The trait concept is central to theory, measurement, and research in personality. It also provides the basis for much of the research on personality across cultures (Church, 2016). Cross-cultural research on personality traits has focused primarily on the universality of trait structure and cultural differences in trait profiles (McCrae & Allik, 2002; McCrae et al., 2005). Also crucial, however, for the viability of the trait concept across cultures is evidence of trait consistency and validity. Indeed, the person-situation debate centered on whether behavior is consistent across situations and predictable from traits. While the debate is largely resolved (Roberts, 2009), some cultural psychologists have questioned the importance of traits in some (e.g., collectivistic, East Asian) cultural contexts (Heine, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998; Triandis, 1995). Therefore, in this chapter, we review research on trait consistency and validity across cultures, emphasizing studies that included direct cross-cultural comparisons. Our conclusions have significance for both trait psychology and cultural psychology and the possibility of integrating the two approaches (Church, 2000, 2009).
… an implicit promise of trait theories is to account for consistency across a range of situations. (Moskowitz, 1994, p. 921)
[F]or traits to distinguish people from one another, they must display some distinctive consistency. (Johnson, 1997, p. 74)
… the functional value of consistency is less clear for East Asian selves. (Heine, 2001, p. 886)
Interdependent selves do not prescribe or require consistency [which] may reflect, not authenticity, but a lack of flexibility, rigidity, or even immaturity. (Markus & Kitayama, 1994, p. 576)
As illustrated by these quotations, trait psychologists (the first two quotations) anticipate a degree of consistency in trait-related behavior, whereas cultural psychologists (the last two quotations) have argued that consistency may be less valued, functional, or related to adjustment in some cultures.
From trait theory, we expect a degree of cross-situational consistency in trait-related behavior in all cultures (Church, 2000). Funder’s (1995) realistic accuracy model contends that traits are real characteristics of individuals and can be accurately observed by self and others. Thus, a degree of trait-related consistency in behavior should also lead to some consistency in perceptions of one’s traits across various roles (Wood & Roberts, 2006) as well as a degree of cross-observer agreement in trait ratings (McCrae et al., 2004).
It is important to note, however, that typical trait definitions—rather than implying invariant behavior across situations—incorporate the idea of behavioral variability and acknowledge the importance of situations (DeYoung, 2015; Funder, 1991). After reviewing prominent trait definitions, Roberts (2009) offered this synopsis: “Personality traits are the relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect the tendency to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances” (p. 140). These trait conceptions imply—even in Western or individualistic cultures—that the correlations between people’s traits or behaviors across situations will be only moderate in size and that consistency might be depicted best in terms of idiosyncratic, but stable, “if-then” situation-behavior profiles (Mischel, Shoda, & Mendoza-Denton, 2002), in which, for example, a particular individual might exhibit high extraversion fairly consistently in certain situations but not others.
Cultural psychologists emphasize the “mutually constitutive” nature of culture and personality (Heine, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998, 2010). Conceptions of personality, personality coherence, and self are viewed as socially constructed and hence variable across cultures. For example, Kitayama and Markus (1999) contrasted the Western conception of coherence as behavioral consistency with the non-Western view of coherence, which is characterized by balance or harmony between multiple, even contradictory, aspects of one’s personality.
Cultural psychologists have proposed several theoretical bases for expecting reduced behavioral and self-concept consistency in certain cultures. One approach draws on the distinction between independent and interdependent self-construals, which are thought to be more prevalent in individualistic and collectivistic cultures, respectively (Heine, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998, 2010). People with independent self-construals—who view the person as an autonomous entity with distinctive attributes—are thought to have a greater need to express their traits and should therefore exhibit greater cross-situational consistency in behavior. In contrast, for people with interdependent self-construals—who view the person as an interdependent entity who is part of an encompassing social relationship—roles, relationships, and situational factors are expected to influence behavior more than traits, reducing consistency (Heine, 2001; Suh, 2002).
A similar perspective leads to the expectation of reduced consistency specifically in East Asian cultures because of their greater dialecticism. Peng and Nisbett (1999) described dialecticism as a cognitive tendency characterized by acceptance of contradiction, expectations of complexity and change, and holistic thinking. The most widely used measure of dialecticism, the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015), assesses three components: contradiction (e.g., believing both sides of an argument), cognitive change (e.g., finding that one’s values and beliefs depend on whom one is with), and behavioral change (e.g., changing one’s behavior depending on the context). In short, greater dialecticism in East Asian cultures is thought to be associated with greater cognitive and behavioral change across situations and greater self-concept variability across relationship contexts (Boucher, 2011; English & Chen, 2007; Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng, 2010).
A third theoretical framework addresses the dimension of cultural tightness versus looseness. As defined by Gelfand, Nishii, and Raver (2006), cultural tightness refers to “the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies” (p. 1226). Gelfand et al. (2011) and Harrington and Gelfand (2014) have reported research linking cultural tightness—across nations and U.S. states—to ecological and historical threats, the prevalence of situations with strong norms for behavior, and personality processes involving greater self-regulation, self-monitoring, impulse control, and need for structure (see also Gelfand, Harrington, and Fernandez, Volume 3, Chapter 8 in this book set). Implicit in this framework is the expectation of reduced cross-situational consistency in tight cultures where situational constraints on behavior are greater.
Western theorists have argued that a consistent or integrated self-concept is important for adjustment (Jahoda, 1958; Jourard, 1965). Consistent with this “fragmentation view” of inconsistency, studies in the United States have linked greater cross-role variability in trait ratings to anxiety and depression, lower self-esteem, and poorer academic performance (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). However, for the same reasons that individuals in collectivistic or dialectical cultures are predicted to exhibit reduced consistency—for example, the greater importance of self-concept flexibility and adaptation to social contexts—the relationship between consistency and adjustment might be reduced in collectivistic (or at least East Asian) cultures (English & Chen, 2011; Suh, 2002). Instead, adjustment in these cultures may be more associated with balance or harmony between diverse aspects of self or personality (Kitayama & Markus, 1999), whether an individual believes his or her life is approved by significant others (Suh, 2002), or the quality of one’s relationships (Kang, Shaver, Sue, Min, & Jing, 2003; Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997).
Cultural differences might vary depending on the type of consistency investigated. One general distinction can be made between cross-situational consistency in actual behavior—which has been rarely investigated cross-culturally—and consistency in one’s self-concept (i.e., one’s trait ratings in different situations, roles, or relationships). Researchers have referred to the latter type of consistency as self-concept consistency, identity consistency, cross-role consistency, self-consistency, or (inversely) self-concept differentiation, among other labels.
Most studies have quantified cross-situational consistency by computing (a) within-individual correlations between individuals’ trait ratings across two or more social roles or relationships (e.g., with friends, family members, romantic partners, professors, siblings, strangers) or (b) the percentage of variance accounted for by the first principal component derived from these correlations (referred to here as the principal components analysis [PCA] method). These indices quantify the extent to which a list of (typically 15–30) traits is ranked similarly for an individual across different roles or relationships. A limitation of these indices is that they may confound relevant trait variability across roles with irrelevant variability across traits within roles (Baird, Le, & Lucas, 2006). Less frequently, correlations are computed across individuals, providing an index of interindividual consistency (i.e., the extent to which individuals maintain their rank order on a trait across situations).
Cross-situational consistency has also been quantified as the within-individual standard deviation (SD) of traits or personality states across situations or roles. The SD index has face validity and provides an index of absolute consistency across situations. As Oishi, Diener, Scollon, and Biswas-Diener (2004) demonstrated, it is possible for cultural groups to exhibit similar levels of interindividual consistency—consistent with trait theory—while also showing significant differences in absolute consistency (SD)—consistent with cultural psychology theory. Baird et al. (2006) suggested that the SD index might conflate valid cross-role variability with the mean level of participants’ trait ratings across roles. Indeed, there is some evidence that controlling for mean trait levels—referred to here as the corrected SD index—reduces the relationship between consistency and adjustment (Baird et al., 2006; Dunkel, Minor, & Babineau, 2010; Fukushima & Hosoe, 2011). However, if consistency is a function of personality, controlling for mean trait levels may overcorrect the SD index by removing valid individual differences in consistency and personality. A few studies have examined the stability of trait ratings within contexts over time. English and Chen (2007, 2011) found that cultural groups can show differences in within-individual variability across situations while exhibiting similar levels of temporal stability within situations.
Finally, the combination of within-individual variability across situations and temporal stability within situations implies the existence of stable if-then profiles of traits or behaviors across situations—what researchers have referred to as personality or behavioral signatures (Mischel et al., 2002; Smith, Shoda, Cumming, & Smoll, 2009). The stability of if-then profiles can be quantified using measures of profile similarity, which compare the level and shape of within-individual situation-behavior profiles over time. Typically, individuals’ raw scores are ipsatized by subtracting out the mean of the cultural sample in each situation to obtain a distinctive profile for each individual. Although much less studied across cultures, if-then profiles best capture the idea of person-situation interaction in that neither person nor situational variance is ignored or treated as error.1
In this section, we review studies on the cross-situational consistency of traits across cultures and the consequences of consistency for adjustment. To anticipate, consistent with trait perspectives, all of the cross-cultural studies found at least a moderate degree of consistency in traits or behaviors across contexts in each culture. Thus, we focus on whether a reliable pattern of cultural differences can be identified.
Suh (2002) conducted the first cross-cultural study of self-concept consistency.2 Korean and U.S. college students rated themselves on 20 traits in general and in 5 specific roles. Using the PCA index, Koreans exhibited less self-concept consistency than Americans, and general trait ratings correlated less with role-specific trait ratings in Korea than in the United States. Although consistency modestly predicted subjective well-being (SWB) in Korea, the correlations were much stronger in the United States. Also, in the United States, but not Korea, self-concept consistency was positively associated with likeability and social skill as rated by informants. Similarly, Dunkel et al. (2010) found that U.S. students exhibited greater self-concept consistency than Singaporean students. Both PCA and corrected SD indices correlated significantly positively with self-ratings of hostility and sadness, although the correlations were lower for the corrected SD index. Importantly, there was no moderation of the consistency-affect relationships by culture or relational self-construal.
Boucher (2011) had college students in the United States and China rate themselves on 20 traits in general and in son/daughter and friend roles. The PCA index was significantly higher in the United States than in China, and the difference was fully mediated by individual differences in dialecticism. In a combined-culture analysis, cross-role consistency was moderately associated with greater life satisfaction and perceived authenticity. Nation did not moderate these relationships, but both relationships were stronger for individuals who were lower in dialecticism.
Two studies by English and Chen (2007, 2011) indicate that it may be important to distinguish (a) the type of situations examined and (b) consistency across situations versus consistency within contexts over time. English and Chen (2007) found that East Asian Americans showed less consistency than European Americans across relationships but not across situations defined by physical contexts. High consistency in trait ratings within relationships and physical contexts over time was found for both ethnic groups. Subsequently, English and Chen (2011) showed that consistency across relationships was associated with perceived authenticity and relationship quality in European Americans but not East Asian Americans. However, in both ethnic groups, these two aspects of well-being were similarly related to consistency within relationship contexts over time. The researchers concluded that adjusting to others—and hence greater cross-relationship variability—is culturally prescribed for Asian Americans, but that a sense of personality coherence can be achieved in this group through temporal consistency, which contributes to stable and secure relationships. Somewhat different findings, however, were reported by Fukushima and Hosoe (2011) in a single-culture study involving Japan. These researchers found that self-concept consistency both across contexts and within contexts over time were associated with better adjustment using PCA and SD indices but not the corrected SD index.
Church, Anderson-Harumi, et al. (2008) extended the study of self-concept consistency to a broader range of cultures, including the United States, Australia, Mexico, Philippines, Malaysia, and Japan. Substantial cross-role consistency was evident in all cultures. Although independent self-construals predicted consistency within cultures, consistency was similar or even larger in some of the collectivistic cultures (Mexico, Philippines, Malaysia), as compared to the individualistic cultures (United States, Australia). Rather, the results favored an interpretation in terms of dialecticism given the lower consistency in Japan on both correlation-based and SD indices. Greater cross-role variability predicted poorer adjustment in all six cultures, but prediction was weakest in Japan.
Church, Alvarez, et al. (2012) examined self-concept consistency across five roles, short-term stability within roles, and the stability of if-then Big Five profiles in the United States, Australia, Mexico, Venezuela, Philippines, Malaysia, China, and Japan. At both test and retest, Japanese had the lowest cross-role consistency, but all cultural groups exhibited high short-term stability within roles. Although a measure of dialecticism showed some ability to mediate cultural differences in consistency, there was no consistent tendency for distinctive if-then profiles for the Big Five traits to be more stable as a function of the cultures’ individualism-collectivism, dialecticism, or cultural tightness. Cross-role consistency and short-term stability were inversely associated with negative affect and positively associated with emotional stability in each of the cultures but were more reliably related to aspects of eudaimonic well-being (e.g., autonomy, purpose in life, self-acceptance) in individualistic cultures, as compared to collectivistic cultures (Church, Katigbak, Ibáñez-Reyes, et al., 2014). Based on this last finding, Church, Katigbak, Ibáñez-Reyes, et al. (2014) speculated that inconsistency in self-concepts might have a universal temperamental or affective basis, whereas the expectation of a weaker relationship between consistency and well-being in collectivistic cultures may be more reliably demonstrated for eudaimonic well-being.
Four studies examined cultural differences in consistency without relating consistency to adjustment. In the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, and China, Katigbak et al. (2013) found no significant cultural differences in self-concept consistency in college students’ ratings of their traits in friend and family contexts. Ching et al. (2013) had college students in the United States, Mexico, Malaysia, China, and Japan rate themselves in general and in five specific roles. Interindividual correlations between the general and role-specific ratings and among the five role-specific ratings were similarly large in all cultures. Church, Katigbak, et al. (2008) examined only behavioral consistency. College students in the United States and Philippines provided about 30 end-of-day reports in which they indicated which of 50 Big Five behaviors they had performed that day and also indicated various situational categories associated with the behaviors. The cross-situational consistency correlations for the Big Five behaviors were larger, on average, in the United States than in the Philippines. However, of the 10 correlations that were significantly different between the cultures, 5 favored each culture. Church et al. (2013) applied density distribution (Fleeson, 2001) and if-then situation-behavior approaches (Mischel et al., 2002) to investigate within-individual variability in self-concepts and personality states across cultures. In the density distribution approach, traits are conceptualized as distributions of personality states, where personality states refer to momentary enactments of the relevant trait in daily experience. In this approach, within-individual variability is quantified as the standard deviation of personality states for a given trait in experience sampling studies (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). In two such studies—one in the United States, Venezuela, Philippines, China, and Japan and the other in the United States, Mexico, Malaysia, China, and Japan—Church et al. (2013) found that within-individual variability for Big Five personality states was unexpectedly lower in China, as compared to the other cultures, but this was likely due to the Chinese participants’ limited use of the end categories of the rating scales (i.e., response styles). In contrast, when consistency was examined across roles using the situation-behavior approach, Japanese and Mexican participants averaged the highest variability in both self-concepts and personality states. Thus, one important finding was that the pattern of cultural differences in consistency might depend on the theoretical approach applied (i.e., density distributions vs. situation-behavior profiles).
Finally, two recent studies raise important methodological questions in studies of consistency and adjustment across cultures. First, in a study of British and East Asian adults in the United Kingdom, Gage, Coker, and Jobson (2015) confirmed Locke’s (2006) suggestion that cross-role consistency might differ for desirable and undesirable traits. British participants averaged higher in overall self-concept consistency and exhibited greater consistency in endorsing desirable traits. However, East Asians showed greater consistency in endorsing undesirable traits. Overall consistency was unrelated to depression and anxiety in either group. Rather, in both groups, consistently denying undesirable traits was associated with less depression and anxiety, while consistently endorsing undesirable traits was associated with greater depression and anxiety. These findings suggest that the hypothesis of reduced consistency in collectivistic cultures may be oversimplified. Rather, the findings were more consistent with cultural differences in self-enhancement versus self-critical tendencies in Western and East Asian cultures, respectively (Heine & Hamamura, 2007).
Second, Locke et al. (in press) noted that consistency studies have confounded normative components (i.e., average trait levels in each situation), distinctive components (i.e., individual deviations from the average level), and injunctive norms (i.e., perceptions of what is approved or disapproved within each situation). Indeed, in a study of college students in English-speaking (United States, Australia, Canada), Latin American (Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador), and Asian (Philippines, Malaysia, Japan) countries, Locke et al. found evidence for strong overall, normative, and distinctive consistency in all nine countries, with all three consistency components greatest in the three Latin American countries. Overall self-consistency was lowest in Japan, but Japan was not lower in distinctive consistency than the other countries. Rather, Japan was lower in overall consistency because their trait expressions across situations were less consistent with injunctive norms. More generally, there was no clear difference between Western and Eastern countries in distinctive consistency, the component that is arguably most relevant to trait and cultural psychology perspectives on consistency. Overall, normative, and distinctive consistency were all positively related to self-esteem and affective balance, but, contrary to cultural psychology hypotheses, the relationships were not stronger in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.
Summary. The most definite conclusion that can be drawn is that a moderate degree of self-concept consistency is exhibited in all of the cultures studied thus far. Regarding cultural differences, the best support is for lower consistency in East Asian groups, including Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and East Asians in the United States and United Kingdom. However, researchers have rarely tested directly whether these cultural differences are mediated by measures of self-construals, dialecticism, or cultural tightness.
Studies of collectivistic cultures outside East Asia have generally not found lower consistency relative to individualistic cultures such as the United States, Australia, and Canada. Indeed, there is some indication that people in Latin American countries and some collectivistic countries outside East Asia (i.e., Philippines, Malaysia) may exhibit greater self-concept consistency than people in individualistic cultures (Church, Anderson-Harumi, et al., 2008; Locke et al., in press). Results involving Chinese populations are mixed and may depend on whether consistency is quantified in terms of within-individual correlations between situations across traits (Boucher, 2011; Dunkel et al., 2010) or interindividual correlations across individuals (Ching et al., 2013; Katigbak et al., 2013). Within-individual correlations quantify absolute levels of consistency for each individual, whereas interindividual correlations assess relative consistency (i.e., stability of the rank order of individuals across situations for particular traits). In the studies reviewed, Chinese showed lower absolute levels of consistency (consistent with cultural psychology hypotheses) but not lower relative consistency (supporting trait perspectives).
Most cross-cultural studies have found a positive relationship between cross-situational consistency and adjustment—supporting the fragmentation view of inconsistency—although the correlations are reduced with the corrected SD index. A few studies have reported reduced strength of the consistency-adjustment relationship with Koreans, Japanese, or East Asian Americans, and Bleidorn and Ködding (2013), based on a meta-analysis, concluded that the consistency-adjustment relationship is stronger in more individualistic cultures. However, several studies—including some with Chinese populations—have not found such effects (Boucher, 2011; Dunkel et al., 2010; Gage et al., 2015).
In any case, the findings in this area may need to be qualified in several ways. First, almost all of the studies examined self-concept consistency, not behavioral consistency. Church et al. (2013) found moderate convergence between consistency in self-concepts and daily personality states, but this might not always be the case. Second, cultural differences in consistency may be found across some situational contexts—in particular, those involving different relationships—but not others (e.g., physical contexts) (English & Chen, 2007). Third, cultural differences in cross-situational consistency may not extend to within-role consistency over time or the stability of if-then profiles, where cultural differences appear to be minimal (Church, Alvarez, et al., 2012; English & Chen, 2007, 2011). Fourth, cultural differences in consistency as well as their basis may differ depending on one’s theoretical approach. In the density distribution approach—which does not focus on specific situational contexts—cultural differences in within-individual variability might reveal temperamental differences that underlie the expression versus restraint of one’s personality states in general across time. In contrast, in the situation-behavior approach, cultural differences would probably be more strongly determined by cultural differences in social norms associated with the specific situational contexts examined (Church et al., 2013).
Finally, unresolved methodological questions hinder conclusions in this area. Correlation-based indices of consistency have been criticized (Baird et al., 2006), although some studies have found the same pattern of cultural differences using SD indices (Church, Alvarez, et al., 2012; Church, Anderson-Harumi, et al., 2008). Researchers can apply multiple indices and examine response distributions to see whether consistency indices might be confounded by cultural differences in within-role trait variance or response styles. Recent findings suggest that consistency may depend on the valence of the traits being rated (Gage et al., 2015). All of the studies included both positive and negative traits, but only Gage et al. examined consistency separately for the two types of traits. Researchers in previous studies might consider reanalyzing their data separately for positive and negative traits. Some earlier findings might be confounded by cultural differences in self-enhancement versus self-critical tendencies. Finally, as demonstrated by Locke et al. (in press), overall consistency indices have confounded consistency that is unique to individuals (i.e., distinctive consistency) with the consistency that can result from consistent norms for what is typical or appropriate. Locke et al.’s results have significant implications for the validity of cultural psychology hypotheses. In particular, in Japan, cultural psychology hypotheses were supported for overall consistency but not distinctive consistency.
To the extent that multiple raters observe a target individual in different settings, studies of cross-observer agreement in trait ratings also address cross-situational consistency. Researchers have differentiated two types of cross-observer agreement: self-other agreement and consensus. Self-other agreement refers to agreement between the target and other raters. Consensus refers to agreement between two or more raters of a third person target. As McCrae et al. (2004) argued, evidence of cross-observer agreement provides persuasive evidence for the existence of traits because it indicates that traits are real and not simply in “the eye of the beholder.” However, drawing on cultural psychology perspectives, we might anticipate lower cross-observer agreement in collectivistic, dialectical, or tight cultures even within particular contexts (e.g., with different family members) but certainly across interpersonal contexts (e.g., with friends vs. family members).
We identified seven studies that compared cross-observer agreement in two or more cultures (Church et al., 2006; Heine & Renshaw, 2002; Katigbak et al., 2013; Locke, Zheng, & Smith, 2014; Malloy, Albright, Díaz-Loving, Dong, & Lee, 2004; McCrae et al., 2004; Suh, 2002). Despite differences in methodology (e.g., the traits rated, methods of quantifying agreement), in each study, at least moderate self-observer agreement was found in each culture, with agreement levels generally similar to those found in U.S. studies. In the five studies that examined consensus, moderate consensus was generally observed for at least some traits in all cultures (Church et al., 2006; Katigbak et al., 2013; Locke et al., 2014; Malloy et al., 2004; McCrae et al., 2004). Three exceptions involved weak or nonsignificant cross-context (friend vs. family) agreement in China in two studies (Katigbak et al., 2013; Malloy et al., 2004) and the poor self-observer agreement in China, particularly in the family context, reported by Malloy et al. However, Katigbak et al. found moderate levels of self-observer agreement in China in both friend and family contexts, so the latter result in the Malloy et al. study might be sample-specific.
At the same time, six of the seven studies indicate that cross-observer agreement might be lower in selected Asian cultures. Heine and Renshaw (2002) found high self-peer agreement in the United States and moderate self-peer agreement in Japan. In Korea, as compared to the United States, Suh (2002) found lower self-peer agreement in both friend and family contexts as well as lower consensus between friends and family members. Heine and Renshaw (2002) and Suh (2002) interpreted the cultural differences in terms of independent versus interdependent self-construals. Locke et al. (2014) found self-peer agreement and consensus to be weaker in China than in the United States, and that cultural differences in individualism partially mediated the differences in consensus. Church et al. (2006) found similar levels of self-peer agreement and consensus in European Americans, Asian Americans, and Mexicans but lower agreement levels in Filipinos. However, a possible explanation for the Filipino results involved the smaller variances in their self- and peer-ratings, perhaps reflecting response style effects. Katigbak et al. (2013) found lower cross-observer agreement, both within and across friend and family contexts, in cultures considered more collectivistic (Mexico, Venezuela) or dialectical and tight (China), as compared to the United States. However, direct measures of these cultural dimensions failed to mediate the cultural differences.
Finally, Malloy et al. (2004) found that agreement in trait ratings was higher in Mexicans than Chinese, both within the friend and family contexts, as well as across contexts. Malloy et al. concluded that Mexicans, because of their cultural norm of simpatía, have general prescriptions for social behavior that lead to trait consistency across these contexts. In contrast, Chinese have dyadic prescriptions for social behavior that derive from Confucian traditions of filial piety, leading to behavior that is dyad-specific. Malloy et al. also contended that Mexicans, like Americans, are socialized to evaluate others in terms of traits. Given that Mexican culture is generally viewed as collectivistic, Malloy et al. concluded that cultural differences in cross-observer agreement cannot be attributed to differences in individualism-collectivism.
In addition to these multinational studies, McCrae et al. (2004) tabulated cross-observer agreement correlations for the Big Five dimensions for a number of single-culture studies conducted in North America and elsewhere—including studies in China, Poland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and Russia and with South Korean students in the United States—and concluded that levels of agreement were similar in North America, as compared to these other cultures. Similarly, Mõttus, Allik, and Pullmann (2007) reported high self-observer agreement and consensus in Estonia, and studies by Spirrison and Choi (1998) and Yik, Bond, and Paulhus (1998) indicated that good self-observer agreement and consensus can be obtained even in East Asian populations.
Summary. Available studies provide support for a moderate degree of cross-observer agreement across a broad range of cultures. As McCrae et al. (2004) concluded, such results are most parsimoniously interpreted as support for the existence of personality traits in most, if not all, cultures while failing to support the more extreme social constructivist view that people in some cultures are not conceived in terms of traits. At the same time, there is some support for lower agreement in selected East Asian cultures (i.e., China, Japan, and Korea). The pattern of results is more consistent with cultural differences in dialecticism, or perhaps cultural tightness, than individualism-collectivism, given that cross-observer agreement has not been reliably lower in collectivistic cultures outside East Asia. Even for Koreans and Chinese, however, the results do not seem definitive, given the results of single-culture studies.
Measures of personality have contemporaneous and predictive relations to a variety of important outcomes. (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006, p. 401)
[Traits] may provide substantial predictive power for behavior in aggregate and are better than nothing for predicting even single instances of behavior … (DeYoung, 2015, p. 35)
Personality is less evident in collectivist cultures than it is in individualistic cultures, because the situation is such a powerful determinant of social behavior. (Triandis, 1995, p. 74)
[A]lthough dispositions appear to be meaningful ways of conceptualizing aspects of individual’s behavior universally … dispositional information should be more predictive of an individual’s behavior among North Americans than East Asians … (Heine, 2001, p. 888)
Consistent with trait perspectives (and the first two quotations above), the ability of traits to predict consequential outcomes has been well documented, at least in Western psychology (Duckworth, Weir, Tsukayama, & Kwok, 2012; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Personality traits also predict daily behaviors, particularly when aggregated over time (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). While the mechanisms by which traits translate into behavior need clarification (DeYoung, 2015; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Hampson, 2012), trait theorists propose that people pursue situations and behaviors that are congruent with, or enable them to express, their traits (Ickes, Snyder, & Garcia, 1997).
At the same time, as illustrated in the last two quotations above, cultural psychologists have proposed that traits will be weaker predictors of behavior in collectivistic cultures (where relationships and norms are particularly important), in dialectical cultures (where behavior change is more normative), and in tight cultures (where situations are stronger and deviation from social norms less acceptable) (Gelfand et al., 2011; Heine, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010; Triandis, 1995). In making these predictions, cultural psychologists seem to imply that the traits of individuals in these cultures are less predictive of behavior in general, that is, for all or most traits and outcomes, although this has not been stated explicitly. This would imply a general moderation effect for culture that should be revealed for any or most trait-outcome relationships. If correct, the general utility and importance of trait assessments would be reduced in these cultures.
Here we review cross-cultural studies that have directly compared the criterion validity of personality traits (most often the Big Five) in the prediction of attitudes, beliefs, and values; retrospective or daily behaviors and situations; and SWB.
The majority of studies in this area fail to support cultural moderation of trait-outcome relationships. McCrae et al. (2007) found that the strength and pattern of relationships between the Big Five traits and attitudes reflecting HIV stigmatization were very similar in U.S. and Russian adults. In a meta-analysis of 60 studies in 13 countries by Parks-Leduc, Feldman, and Bardi (2015), the relationships found between the Big Five traits and values were not moderated by individualism-collectivism or cultural tightness. However, in another meta-analysis (with 14 countries that only partially overlapped those in the Parks-Leduc et al. study), Fischer and Boer (2015) found that predicted correlations relating the Big Five traits to values were weaker in countries exposed to greater economic and ecological threats and restrictive social institutions. Fischer and Boer’s results are consistent with the thesis that such contextual factors inhibit (a) individuals’ free expression of their values in trait-related behavior (values → traits) or (b) their free expression of traits, leading to greater internalization of compatible values (traits → values).
In a meta-analysis in 19 countries, Saroglou (2010) found that the Big Five traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness are universal predictors of religiosity and that only the relationship between openness to experience and religiosity is moderated by culture. Schmitt and Fuller (2015), in a study of 56 nations grouped into 10 world regions, reported similar findings: religiosity was significantly positively related to agreeableness in all 10 regions and to conscientiousness in 7 of 10 regions. One possible regional difference involved openness to experience, which was significantly negatively associated with religiosity in three regions (eastern Europe, southern Europe, and the Middle East), positively related to religiosity in East Asia, and not significantly related to religiosity in the remaining regions. (See Saroglou, Chapter 6 in Volume 2 of this book set for a more detailed analysis of trait-religiosity relationships across cultures.)
Leung et al. (2012) related the Big Five to social axiom (i.e., generalized beliefs) dimensions in 10 countries (Study 1) plus the United States and Hong Kong (Study 2). With a few exceptions, the pattern of generally modest correlations was quite similar across cultures, and there was no consistent trend for the correlations to be lower in collectivistic (e.g., Brazil, Mexico), tight (e.g., Malaysia), or dialectical (e.g., China) cultures. Across 19 countries, Ireland, Hepler, Li, and Albarracín (2015) found that the negative relationship between neuroticism and attitudes toward action was stronger (not weaker) for individuals (but not cultures) that are more collectivistic.
In contrast to the majority of these studies, Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al. (2014) did find cultural moderation of the relationships between traits and selected attitudes and values, and Sibley, Osborne, and Duckitt (2012) reported moderation of the typically negative relationship between openness to experience and political conservation. However, these studies, which are reviewed later, did not find moderation by the cultural dimensions mentioned by cultural psychologists (i.e., individualism-collectivism, dialecticism, tightness).
Studies in this area do not generally support cultural psychology hypotheses. For example, three experience sampling studies—involving participants in the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Malaysia, Philippines, China, and Japan—found only modest cultural differences in how well the Big Five traits predicted daily behavior, personality states, or affects, and the modest cultural differences did not show a pattern consistent with differences in individualism-collectivism, dialecticism, or tightness (Ching et al., 2013, 2014; Church, Katigbak, et al., 2008). Similarly, Church, Katigbak, Miramontes, del Prado, and Cabrera (2007) found little evidence of differences between U.S. and Filipino students in the strength of the relationships between the Big Five traits and retrospective ratings of Big Five behaviors. Paunonen, Haddock, Forsterling, and Keinonen (2003) noted a fair amount of replication across four cultures (Canada, England, Germany, and Finland) in the correlations between the Big Five traits and 19 self-reported behaviors (e.g., grade-point-average, alcohol consumption), although no formal testing of cultural differences was done.
Among those studies that predicted behavior outcomes, best support for cultural psychology perspectives comes from a study by Nezlek, Schütz, Schröder-Abé, and Smith (2011), who found both similarities and differences between U.S. and German students in the Big Five predictors of the quality and quantity of social interactions. For example, the authors attributed the ability of extraversion and openness to experience to predict the quality of social interactions in the United States, but not Germany, to the greater normativeness of these traits in the United States and the greater formality and structure of German society—an interpretation that recalls the cultural tightness construct. Finally, in both the United States and Austria, Rauthmann, Sherman, Nave, and Funder (2015) showed that the Big Five traits can predict aspects of the situations encountered by participants, although limited cross-cultural replication was observed in the many modest correlations.
Results in this area are mixed. Across 39 countries, Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, and Shao (2000) found evidence consistent with cultural psychology hypotheses: the correlation between extraversion and pleasant affect was significantly higher in participants from individualistic, as compared to collectivistic, cultures. Schmitt and Allik (2005) found that in all 53 countries examined, self-esteem was negatively correlated with neuroticism and positively correlated with extraversion; three exceptions involved countries where the self-esteem measure had low reliability. Smith and Easterbrook (see Chapter 6 in Volume 3 of this book set) reanalyzed Schmitt and Allik’s data and reported that extraversion correlated more strongly with self-esteem in countries with higher Hofstede individualism scores, whereas neuroticism correlated more strongly with self-esteem in more collectivistic cultures. Only the extraversion finding is consistent with cultural psychology hypotheses.
In a five-culture comparison (United States, Germany, Japan, Mexico, and Ghana), Schimmack, Radhakrishnan, Oishi, Dzokoto, and Ahadi (2002) found that extraversion and neuroticism predicted affective balance to an equivalent degree across cultures. The stronger relationship between these two traits and life satisfaction in the two individualistic cultures (United States, Germany) was due to the stronger relationship between affective balance as a mediator variable and life satisfaction in the individualistic cultures. Galinha, Oishi, Pereira, Wirtz, and Esteves (2013) found that extraversion and neuroticism were strong predictors of SWB in all three cultures sampled (United States, Portugal, and Mozambique), although neuroticism was a somewhat weaker predictor in Mozambique. Fulmer et al. (2010) found cultural moderation of the relationship between extraversion and SWB but offered an alternative to the usual cultural psychology hypotheses, as discussed in the next section.
Finally, two studies that compared U.S. and Hong Kong students (Kwan et al., 1997) or European American and Asian American students (Benet-Martínez & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2003) did not find differential prediction across cultures. Both studies found that direct paths from the Big Five traits to self-esteem and relationship satisfaction were not significantly different across the cultural groups and that in each cultural group the relationship between the Big Five traits and life satisfaction was partially or fully mediated by self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.
The studies reviewed suggest that broad distinctions associated with individualism-collectivism, dialecticism, and cultural tightness do not reliably moderate trait validity across cultures. Given this conclusion, three alternative hypotheses are of interest.
First, in two studies involving 28 societies, Fulmer et al. (2010) found support for a person-culture match hypothesis in the prediction of self-esteem and SWB. Specifically, after controlling for culture-level individualism, extraversion predicted self-esteem and SWB better in cultures with high levels of extraversion. The researchers argued that when individual-level traits match with the cultural aggregate for the traits, the relationship between the traits and positive psychological outcomes is enhanced due to the self-validating effect of person-culture match. However, in a study relating the Big Five traits and life satisfaction in different postal districts in London, a person-environment match hypothesis was supported only for openness to experience, which was more strongly related to life satisfaction in districts with higher openness (Jokela, Bleidorn, Lamb, Gosling, & Rentfrow, 2015). Further research is needed to determine if the person-culture match hypothesis will extend to traits and outcomes beyond extraversion and SWB.
Second, Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al. (2014) proposed a sociocultural motives perspective to account for differential trait-outcome relationships across cultures. This perspective proposes that communal traits (e.g., agreeableness and conscientiousness)—which reflect motives to assimilate to one’s cultural context—will predict particular attitudes and behaviors relatively strongly in sociocultural contexts in which such behaviors are common or normative and relatively weakly in contexts in which such behaviors are uncommon. In contrast, agentic traits (e.g., openness to experience)—which reflect motives to contrast with one’s cultural context—will predict particular behaviors relatively strongly in sociocultural contexts in which such behaviors are uncommon or nonnormative and relatively weakly in contexts in which such behaviors are common. In several online survey studies—with the number of countries ranging from 11 to 106 and total sample sizes as large as 2.7 million—Gebauer and his colleagues have found support for this perspective in the prediction of self-esteem (Gebauer et al., 2015), religiosity (Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al., 2014; Gebauer, Paulhus, & Neberich, 2013), interest in prosocial behavior (Gebauer, Sedikides, Ludtke, & Neberich, 2014), and mate preferences (Gebauer, Leary, & Neberich, 2012). The sociocultural motives perspective may supplement rather than replace the traditional trait perspective that people typically behave in ways that express their traits. For example, people who are more agreeable and conscientious apparently exhibit greater religiosity and prosocial behavior in all cultures but with the strength of these relationships moderated by culture in the manner predicted by the sociocultural motives perspective (Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al., 2014; Gebauer, Sedikides, et al., 2014).
Finally, Sibley et al. (2012) proposed a threat-constraint model to account for country differences in the relationship between openness to experience and political conservatism in a meta-analysis of 73 studies (N = 71,895) in 10 countries (moderation was not found for the other Big Five traits). While the average relationship was modestly negative, the negative relationship was considerably stronger in countries with low systematic threat as assessed by rates of homicide and unemployment, even after controlling for overall development. Thus, the tendency of more open people to be politically liberal was only evident when environmental cues indicated that the world is “relatively safe, stable, and predictable” (p. 674). While the number and diversity of nations in the meta-analysis was limited, the results suggest that ecological factors may be more important moderators of trait prediction than the cultural dimensions that are usually investigated.
A final possibility needs to be considered: Might differential trait validity across cultures, when identified, reflect differential reliability or measurement noninvariance for the measured traits and outcomes? For two studies (Fulmer et al., 2010; Schmitt & Allik, 2005) we computed and found moderately strong correlations between the alpha reliabilities reported and the strength of the trait-outcome relationships across cultures. However, in the vast majority of the studies reviewed, the researchers demonstrated acceptable metric (loading) invariance for the relevant measures and/or used structural equations modeling to correct for unreliability of measurement. This suggests that the differential trait-outcome relationships, when identified, were probably not due to items being weaker indicators of the respective constructs in the cultures with weaker trait-outcome relationships. Nonetheless, it will be important for researchers to ensure acceptable measurement invariance when investigating differential trait-outcome relationships across cultures.
Trait validity can also be investigated with indigenous measures. A number of researchers have drawn on native languages, local psychological literatures, and cultural informants to develop measures that assess indigenous traits (Fetvadjiev, Meiring, van de Vijver, Nel, & Hill, 2015; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapeña, Carlota, & del Pilar, 2002) or a combination of imported and indigenous traits (Cheung, Cheung, & Fan, 2013). A central question is whether the indigenous scales contribute unique prediction of important outcomes. Probably most informative are studies of indigenous inventories in less Westernized countries.
For example, in Hong Kong, Zhang and Bond (1998) found that indigenous scales in the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Inventory (Cheung et al., 2013), in particular, Harmony and Renqing (Relational Orientation), accounted for an additional 5.75% of the variance beyond the Big Five traits in the prediction of filial piety (see also Cheung, Fan, and Cheung, Chapter 4 in the current volume). Hill et al. (2013) found that Relationship Harmony and Soft-heartedness scales in the South African Personality Inventory (Fetvadjiev et al., 2015) contributed 12% and 20% additional variance, respectively, beyond a Big Five measure in predicting self-reported prosociality. Katigbak et al. (2002) compared the validity of scales in two Filipino inventories versus the facet scales of the Filipino Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998). The best indigenous and imported (NEO-PI-R) scales correlated with attitudinal and behavioral criteria about equally well and the amount of unique variance explained by either the indigenous or imported constructs was generally modest.
In each of the validity studies reviewed, trait measures were successful predictors of the outcomes in each culture. Thus, the results provide strong support for the theoretical value and practical utility of the trait concept across cultures. The value of the trait concept does not require that traits predict the same outcomes in each culture. Nonetheless, the evidence reviewed indicates that traits often do predict particular outcomes to a similar degree across cultures. More research is needed on the uniqueness, interpretation, and incremental validity of indigenous dimensions in a greater variety of cultures. However, available studies suggest that indigenous measures exhibit comparable validity to imported (generally Western) measures and can contribute incremental prediction.
Although cultures differ in their beliefs and values, behaviors, and SWB, many of the studies reviewed showed little, if any, cultural moderation of the trait-outcome relationships. In the domain of attitudes, beliefs, and values, many studies showed no cultural moderation, while some showed cultural moderation supporting social motives (Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al., 2014) or threat-constraint (Sibley et al., 2012) perspectives rather than traditional cultural psychology hypotheses. In the domain of retrospective and daily behaviors, only one study showed fairly clear cultural moderation of some trait-outcome relationships (Nezlek et al., 2011), which might be attributable to differences in cultural tightness. Results in the SWB domain were mixed.
Overall, then, available studies do not provide reliable support for weaker trait-outcome relationships in collectivistic, dialectical, or tight cultures. Rather, more refined hypotheses may be needed. Three alternative hypotheses—person-culture match (Fulmer et al., 2010), the social motives perspective (Gebauer, Bleidorn, et al., 2014), and the threat-constraint model (Fischer & Boer, 2015)—seem promising and worth additional research. Interestingly, their predictions are not entirely compatible, particularly regarding openness to experience. It is also possible that cultural differences, when identified, will depend on the specific combination of traits and outcomes being examined (what might be referred to as a “specificity hypothesis”). For example, Jokela et al. (2015) found that the relationships between the Big Five and life satisfaction across different environments (i.e., postal districts) in London depended on a variety of sociodemographic conditions.
The finding that cultural differences in trait-outcome relationships are rather limited is plausibly explained by the heritable nature of personality trait variation. Many personality psychologists view traits as biologically based basic tendencies or temperaments that are less influenced by the environment (including culture) than are the goals, values, motives, beliefs, self-concepts, and so forth that comprise characteristic adaptations—which plausibly result from the interaction of basic tendencies and the environment (McCrae & Costa, 1996). Indeed, there is some evidence that characteristic adaptations such as self-esteem, relationship harmony, social appraisals, and norms are related differently to SWB in collectivistic or East Asian cultures, as compared to individualistic cultures (Diener & Diener, 1995; Kang et al., 2003; Kwan et al., 1997; Schimmack et al., 2002; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). Boer and Fischer (2013) reported moderation of selected value-attitude relationships by ecological (i.e., disease stress) and cultural (i.e., individualism, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance) dimensions. Savani, Markus, and Conner (2008) found a stronger link between preferences and choices for middle-class North Americans than for Indians. In short, we might expect cultural moderation of predictive relationships to be greater for characteristic adaptations than for dispositional traits.
A number of recommendations for future research can be offered. In regard to trait validity, more studies that go beyond self-report measures are needed. When self-report alone is used to assess both traits and outcomes, response styles may inflate validity. More cross-cultural studies of consistency and prediction of actual behavior and studies of situation-behavior profiles are also needed. Although the range of outcomes examined thus far is reasonably diverse, consequential long-term outcomes such as health, mortality, marital satisfaction, and occupational success should also be studied, including with longitudinal designs. There is also a strong need to extend research in this area to African and Middle Eastern cultures, which have been largely ignored.
Most cross-cultural validity studies have been conducted at the level of the Big Five traits. Given that prediction may be superior for specific traits or facets (Paunonen et al., 2003), future studies should also examine trait-outcome relationships using more specific traits. Similarly, future studies of indigenous measures should examine incremental validity relative to more comprehensive trait measures that include specific traits within each Big Five domain. Most cross-cultural studies treat nation as a proxy for culture and tend to ignore within-culture heterogeneity. Future studies could examine differential validity across more homogeneous cultural or ethnic subgroups within societies. Given the limited support for cultural psychology predictions regarding differential trait validity across cultures, alternative hypotheses (e.g., person-culture match, sociocultural motives perspectives, the threat-constraint model) should be further tested and additional hypotheses or explanations sought.
Researchers frequently assume, at least implicitly, that the direction of causality is from culture to personality while downplaying the possible influence of traits on situations and culture. Thus, future cross-cultural research on trait validity could examine the extent to which traits predict individuals’ construals of situations; the ecocultural and situational contexts they seek out; the extent to which they internalize, conform, or adapt to aspects of their culture; and whether they strive to change their cultures.
Finally, a number of psychologists have pointed out the need to go beyond simple demonstrations of trait-outcome links to clarify the mechanisms that explain such links (DeYoung, 2015; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Hampson, 2012). A few studies (Benet-Martínez & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2003; Ching et al., 2014; Kwan et al., 1997) have successfully tested mediating mechanisms underlying various trait-outcome relationships, but additional systematic efforts are needed. Researchers can attempt to identify universals and cultural specifics in these mediating mechanisms.
Our interest in trait consistency and validity across cultures is part of a larger effort to integrate trait and cultural psychology perspectives (Church, 2000, 2009). These two perspectives have dominated cross-cultural research on personality and self but have largely proceeded independently. Although some theorists view the two approaches as incompatible, integration seems possible, in part, because trait theory largely addresses biologically based basic tendencies (i.e., dispositional traits), while cultural psychology perspectives primarily address the characteristic adaptations (e.g., motives, self-concepts) that may result from evolved, heritable traits and culture (Church, 2010). The biological contribution to traits likely ensures some role for traits in the consistency and predictive validity of behavior and in the characteristic adaptations or personality processes investigated by cultural psychologists but does not preclude moderation by dimensions of culture. This integrative effort appears analogous to efforts to integrate trait and social cognitive perspectives in personality psychology (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015).
Previously, we have investigated the prospects for integrating trait and cultural psychology perspectives on (a) implicit theories regarding the traitedness versus contextual nature of behavior (Church et al., 2003; Church, Willmore, et al., 2012), (b) the content of self-concepts (del Prado et al., 2007), (c) dispositional versus situational attributions for behavior (Church & Katigbak, 2012), and (d) accuracy and enhancement in trait assessments (Church et al., 2006; Church, Katigbak, Mazuera-Arias, et al., 2014) (for reviews, see Church, 2009; Church & Katigbak, 2012). In general, studies in these areas have provided consistent support for trait perspectives, with cultural psychology perspectives supported more strongly in some areas (i.e., implicit theories, behavioral attributions) than others (i.e., the content of self-concepts, accuracy of trait assessments). Based on the present review, our conclusions can be extended to the area of trait consistency and validity across cultures.
We noted good support for trait perspectives on cross-situational consistency, cross-observer agreement, and trait validity across cultures and, at best, mixed support for cultural psychology perspectives. Reduced cross-situational consistency and cross-observer agreement—when found—seem limited to a few East Asian cultures. Indeed, consistency may actually be higher in some Latin American cultures than in individualistic countries such as the United States, Australia, and Canada. These results are more consistent with an interpretation in terms of East Asian dialecticism and possibly tightness rather than individualism-collectivism. In addition, cross-cultural research does not provide strong evidence for differential trait-outcome relationships as a function of individualism-collectivism, dialecticism, or tightness—the cultural dimensions that seem most theoretically relevant, although alternative moderation hypotheses show some potential. In addition to the methodological issues discussed—which reduce the definitiveness of any conclusions—a limitation of research in this area is the selected range of cultures investigated. In particular, studies that include African and Middle Eastern cultures are rare. Moreover, the number of studies involving direct cross-cultural comparisons of trait consistency and validity remains limited. These factors make it difficult to discern definitive patterns or form firm conclusions. As a result, there remains a strong need for additional research in this area that is responsive to the conceptual and methodological issues addressed in this review. Such research can have important implications for both trait and cultural psychology perspectives in the study of personality across cultures.
We thank Kenneth D. Locke and Robert R. McCrae for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter.
Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 512–527.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2003). The interplay of cultural values and personality in predicting life-satisfaction: Comparing Asian- and European-Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 38–61.
Bleidorn, W., & Ködding, C. (2013). The divided self and psychological (mal) adjustment—A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 547–552.
Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude-value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 1113–1147.
Boucher, H. C. (2011). The dialectical self-concept II: Cross-role and within-role consistency, well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1251–1271.
Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Fan, W. (2013). From Chinese to cross-cultural personality inventory: A combined emic-etic approach to the study of personality in culture. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 117–179). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ching, C. M., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Locke, K. D., Vargas-Flores, J. D., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., … Ortiz, F. A. (2013). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM): Implications for trait and cultural psychology. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 894–907.
Ching, C. M., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Takaoka, S., … Ortiz, F. A. (2014). The manifestation of traits in everyday behavior and affect: A five-culture study. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 1–16.
Choi, I., & Choi, Y. (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1508–1517.
Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 68, 651–703.
Church, A. T. (2009). Prospects for an integrated trait and cultural psychology. European Journal of Personality, 23, 153–182.
Church, A. T. (2010). Current perspectives in the study of personality across cultures. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 441–449.
Church, A. T. (2016). Personality traits across cultures. In M. Gelfand & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.014
Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Katigbak, M. S., Mastor, K. A., Cabrera, H. F., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., … Buchanan, A. L. (2012). Self-concept consistency and short-term stability in eight cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 556–570.
Church, A. T., Anderson-Harumi, C. A., del Prado, A. M., Curtis, G., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Valdez-Medina, J. L., … Katigbak, M. S. (2008). Culture, cross-role consistency, and adjustment: Testing trait and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 739–755.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2012). Culture and personality. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 139–204). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Ching, C. M., Zhang, H., Shen, J., Mazuera Arias, R., … Alvarez, J. M. (2013). Within-individual variability in self-concepts and personality states: Applying density distribution and situation-behavior approaches across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 922–935.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., del Prado, A. M., Valdez-Medina, J. L., Miramontes, L. G., & Ortiz, F. A. (2006). A cross-cultural study of trait self-enhancement, explanatory variables, and adjustment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1169–1201.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., Vargas-Flores, J. D., Curtis, G. J., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., … Simon, J.-Y. R. (2014). Relating self-concept consistency to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 695–712.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Mazuera-Arias, R., Rincon, B. C., Vargas-Flores, J. D., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., … Ortiz, F. A. (2014). A four-culture study of self-enhancement and adjustment using the social relations model: Do alternative conceptualizations and indices make a difference? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 997–1014.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Miramontes, L. G., del Prado, A. M., & Cabrera, H. F. (2007). Culture and the behavioural manifestations of traits: An application of the act frequency approach. European Journal of Personality, 21, 389–417.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. S., Salanga, M. G., Miramontes, L. G., & Adams, N. B. (2008). Prediction and cross-situational consistency of daily behavior across cultures: Testing trait and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1199–1215.
Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Katigbak, M. S., Avdeyeva, T., Emerson, A. M., Vargas Flores, J. D., & Ibáñez Reyes, J. (2003). Measuring individual and cultural differences in implicit trait theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 332–347.
Church, A. T., Willmore, S. L., Anderson, A. T., Ochiai, M., Porter, N., Mateo, N. J., … Ortiz, F. A. (2012). Cultural differences in implicit theories and self-perceptions of traitedness: Replication and extension with alternative measurement formats and cultural dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1268–1296.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124–131.
del Prado, A. M., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Miramontes, L. G., Whitty, M. T., Curtis, G. J., … Reyes, J. A. S. (2007). Culture, method, and the content of self-concepts: Testing trait, individual-self primacy, and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1119–1160.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 834–846.
Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. (2012). Who does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 356.
Dunkel, C. S., Minor, L., & Babineau, M. (2010). The continued assessment of self-continuity and identity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 171, 251–261.
English, T., & Chen, S. (2007). Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within contexts among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 478–490.
English, T., & Chen, S. (2011). Self-concept consistency and culture: The differential impact of two forms of consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 838–849.
Fetvadjiev, V. H., Meiring, D., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Nel, J. A., & Hill, C. (2015). The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups. Psychological Assessment, 27, 827–837.
Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2015). Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-analysis of value-personality correlations. Journal of Personality, 83, 491–510.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097–1114.
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92.
Fukushima, O., & Hosoe, T. (2011). Narcissism, variability in self-concept, and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 568–575.
Fulmer, C. A., Gelfand, M. J., Kruglanski, A. W., Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). On “feeling right” in cultural contexts: How person-culture match affects self-esteem and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 21, 1563–1569.
Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A Neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
Gage, E., Coker, S., & Jobson, L. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in desirable and undesirable forms of self-consistency and influence on symptoms of depression and anxiety. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 713–722.
Galinha, I. C., Oishi, S., Pereira, C., Wirtz, D., & Esteves, F. (2013). The role of personality traits, attachment style, and satisfaction with relationships in the subjective well-being of Americans, Portuguese, and Mozambicans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 416–437.
Gebauer, J. E., Bleidorn, W., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Lamb, M. E., & Potter, J. (2014). Cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with religiosity: A sociocultural motives perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 1064–1091.
Gebauer, J. E., Leary, M. R., & Neberich, W. (2012). Big Two personality and Big Three mate preferences: Similarity attracts, but country-level mate preferences crucially matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1579–1593.
Gebauer, J. E., Paulhus, D. L., & Neberich, W. (2013). Big Two personality and religiosity across cultures: Communals as religious conformists and agentics as religious contrarians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 21–30.
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Ludtke, O., & Neberich, W. (2014). Agency-communion and interest in prosocial behavior: Social motives for assimilation and contrast explain sociocultural inconsistencies. Journal of Personality, 82, 452–466.
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2015). Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 526–548.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225–1244.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104.
Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin.” Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 315–339.
Harrington, J. R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 7990–7995.
Heine, S. J. (2001). Self as a cultural product: An examination of East Asian and North American selves. Journal of Personality, 69, 880–906.
Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 4–27.
Heine, S. J., & Renshaw, K. (2002). Interjudge agreement, self-enhancement, and liking: Cross-cultural divergences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 578–587.
Hill, C., French, L., Morton, N., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Valchev, V. H., Adams, B. G., & de Bruin, G. P. (2013). The construct validation of the Relationship Harmony and Soft-heartedness scales of the South African Personality Inventory. South African Journal of Psychology, 43, 167–181.
Ickes, W., Snyder, M., & Garcia, S. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of situations. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 165–195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ireland, M. E., Hepler, J., Li, H., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Neuroticism and attitudes toward action in 19 countries. Journal of Personality, 83, 243–250.
Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Johnson, J. A. (1997). Units of analysis for the description and explanation of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 73–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jokela, M., Bleidorn, W., Lamb, M. E., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2015). Geographically varying associations between personality and life satisfaction in the London metropolitan area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 112, 725–730.
Jourard, S. M. (1965). Personal adjustment: An approach through the study of healthy personality. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (2001). “Who am I?” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 90–103.
Kang, S., Shaver, P. R., Sue, S., Min, K., & Jing, H. (2003). Culture-specific patterns in the prediction of life satisfaction: Roles of emotion, relationship quality, and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1596–1608.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Wang, C., Vargas-Flores, J. D., Ibáñez-Reyes, J., … Ortiz, F. A. (2013). Cross-observer agreement and self-concept consistency across cultures: Integrating trait and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 78–89.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., Guanzon-Lapeña, M. A., Carlota, A. J., & del Pilar, G. (2002). Are indigenous dimensions culture-specific? Philippine inventories and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 89–101.
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Yin and yang of the Japanese self: The cultural psychology of personality coherence. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social cognitive bases of personality consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 242–302). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life-satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038–1051.
Leung, K., Lam, B. C. P., Bond, M. H., Conway, L. G., III, Gornick, L. J., Amponsah, B., … Zhou, F. (2012). Developing and evaluating the social axioms survey in eleven countries: Its relationship with the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 833–857.
Locke, K. D. (2006). What predicts well-being: A consistent self-concept or a desirable self-concept? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 228–247.
Locke, K. D., Church, A. T., Mastor, K., Curtis, G., Sadler, P., McDonald, K., … Ortiz, F. (in press). Cross-situational self-consistency in nine cultures: The importance of separating influences of social norms and distinctive dispositions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Locke, K. D., Zheng, D., & Smith, J. (2014). Establishing commonality versus affirming distinctiveness: Patterns of personality judgments in China and the United States. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 389–397.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468.
Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Diaz-Loving, R., Dong, Q., & Lee, Y.-T. (2004). Agreement in personality judgments within and between nonoverlapping social groups in collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 106–117.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568–579.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63–87.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420–430.
McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (Eds.). (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G. Y., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the Five-Factor Model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., … Urbánek, T. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179–201.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Senin, I. G., & O’Cleirigh, C. (2007). Personality correlates of HIV stigmatization in Russia and the United States. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 190–196.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency in personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 30–34.
Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921–933.
Mõttus, R., Allik, J., & Pullmann, H. (2007). Does personality vary across ability levels? A study using self and other ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 155–170.
Nezlek, J. B., Schutz, A., Schroöder-Abé, M., & Smith, C. V. (2011). A cross-cultural study of relationships between daily social interaction and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 79, 811–840.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Cross-situational consistency of affective experiences across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 460–472.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 3–29.
Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behavior across cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413–433.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 98–111.
Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 137–145.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.
Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic traits: A Five-Factor Model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 108–125.
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide: Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 861–876.
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life-satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582–593.
Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623–642.
Schmitt, D. P., & Fuller, R. C. (2015). On the varieties of sexual experience: Cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7, 314–326.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 664–677.
Smith, R. E., Shoda, Y., Cumming, S. P., & Smoll, F. L. (2009). Behavioral signatures at the ballpark: Intraindividual consistency of adults’ situation-behavior patterns and their interpersonal consequences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 187–195.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Srivastava, S., Boucher, H.C., English, T., Paletz, S.B., & Peng, K. (2015). The dialectical self scale. Unpublished manuscript, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 296–312.
Spirrison, C. L., & Choi, S. (1998). Psychometric properties of a Korean version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 83, 263–274.
Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378–1391.
Suh, E. M., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM). Journal of Personality, 74, 779–809.
Yik, M. S. M., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Do Chinese self-enhance or self-efface? It’s a matter of domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 399–406.
Zhang, J., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college students in two Chinese societies: The added value of indigenous constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 402–417.