Cultural Universals

A third approach to culture and personality is to attempt to identify features of personality that appear to be universal, or present in most or all human cultures. As described in Chapter 1, these universals constitute the human nature level of analyzing personality .

In the history of the study of personality and culture, the study of cultural universals has long been in disfavor. For most of the twentieth century, the focus was almost exclusively on cultural dif ferences. This emphasis was fueled by anthropologists who reported on exotic cultures, which did everything dif ferently than American culture did. Margaret Mead, for example, purported to discover cultures entirely lacking in sexual jealousy, cultures in which sex roles were reversed and adolescence was not marked with stress and turmoil (Mead, 1928, 1935). On sex roles, for example, Mead purported to discover "a genuine reversal of the sex-attitudes of our culture, with the woman the dominant, impersonal, managing partner, the man the less responsible and the emotionally dependent person" (Mead, 1935, p. 279). Human nature was presumed to be infinitely variable, infinitely flexible, and not constrained in any by a universal human nature: "W e are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions" (Mead, 1935, p. 280).

Over the past two decades, the pendulum has swung toward a more moderate view. Anthropologists who visited the islands Mead had visited failed to confir Mead's findings (e.g., Freeman, 1983). In cultures in which sexual jealousy was pre sumed to be entirely absent, it turned out that sexual jealousy was the leading cause of spousal battering and spousal homicide. In cultures such as the Chambri, where the sex roles were presumed to be reversed, anthropologists instead found that wives were bought by men, men were stronger than women and sometimes beat them, and men were considered to be in charge (Brown, 1991; Gewertz, 1981). Furthermore, the Chambri considered men to be more aggressive than women and women to be more

Table 17.2 Culturally Universal Practices and Attitudes

Incest avoidance

Facial expressions of basic emotions

Favoritism toward in-group members

Favoritism toward kin over nonkin

Collective identities

Fear of snakes

Division of labor by sex

Revenge and retaliation

Self distinguished from others

Sanctions for crimes against the collectivity

Reciprocity in relationships

Envy, sexual jealousy, and love

Source: Brown, 1991.

submissive than men. Behavioral observations of social interactions among the Chambri confirmed these conceptions (Gewertz, 1981). All available evidence back to 1850, including some of Mead' s recorded observations (as opposed to the inferences she made), suggest that the Chambri' s sex roles are, in fact, strikingly similar to those of Western cultures. Brown (1991) has a list of practices and attitudes that are good candidates for cultural universals—see T able 17.2 (see also Pinker, 1997).

In this section, we will consider four examples of cultural universals—beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women, the expression of emotion, the dimensions along which people describe and evaluate each other' s personalities, and the possible universality of the five-factor model of personality traits

Beliefs about the Personality Characteristics of Men and Women

In the most massive study undertaken to examine beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women, Williams and Best (1990) examined 30 countries over a period of 15 years. These included Western European countries such as Germany , the Netherlands, and Italy; Asian countries such as Japan and India; South American countries such as Venezuela; and African countries such as Nigeria. In each country , university students were asked to examine 300 trait adjectives (e.g., aggressive, emotional, dominant) and to indicate whether each trait is more often linked with men, with women, or with both sexes. The responses of the subjects within each culture were then summed. When the results came in, the big shock was this: many of the trait adjectives were highly associated with one or the other sex, and there proved to be tremendous consensus across cultures. T able 17.3 shows sample trait adjectives most associated with men and with women across cultures.

How can we summarize and interpret these dif ferences in beliefs about men and women? Williams and Best (1994) scored each of these adjectives on the following dimensions: favorability (how desirable is the trait?), strength (how much does the trait indicate power?), and activity (how much does the trait si gnify energy?). These dimensions originate from older classical work in the field that discovered thre

Table 17.3 Pancultural Traits Linked with Men or Women

Traits Associated with Men Traits Associated with Women

Table 17.3 Pancultural Traits Linked with Men or Women

Traits Associated with Men Traits Associated with Women

Active

Loud

Affected

Modest

Adventurous

Obnoxious

Affectionate

Nervous

Aggressive

Opinionated

Appreciative

Patient

Arrogant

Opportunistic

Cautious

Pleasant

Autocratic

Pleasure-seeking

Changeable

Prudish

Bossy

Precise

Charming

Sensitive

Coarse

Quick

Dependent

Sentimental

Conceited

Reckless

Emotional

Softhearted

Enterprising

Show-off

Fearful

Timid

Hardheaded

Tough

Forgiving

Warm

Source: Adapted from Williams & Best, 1994.

Source: Adapted from Williams & Best, 1994.

universal semantic dimensions of evaluation (good-bad), potency (strong-weak), and activity (active-passive) (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). Overall, the traits ascribed to men and women turned out to be equally favorable. Some "masculine" traits, such as serious and inventive, were viewed as favorable, whereas others, such as arrogant and bossy, were viewed as unfavorable. Some "feminine" traits, such as charming and appreciative, were viewed as favorable, whereas others, such as fearful and affected, were viewed as unfavorable.

How can we interpret these cultural universals in beliefs about the personality characteristics of men and women? One interpretation is that these beliefs represent stereotypes based on the roles men and women assume universally . Williams and Best (1994), for example, ar gue that society assumes that men are stronger than women and therefore assigns men to roles and occupations such as soldier and construction worker. Over time, people may develop stereotypes about the "typical" personality characteristics of men and women. Thus, one interpretation is that these universal sex differences reflect stereotypes—mere beliefs about men and women rather than rea or enduring differences.

A second possibility is that the traits ascribed to men and women in all 30 cultures reflect actual observations of real sex di ferences in personality . Studies of the five-factor model, for example, do find that women score lower on emotional stabili , suggesting that they are more fearful and emotional. And does anyone really doubt that men are, on average, more physically aggressive or violent than women (see Chapter 16)? In short, the universal beliefs about the dif ferences between men and women in personality may reflect actual di ferences in personality . Determining which interpretation is correct—the stereotype interpretation or the real dif ference interpretation—must await more extensive cross-cultural research.

Expression of Emotion

It is commonly believed that people in dif ferent cultures experience dif ferent emotions. As a consequence, personality psychologists have argued that different cultures have dif ferent words to describe emotional experience. The Tahitians, some have argued, do not experience the emotions of grief, longing, or loneliness, so they have no words in their language to express these emotions. For example, when a Tahitian boy dies in combat, according to legends reported by anthropologists, the parents smile and experience no grief, unlike the profound sadness felt by people in the modern Western world who experience similar events. Cultural variability in the presence or absence of emotion words has been interpreted by some personality psychologists to mean that cultures dif fer in the presence or absence of actual experiences of these emotions.

However, are emotions really this culturally variable? Or are there cultural universals in the experience of emotions? Psychologist Steven Pinker summarizes the evidence in this way: "Cultures surely dif fer in how often their members express, talk about, and act on various emotions. But that says nothing about what their people feel. The evidence suggests that the emotions of all normal members of our species are played on the same keyboard" (Pinker, 1997, p. 365).

The earliest evidence of cultural universals in emotions came from Charles Darwin. In gathering evidence for his book on emotions, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin (1872/1965) asked anthropologists and travelers who interacted with peoples on five continents to give detailed information about how th natives expressed various emotions, such as grief, contempt, disgust, fear , and jealousy. He summarized the answers he received: "The same state of mind is expressed throughout the world with remarkable uniformity; and this fact is in itself interesting as evidence of the close similarity in bodily structure and mental disposition of all the races of mankind" (Darwin, 1872/1965, pp. 15, 17).

Darwin's methods, of course, were crude by today' s scientific standards, bu subsequent research over the past two decades has confirmed his basic conclusions Psychologist Paul Ekman created a set of photographs of people expressing six basic emotions and then showed them to people in various cultures (Ekman, 1973). Some cultures in his study , such as the Fore foragers of New Guinea, had had almost no contact with Westerners. The Fore spoke no English, had seen no TV or movies, and had never lived with Caucasians. He also administered the tests to people in Japan, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the United States. Ekman asked each subject to label the emotion expressed in each photograph and to make up a story about what the person in the photograph had experienced. The six emotions—happiness, sadness, anger , fear, disgust, and surprise—were universally recognized by people in the various cultures. These finding have been subsequently replicated in other countries, such as Italy , Scotland, Estonia, Greece, Germany , Hong Kong, Sumatra, and Turkey (Ekman et al., 1987). And the research has extended to include the documentation of the universality of a seventh— the emotion of disgust (Ekman & Friesen, 1986).

In addition to finding that people of di ferent cultures effortlessly recognized the emotions expressed on the faces in the photographs, Ekman reversed the procedure. He asked the Fore participants to act out scenarios, such as "Y our child has died" and "You are angry and about to fight, and then photographed them.

Disgust appears to be an emotion universally experienced by humans.

The emotions expressed in these photographs were easily recognized by facial expressions and were strikingly similar to the expressions of the same emotions seen in the photographs of the Caucasian participants. Further evidence for the universality , and possible innateness, of these basic emotions comes from the finding that children wh are blind from birth display the same facial expressions of emotions that those with full sight display (Lazarus, 1991).

Pinker notes that whether a language has a word for a particular emotion or not matters little, if the question is whether people experience the emotion in the same way: Tahitians are said not to have a word for grief; however , "when a Tahitian woman says 'My husband died and I feel sick,' her emotional state is hardly mysterious; she is probably not complaining about acid indigestion" (Pinker, 1997, p. 367).

Another example is the German word Schadenfreude: "When English-speakers hear the word Schadenfreude for the first time, their reaction is not, 'Let me see . . pleasure in another' s misfortunes . . . what could that possibly be? I cannot grasp the concept; my language and culture have not provided me with such a category .' Their reaction is, 'You mean there's a word for it? Cool!' " (Pinker, 1997, p. 367). People universally may experience the emotion of pleasure in an enemy' s misfortunes in the same way, even if all cultures do not have a single word in their lexicon to capture it.

The view that language is not necessary for people to experience emotions may be contrasted with what has been called the Whorfian hypothesis of linguisti relativity, which contends that language creates thought and experience. In the extreme view, the Whorfian hypothesis a gues that the ideas that people can think and the emotions they feel are constrained by the words that happen to exist in their language and culture (Whorf, 1956).

The difference between experiencing an emotion and expressing that emotion in public may be critical to resolving this debate. Ekman (1973) performed an ingenious experiment to explore the dif ference between the experience of emotion and its expression in public. He secretly videotaped the facial expressions of Japanese and American students while they watched a graphic film of a primitive puberty rit involving genital mutilation. In one condition, an experimenter wearing a white lab coat was present in the room. In the other condition, the participants were alone. When the experimenter was present (a public context), the Japanese students smiled politely during the film, but the American students expressed horror and disgust. If this were the only condition run, we might conclude that Japanese and American students experience the emotion of disgust dif ferently. However, when the students were filme when they were alone in the room watching the film, both the Japanese and American faces showed equal horror . This result suggests that Japanese and American students experience this emotion in the same way , even if they dif fer in their expression of it in a more public setting.

In sum, there is evidence for cultural universals in the experience and expression of emotions, at least for the emotions of happiness, sadness, anger , fear, disgust, and surprise. People in all cultures studied so far can recognize and describe these emotions when presented photographs of others expressing them. Just as clearly , not all cultures have words corresponding to these emotions. The experience and expression of emotions appear to be more culturally universal than the language used to describe them.

Dimensions of Personality Description and Evaluation

In American culture, when we describe someone else, we often use trait terms. We might describe a woman as warm, intelligent, and assertive. We might even use slang terms, and describe her as cool, rad, fl , or zoned, sometimes modifying our opinion with the adjective totally. Although our intuitions tell us that people in dif ferent cultures use different terms to describe the personalities of others, there is some evidence for a universal map of personality descriptors.

A cultural anthropologist studied the similarity of 37 personality descriptors across several cultures, such as the A'ara of Santa Isabel in the Solomon Islands (White, 1980). Each participant was presented with a word in his or her own language, such as warm, conscientious, or assertive, and then was asked to select the five othe words in the list that most closely matched the word in meaning. These data were then subjected to multidimensional scaling, a statistical procedure designed to identify the major dimensions in data sets, much like factor analysis (Chapter 3). Two clear dimensions emer ged. The first was anchored by dominance at one end and submissiveness at the other . The second dimension, independent of the first, wa anchored by warmth and friendliness at one end and coldness and hostility at the other. You may recall from Chapter 3 that these are precisely the two main dimensions of the circumplex model of interpersonal behavior (e.g., Wiggins, 1979).

The amazing similarity across cultures of this two-dimensional structure for evaluating and describing the personalities of others in languages as dif ferent as Oriya, A'ara, and English led one researcher to speculate that "these dimensions represent a universal conceptual schema produced by the interaction of innate psycholinguistic structures and fundamental conditions of human social life, for example, the potential for concord or discord in the goals and actions of multiple actors (solidarity/conflict) and for the asymmetrical influence of one actor upon another (dominance/submission) (White, 1980, p. 759).

What are the implications of the discovery of universal dimensions for describing the personality characteristics of others? At this point, we can only speculate. Personality theorist Robert Hogan (1996) ar gues that these are universal dimensions because they describe the two most important tasks that humans have to accomplish in their interactions with others—getting along and getting ahead. Thus, our evaluations of others as dominant or submissive reflect our assessment of how well thos others are succeeding in getting ahead. And evaluations of others as warm (agreeable) or cold (hostile) reflect our assessment of how well those others are succeeding i getting along with people in their social environment.

Another possible reason for the universality of these two dimensions of personality evaluation stems from an evolutionary perspective on solving social adaptive problems (Buss, 1996): "Over evolutionary time, those individuals who attended to and acted on individual differences in others that were adaptively consequential would have survived and reproduced more successfully than those who were oblivious to adaptively consequential dif ferences in others" (p. 185). Natural selection, in short, produced "difference-detection mechanisms" designed to evaluate individual dif ferences in others.

With respect to the dominance-submissiveness dimension, for example, it is an adaptive imperative for people to know how powerful or weak others are. Knowing the power or dominance of others provides valuable information about whom one can exploit with impunity (those who are submissive) or , in contrast, those to whom one must defer (those who are more dominant). Failure to evaluate accurately the dominance of others could lead to adaptive errors—yelling at someone who has more power, for example, could result in getting fired or ostracized from the group. Man social decisions, such as whom to befriend and whom to ignore, rest on an accurate evaluation of where others fall on the dominance-submissiveness dimension of personality.

The warm-cold, or agreeable-hostile, dimension of personality evaluation might affect adaptive decisions such as who will be a good friend or ally (someone who is agreeable and warm). It also might alert a person to those who are pursuing an aggressive social strategy—someone who is likely to interfere with a person' s goals and aspirations.

Much more evidence is needed before we can conclude with certainty that these two dimensions—dominance and warmth—represent a universal map used to evaluate and describe the personality qualities of others around us. The available evidence, though, is consistent with this possibility . Future work in personality psychology will undoubtedly also be devoted to understanding why these dimensions of personality evaluation appear to be so important to people everywhere (MacDonald, 1998).

Five-Factor Model of Personality

Some personality psychologists have argued that universal dimensions of personality are not merely ways of evaluating other people; rather , they represent universal dimensions along which individuals dif fer. Most of this work has been devoted to exploring whether the five-factor model of personality is universal

A fascinating question is whether there is a universal structure of personality , such as the five-factor model, or whether di ferent factorial models exist in dif ferent cultures. To examine this issue, it is helpful to outline the conceptual positions that have been advanced.

According to some psychologists, even the concept of personality lacks universality. Hsu, for example, ar gues that ". . . the concept of personality is an expression of the Western ideal of individualism" (Hsu, 1985, p. 24). Shweder, a well-known cultural psychologist, argues that "the data gathered from . . . personality inventories lends illusory support to the mistaken belief that individual dif ferences can be described in language consisting of context-free global traits, factors, or dimensions" (Shweder, 1991, pp. 275-276).

These views have been articulated even more recently: "Universal [personality] structure does not by itself imply that 'personality' as understood within a European-American framework is a universal aspect of human behavior . . . nor does it imply that the variability that appears as an obvious feature of human life is a function of an internal package of attributes called 'personality' " (Markus & Kitayama, 1998, p. 67). Finally, cultural anthropologist Lawrence Hirschfeld ar gues that "in many , perhaps most, cultures there is a marked absence of discourse that explains human behavior in terms of transsituationally stable motivational (or intentional) properties captured by explanations of trait and disposition" (Hirschfeld, 1995, p. 315).

What is reflected in all these quotations is a fundamental challenge to personalit psychology—whether the core concept of traits is universal or, instead, is a local concept only applicable in Western cultures. The most extreme of these perspectives suggests that the very notion of personality , as an internal set of psychological characteristics, is an arbitrary construction of Western culture (Church, 2000). If this extreme position were really true, then any attempt to identify and measure personality traits in non-Western cultures would be doomed to failure (Church, 2000). At the other extreme is the position that personality traits are universal in their applicability and that precisely the same personality structure will emer ge across cultures. As two personality researchers noted, "The most important dimensions . . . [of] personality judgment are the most invariant and universal dimensions" (Saucier & Goldber g, 2001, p. 851).

The first source of evidence bearing on this debate pertains to the existence o trait terms in other cultures. Many non-W estern psychologists have, in fact, described traitlike concepts that are indigenous to non-W estern cultures and that appear strikingly like those that appear in Western cultures. Following are some examples: the Filipino concepts of pakikiramdam (sensitivity, empathy) and pakikisama (getting along with others); the Korean concept of chong (human affection); the Japanese concept of amae (indulgent dependence); the Chinese concept of ren qin (being relationship-oriented); and the Mexican concept of simpatico (being harmonious and avoiding conflict) (Church, 2000). Many non- estern cultures, in short, appear to have traitlike concepts embedded in their languages in much the same way that the American culture and English language do.

A second source of evidence bearing on the debate concerns whether the same factor structure of personality traits is found across cultures. That is, do different cultures have roughly the same broad categories of traits? The trait perspective on personality, of course, does not require the existence of precisely the same traits in all cultures. Indeed, the trait perspective might be extremely useful even if cultures were to dif fer radically in terms of which trait dimensions they used. Nonetheless, the most powerful support for the trait perspective across cultures would occur if the structure of personality traits were found to be the same across cultures (Church, 2000).

Two approaches have been taken to exploring this issue. In the first approach which can be labeled the "transport and test" strategy, psychologists have translated existing questionnaires into other languages and then have administered them to native residents in other cultures. This strategy has generated some findings supporting th five-factor model. The five-factor model (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious ness, emotional stability, and openness) has now been replicated in France, Holland, and the Philippines and in languages from entirely dif ferent language families, such as Sino-Tibetan, Hamito-Semitic, Uralic, and Malayo-Polynesian (McCrae et al., 1998). More recently , the five-factor model has been replicated in Spain (Salgado Moscoso, & Lado, 2003) as well as Croatia (Mlacic & Ostendorf, 2005). A study of 13 different countries—from Japan to Slovakia—also found support for the five-facto model (Hendriks et al., 2003).

Perhaps the most impressive was a massive study of 50 dif ferent cultures (McCrae, Terracciano, & 78 members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project 2005b). This study, involving 1 1,985 participants, had college-age individuals rate someone they knew well using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory . Factor analyses of these observer-based ratings yielded the five-factor model, with only mino variations in factor structure across cultures. This study is extremely important in suggesting that cross-cultural evidence for the five-factor model is not limited t self-report data, but extends to observer -based data as well. Using the transport and test strategy, the five-factor structure of personality appears to be general acros cultures. Table 17.4, for example, shows the factor structure from a Filipino sample. Nonetheless, a recent study conducted in Estonia found that the five-factor model wa successfully replicated only among participants who were relatively high in general cognitive ability (T oomela, 2003). The Big-Five structure failed to emer ge among those with relatively low levels of intellectual ability .

A more powerful test of generality, however, would come from studies that start out using indigenous personality dimensions first, then testing whether the five-fact structure still emer ges. This approach has been tried in Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian, Czech, and Polish (De Raad et al., 1998). In each case, the trait terms in the language were identified. Although the absolute numbers of personality trait terms varied from language to language—Dutch has 8,690 trait terms, whereas Italian has only 1,337 trait terms—the percentage of words in each language that constituted trait

Table 17.4 Factor Analysis of the Filipino NEO-PI-R

NEO-PI-R Facet Scale

N

E

O

A

C

N1: Anxiety

76

-08

00

00

06

N2: Angry hostility

67

-19

01

- 44

-10

N3: Depression

73

- 23

03

-02

- 25

N4: Self-consciousness

68

-14

-15

22

-04

N5: Impulsiveness

40

20

04

-37

- 47

N6: Vulnerability

70

- 22

- 23

04

- 30

E1: Warmth

-21

69

17

28

08

E2: Gregariousness

-29

65

-02

07

04

E3: Assertiveness

-28

42

23

- 29

35

E4: Activity

-15

51

10

- 24

25

E5: Excitement seeking

-08

51

26

- 29

-12

E6: Positive emotions

-16

66

14

15

01

O1: Fantasy

16

27

47

-06

- 27

O2: Aesthetics

14

20

65

14

22

O3: Feelings

30

32

53

03

12

O4: Actions

-39

-03

46

01

04

O5: Ideas

-04

-01

69

01

30

O6: Values

-13

-06

62

-05

-16

A1: Trust

- 20

41

09

52

-10

A2: Straightforwardness

-03

- 22

-02

57

10

A3: Altruism

-12

27

13

65

31

A4: Compliance

- 20

-10

-09

75

12

A5: Modesty

18

- 27

-03

55

-13

A6: Tender-mindedness

22

27

09

49

20

C1: Competence

- 38

22

16

-10

69

C2: Order

-04

-15

-08

10

73

C3: Dutifulness

-08

12

07

21

69

C4: Achievement striving

-12

06

01

11

83

C5: Self-discipline

- 24

02

00

07

81

C6: Deliberation

-27

- 20

03

24

65

Note: N = 696. Decimal points are omitted; loadings greater than 40 in absolute magnitude are given in boldface; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, L = Love, S = Submission.

Note: N = 696. Decimal points are omitted; loadings greater than 40 in absolute magnitude are given in boldface; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, L = Love, S = Submission.

terms was remarkably consistent, averaging 4.4 percent of all dictionary entries. You may recall the lexical hypothesis from Chapter 3, which states that the most important individual differences have been encoded within the natural language.

The next step in the De Raad et al., study was to reduce this list to a manageable number of several hundred trait terms, identified as indigenous to each culture, whic could then be tested in each culture. Factor analyses of each sample within each culture showed that there was tremendous replicability of four of the five factors o the five-factor model: extraversion (talkative, sociable versus shy , intr overted), agreeableness (sympathetic, warm versus unsympathetic, cold), conscientiousness (organized, responsible versus disorganized, careless), and emotional stability (relaxed, imperturbable versus moody , emotional).

Despite cross-cultural agreement on these four factors, this study found some differences in what constituted the fifth facto , as noted in Chapter 3. In some cultures, such as Polish and German, the fifth factor resembled the American fifth facto (openness-intellect), with intelligent and imaginative anchoring one end and dull and unimaginative anchoring the other end. One study conducted in the Philippines also found a replicated five-factor model, including the fifth factor resembli openness-intellect, although there are a few indigenous constructs that are less successfully subsumed by the Big Five such as social curiosity , obedience, and capacity for understanding (Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapena, Carlota, & del Pilar , 2002). Other languages, however, revealed different fifth factors. In Dutch, for exam ple, the fifth factor seemed more like a dimension of political orientation, rangin from conservative at one end to progressive at the other. In Hungarian, the fifth facto seemed to be one of truthfulness, with just, truthful, and humane anchoring one end and greedy, hypocritical, and pretending at the other (De Raad et al., 1998). The fift factor, in summary, appeared to be somewhat variable across cultures.

Recent cross-cultural research using the lexical approach, as you may recall from Chapter 3, has found compelling evidence for six factors, rather than five (Ashto et al., 2004; Saucier, Georgiades, Tsaousis, & Goldberg, 2005). The new sixth factor— honesty-humility—represents a major discovery . By starting with the natural language within each culture, these researchers were able to capture an important dimension of personality that may have been bypassed using the "transport and test" research strategy.

Clearly, further indigenous tests are needed to determine whether the five-facto trait model of personality structure is universal or not. Based on the existing data, however, we can conclude that the truth is somewhere between the extreme positions outlined at the beginning of this section but closer to those that ar gue for universality. Trait terms appear to be present in all languages. Factor structures based on instruments developed in the United States, and then translated and transported to other cultures, show great similarity across cultures. Using the more rigorous standard of instruments developed indigenously, however, only four of the five factors eme ge consistently across cultures. The fifth factor is somewhat variable across cultures and therefore ma reflect an important lack of universality of personality trait structure

Your Perfect Right

Your Perfect Right

Always wondered if you could use assertiveness and equality in your relationships and in your life? Here are some great information on how to be more assertive! Do you want to improve your career and the amount of money that you bring home? Do you want to break all the sales records in your office? Do you want to bring home more money? Do you feel as though you are just short of reaching all of your goals?

Get My Free Ebook


Responses

  • heidi macfarlane
    Who is Cultural Universals performed by?
    2 years ago

Post a comment