Personality Trait Structure Universality

8/2/2019 Personality Trait Structure Universality

1/8

P e r s o n a l i t y T r a it S t r u ct u r e a s a H u m a n U n i v e r s a lRobert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.Nat iona l Ins t i tu te on Ag ing

P a t t e r n s o f co va r ia t i o n a m o n g p er s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i nE n g l i sh - s p ea ki n g p o p u l a t io n s ca n b e s u m m a r i z ed b y t h ef ive- fac tor model (FFM) . To assess the cross -cu l tura lgenera l i zab i li t y o f the FFM , da ta f rom s tud ies us ing 6t rans la t ions o f the Revised NE O Pe rsona l i ty Inven tory(P . T . Cos ta & R . R . McCrae, 1992) were com pared wi ththe Am er ican fac tor s t ructure . Germ an , Por tuguese , He-brew, Ch inese, Korean , and Japanese sam ples (N =7 ,134) showed s im i lar s t ructures a f ter var imax ro ta t iono f 5 fac tors . When targeted ro ta tions were used , theAm er ican fac tor s t ructure was c lose ly reproduced , evena t the leve l o f secondary load ings . Because the sampless tud ied represen ted h igh ly d iverse cu l tures wi th lan-guage s f rom 5 d i s t inc t language fami l ies , these da tas t rong ly sugges t tha t persona l i ty t ra i t s t ructure i suniversal .

T aditionally, anthropologists and cross-cultural psy-chologists have emphasized the tremendous diver-sity of human cultural institutions and their pro-found impact on individual psychology (Markus &Kitayama, 1991). More recently, however, progress inevolutionary psychology (Konner, 1991) and behavior ge-netics (Loehlin, 1992) has provided a rationale for exam-ining universals of human nature that transcend culturaldifferences. This article reviews recent evidence that sug-gests that the structure of individual differences in per-sonality is uniform across several cultures and may infact be universal. Common dimensions of personalitymay thus provide a framework for understanding culturaldifferences.All human languages (Dixon, 1977) contain termsto characterize personality traits--relatively enduringstyles of t hin kin g, feeling, and acting. By persona l i tys t ructure trait, psychologists mean the pattern o f covaria-tion among these traits, usually summarized in terms ofa relatively small number of factors that represent thebasic dimensions of personality. For example, in English-speaking cultures, people who are sociable are generallyalso energetic and cheerful, and these t raits together de-fine a dimension usually called extravers ion (H. J.Eysenck & Eysenck, 1967).If personality traits are arbitrarily shaped by cul-t u r e - f o r example, by child rearing practices, religiousand moral values, and the apperceptual system encoded ineach different language- -then very different personalitytraits and trait structures might be found in different cul-tures. If, however, personality traits represent variations

in basic human ways of acting and experiencing, thestructure might be universal. Universality might be attrib-uted to specieswide biological bases o f traits, or it mightrepresent a purely psychological consequence of theshared human experiences o f living in groups, using ab-stract thought, or being conscious of our own mortality.Cross'-cultural studies of personality using transla-tions of English-language questionnaires have been con-ducted for many years (e.g., Bond, Nakazato, & Shiraishi,1975) an dha ve often shown evidence of replicable fac-tors (S. B. G. Eysenck, 1983). Yet these studies were inone sense premature, because until recently there was noconsensus among personality psychologists on what thebasic structure of personality was in English-speakingpopulations. Were there three factors (S. B. G. Eysenck,1983), eight (Comrey, 1970), or sixteen (Cattell, Eber, &Tatsuoka, 1970)?Many psychologists are now convinced that the bestrepresentation of trait structure is provided by the five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990; but see Block, 1995,for a dissenting view). According to the FFM, most per-sonality traits can be described in terms of five basicdimensions, called Neuroticism versus Emotional Stabil-ity (N); Extraversion or Surgency (E); Openness to Expe-rience or Intellect, Imagination, or Culture (O); Agree-ableness versus Antagonism (A); and Conscientiousnessor Will to Achieve (C). These dimensions can be foundin trait adjectives as well as in questionnaires createdto operationalize a variety of person ality theories(McCrae & John, 1992).Each of these factors represents the common vari-ance among a large set of more specific traits or facets.The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R;

Editor's note. Che ry l B . T ra v i s s e rve d a s a c t i on e d i t o r fo r t h i s a r t ic l e .Author's note. Robert R. McCrae and Paul T . Costa , J r . , Persona l i ty,S t r e s s , a nd Copi ng Se c t i on , Ge ron t o l ogy Re s e a rc h Ce n t e r , Na t i ona lIns t i t u t e on Agi ng , Ba l t i m ore , MD.Cros s -c u l t u ra l da t a r e a na l yz e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e we re ge ne rous l y p ro -v i d e d b y F r i tz O s t e n d o r f a n d A l o i s A n g l e it n e r i n G e r m a n y ; M a r g a r i d aP e d r o s o d e L i m a a n d A n t 6 n i o S i m 6 e s i n P o r t u g a l ; It z h a k M o n t a g a n dJ os e ph L e v i n i n I s r a e l ; Mi c ha e l H . Bond i n Hong Kong; Kyoung- i rnL e e a nd C ha ng-ky u Al an in Sou t h K ore a ; a nd Yos hi ko Sh i m ona ka ,Ka t s uha ru Na ka z a t o , Ya s uyuk i Gon do , a nd M i dor i T a ka ya m a i n J a pa n .We t ha nk Mi c ha e l H . Bond , F r i t z Os t e ndor f , a nd J i a n Ya ng fo r c om -ments on a draf t of thi s a r t i c le~Cor re s ponde nc e c onc e rn i ng t h i s a r t i c l e s hou l d be a ddre s s e d t oRobe r t R . Mc Cra e , Pe r s ona l i t y , S t r e s s , a nd Copi ng Se c t i on , Ge ron t o l -ogy Re s e a rc h Ce n t e r, N a t i ona l Ins t i t u te on Agi ng , 4940 E a s t e rn Ave nue ,Ba l t i m ore , MD 21224 . E l e c t ron i c m a i l m a y be s e n t v i a In t e rne t t oj e f f m @ m vx.grc .n i a .n i h .gov .

May 1997 American PsychologistI n t h e p u b l i c d o m a i nV o l. 5 2 , N o . 5 , 5 0 9 - 5 1 6

509


2/8

Robert R.McCrae

Costa & McCrae, 1992) was developed to operationalizethe FFM by assessing 30 specific facets, 6 for each factor.The factor structure of these 30 scales has been widelyreplicated in English (e.g., Piedmont, 1994), with similarfactors found in men and women, older and youngeradults, and White and non-White subsamples (Costa,McCrae, & Dye, 1991). Because the instrument has beentranslated into a number of different languages , it can beused to investigate the cross-language generalizability ofthe FFM.Language and PersonalityPersonality and its assessment are intimately bound wi thnatural language. All human cultures include words fordescribing individual differences in personality, and alarge par t of the process o f socialization consists of learn-ing these terms and how they are applied to oneself andothers. Unlike physical characteristics, personality traitsare abstractions that cannot be directly measured andmust instead be inferred from complex patterns of overtand covert behavior. Human judges are needed to makethese inferences, and in psychological studies, they typi-cally do so by responding to checklists or questionnairestatements that use natural language. Even technical judg-ments, such as psychiatric diagnoses, ultimately rely onnatural language: To diagnose a narcissistic personalitydisorder, one must understand the meaning of such termsas grandiose, exploitative, envious, and arrogant (Ameri-can Psychiatric Association, 1994).The lexical approach to personality structure (Gold-berg, 1981) adopts the hypothesis that because personal-ity traits are so central to human interactions, all im-portant traits will have been encoded in natural language.Thus, an analysis of trait language should yield the struc-ture of personality itself. The FFM was originally identi-fied in analyses that began with lists of trait terms derivedfrom the English-language dictionaries, and one way to

look for universal trait dimensions has been to conductpsycholexical studies in a variety of languages.Results of such studies to date have been mixed.The FFM is clearly recovered in studies of German traits(Ostendorf, 1990), but only four of the five factors werefound in an analysis of Hungarian adjectives (De Raad &Szirm,~, 1994). Yang and Bond (1990) found five factorsin Chinese trait terms, but they did no t show a one-to-one correspondence with the dimensions of the FFM.Church and Katigbak (1989) reported similar findings inTagalog, a Philippine language.These studies might be interpreted as evidence thatpersonality structure varies appreciably across cultures;alternatively, they might mean that the lexical approachhas certain limitations as a strategy for the study of per-sonality structure. It is simply not the case that all person-ality traits are encoded as adjectives. The English lan-guage, for example, contains no single trait adjective forsuch well-known traits as need for variety and toleranceof ambiguity. Cultures select a limited range from amongthe spectrum of personality traits to encode in their lexi-con, and they may select differently. Languages differnot only in the precise trait terms they include (as everytranslator knows) but more broadly in the aspects ofpersonality their vocabularies emphasize (Angleitner, Os-tendorf, & John, 1990). Lexical studies thus confounddifferences in personality structure with differences inpersonality language.To examine cross-cultural differences in structureper se, it is necessary to hold the assessment of personal-ity constant by measuring the same traits in each culture.That, of course, is easier said than done; finding the exactequivalent for a single word in another language is oftenimpossible. But meaning can usually be conveyed at thelevel of phrases or sentences, and questionnaires, whichuse conditional and contextualized statements to assesspersonality, may be more cross-culturally transportablethan are lists of adjectives. When translated, personalityscales may provide a roughly equivalent set of variablesand make it possible to ask whether the relations amongthese variables are invariant across cultures.A Stratified Sample of LanguagesBecause some 4,000 human languages are spoken, it isimpossible to establish directly the universality of person-ality structure. There are hologeistic methods designedto allow wor ldwide generalizations (Naroll, Michik, &NaroU, 1980), provided that a relatively large sample ofcultures is studied. However, given the small and nonran-dora selection of languages into which most personalityquestionnaires have been translated, those methods arenot directly applicable.As it happens, however, the NEO-PI-R has beentranslated into languages from several different languagefamilies. Language families are groups of languages witha common historical origin that have cognate terms andshare certain features of grammar and syntax. They con-stitute, therefore, a meaningful basis for stratification insampling the wor ld' s languages. In this article, we exam-

510 May 1997 American Psychologist


3/8

Paul T. Costa,Jr.Photograph by NIAPhotography.

ine the factor s tructure of the N E O - P I -R translated intoGerman (a language, like English, from the Germanicbranch of the Indo-European family), Portuguese (fromthe Italic branch of Indo-European), Hebrew (a Hamito-Semitic language), Chinese (from the Sino-Tibetan fam-ily), Korean, and Japanese. These latter two languagesare generally not classified in any family, although Ko-rean shares some features of the Altaic languages (likeTurkish and Mongolian), and some scholars have notedresemblances between Japanese and Austronesian (e.g.,Samoan) and Austro-Asiatic (e.g., Khmer) languages("Lang uages of the World," 1993). 1If, as Sapir (1921) argued, reality is structured bythe language one speaks, and if personality traits in par-ticular are social constructions (Hampson, 1988), thenradically different languages might be expected to leadto very different construals o f personality. By samplingacross language families, we test the limits of generaliz-ability of the FFM .Other Cultural DifferencesThe seven societies compare d in the present study differ,of course, in many respects other than simply language.Historically, Hebrew, Portuguese, and German cultureswere shaped by Judeo-Christian traditions and Japanese,Chinese, and Korean cultures by Buddhist and Confuciantraditions. Germany and Japan are relatively wealthy so-cieties; Portugal and South Korea are not. The UnitedStates and Japan currently have political systems thatemphasize individual civil rights, whereas South Koreaand Isra el-- bot h under threat of regional conl lict --donot (see Diener, Dienet; & Diener, 1995).Perhaps more relevant to personality structure arecultural differences in social norms, attitudes, and values.Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996), for example,surveyed values of managers and organization employeesin 43 countries. Multidimensional scaling showed that

Japan, Hong Kong, and especially South Korea scoredlow on a dimension of egalitarian commitment versusconservatism, wh ereas Portugal, Germany, and the UnitedStates scored high. Similarly, Schwartz (1994) usedteacher ratings o f values to rank 38 cultural groups onculture-level value dimensions and found that Hon g Kongscored relatively high on conservatism, whereas WestGermany scored high on autonomy.The mos t widely researched cultural variable is indi-vidualism-collectivism: "Overwhelm ing evidence indi-cates differences in basic psychological processes be-tween collectivistic and individualistic contexts" (Kagit-~iba~i & Berry, 1989, p. 516). Diener et al. (1995)reported ratings by H. C. Triandis of the individual ism-collectivism of 55 countries on a scale from 1 to 10. Thesamples examined in the present article are distributedacross most of that range: South Korea (3), Japan (4),Portugal (5), Israel (6), West Germany (8), and the UnitedStates (10). If distinctly different personality factors arefound in these different samples, cultural differences inconservatism or collectivism might suggest possible ex-planations (cf. Betancou rt & L6pez, 1993). However, thefinding of similar factors in all these samples despitethe profound differences of language and culture wouldprovide strong evidence of the universality of personalitytrait structure.MethodSamplesData from seven factor structures were compared. Thebasis for comparisons was the normative data for theN EO -P I- R, a sample of 500 men and 500 women aged21 and over, selected to match U .S. Census (U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, Bureau o f the Census, 1984) projec-tions with respect to age and race. They were, however,somewhat better educated than the American populationin general (Costa & McCrae, 1992).The German sample included 642 men and 646women (plus 36 respondents with gender not reported)aged 15 to 83 who were friends and relatives recruitedby psychology students. About 60% of the participantswe re students (Osten dorf & Angleitner, 1994). Portu-guese data were from 861 men and 1,133 women (and6 with unreported gender) aged 17 to 84, from the Leiriaregion of Portugal. The full range of socioeconomic andeducational levels were represented; the questionnairewas administered orally to participants who were unableto read it themselves (M. P. Lima & A. Simtes, personalcommunication, January 1, 1995).

Two job applicant samples (396 men, mean age =28.4; 539 women, aged 17 or 18) completed the Hebrew1 Some Westerners may suppose that Chinese and Japanese aresimilar, but "the two languages are entirely different. Chinese is amonosyllabic language with musical tones to distinguish the many iden-tical syllables. In its classical form at least, Chinese is a language ofgreat compactness. Japanese, on the other hand, is polysyllabic, has notones like the Chinese, and . . . is a language of interminable senten-ces" (Keene, 1955, p. 2).

Ma y 1997 Ame rican Psychologist 511


4/8

t r an s l at io n o f t h e N E O - P I - R ( M o n t a g & L e v in , 1 99 4).T h e C h i n e s e v e r s i o n w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d to u n d e r g r a d u a t ep s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n ts ( 16 1 m e n a n d 1 9 1 w o m e n ) w h o re -ce ived re sea rch c red i t fo r t he i r pa r t i c ipa t i on (McCrae ,C o s t a , & Y i k , 1 9 9 6 ; M c C r a e , Z o n d e r m a n , C o s t a ,Bond , & Paunonen , 1996) .T h e K o re a n N E O - P I - R w a s c om p l e te d b y 1 , 23 4m e n a n d 1 , 0 8 7 w o m e n ( p l u s 2 w i t h u n r e p o r t e d g e n d e r )wh o were a l l co l l ege f r e shme n (Lee , 1995) . The Japanes es a m p l e c o n s i s t e d o f 2 0 0 c o l l e g e s t u d e n ts ( 5 4 m e n a n d 1 46w o m e n ) . A p r i n c i p a l - a x i s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s w a s r e p o r t e db y G o n d o , S h i m o n a k a , N a k a z a t o , I s h i h a r a , a n d I m u t a(1993) ; fo r t he p re sen t pu rpose s , p r i nc ipa l componen t sw e r e e x a m i n e d ( Y . S h i m o n a k a , p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,June 1 , 1995). N o te t ha t f a c to r s truc tu re s fo r t he Ch in esea n d J a p a n e s e s a m p l e s a r e a l s o d i s c u s s e d e l s e w h e r e(McCrae , Zonde rman , e t a l . , 1996) .MaterialsT h e N E O - P I - R i s a 2 4 0 - i t e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s i g n e dt h r o u g h r a t i o n a l a n d f a c t o r a n a l y t ic m e t h o d s t o o p e r a t io n -a l i ze t h e F F M . E a c h o f t h e f iv e fa c t o r s i s r e p r es e n t e d b ys ix spec i f i c tr a i t s , o r f a ce t s ( see Tab le 1 fo r a l i s t o f f a ce t sand t he i r c l a ss i f i c a ti on ) . Resp onses a re mad e on a 5 -po in tsca l e f rom strongly disagree to strongly agree; d a t a o nthe r e l i ab i l i t y , s t ab i l i t y , and va l i d i t y o f t he f ace t s andf a c t o rs a r e s u m m a r i z e d in t h e m a n u a l ( C o s t a & M c C r a e ,1992).A l l t r a n s l a ti o n s w e r e m a d e b y n a t i v e s p e a ke r s w i t ht r a in ing i n psycho logy . Af t e r comple t i ng a t r ans l a t i on , ab a c k - t r a n s la t i o n i n to E n g l i s h w a s p r e p a r e d b y a s e c o n dt rans l a to r (b l ind t o t he o r ig ina l Eng l i sh ) and rev i ew ed bythe t e s t au thor s . I t ems ( t yp i ca l l y l e ss t han 10% o f the2 4 0 ) t h a t a p p e a r e d t o h a v e s t r a y e d f r o m t h e i r i n t e n d e dm e a n i n g w e r e r e v i e w e d a n d r e v i s e d b y t h e t r a n s la t o r. 2T h e r e v i s e d i t e m s w e r e a g a i n b a c k - t r a n s l a te d a n d r e v i s e da s n e e d e d . T r a n s l a t o r s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d t o p r e s e r v e t h em e a n i n g o f t h e i t e m e v e n i f t h a t i n v o l v e d m i n o r c h a n g e sin t he l i t e ra l con t en t . In some ca se s , a f ew i t ems (e .g . ,15 it ems in t he Ch inese ve r s ion) we re r ev i sed a f t e r p i l o ttest ing.AnalysesA l t h o u g h a n u m b e r o f s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s h a v e b e e nu s e d t o a s s e s s t h e p s y c h o m e t r i c e q u iv a l e n c e o f t r a n sl a -t i ons (Bu tche r & Han , 1996) , t he mos t common i s acom par i so n o f f a c to r s t ruc tu re s . Fac to r ana lys i s i den t i f ie sc lus t e r s o f va r i ab l e s t ha t a re m utua l l y r e l a t ed and re l a -t i ve ly i ndepen den t o f o the r va r i ab l e s ; t hus , f a c to r l oad ingss p e a k t o t h e c o n v e r g e n t a n d d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i ty o f v a r i -a b l e s . I f a t r a n s l a t e d i n s t r u m e n t s h o w s t h e s a m e f a c t o rs t ruc tu re a s t he o r ig ina l , i t is l i ke ly t ha t con s t ruc t va l i d i t yo f t he cons t i t uen t sca l e s ha s been ma in t a ined .The re a re seve ra l d i f f e ren t me th ods fo r f a c to r ing andfo r eva lua t i ng r ep l i c ab i l i t y . Recen t work wi th conf i rma-to ry f ac to r ana lys i s (Church & B urke , 1994) sugg es t s tha ti t m a y n o t b e t h e o p t i m a l m e t h o d f o r s t u d y i n g p e r s o n a li t ys t ruc tu re . McCrae , Zonde rman , e t a l . (1996) a rgued t ha tc o n g r u e n c e c o e f f ic i e n ts b e t w e e n v a r i m a x - r o t a t e d p r i n c i-

p a l c o m p o n e n t s f r o m t w o s a m p l e s p r o v i d e a d i r e c t a n dfam i l i a r w ay to a sse ss f a c to r s imi l a r i ty . In add i t i on , how -ever , t hey p ropo sed t ha t t a rge t ed ro t a t i on o f t he t r ans l a t eds c a le s m a y b e u s e f u l b y s h o w i n g h o w c l o s e l y t h e s t ru c -t u r e c a n b e a l i g n e d w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l f ac t o r s . T h e y a l s oof fe red Monte Ca r lo -based s t a t i s t i c s fo r eva lua t i ng t hes i g n i fi c a n c e o f c o n g r u e n c e c o e f f ic i e n ts f o r b o t h f a c t o rsand va r i ab l e s a f t e r t a rge t ed ro t a t i on .W h e n f a c to r e d , t h e fa c e t sc a le s o f t he N E O - P I - Rd o n o t e x h i b i t s i m p l e s t r u c t u r e . A l t h o u g h e a c h f a c e to u g h t t o l o a d p r i m a r i l y o n t h e f a c t o r t o w h i c h i t i s a s -s i g n e d , s e c o n d a r y l o a d i n g s a r e a ls o e x p e c t e d f o r m a n yf a c e t s. F o r e x a m p l e , N2: Angry Hostility gene ra l l y ha s an e g a t iv e s e c o n d a r y l o a d i n g o n F a c t o r A : P e o p l e w h o a r eo f t e n angry f i nd i t d i f f i cu l t t o ge t a long w i th o the r s .Aga in , Asse r t i veness i s cons ide red a f ace t o f E , bu t i nA m e r i c a n s a m p l e s i t c o n s i s t e n t ly s h o w s s e c o n d a r y l o a d -ings on t h ree o the r f a c to r s . Asse r t i ve peop le a re n o t on lyex t rave r t ed , t hey a l so t end t o be se l f - conf iden t ( l ow N) ,d o m i n e e r i n g ( lo w A ) , a n d a m b i t io u s ( h i g h C ) .T h e s e n u a n c e s o f m e a n i n g a r e p a r t ic u l a r l y u s e fu l f o ra sse ss ing t he c ross -cu l tu ra l r ep l i c ab i l i t y o f pe r sona l i t y

s t ruc tu re . The s ix f ace t s o f E a re no t i n t e rchangeab lemarke r s o f a s i ng l e f ac to r ; t hey a re d i s t i nc t ive t r a it s , r e c -o g n i z a b l e f r o m t h e i r s e c o n d a r y l o a d i n g s o n o t h e r f a c t o rs .E l : W a r m t h s h o u l d s h o w a p o s i t i v e l o a d i n g o n t h e Afac to r , whe rea s E5: Excitement Seeking s h o u l d s h o w an e g a t i v e lo a d i n g . P r e s e r v a ti o n o f s u c h s e c o n d a r y l o a d i n g sw o u l d s u g g e s t u n i v e r s a l i t y n o t o n l y o f t h e f i v e b r o a dfac to r s bu t a l so o f t he spec i f i c t r a i t s t ha t de f ine t hem.ResultsFor each o f t he s i x sample s , f i ve va r imax- ro t a t ed p r inc i -pa l comp onen t s we re f i r s t exam ined . Tab l e 1 p re sen t s t here su l t s fo r t he two l a rge s t sample s ( f ac to r ma t r i c e s fo ra l l s i x sample s a re ava i l ab l e f rom the au thor s ) . I t i s c l e a rtha t a l l f i ve f ac to r s c an be r ead i ly r ecogn ized i n bo ths a m p l e s , a l t h o u g h t h e K o r e a n d a t a a r e s o m e w h a t c l o s e rt o t h e o r i g in a l t h a n a r e t h e P o r t u g u e s e . B o t h p r i m a r y a n dseconda ry l oad ings ( e .g . , t he nega t ive l oad ings o f N2:Angry Hostility o n A ) c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e d t h e A m e r i c a ns t ruc tu re . 3 S im i l a r r e su l t s w e re seen w i th t he o the r fou rsample s . Ac ross t he s i x sample s , f a ce t s had l oad ingsgrea t e r t han .40 on t he i r i n t ended fac to r i n 163 o f the180 ca se s (91%) .

Co ngru ence coe f f i c i en t s (Ba r re t t , 1986 ; Wr ig l ey &N e u h a u s , 1 9 5 5 ) w e r e t h e n c a l c u l a t e d b e t w e e n e a c h s e to f f a c t o r l o a d i n g s a n d t h e l o a d i n g s i n t h e A m e r i c a n n o r -ma t ive sample . Va lues h ighe r t han .90 a re usua l l y cons id -e red ev idence t ha t a f a c to r ha s been rep l i c a t ed ; a s Tab l e

2The relativeease with which accurate ranslationscould be madeis an indication h at the descriptionof personality ranscends anguage.3 Separate analyseswithin genderwere also examined or the Por-tuguese and Korea n samples. Structures were ess entially de ntical formen and wom en, with all cross-gender factor congruence coefficientsexceeding .95.

5 1 2 M a y 1 99 7 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t


5/8

T a b l e 1Factor Structure of the Revised NE O Personal ity Inventory (NE O-P I-R) in Ko rean a n d PortugueseV a r i m a x - r o t a t e d p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t

N E O A CN E O - P I - R f a c e t K P K P K P K P K P

N I : A n x i e t y 8 3 7 7 - 1 4 0 4 - 0 1 0 3 - 0 8 1 6 0 2 1 5N 2 : A n g r y H o s ti li ty 5 8 6 5 1 3 - 2 8 0 8 - 0 6 - 5 2 - 2 7 - 2 7 - 0 3N 3 : D ep re ss io n 7 7 7 9 - 2 1 - 0 9 0 5 - 1 2 - 0 7 1 0 - 2 3 - 1 8N 4 : S e lf .C o ns cio us ne ss 7 7 7 1 - 2 0 - 0 8 - 1 3 - 0 3 - 0 2 0 9 - 0 7 - 2 0N S : Im p u ls iv en e ss 4 6 3 8 3 0 2 2 0 8 3 6 - 2 1 - 2 6 - 5 2 - 3 1N 6 : V u ln e ra b il it y 6 9 6 6 - 2 2 - 0 9 - 1 4 - 0 8 - 0 5 0 1 - 4 0 - 4 3E1 W a r m t h - 2 5 - 0 7 6 5 7 0 0 9 1 7 4 5 2 1 0 9 2 6E2 : Grega riousness -2 2 - 12 66 66 -0 8 13 29 - 12 -0 6 -0 4E3 : Asser ti veness -3 6 -3 2 62 17 13 20 - 11 -5 5 26 19E 4 : A c t iv i ty 0 1 0 5 6 9 1 8 - 0 1 2 5 - 1 9 - 3 0 2 1 3 6E5 : Exci temen t Seeking - 11 -0 1 57 46 23 36 - 17 -3 8 -2 1 03E6 : Pos it ive Emotions -1 2 -1 1 65 56 28 44 19 -1 8 03 10O 1 : F an ta sy 0 9 1 3 0 2 2 0 6 8 6 7 - 0 7 - 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 102 : Aes the ti cs 08 06 19 12 67 67 14 13 19 190 3 : Fee li ngs 09 14 52 31 60 61 06 -1 9 17 220 4 : A ctio ns - 2 9 - 2 1 3 0 0 5 4 3 5 4 0 2 0 4 - 0 6 - 0 50 5 : Id ea s - 1 0 - 1 1 0 1 0 5 6 8 7 1 - 0 1 - 1 8 3 2 110 6 : Va lues - 17 - 14 00 -0 2 42 70 14 11 - 12 -0 6A 1 : T ru st - 2 2 - 1 9 2 4 5 0 0 7 - 0 6 6 7 4 1 0 8 0 3A 2 : S tr aig ht fo rw a rd n es s - 0 3 - 0 4 - 2 4 - 0 5 0 3 - 0 3 5 7 7 4 2 2 0 7A3 : A lt ru ism -1 3 -0 2 25 53 10 10 71 46 21 33A 4 " C o m p l ia n c e - 1 0 - 0 9 - 1 9 2 1 - 0 7 - 2 4 7 3 6 7 - 1 3 0 9A 5 : M o d e s ty 2 5 1 0 - 4 2 - 11 - 2 2 0 6 3 9 7 2 - 1 9 0 5A6 : Tender-Mindedness 19 14 14 22 26 21 57 51 05 15C 1 : C o m pe te n ce - 3 2 - 2 6 3 0 2 3 2 3 0 5 0 0 - 0 2 7 0 6 5C 2 : O r d er - 0 1 0 6 - 0 1 - 0 3 0 0 01 - 0 4 - 0 1 7 4 6 9C 3 : D u tifu ln es s 0 1 - 0 4 0 3 0 9 - 0 5 - 0 1 2 1 3 7 7 6 7 3C4 : Ach ievemen t S t ri vi ng -0 4 -0 6 29 15 07 13 -0 3 - 11 77 76C5: Se lf -D isc ip li ne -4 0 -3 2 18 01 03 05 05 10 68 73C6: D e l ib e ra t io n - 1 7 - 2 1 - 1 9 - 0 5 0 3 - 3 3 1 8 2 7 7 4 5 5N o t e . D e c i m a l p o i n t s a r e o r q il t e d ; I o a d i n g s o v e r . 4 0 i n a b s o l u t e m a g n i t u d e a r e g i v e n i n b o l d fa c e . N = N e u r o t i c i s m , E = E x tr a ve r si o n; O = O p e n n e s s t o E x p e r i e n c e ;A = Ag r e eab leness ; C = Consc ien tiousness; K = Ko r e an f ac t o r I oad ing s , P = Po r t uguese fac t o r t oad ings .

2 s h o w s , a l l b u t f o u r o f t h e f a c t o r c o n g r u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t sr e a c h e d t h i s l e v e l .4F i n a l l y , c o n g r u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e c o m p u t e dc o m p a r i n g t h e 1 5 p a i r s o f t h e s i x tr a n s l a ti o n s . T h i s p r o -v i d e d a p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i n g e n t t e s t o f r e p l i c a b i li t y , b e c a u s e

m i n o r d e v i a t i o n s i n e i t h e r t r a n s l a t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e nc o m p o u n d e d i n c o m p a r i n g t w o t r a n sl a ti o n s. C o n g r u e n c ec o e f f i c i e n t s b e t w e e n t h e K o r e a n a n d P o r t u g u e s e s t r u c -tur es show n in Table 1 w er e . 98 , . 79 , . 89 , . 82 , and . 94 ,r e s p e c t iv e l y , f o r N , E , O , A , a n d C f a c t o r s - - v a l u e s t h a ts h o w c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y b u t n o t i d e n t i t y . W h e n e x -a m i n e d b y f a c t o r a c r o s s a ll c o m p a r i s o n s , a l l 1 5 c o n g r u -e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s e x c e e d e d . 9 0 f o r N a n d C f a c t o r s , a n da l l e x c e e d e d . 8 8 f o r t h e O f a c t o r . S y s t e m a t i c a l l y l o w e rv a l u e s - - a s l o w a s . 5 0 b e t w e e n J a p a n e s e an d C h i n e s e

s a m p l e s - - w e r e f o u n d f o r E a n d A f a c t o rs ; o n l y o n e t h i r do f t h e s e c o n g r u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s m e t t h e . 9 0 c r i t e r io n .T h a t r e s u l t is n o t s u r p r i s in g , b e c a u s e E a n d A a r ek n o w n t o b e a x e s o f t he i n t e r p e rs o n a l c i rc u m p l e x( M c C r a e & C o s t a , 1 9 8 9 ) , i n w h i c h t r a i t s a r e d i s t r i b u t e di n a c i r c u l a r o r d e r. T h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e a x e s t h a t d e f i n et h i s p l a n e i s t h u s s o m e w h a t a r b i t r a r y ; i n t h e c a s e o f t h eJ a p a n e s e v a r i m a x s t r u c t u r e , t h e f a c t o r s l a b e l e d E a n dA m i g h t b e b e t t e r d e s c r i b e d a s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e a x e s o f

4 An alternative index of factor sim ilari ty-- the coefficientof factorcomparabil ity (Everett, 1 983) --was also calculated in the Americansample, with very similar results. Only coefficients for E (.75) and A(.78) factors in the Japanese sample and the E factor (.89) in the Portu-guese sample were less than .90, which is the usual cri terion for factorreplication.

M a y 1 9 9 7 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 5 1 3


6/8

ITabl e 2Coefficients of Factor Congruence With the AmericanNo rma tive Structure

V a r i m a x - ro t a t e d p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n tSample N E O A CGerman .97 .96 .96 .97 .98Portuguese .98 .8 9 .8 9 .93 .96Hebrew .98 .92 .96 .94 .95Chinese .97 .93 .92 .93 .97Korean .97 .94 .94 .95 .96Japanese .94 .78 .92 .68 .92Note. N = Neu rot ic ism; E = Extraversion; O = O penn ess to Experience; A= Agreeableness; C = Conscient iousness.

I

A f f i l i a t i o n a n d S u b m i s s i o n ( M c C r a e , Z o n d e r m a n , e t a l . ,1 9 9 6 ) . T h e P o r t u g u e s e E f a c t o r s h o w n i n T a b l e 1 is a l s ot i l t ed s l igh t ly in the d i r ec t ion o f A f f i l i a t ion .I f d i f f e r e n c e s a r e d u e e n t i r e l y t o a n a r b i t r a r y r o t a -t i o n , i t s h o u l d b e p o s s i b l e t o m a t c h f a c t o r s a c r o s s l a n -g u a g e s b y r o t a t i n g t h e m a l l t o a c o m m o n t a rg e t . O r t h o g o -n a l P r o c r u s t e s r o t a t io n , u s i n g t h e A m e r i c a n n o r m a t i v ef a c t o r s t r u c t u r e a s t h e ta r g e t , w a s t h e r e f o r e p e r f o r m e df o r a l l s i x s a m p l e s , a n d t h e y w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h eA m e r i c a n t a r g e t a n d w i t h e a c h o t h e r .R e s u l ts s h o w e d t h a t w h e n r o t a t io n w a s g u i d e d b y ah y p o t h e s i z e d t a r g e t , v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s w e r ef o u n d i n a l l s e v e n s a m p l e s . T h e m e d i a n c r o s s - l a n g u a g ef ac tor cong r uen ce coef f ic ien ts w e r e . 96 , .95 , . 94 , .96 , and.96 f or N , E , O , A , and C, r e spec t ive ly , and only 2 of1 0 5 c o e f f i c i e n t s f a i l e d t o r e a c h . 9 0 ( a n d t h o s e 2 w e r eb o t h . 8 9 ) . T h e s e v a l u e s a r e f a r h i g h e r t h a n o n e w o u l d

e x p e c t t o s e e b y c h a n c e a f t e r P r o c r u s t e s r o t a t i o n( M c C r a e , Z o n d e r m a n , e t al ., 1 9 9 6 ) .C o n g r u e n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s c a n b e c a l c u l a t e d f o r v a r i -ab les a s w e l l a s f ac tor s and eva lua ted f or s ta t i s t i ca l s ig -n i f i c a n c e . T h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t l o a d i n g so n a l l f i v e f a c t o r s a n d , s o , c o u l d b e u s e f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n gi n d i v i d u a l fa c e t s th a t s h o w a n o m a l o u s p a t t e r n s o f s e c o n d -a r y l o a d i n g s . B u t v i r t u a l l y n o a n o m a l o u s p a t t e r n s w e r ef o u n d : A f t e r P r o c r u s t e s ro t a t i o n , 1 7 7 o f th e 1 8 0 c o m p a r i -s o n s w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n s t r u c t u r e w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t . T h es i m i l a r i ty o f s e c o n d a r y l o a d i n g s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e 3 ,w h i c h s h o w s l o a d i n g s f o r E 3 : A s s e r t i v e n e s s . A l t h o u g ht h e f u n c t i o n s o f l e a d e r s m a y v a r y a c r o s s c u l t u r e s , i t a p -pear s tha t in a l l s even cu l tur es s tud ied , ind iv idua ls w hoa s s e r t t h e m s e l v e s a n d r e a d i l y s p e a k o u t t e n d t o b e h i g hi n E a n d C a n d l o w i n N a n d A .DiscussionT h e c r o s s - c u l t u r a l a n d c r o s s - l a n g u a g e s i m i l a r it i e s i n t h es t ru c t u r e o f t h e N E O - P I - R s e e n i n t h e s e s a m p l es a r ei n m a n y w a y s r e m a r k a b l e . M o r e - o r - l e s s l i t e r a l t r a n s l a -t i o n s o f it e m s s e l e c t e d i n A m e r i c a n s a m p l e s w o r k e d q u i t ew e l l i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , w i t h o u t t h e n e e d f o r e x t e n s i v e

r e v i s i o n o r a d a p t a t i o n ( a l t h o u g h i t e m a n a l y s e s m i g h t s t il lb e d e s i r a b l e t o r e f i n e t h e t r a n s l a t e d s c a l e s ). T h e s t r u c t u ref o u n d i n a d u l t A m e r i c a n v o l u n t e e r s w a s r e p l i c a t e d i nJ a p a n e s e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s a n d I s r a e l i j o b a p p l i c a n ts . Am o d e l o f p e r s o n a l i t y r o o t e d i n E n g l i s h - l a n g u a g e t r a i t a d -j e c t i v e s c o u l d b e m e a n i n g f u l l y a p p l i e d n o t o n l y i n ac l o s e l y r e l a t e d l a n g u a g e l i k e G e r m a n b u t a l s o i n s u c hu t t e r l y d i s t i n c t l a n g u a g e s a s C h i n e s e a n d K o r e a n .Pulve r , A l l ik , Pu lkkinen , and H ~n/ i l~ i inen ( 1995)t r a n sl a t ed a n e a rl y v e r s io n o f t h e N E O - P I - R i n t o F i n n -i s h a n d E s t o n i a n a n d f o u n d e v i d e n c e f o r t h e F F M i n t h e set w o l a n g u a g e s f r o m a n o t h e r f a m i l y : U r a l i c . ( P a u n o n e n ,Jackson , T r zebinsk i , & For s te r l ing , 1992 , a l so f ound ev i -d e n c e o f th e F F M i n F i n n i s h .) T h u s , a v e r y s i m i l a r s tr u c -t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y c a n b e f o u n d i n a t l e a s t s i x d i s t in c tl a n g u a g e f a m i l i e s t h a t t o g e t h e r in c l u d e t h e n a t i v e t o n g u e so f m o s t o f th e e a r t h ' s i n h a b i t a n ts . T h i s i s h a r d l y a n e x -h a u s t i v e s a m p l i n g o f l a n g u a g e f a m i l i e s ( la n g u a g e s i n d i g -e n o u s t o t h e A m e r i c a s a n d s u b - S a h a r a n A f r i c a a r e n o t a b l eo m i s s i o n s ) , b u t i t c l e a r l y s h o w s t h a t t h e f i v e - f a c t o r s t r u c -t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n s o m e s e n s e t r a n s c e n d s l a n g u a g ea n d m a y i n d e e d b e u n i v e r s a l .S e v e r a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e c l a i m t h a t p e r s o n a l i t ys t r uc tur e i s a human unive r sa l mus t be no ted . F i r s t , a l lt h e c u l t u r e s sa m p l e d h e r e a r e m o d e m i n d u s t r i a l c o u n t r i e sw i t h l o n g t r a d i t i o n s o f l i te r a c y . I n d e e d , H e b r e w a n d C h i -n e s e l i t e r a tu r e s p r e d a t e t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e i t s e l f b ym a n y c e n t u ri e s . N o s t u di e s o f t h e F F M h a v e b e e n u n d e r -taken in pr e l i t e r a te soc ie t ie s ; i t i s poss ib le tha t t r a i t s mayb e d i f f e r e n t l y c o n f i g u r e d i n t h o s e c u l t u r e s . S e c o n d , t h ef a c t t h a t t h e f i v e f a c t o r s c a n b e f o u n d i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e sd o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t h e y p l a y t h e s a m e r o l e e v e r y w h e r e( B o n d & F o r g a s , 1 9 8 4 ) . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s in A g r e e -a b l e n e ss v e r s u s A n t a g o n i s m m a y b e o f l i tt l e c o n s e q u e n c ei n s o c i e t i e s i n w h i c h i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t io n s h i p s a r e r i g -

i d l y d i c t a t e d b y s o c i a l ro l e s , a n d v a r i a t i o n s i n C o n s c i e n -t i o u s n e s s m a y b e u n i m p o r t a n t i n c u l t u r e s t h a t d e v a l u ep e r s o n a l a m b i t i o n . T h i r d , b e c a u s e n o i n d i g e n o u s o r e m i cm e a s u r e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s e s t u d i e s ,

Tabl e 3Factor Load ings for Assertiveness n Seven CulturesProcrustes-rotated principal component

Sample N E O A C

A m e ric an -3 2 4 4 2 3 -3 2 3 2G e rm a n - 3 4 4 5 0 9 - 4 3 3 1Portuguese -3 2 34 17 -4 7 17H e b re w - 4 3 4 3 0 8 - 3 2 3 1C h in es e -2 0 5 7 11 -3 0 2 3K or ea n - 3 4 5 4 1 7 - 2 5 3 3J ap an es e -2 4 5 7 1 8 -3 8 2 1Note. Dec imal points are omi l ted. N = N euro f ic ism; E = Extraversion; O =Openness to Experience; A = Agre eablen ess; C = Conscient iousness.

5 1 4 M a y 1 9 9 7 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i st


7/8

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y r e m a i n s t h a t t h e r e a r e c u l t u r a l l y u n i q u ef a c t o rs o f p e r s o n a l it y b e y o n d N , E , O , A , a n d C .

I t is a l s o e s s e n t i a l t o r e c a l l t h a t e q u i v a l e n c e o f f a c t o rs t r u c t u r e d o e s n o t i n it s e l f m e a n t h a t d i f f e r e n t t r a n s l a t i o n so f a n in s t r u m e n t a r e p a r a ll e l f o r m s . R a w s c o r e s m a y h a v ev e r y d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a ti o n s i n d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s e v e n i ft h e t r a n s l a ti o n s a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t th e s a m e t r a i t c o n s t r u c t s( G e i s in g e r , 1 9 9 4 ) . D e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s ino n e c u l t u r e a r e r e a l l y m o r e i n t r o v e r t e d , t r u s t i n g , o r d i li -g e n t t h a n t h o s e i n a n o t h e r i s a n a r d u o u s t a s k t h a t r e q u i r e st h e i n v e s t i g a t o r t o r u l e o u t a h o s t o f a l te r n a t iv e e x p l a n a -t i o n s ( e . g . , i t e m d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l s , s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n a ls t y l e s ) f o r a p p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s .N e v e r t h e l e s s , e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e i s a c o m m o n h u -m a n s t r u ct u r e o f p e r s o n a l it y i s g o o d n e w s f o r c r o s s-c u l t u ra l p s y c h o l o g y . A s T r i a n d is ( 1 9 8 0 ) n o t e d , " S i n c ee s t a b l i s h i n g c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t , i tm a y w e l l b e g o o d s t r at e g y f o r th e p r e s e n t g e n e r at i o n o fc r o s s - c u l t u r a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s t o g i v e to p p r i o r i t y t o t h ee s t a b l is h m e n t o f t h e g e n e ra l i ty o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l l a w s "( p . 9 ) . T h e g e n e r a l l a w s o f p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e s u g g e s tt h e ra n g e o f t ra it s t h a t s h o u l d b e i n v e s t i g a t e d w t r a i t s i nt h e F F M - - a n d e n c o u r a g e th e us e o f i m p o r t e d o r e ri cq u e s t i o n n a i r e s a s o n e c o m p o n e n t i n c r o s s - c u l t u r a lr e s e a r c h .F o r m a n y y e a r s a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s h a v e s t u d i e d h o wc u l t u r e s p r o v i d e d i s t i n c t i v e s o l u t i o n s t o u n iv e r s a l p r o b -l e m s o f n u t r i ti o n , p r o c r e a t i o n , a n d t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r.I t n o w m a k e s s e n s e to a s k t h e m a l s o t o e x a m i n e t h eu n i q u e c u l t u ra l m a n i f e s ta t i o n s o f c o m m o n d i m e n s i o n s o fp e r s on a l it y . H o w i s f e a r f u ln e s s e x p r e s s e d ? W h a t o p p o r t u -n i t ie s a r e t h e r e f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t io n a n d f o r s o l i t u d e ?H o w i s i n t el le c t u a l c u r i o s i t y c h a n n e l e d ? H o w i s a g g r e s -s i o n c o n t r o l l e d ? H o w i s d u t i fu l n e s s d e fi n e d a n d r e -w a r d e d ? S u c h q u e s t i o n s c o u l d f o r m t h e b a s is f o r r e n e w e di n t e r es t i n o n e o f th e m o s t v e n e r a b l e b r a n c h e s o f a n t h r o -p o l o g y , c u l tu r e a n d p e r s o n a l i t y ( M c C r a e , C o s t a , & Y i k ,1 9 9 6 ) .T h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e i s u n i v e r s a la l s o r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s f o r a n u m b e r o f o t h e r d i s c i p li n e s .I s u n i v e r s a l i ty d u e t o a c o m m o n g e n e t i c b a s i s f o r p e r s o n -a l i t y ( L o e h l i n , 1 9 9 2 ) ? W h a t , i f a n y , i s t h e e v o l u t i o n a r ys i g n i f i c a n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t ra i t s ( T o o b y &C o s m i d e s , 1 9 9 0 ) ? D o p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s in f l u en c e p s y -c h o p a t h o l o g y , e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t , v o c a t i o n a l in t e r-e s t s , a n d p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s i n s i m i l a r w a y s i n d i f f e r e n tc u l t u r e s ? - - a r e a p p l i e d p s y c h o l o g i e s a ls o i n s o m e d e g r e eu n i v e r s a l ?

I t t o o k p e r s o n a l i t y p s y c h o l o g i s t s m a n y d e c a d e s t or e s o l v e q u e s t io n s a b o u t t h e n u m b e r a n d n a t u r e o f b a s ict r a it d i m e n s i o n s i n E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g p o p u l a t i o n s . F o r t u -n a t e l y , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h a t l o n g s t r u g g l e n e e d n o t b er e p e a t e d i n e v e r y o t h e r c u lt u r e . T h e F F M a t l e a s t p r o -v i d e s a s o l id b e g i n n i n g f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g p e r s o n a l i t ye v e r y w h e r e .REFERENCESAmerican Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders (4th ed,). W ashington, DC : Author.

Angleimer, A., Ostendorf, E, & Joh n, O. E (1990). Towards a taxonom yof personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. Euro-pean Jo urnal o f Personality , 4 , 89-118 .Barrett, P. (1986). Factor comparison: An exam ination of three methods.Personality an d Individual Differences, 7, 327-340.Betancou rt, H., & L tpe z, S. R. (1993). The study o f culture, ethnicity,and race in American psychology.Am erican Psychologist , 48, 6 2 9 -637.Block, J. (1995). A contrarian vie w of the five-factor approach to per-sonality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.Bond, M. H. , & Forgas, J. E (1984). Linking person perception to be-havior intention across cultures: The role of cultural collectivism.Journal o f Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 337-352 .Bond , M. H., Nakazato, H., & Shiraishi, D. (1975 ). Unive rsality anddistinctiveness in dim ensions of Japanese person percep tion. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 346-357 .Butcher, J. N ., & H an, K. (19 96). Methods of establishing cross-culturalequivalence. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations o f theMMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 44-6 3). Minneap-olis: Unive rsity of M innesota Press.Cattell, R. B., Eb er, H. W., & Tatsuo ka, M. M. (1970). The handbookfor the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, IL:Institute for P ersonality and Ability Testing.Church , A. T, & Burke, E J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory estsof the Big F ive and Tellegen's three- and four-dimensional models.Journal o f Personality an d Social Psychology, 66, 93-114 .Church , A. T., & Katigbak , M. S. (19 89). Internal, external, and self-report structure of personality in a n on-Westernculture: A n investiga-tion o f cross-langu age and cross-cultural generalizability. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 857-872.Comrey, A. L. (1970). Man ual fo r the C omrey Personality Scales. SanDiego, CA: EDITS.Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInven tory (N EO -P I-R ) and NEO Five-Fac tor Inven tory (N EO -FFI ) professional m anual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc.Costa, P.T. , Jr. , McCrae, R.R. , & Dye, D.A . (1991). Fac et scalesfor agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision o f the NEOPersonality Inventory. Personality an d Individual Differences, 12,887-898.De R aad, B. , & SzirmAk, S. (1994). The search for the "Big Five" ina no n-Indo-European anguage: The Hungarian trait slructure and itsrelationship to the EPQ and the PTS . European Journal o f AppliedPsychology, 44, 17-26.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting thesubjective well-being o f nations. Journal of Personality an d SocialPsychology, 69, 851-864 .Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440 .Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). Whe re have all the adjectives gone? Studiesin Language, 1, 19-80 .Everett, J. E. (19 83). Factor comparability as a m eans of determiningthe nu mbe r of factors and their rotation. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 18, 197-218.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1967). On the unitary nature ofextraversion. Acta Psychologica, 26, 383-390.Eysenc k, S. B. G. (19 83). One ap proach to c ross-cultural studies ofpersonality. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 381-391 .Geisinger, K. E (1994). Cross-cu ltural normative assessment: Transla-tion and adaptation issues influencing the n ormative interpretation ofassessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6, 304-312 .Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individual differences: Thesearch for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),Review of personality and socialpsyc hology (pp. 141 - 165). BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.Gond o, Y., Shimon aka, Y., Naka zato, K., Ishihara, O., & Im uta, H.(1993, September). Preliminary stady fo r the standardization of theJapanese vers ion o f the NE O -P I-R . Pap er presented at the 57thmeeting of the Japanese Psychological Association, Tokyo.Hampson, S. E. (1988). The construction o f personality: A n introduc-tion (2rid ed.). Lond on: Routledge.Kagit~ibai, ~., & B erry, J. W . (1989). Cross-cultural psychology : Cur-

M a y 1 9 9 7 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 5 1 5


8/8

rent research and t rends . Annu al Review o f Psychology, 40, 4 9 3 -531.Keene, D. (1955). Japanese l i terature: An introduct ion for Westernreaders. New York: Grove Press .Konner , M. (1991). H uman n ature and cul ture: Biolog y and the res idueof uniqueness. In J. J . Sheehan & M. Sosna (Eds.), The boundariesof humanity: Hum ans, animals, m achines (pp. 103-124) . Berkeley:Universi ty o f Cal i fornia Press.Languages of the world. (1993). In The new encyclopedia Britannica(Vol . 22, pp. 572 -796 ) . Chicago : Er /cyclopedia Br i tannica.Lee, K.-I. (1995). Facto r structure and maladapt ive group profi les o fthe Revised NEO Personal i ty Inventory for Koreans. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Pusan N ation al University.Loehlin, J . C. (1992). Genes an d environment in personality develop-ment . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Markus, H . R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cu lture and the self: Im plica -tions for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,98 , 2 2 4 - 2 5 3 .Mc Crae , R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). T he structure of interpersonalt rai ts : Wiggins 's ci rcumplex and the f ive-factor model . Journal ofPersonali ty and Social Psychology, 56, 5 8 6 - 5 9 5 .Mc Crae , R. R. , Co sta, P.T., Jr. , & Yik, M . S. M. (1996 ). Universalaspects of Chine se personality structure. In M. H. Bon d (Ed.), Thehandbook of Chinese psychology ( pp. 189 - 207) . Hong Kong: Oxf or dUniversity Press.Mc Crae , R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factormodel and its applications. Journal o f Personality, 60, 1 7 5 - 2 1 5 .McC rae, R.R . , Zonderman, A. B. , Costa, P .T., J r . , Bond, M .H . , &Paunonen, S.V. (1996). Evaluat ing repl ica bi l i ty of factors in theRevised NEO Personal i ty Inventory: Conf irmatory factor analys isversus Procrustes rotation. Journal o f Personali ty and Social Psy-chology, 70, 5 5 2 - 5 6 6 .Montag, I. , & Levin, J . (1994). The five-factor personality model inapplied settings. European Journal o f Personal ity , 8 , 1-1 1.Narol l , R . , Michik, G. L. , & Na rol l , E (1980) . H olocultural researchmethods. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 2: Methodology (pp. 479-521) . Bos ton:Al lyn & B acon.Ostendorf, E (1990). Sprache un d Pers6nlichkeitsstruktur: Zu r Validiti~tdes Ffinf-Faktoren-Modells der Pers6nlichkeit [Language and per-

sonality structure: Tow ard the validation o f the five-factor mo del ofpersonality]. Regensburg, Germany: S. Roeder Verlag.Ostendorf, E, & Angleitner, A. (1994, July). Psychometric propert iesof the German translat ion of the NE O Personali ty Inventory (N EO -P I - R ) . Poster presented at the Seventh C onferenc e of the EuropeanAs socia tion for Personality Psychology, Madrid, Spain.Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., Trzebinski, J . , & Forsterling, E (1992).Personality structure across cultures: A multimethod evaluation.Journal o f Personali ty and Social Psychology, 62, 4 4 7 - 4 5 6 .P iedmont, R , L : ( 1994) . Va l ida tion o f t he N E O - P I - R obs er ver f o r mfor col leg e s tudents: Toward a p aradigm for s tudying personali tydevelopment. Assessment, 1, 2 5 9 - 2 6 8 .Pulver, A., Allik , J . , Pulkldnen, L., & Hiilrffd~inen, M. (1995). A B ig-Five personal ity inventory in two non-Indo-European languages . E u-ropean Journal o f Personality, 9, 1 0 9 - 1 2 4 .Sapil; E. (1921). Language, an introduction to the study of speech.New Yor k: Har cour t B r ace .Schwartz, S . H. (1994). Bey ond individu al ism-c ol lect ivism : New cul-tural dimensions of values. In U. Kim , H. C. Triandis, ~. Kagitqiba}i,S. -C. C hoi , & G. Y oon (Eds .) , Individualism a nd collectivism: The-ory, method, and applications (pp. 85-119) . Thousand Oaks , CA:Sage.Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. , & Trompenaars, E (1996). Na tiona l cultureand the values of organizat ional em ploye es : A dimens ional analysisacross 43 nations. Journal o f Cross-Cu ltural Psychology, 27, 231 -264.Tooby, J . , & C osmides , L. (1990). On the universal ity of human natureand the uniqueness o f the individual: Th e role of genetics an d adapta-tion. Journa l of Personal i ty , 58, 1 7 - 6 8 .Triandis, H. C. (1980). Introduc tion to handbook of cross-cultural psy -chology. In H . C. Triandis & W. W. Lam ber t (Eds.), Handbook ofcross-cultural psychology. Vol. 1: Perspectives (pp. 1-14) . Bos ton:AUyn & Bacon.U. S . Depar tmen t o f C om mer ce , B ur eau o f t he C ens us . ( 1984). Projec-tions of the population of the United States, by age, sex, and race :1983 to 2080 (Ser ies P-25, N o. 952) . Washington, DC : U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.Wrigley, C. S. , & Neuhaus, J . O. (1955). The ma tching o f two sets offactors. Ame rican Psychologist, 10, 4 1 8 - 4 1 9 .Yang, K. , & Bond, M . H . (1990) . Explor ing im plici t personali ty theorieswith indigenous o r impor ted cons tructs: The Ch inese case. Journalof Personal ity and Soc ial Psychology, 58, 1 0 8 7 - 1 0 9 5 .

5 1 6 M a y 1 9 9 7 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t

Documents

Personality Trait Structure Universality