriptions of these two individuals. The North American student tends to use global and largely context-free trait descriptions, such as friendly, self-confident, and happy. The Japanese student tends to use self-descriptions that are embedded in a social context, such as responding to elders or those who are higher in status and even using the social group as a method of calming down. These illustrate the themes of independent and interdependent self-construal. Independence, or individualism, is characterized by a self-concept as autonomous, stable, coherent, and free from the influences of others. Interdependence, or collectivism, is characterized by a self-concept as connected, interpersonally flexible, and committed to being bound to others (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Is there empirical evidence that the way in which we define ourselves—something so fundamental to personality—depends on the culture in which we reside? Using the Twenty Statements Test, researchers have discovered that North American participants tend to describe themselves using abstract internal characteris- tics, such as smart, stable, dependable, and open-minded (Rhee et al., 1995). Asian participants, in contrast, more often describe themselves using social roles, such as “I am a daughter” or “I am Jane’s friend” (Ip & Bond, 1995). Another study administered a variation of the Twenty Statements Test to samples of Chinese adolescents who immigrated to Canada and Chinese adolescents born in Canada (Lay & Verkuyten, 1999). The study was designed to examine the role of culture in self-concept and self-esteem, but with one additional question of interest: Do Canadians with Chinese heritage have a self-concept that is different, and more “Canadian,” than Chinese residents who have immigrated here? The results were conclusive. The Chinese ad- olescents who immigrated to Canada were more likely to label themselves as “Chinese” rather than “Chinese Canadian” compared to Canadian-born adolescents, suggesting that they were more likely to see themselves as separate from Canadian culture. Those born in China were also more likely to make refer- ence to their ethnicity in the questionnaire. In line with interdependence and a collectiv- istic cultural orientation, the personal self- A family who recently immigrated from China uses a dog sled as esteem of immigrated participants was closely a toboggan at the winter festival in Cannington, Ontario. After tied to positive evaluations of their ethnic entering a new culture, acculturation is the process of adopting group, or what is referred to as collective self- the ways of life and beliefs common in that culture. esteem. In other words, the well-being of the ©Jill Morgan/Alamy Stock Photo 544 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 544 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality group played an important role in the self-esteem of foreign-born participants. For those born in Canada, personal self-esteem was independent of collective self-esteem. Overall, findings support an emphasis on internal characteristics among Canadian-born Chinese and on group membership among Chinese who have immigrated to Canada (Lay & Verkuyten, 1999). Even within ethnic groups, cultural context over the lifespan has a major influence on the development of self-concept, probably from a very early age. Another study asked Japanese and North American university students to complete the Twenty Statements Test in four social contexts: alone, with a friend, in a classroom with other students, and in a professor’s office (Cross et al., 1995). The Japanese university students tended to describe themselves in all four conditions using preferences (e.g., “I like frozen yogurt”) and context-dependent activities (e.g., “I like to listen to music on the weekends”). The North American students, as in previous studies, more often used abstract, context- independent trait terms, such as friendly and assertive. Furthermore, the Japanese students, but not the North American students, tended to characterize themselves differently in different contexts. In the professor’s office, for example, Japanese students described themselves as “good students,” but they did not mention this role in the other three contexts. The North American students’ responses tended to be more constant across different contexts. A similar study examined how frequently Japanese and European American students endorsed a variety of attributes as descriptive of themselves (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). A full 84 percent of the Japanese students described themselves as ordinary, whereas only 18 percent of the American students used this self-description. Conversely, 96 percent of the Americans described themselves as special, whereas only 55 percent of the Japanese described themselves with this term (see Table 17.1). Table 17.1 Most Frequently Endorsed Attributes (“I Am”) EUROPEAN AMERICANS JAPANESE Attribute Percentage of Responses Attribute Percentage of Responses Responsible 100% Happy 94% Persistent 100 Fun-loving 94 Cooperative 98 Relaxed 92 Special 96 Direct 92 Happy 95 Assertive 90 Unique 95 Laid-back 86 Fun-loving 93 Calm 86 Sympathetic 93 Free-spirited 86 Hardworking 93 Undisciplined 84 Ambitious 93 Ordinary 84 Reliable 93 Independent 93 Source: Adapted from Markus & Kitayama (1998), p. 79, Table 1. 545 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 545 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain This theme of standing out and being unique versus fitting in and going along with the group is seen in the folk sayings of North American and Japanese cultures. In North American culture, people sometimes say “The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” signifying that standing out and asserting oneself as an individual is the way to pursue one’s interests. In Japan, it is sometimes said that “the nail that stands out gets pounded down,” which suggests that the North American social strategy would fail in Japan. These themes even show up in language usage. Those with an interdependent/collectivist orientation tend to use “we,” whereas those with an independent/individualistic orientation tend to use “I” (Na & Choi, 2009). These cultural differences may be linked to the ways in which people process information. Japanese, compared with North Americans, tend to explain events in a holistic way—with attention to relationships, context, and the links between the focal object and the field as a whole (Nisbett et al., 2001). North Americans, in contrast, tend to explain events in an analytic way—with the object detached from its context, attributes of objects or people assigned to categories, and a reliance on rules about the categories to explain behaviour. When watching animated scenes of fish swimming around, for example, the Japanese made more statements than did the North Americans about contextual information, linking the behaviour of the fish to their surroundings (Masuda & Nisbett, 2001). Thus, the cultural differences in the personality attributes of independence– interdependence may be linked to underlying cognitive proclivities in the ways in which individuals attend to, and explain, events in their world. What happens when people leave one cultural context to live in another? Do they shift their perspective and develop self-concepts more similar to those of the adopted culture? For example, in the study of Chinese adolescents who immigrated to Canada, would we expect their self-concept to become more similar to that of Canadians over time, compared to those living in China? This process of adapting to the ways of life in one’s new culture is called acculturation. In examination of the acculturation phenomenon, one study administered the Twenty Statements Test to samples of Asians in Seoul, Korea; to Asian Americans in New York City; and to European Americans in New York City (Rhee et al., 1995). Researchers were further interested in the extent to which identity with one’s culture affected acculturation. In other words, did having a strong American identity enhance acculturation, compared to maintaining a strong Asian identity? Indeed this seemed to be the case. The Asian Americans living in New York who did not self-identify as Asian described themselves using highly abstract and autono- mous self-statements, similar to the responses of European Americans residing in New York. In contrast, New York–dwelling Asians who identified themselves as Asian used more socially embedded self-descriptions that were far more similar to Chinese respondents. They often referred to themselves by describing their role status (e.g., student) and their family status (e.g., son). Moreover, they were more likely to include contextual information in their self-descriptions. It is also reasonable to consider that acculturation may produce changes in self-reported levels of the Big Five traits. To investigate this, Güngör and colleagues (2013) collected Big Five ratings of Japanese Americans and compared them to two groups: European Americans and residents of Japan. Correlations among the groups on individual Big Five traits were then examined, along with responses to a questionnaire that specifically asked about degree of involvement in American culture. The findings support an effect of acculturation on the Big Five traits. Higher participation in American culture was associated with personal- ity profiles that were more American and less Japanese. On average, Japanese Americans became lower in both neuroticism and conscientiousness and higher in openness as they reported greater participation in American culture. 546 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 546 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality In sum, there is empirical support for the claim that people in different cultures have different self-concepts. Presumably, these different self-concepts are transmitted through parents and teachers to children. Additionally, there is some support for the idea that people change their self-concept upon moving to a new culture, in such a way that they become more similar to that new culture over time. For some members of a given society, self- concept and identity as they pertain to culture can be very different from those of the general population. Considerations regarding self-concept and cultural identity in Indigenous Canadians specifically are explored further in Highlight on Canadian Research: Cultural Identity Clarity in Indigenous Peoples of Canada. Criticisms of the Interdependence–Independence and Collectivist– Individualist Concepts Several authors have criticized the theory that Western self-construal is independent, whereas Asian self- construal is interdependent, both on theoretical and evidentiary grounds. Matsumoto (1999) and Church (2009) contend that the evidence for the theory comes almost exclusively from North America and East Asia (notably, Japan) and may not generalize to other cultures. Furthermore, there is far more overlap in the self- concepts of people from different cultures than Markus and Kitayama imply. Many individuals in collectivist cultures, for example, do use global traits (e.g., agreeable, fun-loving) when describing themselves. Many in individualist cultures use relational concepts (e.g., “I am the daughter of...”) when describing themselves. The cultural differences are more a matter of degree. On theoretical grounds, Church (2000) notes that “attempts to characterize cultures of individuals in terms of such broad cultural dichotomies may be overly simplistic” (p. 688). Views of the self in all cultures appear to incorporate both independent and interdependent self-construals, and self-concepts in all cultures vary somewhat across social contexts. A meta-analysis of dozens of studies suggests even more caution in generalizing about cultural differences in individualism and collectivism (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002a). It found that although European Americans tended to be somewhat more individualistic (valuing independence) and less collectivistic (valuing interdependence) than those from some other cultures, the effect sizes proved to be small and qualified by impor- tant exceptions. European Americans were not more individualistic than either African Americans or Latinos, for example. Nor were European Americans less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans—two cultures presumed to anchor one end of the interdependence continuum. Indeed, the Chinese, rather than the Japanese or Koreans, stood out as being unusually collectivistic and nonindividualistic in self-concept. Still other studies have found little support for the influence of transmitted culture on self-concept. One study of two individualistic (United States, Australia) and two collectivistic (Mexico, Philippines) cultures found that (1) people in all four cultures described themselves in trait terms with a high level of frequency; and (2) people in all four cultures mentioned personal rather than social or collective identity to be more important to their sense of self (del Prado et al., 2007). Furthermore, characterizations such as independent–interdependent have been criticized on the grounds that they are too general (Chen & West, 2008), combining different kinds of social relationships and ignoring the context- specificity in which they are expressed (Fiske, 2002). Canadians, for example, may be individualistic and indepen- dent while playing computer games, but interdependent while with their families or participating in social events. Despite these criticisms, there are real differences across cultures, and these must be explained. Most researchers have assumed that cultural differences in dimensions such as independence–interdependence are instances of transmitted culture—ideas, attitudes, and self-concepts that are passed from one mind to another within a culture, down through the generations. Others have proposed a different explanation involving 547 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 547 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain evolutionary psychology and evoked culture (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002b). They hypothesize that humans have evolved psychological mechanisms for both types of self-concepts and can switch from one mode to another, depending on fitness advantages. Specifically, when one’s group is low in mobility, is limited in resources, and has many relatives in close proximity, it has paid survival dividends to be highly collectivistic and interdependent. One’s genetic relatives, often the recipients of these collectivist proclivities, tend to benefit. On the other hand, when mobility is high and people move frequently from place to place, when resources are relatively abundant, and when few genetic relatives live close by, it has paid survival dividends to adopt a more individualistic and independent proclivity. This hypothesis is best summed up by its authors: “Thus, an evolutionary perspective suggests both the ‘basicness’ of independent and interdependent process- ing as well as the likelihood that all social systems are inhabited by individuals who can do both and draw on one or the other depending on their immediate contexts” (Oyserman et al., 2002b, p. 116). Future research will explore this fascinating fusion of evolutionary psychology and cultural psychology (e.g., Henrich, 2015). A Third Type of Self-Construal? Canadian researchers Mirella Stroink of Lakehead University and Teresa DeCicco of Trent University have proposed a third type of self-definition: a metapersonal self-construal, which involves the representation of the self within a much broader context, such as the global community, humankind, the planet, or the cosmos. Those high in metapersonal self-construal may see themselves not simply as a sibling or a parent, for instance, but rather as a member of the human race. Similarly, a metapersonal definition of the self may involve one’s place in the universe or one’s connection to other living beings. According to DeCicco & Stroink (2007), this is similar to William James’s (1902/1999) earlier notion of a spiritual self, in which the boundary between the self and the environment vanishes and one experiences a feeling of unity with all things. It is further characteristic of many Eastern views, including those attributable to Buddhist philosophy. The implications of this particular self-concept were revealed in a 2007 study in which metapersonal self- construal demonstrated a significant association with environmental concern and pro-environmental behaviour. It appears that the interpretation of oneself as connected to all things results in a biospheric value orientation, which focuses on the inherent value of the environment beyond the rights of any one species (Arnocky, Stroink, & DeCicco, 2007). In a follow-up study by Davis and Stroink (2016), the link between metapersonal self-construal and both a biospheric value orientation and pro-environmental behaviours was confirmed. In a sample of Canadian university students, biospheric values again mediated the relationship between metapersonal self- construal and greater tendencies towards conservation and environmental concern. Feelings of connectedness to nature, a new variable investigated by Stroink and her team, appeared to play a similar role. It too seems to result from a higher metapersonal self-definition and in turn contributes to pro-environmental behaviour. As suggested by Hanley and colleagues (2017), a metapersonal self may further reflect a selfless self-concept, in which identity is anchored in elements of existence that extend beyond the individual. Highlight on Canadian Research Cultural Identity Clarity in Indigenous Peoples of Canada Canada is often referred to as a cultural mosaic, consisting of people with diverse cultural backgrounds from around the world. Its policy of multiculturalism, established in 1971, has attempted to maintain diversity in languages, cultural attitudes, and traditions. What does this mean for personality, including 548 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 548 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality self-concept and identity? In general, Canada scores fairly high on individualistic cultural orientation, similar to other Western nations like the United States—though the United States is higher still (Hofstede, 2001). On average, Canadians tend to describe themselves in relatively independent terms, yet there are significant differences by region and subculture. The province of Quebec, for example, is more collectivistic than other provinces, presumably due to its French heritage (MacNab et al., 2007). Despite great diversity in beliefs and practices among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis cultures, Indigenous peoples of Canada also tend to be collectivistic in their cultural orientation, and by extension, more interdependent than non-Indigenous Canadians (O’Neill, 2017). Indeed, this tends to be the case for Indigenous cultures around the world (Fryberg & Markus, 2003). The Canadian Constitution originally defined three groups of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, now referred to as Indigenous peoples: First Nations (originally referred to as Indian), which include over 600 recognized cultures or bands across Canada (with a population of over 977,000 according to Statistics Canada, 2016). Inuit, a unique cultural group who live in the Northern territories of Canada, as well as Alaska, Greenland, Russia, and Denmark (with a Canadian population of 65,000 according to Statistics Canada, 2016). Métis, who are descendants of unions between early European settlers and Indigenous people and live primarily in Manitoba and the Prairies (with a population of over 587,000 according to Statistics Canada, 2016). Though First Nations, Inuit, and Métis cultures are diverse, they share common historical experiences of European settlement and colonialism (Green, 2009). European colonization of what is now Canada be- gan in the 17th century. It involved a number of highly stressful and traumatic events for existing Indigenous populations, many of whom had lived on the continent for over 10,000 years. Critical events included the outlawing of Indigenous gatherings, ceremonies, and other cultural practices; forced community relocation to designated reserves, on which approximately half of First Nations people still live; mandatory residential school attendance for Indigenous children, who were forcibly separated from their families and forbidden to speak their own language; social, medical, and legal forms of discrimina- tion that persist today; intentional malnourishment, medical testing, and withholding of medical care; and the introduction of new diseases that resulted in the deaths of thousands (Allan & Smylie, 2015; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 2010). It is estimated that Indigenous people in Canada experienced a 60 percent reduction in effective population size due to factors associated with European colonization (Lindo et al., 2016). These events had lasting effects on the health and well-being of Indigenous cultures, undermining not only mental health but also cultural identity (Kirmayer, Brass, & Tait, 2000; Taylor & de la Sablonnière, 2014). Cultural identity refers to a person’s sense of belonging to a particular culture or group. Today, there is evidence that Indigenous communities in Canada maintain a collectivistic orientation despite living within a broader individualistic cultural context (Medd, 2010). Indigenous identity is one which em- phasizes connections among individuals and between the individual and the community; indeed, the primary source of identity for most Indigenous people today is their community, band, or nation, in which the individual is seen as embedded. This is typically prioritized over personal identity or identity within a Canadian context. Indigenous identity is further rooted in a sense of belonging to a particular time and place, highlighting the importance of both history and community, as well as land and nature, in self- concept (Frideres, 2008; Green, 2009; Wright Cardinal, 2017). Such qualities reflect a self-construal that is both highly interdependent and metapersonal in nature (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007). On both individual and community levels, the ability to maintain a clear sense of cultural identity has nevertheless been severely challenged, not only due to the historical events associated with coloniza- tion but also persisting experiences of discrimination in Canada (Allan & Smylie, 2015; Taylor & de la 549 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 549 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Sablonnière, 2014; Usborne & Taylor, 2010). As highlighted by Chandler, Lalonde, and Sokol (2000), In- digenous people literally had their culture criminalized; today, it continues to be highly stigmatized and marginalized by non-Indigenous Canadians (Allan & Smylie, 2015). The ongoing mistreatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada can be seen in events such as the Sixties Scoop, a period lasting from the 1950s to the 1980s in which approximately 20,000 Indigenous children were removed from their homes and placed in government care (Wright Cardinal, 2017); and more recently, the more than 1,000 Indigenous women and girls across Canada who have gone missing or were murdered since 1980 at a rate that is considerably higher than what is seen in the general population (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019). Collectively, such experiences have compro- mised clarity of both self-concept and cultural identity (Lalonde, 2006; Taylor & de la Sablonnière, 2014; Usborne & Taylor, 2010). According to Taylor and de la Sablonnière (2014), it is not simply a mismatch between Indigenous and European cultures that has resulted in this lack of clarity. Rather, it is the direct and pervasive attack on Indigenous identity that is to blame. Such direct efforts to restrict, degrade, and extinguish Indigenous culture have resulted in community dysfunction as well as numerous challenges for Indigenous individuals, including a lack of clearly defined values, difficulties setting goals, and a sense of hopelessness about the future (Taylor & de la Sablonnière, 2014). As noted by Chandler and colleagues (2000), the notion of self-continuity is also core to one’s self- concept. It is the understanding of ourselves as individuals persisting through time, despite any momen- tary variation, and it is an essential part of our identity within social and cultural contexts. For Indigenous people living in Canada (and elsewhere), culture and identity are often prescribed narratively through the sharing of stories. This means that Indigenous cultures rely heavily on their oral histories in order to understand who they are. If we consider the impact of colonization on Indigenous cultures, namely the concerted efforts that were made to oppress and silence cultural traditions and languages, it is not surprising that self-continuity, and continuity of cultural identity specifically, have been limited among First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples (Chandler et al., 2000; Lalonde, 2006). Denial of culture and language prevents subsequent generations from accessing the full richness of their traditional knowledge and relations (Battiste, 1998). What are the consequences of having a cultural identity that is unclear and unstable over time? Researchers (Chandler et al., 2000; Lalonde, 2006) have drawn a connection to the higher rates of suicide among Indigenous youth in Canada, noting that the overall rate of suicide among First Nations people specifically is three to five times higher than the national average. They suggest that a lack of self-continuity and identity clarity compromises mental health and increases the likelihood of suicidal ideation. The heightened sense of hopelessness associated with an unclear cultural identity has been further associated with increased drinking and alcohol abuse in Indigenous youth (Mushquash et al., 2014). In their research on Indigenous communities across Canada, Usborne and Taylor (2010) found that cultural identity clarity was consistently related to self-esteem and psychological well-being; and it was mediated by self-concept clarity. In other words, having a strong sense of cultural identity is needed in order to have clarity about who one is as an individual. This, in turn, facilitates self-esteem and well- being. On the other hand, those who do not have a clear cultural identity are less likely to have a clear self-concept, and in turn experience lower self-esteem and well-being. This underscores the importance of cultural identity for selfhood. As concluded by Burack and colleagues (2019), Indigenous youth tend to display higher levels of success and well-being when they report feeling connected meaningfully to their Indigenous culture. Taylor and Usborne (2010) similarly recommend interventions aimed at clarifying and strengthening cultural identity in order to promote the well-being of Indigenous individuals. In support of this approach, research on the Naskapi First Nation of Quebec found reduced physical and relational aggression among youth who had stronger cultural identities (Flanagan et al., 2011). Research by Christopher Lalonde at the University of Victoria has further demonstrated that as Indigenous communities regain 550 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 550 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality control of their cultural heritage and independence, they experience significant improvements to mental and social well-being. Examining suicide data over a 14-year period, Lalonde (2006) reports that Indigenous communities that engage in a greater number of efforts to reclaim their culture (including regaining title to traditional lands, re-establishing self-government, gaining control of education and community services, and creating community facilities dedicated to promoting cultural events) experience decreases in youth suicide, improved educational outcomes, and fewer children being placed in care—all of which reflect improved community resilience. As underscored by Taylor and de la Sablonnière (2014), Indigenous communities have indeed demonstrated resilience in the face of profound trauma, and in spite of ongoing threats to cultural identity. Such collective resilience must be further cultivated in order for Indigenous communities and their members to overcome the many challenges that persist (Taylor & de la Sablonnière, 2014). Cultural Differences in Self-Enhancement Self-enhancement is the tendency to describe and present oneself using positive or socially valued attributes, such as kind, understanding, intelligent, and industrious. Tendencies toward self-enhancement tend to be stable over time (Baumeister, 1997). Many studies have documented that North Americans tend to maintain a generally positive evaluation of themselves (Fiske et al., 1997). One study showed that the self-concepts of North American adults contain more than four times as many positive attributes as negative ones (Herzog et al., 1995). The Japanese tend to make far fewer spontaneous positive statements about themselves. The Japanese score lower than North Americans on translations of self-esteem scales (Fiske et al., 1997). Japanese respondents tend to give more negative descriptions of themselves, such as “I think too much” and “I’m a somewhat selfish person” (Yeh, 1995). Even the positive self-descriptions of the Japanese respondents tend to be in the form of negations, such as “I’m not lazy.” North Ameri- can respondents would express a similar sentiment with the phrase “I’m a hard worker.” Similar cultural differences have been discov- ered between Korean and North American respondents (Ryff, Lee, & Na, 1995). Korean re- spondents are more likely to endorse negative statements about themselves, whereas North Toshiyuki Tanaka, an umpire in the Japanese baseball American respondents are more likely to league, during an interview. In his culture, harmony is valued endorse positive statements. Differences in self- over conflict. To keep the peace during a heated game, Tanaka enhancement also show up in parents’ self- often plays the role of diplomat. He rarely penalizes a team or descriptions of the quality of their parenting ejects a player or coach from the game, events that are fairly practices (Schmutte, Lee, & Ryff, 1995). North common in North American baseball. Moreover, Tanaka American parents describe their parenting sometimes admits it when he makes a mistake, which is practices in generally glowing terms; Korean practically unheard of among North American umpires. parents give mostly negative self-evaluations. ©Itsuo Inouye/AP Images 551 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 551 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Another study found that Chinese individuals showed less of a tendency to self-enhance than Americans, but only one some traits and not others (Church et al., 2014). Cultural differences in self-enhancement extend to evaluations of one’s group compared with evaluations of other groups. Heine and Lehman (1995) asked Japanese and Canadian students to compare their own univer- sity with a rival university within their own culture. Among the Canadian respondents, there was a strong tendency toward in-group enhancement, with the rival university evaluated negatively by comparison. Among the Japanese respondents, there was no favouritism in the evaluation of one’s own university in comparison with the rival university. Japanese and Asian-Canadians also tend to be more self-critical than Euro- Canadians (Falk et al., 2009), again suggesting cultural differences in self-enhancement. There are a few explanations for cultural differences in self-enhancement. One is that people surveyed are engaging in impression management (see Chapter 4). Perhaps deep in their hearts, Asians truly evaluate themselves positively, but to express these views publicly would damage their reputation. Alternatively, it is possible that North Americans do evaluate themselves more negatively, but they feel pressured to present themselves more positively than they actually are. In others words, it is possible that Asians are more “accu- rate” in their self-evaluations. A second explanation is that these cultural differences accurately reflect people’s deep experiences. Asians, according to this view, truly evaluate themselves more negatively than do North Americans. This may be due to profound differences in values, or perhaps differences in perception and cognition associated with differences in self-construal. For example, higher individualism and the need to assert one’s independence may be associated with more positive self-evaluations. This is supported by evidence from multiple studies demonstrating a positive relationship between individualism and narcissism (e.g., Vater et al., 2018), a trait that involves the tendency to be boastful. Cultural differences are matters of degree; people in all cultures appear to display a self-enhancement bias to some extent (Kurman, 2001). In a study of three cultures—Singaporeans, Druze Israelis, and Jewish Israelis— Kurman (2001) asked participants whether they considered themselves to be below average or above average for the sex and age group on six traits: intelligence, health, and sociability (agentic traits); and cooperation, honesty, and generosity (communal traits). Although the Singaporeans showed slightly more self-enhancement than the other two cultures, it applied only to the agentic traits, and people in all cultures showed a self- enhancement bias. On the communal traits, 85 percent of the participants in all three cultures viewed them- selves as “above average” for their age and sex group. On the agentic traits, although the Druze and Jewish Israeli samples showed a self-enhancement level of 90 percent and 87 percent, respectively, the Singaporeans showed a self-enhancement level of nearly 80 percent. Thus, people across cultures show a self-enhancement bias, so the cultural differences must be interpreted within the context of this overall similarity. Personality Variations Within Culture Another dimension of transmitted culture pertains to within-culture variations, although these have not received the same degree of attention as cross-cultural variations. Within-culture variations can arise from several sources, including differences in growing up in various socioeconomic classes, differences in historical era, or differences in the racial context in which one grows up. There is some evidence, for example, that social class within a culture can have an effect on personality (Kohn et al., 1990). Lower-socioeconomic parents tend to emphasize the importance of obedience to authority, whereas higher-status parents tend to emphasize self-direction and nonconformity to the dictates of others. According to Kohn, these socialization practices stem from the sorts of occupations that parents expect their 552 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 552 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality children to enter. Higher-status jobs (e.g., manager, start-up company founder, doctor, lawyer) often require greater self-direction, whereas lower-status jobs (e.g., factory worker, gas station employee) more often require the need to follow rules and permit less latitude for innovation. In studies of American, Japanese, and Polish men, those from higher social classes in all cultures tend to be more self-directed, show lower levels of conformity, and have greater intellectual flexibility than men from lower social classes. Interestingly, those from lower classes tend to be more generous and charitable than those in the upper classes, giving more even though they have less (Piff et al., 2010). These findings are correlational, so the direction of effects cannot be assumed. Perhaps people with personalities marked by self-direction and intellectual flexibility gravitate toward the higher social classes. Or perhaps the socialization practices of higher-social-class parents produce children with personalities that are different from the personalities of lower-social-class children. In either case, this example highlights the importance of within- culture differences. Figure 17.1 shows the distribution of individualism–collectivism in two cultures. The shaded part shows the overlap among cultures. Even though cultures can differ in their average levels of self-construal, many individuals within the one culture can be higher (or lower) than many individuals in the other culture. FIGURE 17.1 Individualism versus collectivism in North American and Asian cultures. The distribution of two groups may be significantly different from each other in terms of the group mean yet have a high proportion of overlap. This means that many individuals from one group are higher (or lower) than many members of the other group, in a pattern opposite that of the mean difference. Asians score higher on collectivism than North Americans do, yet there will always be some North Americans who score higher than some Asians (those in the shaded area) on this measure. Another type of within-culture variation pertains to the effects of historical era on personality. People who grew up during the Great Depression of the 1930s, for example, might be more anxious about job security, adopting a more conservative spending style. Those who came of age during the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s might show a greater openness to experimentation. Those growing up in the age of the Internet spend more time interacting with others in distant places, expanding social horizons in ways that might influence personality. Today many people find partners through online dating sites, a phenomenon virtually absent a generation ago (Buss, 2016). Disentangling the effects of historical era on personality is an extremely difficult task because most currently used personality measures were not in use in earlier eras. One recent exception examined changes in average personality scores over a period of 25 years in the Netherlands (Smits et al., 2011). Researchers found small but consistent increases in extraversion, agreeableness, and conscien- tiousness, and small decreases in neuroticism. 553 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 553 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Do Cultures Have Distinctive Personality Profiles? People have long been fascinated with the question of whether cultures have distinctive personality profiles. Are people from the Mediterranean region of Europe really more emotionally expressive, or is this merely an incorrect stereotype? Are people from Scandinavia really more calm and stoic, or is this merely an incorrect stereotype? Most studies reveal that stereotypes about national personality rarely correspond to average levels of actual assessed personality (Allik, 2012). Robert McCrae and 79 colleagues from around the world studied the personality profiles of 51 different cultures, using 12,156 participants (McCrae et al., 2005a). They translated the Revised NEO Personality Inventory into the appropriate language for each culture and then examined the aggregate Big Five personality scores for each culture. The largest difference they found across cultures centred on Extraversion. North Americans and Europeans scored higher than Asians and Africans on this broad trait. A few examples will illustrate these differences. With the cross-cultural average set to 50, the average Extraversion score was 52.3 for North Americans, 53.8 for Australians, 53.7 for the English, and 52.2 for Belgians. In contrast, the average Extraversion scores were 46.5 for Ugandans, 47.0 for Ethiopians, and 46.6 for People’s Republic Chinese. Some have questioned the validity of these findings because they rely exclusively on self-report (Ashton, 2007; Perugini & Richetin, 2007). Recent studies confirm personality stereotypes in some domains but not in other domains. For example, stereotypes about gender differences across cultures appear to be fairly accurate (Lockenhoff et al., 2014). Women are stereotyped as a bit more agreeable, conscientious, and anxious in a study of 26 cultures, and findings from both self-report and observer-report studies bear this out. On the other hand, many national character stereotypes appear to be inaccurate (McCrae et al., 2013). Some Chinese people stereotype Malays as “friendly, but lazy,” but the empirical findings do not support this. A study of 26 countries found little support for national character stereotypes (McCrae et al., 2013). It is important to bear in mind that observed cultural differences in average personalities are relatively small. Most of the differences in personality occur within cultures, not between cultures. Indeed, the most striking finding from the study by McCrae and colleagues (2005a) is how similar the 51 cultures actually are in their overall scores on the five-factor model. Despite evidence of cross-cultural similarities in average levels of traits, some differences may nevertheless exist that warrant concern regarding the cross-cultural generalizability of psychological research. Concerns primarily revolve around the characteristics of countries where most psychological research is conducted, and whether findings can reasonably be generalized to other parts of the world. We discuss this next in A Closer Look: Cross-Cultural Generalizability and Limitations on WEIRD Populations in Psychological Research. A Closer Look Cross-Cultural Generalizability and Limitations of WEIRD Populations in Psychological Research In psychological research, even that which is not of cross-cultural significance, the generalizability of any set of findings to other groups of people is always of major concern. Researchers are (or should be) 554 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 554 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality interested in the degree to which conclusions may be applied to other people, either those similar to or different from the study’s participants. This is a necessary step in determining the implications of a study. In the past couple of decades, concerns have arisen over the tendency for much of the psychological and behavioural research in the world’s top academic journals to be based on samples drawn entirely from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies. Conclusions stemming from research using these “weird” samples are often assumed to extend to the human race more generally—even to other cultures. In other words, many conclusions regarding the fundamental nature of human behaviour are based on what is essentially a small subset of the human population. Cultural psychologists Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia were interested in understanding just how big of a concern this was for researchers. In 2010, in a paper published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, they conclude that indeed, WEIRD samples are pretty weird. First, Henrich and colleagues (2010) outline some of the obvious problems and assumption associated with research findings based on WEIRD samples. One of these problems is the amount of published research that originates in North America. Unlike other scientific disciplines, approximately 70 percent of all psychology citations come from the United States. Despite human behaviour being a phenome- non in which we would expect the greatest variation, there is the least amount of variation in scientific research (compared to say, chemistry, where only 37 percent of citations are American in origin). The second problem lies in the assumptions contained within the published findings. Researchers routinely assume that their findings are universal in nature. This is done both explicitly (for example, by assuming that a cognitive bias is characteristic of all people) and implicitly (for example, by not addressing a study’s limitations on generalizability). Henrich and his colleagues then summarize the various ways in which research has not supported the generalizability of WEIRD populations. For instance, although more research is needed to understand the scope of the problem, studies have indeed documented significant differences in cognitive and social processes between members of industrialized and small-scale societies. Many differences in key behavioural characteristics have also been documented between Western and non-Western cultures, including many noted in this book (such as analytic vs. holistic reasoning). Considering the tendency for most psychology citations to be based on American samples specifically, there arises a further concern over whether research from the United States generalizes to other Western populations, such as Canadians. Indeed, despite the similarities that do exist, Americans stand out in a few important ways. For example, they tend to be the most individualistic people in the world, even within a Western context. As so much of the research using WEIRD populations is conducted using undergraduate students, generalizability may be further restricted in this regard. Studies have confirmed that in tests of a number of psychological phenomena, college and university students differ significantly from non-student members of the population. This is a long list of potential limitations to the generalizability of WEIRD populations. Although problems seem to exist even within a purely Western context, the greatest limitation by far is in the cross-cultural applicability of the research. In addition to better addressing these concerns in their published findings, researchers should be making a greater attempt to investigate psychological and behavioural phenomena cross-culturally. What is characteristic of one narrow and “weird” demographic is by no means characteristic of the entire human race. 555 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 555 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Concept Check Discuss the difference between evoked and transmitted culture, and offer one cultural difference in personality that is believed to have resulted from each of these mechanisms. According to research, do cultures tend to differ much overall in their personality profiles? Cultural Similarities in Personality A third approach to culture and personality involves the identification of features of personality that appear to be universal, or present in most or all human cultures. As described in Chapter 1, these universals constitute the human nature level of analyzing personality. Cultural Universals In the history of the study of personality and culture, the study of cultural universals has long been in disfavour. For most of the twentieth century, the focus was almost exclusively on cultural differences. This emphasis was fuelled by anthropologists who reported on seemingly exotic cultures. Margaret Mead, for example, purported to discover cultures entirely lacking in sexual jealousy, cultures in which sex roles were reversed and adolescence was not marked with stress and turmoil (Mead, 1928, 1935). On sex roles, for example, Mead purported to discover “a genuine reversal of the sex-attitudes of our culture, with the woman the dominant, impersonal, managing partner, the man the less responsible and the emotionally dependent person” (Mead, 1935, p. 279). Human nature was presumed to be infinitely variable, infinitely flexible, and not constrained by a universal human nature: “We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions” (p. 280). Over the past few decades, the pendulum has swung toward a more moderate view. Anthropologists who visited the islands Mead had visited failed to confirm Mead’s findings (e.g., Freeman, 1983). In cultures in which sexual jealousy was presumed to be entirely absent, it turned out that sexual jealousy was the leading cause of spousal battering and spousal homicide. In cultures such as the Chambri, where the sex roles were presumed to be reversed, anthropologists instead found that men were considered to be in charge (Brown, 1991; Gewertz, 1981). Furthermore, the Chambri considered men to be more aggressive than women and women to be more submissive than men. Behavioural observations of social interactions among the Chambri confirmed these conceptions (Gewertz, 1981). All available evidence back to 1850, including some of Mead’s recorded observations (as opposed to the inferences she made), suggest that the Chambri’s sex roles are, in fact, strikingly similar to those of Western cultures. Brown (1991) has a list of practices and attitudes that are good candidates for cultural universals—see Table 17.2 (see also Pinker, 1997). In this section, we consider three examples of cultural universals: beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women, the expression of emotion, and the possible universality of the five-factor model of personality traits. 556 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 556 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality Table 17.2 Culturally Universal Practices and Attitudes Incest avoidance Facial expressions of basic emotions Favouritism toward in-group members Favouritism toward kin over non-kin Collective identities Division of labour by sex Revenge and retaliation Self distinguished from others Sanctions for crimes against the collectivity Reciprocity in relationships Envy, sexual jealousy, and love Sources: Brown, 1991; Pinker, 1997. Beliefs About the Personality Characteristics of Men and Women In the most massive study undertaken to examine beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women, Williams and Best (1990) examined 30 countries over a period of 15 years. These included western European countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy; Asian countries such as Japan and India; South American countries such as Venezuela; and African countries such as Nigeria. In each country, university students examined 300 trait adjectives (e.g., aggressive, emotional, dominant) and indicated whether each trait is more often linked with men, women, or both sexes. The responses of the subjects within each culture were then summed. When the results came in, the big shock was this: many of the trait adjectives were highly associated with one or the other sex, and there proved to be tremendous consensus across cultures. Table 17.3 shows sample trait adjectives most associated with men and with women across cultures. Table 17.3 Pancultural Traits Linked with Men or Women Traits Associated with Men Traits Associated with Women Active Loud Affected Modest Adventurous Obnoxious Affectionate Nervous Aggressive Opinionated Appreciative Patient Arrogant Opportunistic Cautious Pleasant Autocratic Pleasure-seeking Changeable Prudish Bossy Precise Charming Sensitive Coarse Quick Dependent Sentimental Conceited Reckless Emotional Softhearted Enterprising Show-off Fearful Timid Hardheaded Tough Forgiving Warm 557 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 557 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Williams and Best (1994) scored each of these adjectives on the following dimensions: favourability (How desirable is the trait?), strength (How much does the trait indicate power?), and activity (How much does the trait signify energy?). These dimensions originate from older classical work in the field that discovered three universal semantic dimensions of evaluation (good–bad), potency (strong–weak), and activity (active– passive) (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). Overall, the traits ascribed to men and women are equally favourable. Some “masculine” traits, such as serious and inventive, were viewed as favourable, whereas others, such as arrogant and bossy, were viewed as unfavourable. Some “feminine” traits, such as charming and appreciative, were viewed as favourable, whereas others, such as fearful and affected, were viewed as unfavourable. How can we interpret these cultural universals in beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women? One way is that these beliefs represent stereotypes based on the roles men and women assume universally. Williams and Best (1994) argue that society assumes that men are stronger than women and therefore assigns men to roles and occupations such as soldier and construction worker. A second possibility is that the traits ascribed to men and women in all 30 cultures reflect observations of natural sex differences in personality. Studies of the five-factor model, for example, do find that women score lower on emotional stability. As we reviewed in Chapter 16, men are, on average, more physically aggressive than women. Although this may lend support to the idea that universal beliefs about men and women stem from innate differences between the sexes, it is difficult to completely factor out social influences. Any innate differences that do exist are likely reinforced and exaggerated by stereotypes. Expression of Emotion It is commonly believed that people in different cultures experience different emotions. As a consequence, personality psychologists have argued that different cultures have different words to describe emotional experiences. The Tahitians, some have argued, do not experience the emotions of grief, longing, or loneli- ness, so they have no words in their language to express these emotions. For example, when a Tahitian boy dies in combat, according to legends reported by anthropologists, the parents smile and experience no grief, unlike the profound sadness felt by people in the modern Western world who experience similar events. Cultural variability in the presence or absence of emotion words has been interpreted by some personality psychologists to mean that cultures differ in the presence or absence of actual experiences of these emotions. However, are emotions really this culturally variable? Or are there cultural universals in the experience of emotions? Psychologist Steven Pinker summarizes the evidence in this way: “Cultures surely differ in how often their members express, talk about, and act on various emotions. But that says nothing about what their people feel. The evidence suggests that the emotions of all normal members of our species are played on the same keyboard” (Pinker, 1997, p. 365). The earliest evidence of cultural universals in emotions came from Charles Darwin. In gathering evidence for his book on emotions, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin (1872/1965) asked anthro- pologists and travellers who interacted with peoples on five continents to give detailed information about how the natives expressed various emotions, such as grief, contempt, disgust, fear, and jealousy. He summarized the answers he received: “The same state of mind is expressed throughout the world with remarkable uniformity; and this fact is in itself interesting as evidence of the close similarity in bodily structure and mental disposition of all the races of mankind” (Darwin, 1872/1965, pp. 15, 17). 558 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 558 1/17/20 7:06 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality Darwin’s methods, of course, were crude by today’s scientific standards, but subsequent research has confirmed his basic conclusions. Psychologist Paul Ekman created a set of photographs of people expressing six basic emotions and then showed them to people in various cultures (Ekman, 1973). Some cultures in his study, such as the Fore foragers of New Guinea, had had almost no contact with Westerners. The Fore spoke no English, had seen no TV or movies, and had never lived with Caucasians. He also administered the tests to people in Japan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the United States. Ekman asked each subject to label the emotion expressed in each photograph and to make up a story about what the person in the photograph had experienced. The six emotions—happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise—were universally recognized by people in the various cultures. These findings have been subsequently replicated in other countries, such as Italy, Scotland, Estonia, Greece, Germany, Hong Kong, Sumatra, and Turkey (Ekman et al., 1987). Further research by Ekman and his colleagues has expanded the list of universal emotions to include contempt, embarrassment, and shame (Ekman, 1999). In addition to finding that people of different cultures effortlessly recognized the emotions expressed on the faces in the photographs, Ekman reversed the procedure. He asked the Fore participants to act out scenarios, such as “Your child has died” and “You are angry and about to fight,” and then photographed them. The emotions expressed in these photographs were easily recognized by facial expressions and were strikingly similar to the expressions of the same emotions seen in the photographs of the Caucasian participants. Further evidence for the universality, and possible evolutionary origins, of these basic emotions comes from the finding that children who are blind from birth display the same facial expressions of emotions that those with full sight display (Lazarus, 1991). As you’ll remember from Chapter 13, other candidate emotions such as pride (Tracy & Robins, 2004) have accumulated similar cross-cultural support. Pinker notes that whether a language has a word for a particular emotion or not matters little if the question is whether people experience the emotion in the same way: Tahitians are said not to have a word for grief; however, “when a Tahitian woman says ‘My husband died and I feel sick,’ her emotional state is hardly mys- terious; she is probably not complaining about acid indigestion” (Pinker, 1997, p. 367). Another example is the German word Schadenfreude: “When English-speakers hear the word Schaden- freude for the first time, their reaction is not, ‘Let me Disgust appears to be an emotion universally see... pleasure in another’s misfortunes... what experienced by all humans, regardless of culture. could that possibly be? I cannot grasp the concept; my ©Shutterstock/Lapina language and culture have not provided me with such a category.’ Their reaction is, ‘You mean there’s a word for it? Cool!’” (Pinker, 1997, p. 367). People universally may experience the emotion of pleasure in an enemy’s misfortunes in the same way, even if all cultures do not have a single word in their language to capture it. The view that language is not necessary for people to experience emotions may be contrasted with what has been called the Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic relativity, which contends that language creates thought and experience. In the extreme view, the Whorfian hypothesis argues that the ideas that people can think and the emotions they feel are constrained by the words that happen to exist in their language and culture (Whorf, 1956). 559 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 559 1/17/20 7:07 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain The difference between experiencing an emotion and expressing that emotion in public may be critical to resolving this debate. Ekman (1973) performed an ingenious experiment to explore the difference between the experience of emotion and its expression in public. He secretly videotaped the facial expressions of Japanese and North American students while they watched a graphic film of a primitive puberty rite involving genital mutilation. In one condition, an experimenter wearing a white lab coat was present in the room. In the other condition, the participants were alone. When the experimenter was present (a public context), the Japanese students smiled politely during the film, but the North American students expressed horror and disgust. If this were the only condition run, we might conclude that Japanese and North American students experience the emotion of disgust differently. However, when the students were filmed when they were alone in the room watching the film, both the Japanese and North American faces showed equal horror. This result suggests that Japanese and North American students experience this emotion in the same way, even if they differ in their expression of it in a more public setting. More recent cross-cultural work has confirmed the universality of some basic forms of emotional expression. One study compared non-verbal emotional vocalizations (e.g., “yuck,” “huh”) of the “basic emotions” of anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise among Namibian and Western participants (Sauter et al., 2010). These vocal expressions were bi-directionally recognized—Namibians correctly identified the emotion that corresponded with the nonverbal vocalizations uttered by Westerners and vice-versa. These findings lend further support to the notion that some emotions are universal across cultures. Five-Factor Model of Personality A fascinating question is whether there is a universal structure of personality, such as the five-factor model, or whether different factorial models exist in different cultures. To examine this issue, it is helpful to outline the conceptual positions that have been advanced. According to some psychologists, even the concept of personality lacks universality. Hsu, for example, argues that “the concept of personality is an expression of the Western ideal of individualism” (Hsu, 1985, p. 24). Shweder, a well-known cultural psychologist, argues that “the data gathered from... personality inventories lends illusory support to the mistaken belief that individual differences can be described in language consisting of context-free global traits, factors, or dimensions” (Shweder, 1991, pp. 275–276). These views have been elaborated on: “Universal [personality] structure does not by itself imply that ‘person- ality’ as understood within a European-American framework is a universal aspect of human behaviour... nor does it imply that the variability that appears as an obvious feature of human life is a function of an internal package of attributes called ‘personality’” (Markus & Kitayama, 1998, p. 67). Finally, cultural anthropologist Lawrence Hirschfeld argues that “in many, perhaps most, cultures there is a marked absence of discourse that explains human behaviour in terms of transsituationally stable motivational (or intentional) properties captured by explanations of trait and disposition” (Hirschfeld, 1995, p. 315). What is reflected in all these quotations is a fundamental challenge to personality psychology—whether the core concept of traits is universal or, instead, is a local concept applicable only in Western cultures. The most extreme of these perspectives suggests that the very notion of personality, as an internal set of psychological characteristics, is an arbitrary construction of Western culture (Church, 2000). If this extreme position were really true, then any attempt to identify and measure personality traits in non-Western cultures would be doomed to failure (Church, 2000). At the other extreme is the position that personality traits are universal in their applicability and that precisely the same personality structure will emerge across cultures. As two 560 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 560 1/17/20 7:07 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality personality researchers noted, “The most important dimensions... [of] personality judgment are the most invariant and universal dimensions” (Saucier & Goldberg, 2001, p. 851). The first source of evidence bearing on this debate pertains to the existence of trait terms in other cultures. Many non-Western psychologists have, in fact, described traitlike concepts that are indigenous to non-Western cultures and that appear strikingly like those that appear in Western cultures. Following are some examples: the Filipino concepts of pakikiramdam (sensitivity, empathy) and pakikisama (getting along with others); the Korean concept of chong (human affection); the Japanese concept of amae (indulgent dependence); the Chinese concept of ren qin (being relationship-oriented); and the Mexican concept of simpatico (being harmonious and avoiding conflict) (Church, 2000). Many non-Western cultures, in short, appear to have traitlike concepts em- bedded in their languages in much the same way that the North American culture and English language do. A second source of evidence bearing on the debate concerns whether the same factor structure of personality traits is found across cultures. That is, do different cultures have roughly the same broad categories of traits? The trait perspective on personality, of course, does not require the existence of precisely the same traits in all cultures. Indeed, the trait perspective might be extremely useful even if cultures were to differ radically in terms of which trait dimensions they used. Nonetheless, the most powerful support for the trait perspective across cultures would occur if the structure of personality traits were found to be the same across cultures (Church, 2000). Two approaches have been taken to exploring this issue. In the first approach, which can be labelled the “transport and test” strategy, psychologists have translated existing questionnaires into other languages and then have administered them to native residents in other cultures. This strategy has generated some findings supporting the five-factor model. The five-factor model (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) has now been replicated in France, Holland, and the Philippines and in languages from entirely different language families, such as Sino-Tibetan, Hamito-Semitic, Uralic, and Malayo- Polynesian (McCrae et al., 1998). The five-factor model also has been replicated in Spain (Salgado, Moscoso, & Lado, 2003) and in Croatia (Mlacic & Ostendorf, 2005). A study of 13 different countries—from Japan to Slovakia—also found support for the five-factor model (Hendriks et al., 2003). Perhaps the most impressive was a massive study of 50 different cultures (McCrae et al., 2005b). This study, involving 11,985 participants, had university-age individuals rate someone they knew well using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Factor analyses of observer-based ratings yielded the five-factor model, with only minor variations in factor structure across cultures. This study suggests that cross-cultural evidence for the five-factor model is not limited to self-report data, but extends to observer-based data as well. Using the transport and test strategy, the five-factor structure of personality appears to be general across cultures. Table 17.4, for example, shows the factor structure from a Filipino sample. A more powerful test of generality, however, would come from studies that start out using indigenous person- ality dimensions first, then testing whether the five-factor structure still emerges. This approach has been tried in Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian, Czech, and Polish (De Raad et al., 1998). In each case, the trait terms in the language were identified. Although the absolute numbers of personality trait terms varied from language to language—Dutch has 8,690 trait terms, whereas Italian has only 1,337 trait terms—the percentage of words in each language that constituted trait terms was remarkably consistent, averaging 4.4 percent of all dictionary entries. You may recall the lexical hypothesis from Chapter 3, which states that the most important individual differences have been encoded within the natural language. 561 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 561 1/17/20 7:07 PM  Part Five The Social and Cultural Domain Table 17.4 Factor Analysis of the Filipino NEO-PI-R NEO-PI-R Facet Scale N E O A C N1: Anxiety 76 –08 00 00 06 N2: Angry hostility 67 –19 01 –44 –10 N3: Depression 73 –23 03 –02 –25 N4: Self-consciousness 68 –14 –15 22 –04 N5: Impulsiveness 40 20 04 –37 –47 N6: Vulnerability 70 –22 –23 04 –30 E1: Warmth –21 69 17 28 08 E2: Gregariousness –29 65 –02 07 04 E3: Assertiveness –28 42 23 –29 35 E4: Activity –15 51 10 –24 25 E5: Excitement seeking –08 51 26 –29 –12 E6: Positive emotions –16 66 14 15 01 O1: Fantasy 16 27 47 –06 –27 O2: Aesthetics 14 20 65 14 22 O3: Feelings 30 32 53 03 12 O4: Actions –39 –03 46 01 04 O5: Ideas –04 –01 69 01 30 O6: Values –13 –06 62 –05 –16 A1: Trust –20 41 09 52 –10 A2: Straightforwardness –03 –22 –02 57 10 A3: Altruism –12 27 13 65 31 A4: Compliance –20 –10 –09 75 12 A5: Modesty 18 –27 –03 55 –13 A6: Tender-mindedness 22 27 09 49 20 C1: Competence –38 22 16 –10 69 C2: Order –04 –15 –08 10 73 C3: Dutifulness –08 12 07 21 69 C4: Achievement striving –12 06 01 11 83 C5: Self-discipline –24 02 00 07 81 C6: Deliberation –27 –20 03 24 65 Note: N = 696. Decimal points are omitted; loadings greater than 40 in absolute magnitude are given in boldface; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. Source: McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, et al., 1998. 562 lar65774_ch17_534-566.indd 562 1/17/20 7:07 PM  Chapter 17 Culture and Personality The next step in the De Raad and colleagues study was to reduce this list to a manageable number of several hundred trait terms, identified as indigenous to each culture, which could then be tested in each culture. Factor analyses of each sample within each culture showed that there was tremendous replicability of four of the five factors of the five-factor model: extraversion (talkative, sociable versus shy, introverted), agreeableness (sympathetic, warm versus unsympathetic, cold), conscientiousness (organized, responsible versus disorganized, careless), and emotional stability (relaxed, imperturbable versus moody, emotional). Despite cross-cultural agreement on these four factors, this study found some differences in what constituted the fifth factor, as noted in Chapter 3. In some cultures, such as Polish and German, the fifth factor resembled the American fifth factor (openness to experience or intellect-openness), with intelligent and imaginative anchoring one end and dull and unimaginative anchoring the other end. One study conducted in the Philip- pines also found a replicated five-factor model, including the fifth factor resembling intellect–openness, although there are a few indigenous constructs that are less successfully subsumed by the Big Five, such as social curiosity, obedience, and capacity for understanding (Katigbak et al., 2002). Other languages, however, revealed different fifth factors. In Dutch, for example, the fifth factor seemed more like a dimension of political orientation, ranging from conservative at one end to progressive at the other. In Hungarian, the fifth factor seemed to be one of truthfulness, with just, truthful, and humane anchoring one end and greedy, hypocritical, and pretending at the other (De Raad et al., 1998). The fifth factor, in summary, appeared to be somewhat variable across cultures. Cross-cultural research using the lexical approach, as you may recall from Chapter 3, has found compelling evidence for six factors, rather than five (Ashton et al., 2004; Saucier et al., 2005). The new sixth factor, honesty–humility, represents a major discovery across cultures, lending support to the new HEXACO model of personality (Ashton & Lee, 2010). By starting with the natural language within each culture, these research- ers were able to capture an important dimension of personality that may have been bypassed using the “transport and test” research strategy. Research has of course suggested a few other cross-cultural variations on the five-factor model of personality. Studies using the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; Cheung et al., 2001) have supported a four-factor model in Chinese and Eastern cultures consisting of dependability, social potency, individualism/accommodation, and interpersonal relatedness. According to factor analyses, the first three traits in this model correspond to the Big Five traits of emotional stability, extraversion, and agreeableness, respectively. The interpersonal relatedness factor, however, appears to tap something unique in Chinese and other Eastern cultures. Specifically, it includes traits involving harmony and reciprocity in relationships that are less important to personality within Western populations of European origins (Cheung et al., 2001). A large study of over 600 members of the Tsimane Indigenous people in the Bolivian Amazon, a truly traditional foraging-farming community, suggested only two principal personality factors: socially beneficial behaviour, also known as prosociality, and industriousness (Gurven et al., 2013). Despite a notable scientific consensus on the universality of the five-factor model, studies such as these suggest that some variation may neverthe