University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Personality and culture revisited: Integrating the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture

(USC Thesis Other)

Personality and culture revisited: Integrating the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PERSONALITY AND CULTURE REVISITED:
INTEGRATING THE SOCIAL COGNITIVE APPROACH TO PERSONALITY
AND THE DYNAMIC CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO CULTURE

by
Yu Yang

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Yu Yang

ii
Acknowledgments
Words (especially those in English) cannot express how I truly, truly
appreciate the support that I have received from the wonderful people at the
University of Southern California and elsewhere. My academic advisors Steve Read
and Lynn Miller supported me unconditionally from the first day I came to America
and started my graduate career. Their patience, encouragement, confidence in me,
and challenges to my thinking shaped every aspects of my intellectual development
and changed the way I see this world in a fundamental way. To their tutelage I am
forever grateful.
During the process to complete this dissertation, my other committee
members, David Walsh, Stan Huey, and Jen Overbeck provided insightful advice
and valuable guidance. I am very fortunate to have such a devoted committee.
This dissertation could not have been started or completed without the
inspiration, support, and help from many other colleagues and friends. In 2005, I
spent two weeks attending a summer institute in social psychology at the University
of Michigan. My instructors Shinobu Kitayama and Hazel Markus first opened the
door of cultural psychology to me and truly inspired the original idea of this
dissertation. My thanks are extended to my sixteen friends in the culture class:
Stephanie Anderson, Nick Bowman, Kathleen Burns, Stephane Dandeneau, Naomi
Hall, I-Ching Lee, Hong Li, Stephen Livingston, Sara McClelland, Rosie Meek,

iii
Laura Naumann, Meredith Terry, SiSi Tran, Maureen Tumewu, Amy Waldrip, and
Krista Wilke. Without them, the Michigan time would not have been so enjoyable.
I am sincerely thankful to many others who provided valuable comments at
various stages of this dissertation: Brian Lickel, Tom Denson, Mathew Curtis, Doug
Stenstrom, and Jaclyn Ronquillo.
An overarching ambition of this dissertation is to bridge the East and the
West. Jin Zhang, Guowu Li, Hao Tian, Enyu Zhang, Qian Song and their research
assistants helped tremendously in the translation and data collection process in China.
Tom Denson, Bill Pedersen, Mathew Curtis, Doug Stenstrom, Jaclyn Ronquillo,
Marija Spanovic and their research assistants helped tremendously in the translation
and data collection process in America.
During my graduate study, I have been fortunate to encounter some of the
greatest and wildest thinkers in social, personality, and cultural psychology of our
time: Chi-Yue Chiu, David Funder, Lewis Goldberg, Ying-Yi Hong, Shinobu
Kitayama, Hazel Markus, Walter Mischel, Michael Morris, Richard Nisbett, Kaiping
Peng, Norbert Schwarz, Chung-Fung Yang, and Kuo-Shu Yang. Their extraordinary
work paved the way for many including myself.
I would like to thank the University of Southern California for providing
generous financial support to this dissertation. The early stage of my work was

iv
supported by a strategic theme research fellowship, and the final stage was supported
by a dissertation fellowship offered generously through the USC College.
Graduate school has been a wonderful journey to me. I am very fortunate to
have many friends and colleagues along the way: Aaron Brownstein, Zizhe Cai, Bing
Chen, Huaiyu Chen, Yong Chen, Gurveen Chopra, John Christensen, Mathew Curtis,
Tom Denson, Qiushi Feng, Jiang Fu, Yu Gao, Hai Huang, Stan Huey, Lan Hao, Ravi
Iyer, Jerry Jellison, Jared Kenworthy, Peter Kim, Jeff Lamoreaux, Fa Li, Jian Li,
Quanzheng Li, Jianlin Liang, Brian Lickel, Yingqi Linghu, Shuxiang Liu, Xiaobo
Liu, Zhengtong Liu, Jianwei Lu, Fengjun Lv, Norman Miller, Brian Monroe, Mary
Nwosu, Jen Overbeck, Fang Pang, Bill Pedersen, Zhigang Peng, Jaclyn Ronquillo,
Chad Snow, Marija Spanovic, Doug Stenstrom, George Stratton, Irene Takaragawa,
Tian Tian, Eddie Vasquez, David Walsh, Ting Wang, Ya Xu, Yiyuan Xu, Tian Yang,
Yiyin Yang, Jin Zhang, Nan Zhang, Yangyong Zhang, Zheng Zhao, Mo Zheng, and
Yanfeng Zheng. I appreciate their support and the good times we spent together
fantasizing how the mind works.
Last but not least, I wish to thank my family. First, to my parents who
brought me to this world and let me travel thousands of miles away for so many
years. Their care, confidence, and wisdom give me the strength I have in every day
of my life. Finally and most importantly, to my wife, Song Qian, for her love,

v
encouragement, and companionship. She has done so much for me, and I have done
so little for her.

vi
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Abstract x

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Problems in the Recent Research on Personality and Culture 3
The Reference Group Effect 3
Lay Theories of Personality Traits 7
Solutions 11

Chapter 2: Trait and Social Cognitive Approaches to Personality 18
The Controversy 19
Solutions 19

Chapter 3: Dimensional and Dynamic Constructivist Approaches to Culture 21
The Controversy 23
Solutions 23

Chapter 4: An Integration of the Social Cognitive Approach to Personality 25
and the Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture
The Social Cognitive Approach to Personality 26
The Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture 28

Chapter 5: Overview of the Studies 29

Chapter 6: Study 1 30
Method 31
Results and Discussion 34

Chapter 7: Study 2 37
Method 38
Results and Discussion 40

vii
Chapter 8: Study 3 42
Method 43
Results 45
Discussion 52

Chapter 9: Study 4 55
Method 56
Results 57
Discussion 64

Chapter 10: General Discussion 67

Conclusion 75

References 76

Appendices
Appendix A 89
Appendix B 94
Appendix C 95
Appendix D 96

viii
List of Tables

Table 1: Correlations among the 10 TIPI Items in American 110
and Chinese Samples

Table 2: Self-reported Personality Profiles of American and 111
Chinese Students Based upon the Ten-Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI)

Table 3: Examples of Situations, Behaviors, and Explanations 112
Generated by American Students

Table 4: Correlations between Self- and Other- Ratings of 113
SBEs on the TIPI Items

Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of the American and 114
Chinese SBEs Judged by American and Chinese Students

Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations of the American and 115
Chinese SBEs Judged by American and Chinese
Students When Targets’ Nationalities Were American or Chinese

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1: A tentative model of personality trait judgment process 116

Figure 2: Mean profiles of American and Chinese students based 117
upon self-reported TIPI scores

Figure 3: Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged 118
by all participants)

Figure 4: Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged 119
by Americans)

Figure 5: Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged 120
by Chinese)

x
Abstract
The study of personality and culture has a long and distinguished tradition in
psychology and anthropology. Recently, research on personality and culture has
focused almost exclusively on profiling people from different cultures on personality
trait measures. In this dissertation, I first consider two problems that may confound
the results from the recent work: the reference group effect (Heine, Lehman, Peng, &
Greenholtz, 2002), and lay theories of personality traits in different cultures. To
address these two problems, at the theoretical level, I propose an alternative
perspective that integrates the social cognitive approach to personality (Mischel &
Shoda, 1995, 1998) and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture (Hong,
Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). Essentially, this new perspective argues
that personality and culture can be meaningfully conceptualized and operationalized
in terms of distinctive patterns of if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and
explanations for the contingencies. At the empirical level, it is shown that while
personality profiles based solely upon personality trait measures suggested that
Americans are equally extraverted, less agreeable, more conscientious, equally
emotionally stable, and more open to new experiences than Chinese, the profiles
based upon the new perspective of situations, behaviors, and explanations suggested
that Americans are more extraverted, slightly more agreeable, more conscientious,
emotionally more stable, and equally open to new experiences than Chinese.

xi
Advantages and implications of this new perspective and a number of opportunities
it opens for personality and culture research in the future are discussed.

1
Personality and Culture Revisited:
Integrating the Social Cognitive Approach to Personality
and the Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture

The study of personality and culture, or the study of culture and personality,
is among the oldest and most intriguing topics at the interface of psychology and
anthropology. The early work on “national characters”, defined as the “relatively
enduring personality characteristics and patterns that are modal among the adult
members of the society” (Inkeles & Levinson, 1969, p. 17), was at the very frontline
of social sciences in the first half of the last century. Many renowned social
scientists devoted their work to this area (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,
& Sanford, 1950; Benedict, 1934, 1946; Duijker & Frijda, 1960; Erikson, 1950;
Gorer & Rickman, 1949; Hsu, 1961, 1963; Kardiner, 1939, 1945; Kardiner, Linton,
Du Bois, & West, 1945; Linton, 1945; Lynn, 1971; McClelland, 1961; Mead, 1953;
Sapir, 1938, 1994).
After its peak in the late 1940s, the study of personality and culture soon
declined due to a variety of methodological, political, and disciplinary issues
(LeVine, 2001). As LeVine (2001) noted, for example, much of the work on
“national characters” relied heavily upon documentary evidence and interviews with
informants from the target cultures (e.g., Russians, Japanese) who self-selected to

2
live in the United States (e.g., Geoffrey Gorer and John Rickman, 1949, The People
of Great Russia; Ruth Benedict, 1946, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword). This
method, known as “the study of culture at a distance”, was severely challenged on its
weak scientific ground.
More recently, in line with the substantial theoretical and empirical progress
in personality (Funder, 2001) and culture (Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004) research,
there has been a surge in the study of personality and culture (Triandis & Suh, 2002).
The recent revival in personality and culture research, however, has focused almost
exclusively on profiling people from different cultures on personality trait measures
(e.g., Allik & McCrae, 2004; Church, 2001; Church & Lonner, 1998; Hofstede &
McCrae, 2004; Lee, McCauley, & Draguns, 1999; McCrae, 2000, 2002; McCrae&
Allik, 2002; McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005ab; McCrae, Yik,
Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998; Robins, 2005; Triandis, 1997; Williams,
Satterwhite, & Saiz, 1998). More details of the origin and characteristics of the trait
approach to personality are discussed later in this article when we consider the
intellectual history of personality psychology. For now, it is sufficient to note that
the most prevalent practice in the recent personality and culture research is to
administer Big Five personality trait measures in different countries.
For example, in a recent large-scale study, researchers administered Big Five
personality trait measures to 12,156 people in 51 countries (McCrae & Terracciano,

3
2005a). The classic Big Five distinctions (Extraversion, Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to experience) were revalidated.
Europeans and Americans were found to generally score higher on Extraversion than
Asians and Africans. These findings, as the authors concluded, may suggest that
there are fundamental differences among specific genes or cultural values relevant to
the specific traits. In addition to their scientific value, it was also argued that results
of the intercultural comparisons of personality trait ratings “could be of considerable
use to travelers, diplomats, and business persons” (McCrae, 2001, p. 822). At least
at the surface level, the recent research has achieved tremendous success and built
itself on a much more solid scientific ground than the early study of personality and
culture.

Problems in the Recent Research on Personality and Culture
Despite this progress, however, results from the recent work profiling people
from different cultures solely upon personality trait measures may have been
confounded by two serious problems, one related to the reference group effect
(Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002; Peng, Nisbett, & Wang, 1997), and
another related to lay theories of personality traits in different cultures. I discuss
each problem in turn.
The Reference Group Effect

4
The reference group effect refers to the problem that, “to the extent that two
groups differ in their average level on the dimension under question, the groups have
different standards by which members of those groups are evaluated, which thus
confounds comparisons of them” (Heine et al, 2002, p. 905). As Heine et al. (2002)
noted, the idea of the reference group effect could be traced back to many classic
studies in social comparison theory (e.g., Festinger, 1954; Hyman, 1942; Latane &
Darley, 1970; Sherif, 1936). Collectively, these studies along with their
contemporary successors (e.g., Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Biernat & Manis,
1994; Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991; Schwarz, 1999, 2000) have demonstrated in a
variety of different domains that when making various kinds of social judgments,
people typically rely on a standard of comparison, or reference group, and the nature
of this particular standard or group has a systematic impact on their judgments.
In the case of personality trait judgments, the reference group effect identifies
three assumptions, which together makes the results from the recent research on
personality and culture sufficiently problematic. First, when making personality trait
judgments, people may have relied on a reference group. That is, people can
compare the targets of judgments, whether it is oneself or others, to some reference
group during their judgments. For example, when someone endorsed a statement
that described him as extraverted, it is implied that this person is more extraverted
than someone, or some group of people. The extent to which this person would

5
endorse the same statement can also change with different reference groups. For
example, compared to friends, this person is more extraverted. However, compared
to co-workers, this person is much less extraverted. Regardless of the specific
reference group people may choose in their judgments, it makes sense to assume that
some reference group was involved.
Second, when making personality trait judgments, people may have relied on
a reference group which they are most familiar with, have substantial knowledge
about, or frequently interact with—that is, their in-groups. In cross-cultural studies,
participants are more likely to make their judgments of personalities based upon
comparisons between themselves and those they regularly interact with in their own
cultural milieu. They are less likely to make their judgments based upon
comparisons between themselves and those they rarely interact with in a different
culture. This in-group constraint applies not only to personality judgments of oneself,
but also to the judgments of others. For example, when Joe who lives in America is
considered more extraverted, either by himself or others, chances are he is only more
extraverted than those people with whom he regularly interacts in his immediate
cultural milieu (e.g., his friends, family, coworkers, and essentially, fellow
Americans). It is unclear whether Joe is more (or less) extraverted than a group of
people in China with whom Joe rarely interacts. That is, cross-cultural studies that
are based solely upon personality trait measures have only built themselves upon

6
intra-cultural, but not inter-cultural comparisons. If results based solely upon
personality trait measures showed that Americans generally score higher on
Extraversion than Chinese, for example, it might only suggest that Americans on
average consider themselves more extraverted than their fellow Americans, and that
Chinese on average consider themselves less extraverted than their fellow Chinese.
Third, the reference group effect is especially a problem when the different
reference groups that people chose in different cultures actually have quite different
mean scores on the dimension under study. Before any judgments, Americans and
Chinese in general will already have some mean score on Extraversion. If the mean
level of Extraversion is very high for Americans and very low for Chinese, during
the study of personality judgments, American participants are likely to think of
themselves as less extraverted (compared to their fellow Americans), and Chinese
participants are likely to think of themselves as more extraverted (compared to their
fellow Chinese). Results of such studies that are based solely upon personality trait
measures are therefore confounded in that the true differences between Americans
and Chinese may be smaller than the results based upon personality trait measures
suggest, larger than the results based upon personality trait measures suggest, or
relatively the same. Clearly, the problem of the reference group effect would be less
pronounced in comparing people in two geographically close cultures such as

7
America and Canada, but more pronounced in comparing people in two
geographically remote cultures such as America and China.
To summarize, results from the recent work profiling people from different
cultures solely upon personality trait measures may have been confounded by the
problem of the reference group effect. An argument such that Americans are truly
more (or less) extraverted than Chinese cannot be made simply based upon scores on
the personality trait measures of Americans and Chinese. The scientific implications
of the recent research on personality and culture can be very misleading.
Lay Theories of Personality Traits
Another problem of the recent work on personality and culture is related to
the lay theories of personality traits that people in different cultures might hold. Lay
theories of personality traits refer to the specific, and often concrete ways in which
members of a culture typically define personality traits in their everyday lives.
These theories, for example, can involve a variety of elements including everyday
behaviors, situations in which the behaviors took place, and reasons that motivated
the behaviors. Regardless of how a lay theory of personality traits is specifically
defined in a particular culture, presumably it is solidified through at least some
cultural consensus over time, tangible to the majority members of this culture, and
ecologically valid within the culture.

8
The notion of lay theories of personality traits also identifies three
assumptions, which together makes the results from the recent research on
personality and culture sufficiently problematic. These three assumptions are very
similar to the ones identified by the reference group effect. Specifically, first, when
making personality trait judgments, people may have relied on some lay theories of
personality traits. That is, rather than comparing the targets of judgments with a
reference group on a particular trait, people can also match the typical behaviors of
the targets to how the trait is typically defined in terms of behaviors. For example,
tailgating at a football game is strongly associated with the trait Extraversion in
America. Stated differently, people in America have a lay theory of Extraversion
which includes the behavior of tailgating at a football game as well as other
behaviors such as initiating conversations with strangers at a party, and having a lot
of friends in general. As long as the targets of judgments display one (or more) of
these behaviors that are well defined in the lay theory of Extraversion, these targets
can be considered as extraverted. Clearly, this process is quite possible and does not
necessarily involve a reference group.
Second, when making personality trait judgments, people may have relied
only on the lay theories of personality traits specific to their own cultures. Similar to
our earlier reasoning on reference groups, whether the targets of judgments are
participants themselves or others familiar to them, it makes sense to assume that,

9
during their personality trait judgments, Americans spontaneously rely on how
personality traits are defined in America, and Chinese spontaneously rely on how
personality traits are defined in China.
Third, lay theories of personality traits become a problem when the lay
theories that people chose in different cultures actually define the same personality
traits in sufficiently different ways. In other words, there is a problematic possibility
that the same personality trait can manifest itself in significantly different ways in
different cultures. For example, tailgating at a football game is well defined in the
lay theories of Extraversion for Americans. However, it is completely missing in the
lay theories of Extraversion for Chinese because a football game is a rare event in
China. Therefore, it can be argued that the lay theories of personality traits held by
Americans and Chinese are composed of at least somewhat different elements.
Initiating conversations with strangers in a party is often construed as highly
extraverted in America; however it may be construed as less extraverted (and more
rude) in China because two strangers are more often introduced by a third person
who knows both in the party. Thus, it can be argued that even if some elements of
the lay theories of personality traits held by Americans and Chinese are the same, the
value of each element on the particular trait under study can be different in America
and China. Further, at a more general level, it has already been demonstrated
empirically that people from individualistic cultures are more likely to be entity

10
theorists who view personality as fixed, and people from collectivistic cultures are
more likely to be incremental theorists who view personality as malleable (Chiu,
Hong, & Dweck, 1997, Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Thus, at the level of specific
personality traits, it is quite possible that the same traits are defined by very different
lay theories in different cultures.
The notion of lay theories of personality traits has direct implications for
personality measurement in different cultures. Over the past several decades,
researchers have developed personality trait measures using both relatively more
abstract (e.g., Goldberg, 1992; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Saucier, 1994)
and more concrete (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999) items.
One example of abstract items would simply ask participants how “extraverted” they
are. When people in different cultures are asked this very same question, however,
they may have referred to very different ideas of being “extraverted” which makes
the comparisons between cultures less meaningful. One example of concrete items
would ask the participants if they “talk to a lot of different people at parties”. This
question is perfectly legitimate to people in America. However, it can be much less
diagnostic to people in other cultures where parties are not at all an important part of
their everyday lives.
To summarize, results from the recent work profiling people from different
cultures solely upon personality trait measures may have been confounded by the

11
different lay theories of personality traits in different cultures. Not only the scientific
implications of the recent research on personality and culture, but its value to
“travelers, diplomats, and business persons” may be very misleading when it comes
to real-life intercultural interaction settings.
Solutions
Our foregoing discussion has provided a rather complicated picture for
studying personality and culture. Specifically, I have argued that results from the
recent research on personality and culture based solely upon personality trait
measures can be confounded by the reference group effect and by different lay
theories of personality traits in different cultures. An underlying assumption that
cuts across these two problems is that when making social judgments, people must
rely on some kind of references. In the case of personality trait judgments, the
references should be a group of similar others in the immediate culture, a well-
defined lay theory of personality traits in this culture, or both. It is my understanding
that the two problems cannot be fully solved until the specific reference groups and
lay theories of personality traits are clearly determined in personality judgment
studies. At the same time, however, there are ways to avoid the undesirable
outcomes associated with the two problems in the study of personality and culture.
In what follows, I briefly describe a process model of personality trait judgment
studies to better understand the nature of, and solutions to the two problems.

12
Most, if not all, personality trait judgment studies can be described by a
process model that consisted of five essential elements: participants, targets,
reference groups, lay theories, and traits (see Figure 1). In a typical personality trait
judgment study, a group of participants is asked to make judgments of a group of
targets on a set of traits. The targets can be the participants themselves (self-
judgments), or a group of people familiar to the participants (other-judgments). As
we have discussed earlier, the participants are likely to make their judgments of the
targets in reference to a particular reference group, a specific lay theory of
personality traits, or both. For example, in a hypothetical but typical study of
personality trait judgment, the participants would be Americans, the targets would be
the participants themselves, and the traits to be judged would include the entire
domain of the Big Five. Based upon our earlier reasoning, in this study the reference
group should be Americans, and the lay theories of personality traits should be how
Americans believe the Big Five traits manifest themselves in the everyday lives of
Americans.
Problems arise when the above procedure is directly applied in a cross-
cultural study of American and Chinese personalities. In the American sample of
such a study, the participants would be Americans, the targets would be Americans,
the reference group would be Americans, the lay theories would be American, and
the traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five. In the Chinese

13
sample of the study, the participants would be Chinese, the targets would be Chinese,
the reference group would be Chinese, the lay theories would be Chinese, and the
traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five. Among the five
elements of participants, targets, reference group, lay theories, and traits of the study,
nothing is the same or comparable between the American and Chinese samples but
the labels of the Big Five traits. It is therefore extremely difficult to believe that any
real similarities or differences can be established between Americans and Chinese by
the results of this procedure. Unfortunately, this hypothetical study well exemplifies
the procedures of the recent research on personality and culture that are based solely
upon personality trait measures. Other implications of this process model of
personality trait judgment can be fully explored in other places. For now, it is clear
that the reasoning underlying this process model does not limit itself to studies of
personality trait judgment. Instead, it applies to a wider range of social judgment
studies across cultures. In the studies unrelated to personality trait judgments, all the
other four elements of this model remain the same and only the element traits needs
to be replaced with whatever construct is under study.
This process model is very helpful in understanding not only the two
problems in the recent research on personality and culture, but also the solutions to
the problems. Using this model, I first consider one solution previously provided by
other researchers to deal with the problem of the reference group effect, and one new

14
solution to be proposed in the present research to deal with both problems in the
recent research on personality and culture.
One solution to deal with the problem of the reference group effect has been
proposed by manipulating the reference groups with bicultural participants who have
substantial knowledge about both cultures. In one sample of a hypothetical study
using this solution, the participants would be biculturals, the targets would be
Americans, the reference group would be Americans, the lay theories would be
American, and the traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five. In
another sample of the same study, the participants would be biculturals, the targets
would be Chinese, the reference group would be Chinese, the lay theories would be
Chinese, and the traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five. In
practice, for example, this solution has been applied in a study on individualistic and
collectivistic values of Canadians and Japanese (Heine et al., 2002, Study 2).
Specifically, bicultural participants who have substantial knowledge about both
Canadian and Japanese cultures (e.g., European Canadians who have taught in Japan,
and Japanese exchange students in Canada) were asked to compare themselves
against North Americans and Japanese, and the expected cultural differences
(Canadians being more individualistic and Japanese being more collectivistic) were
recovered. Studies of this kind have enormous implications for unpacking the
cognitive processes of social judgments and research methodologies of cultural

15
psychology in general. Yet, in the case of personality and culture research, this
solution would be limited in three aspects. First, results based upon bicultural
participants would be further confounded if the bicultural participants are self-
selected and already predisposed to certain personality traits. Second, although it
makes sense to manipulate reference groups to bicultural participants, it would make
little sense to manipulate reference groups to ordinary, non-bicultural participants
who have no substantial knowledge about other cultures. Lastly, this solution still
does not deal with the problem of different lay theories of personality traits in
different cultures.
A second solution to be proposed in the present research is to manipulate the
targets of judgments. In one sample of a hypothetical study using this solution, the
participants would be Americans, the targets would be both Americans and Chinese,
the reference group would be Americans, the lay theories would be American, and
the traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five. In another sample
of the same study, the participants would be Chinese, the targets would be both
Americans and Chinese, the reference group would be Chinese, the lay theories
would be Chinese, and traits to be judged would be the entire domain of the Big Five.
If such a study can actually be implemented, it well avoids the undesirable outcomes
of both the reference group effect and different lay theories of personality traits in
different cultures. Furthermore, it simulates realistic circumstances in which the

16
personalities of Americans and Chinese are judged in America and China. At the
same time, the personalities of ordinary people in different cultures who are not
necessarily bicultural can also be meaningfully compared.
Clearly, a key challenge in this solution is to develop systematic ways of
having the targets of judgments as both Americans and Chinese. There are at least
two options for this purpose, one is to use group labels of the people (e.g., Americans
and Chinese), and another is to use descriptions of the people as the targets of
judgments. However, if we use ordinary, non-bicultural participants who don’t have
sufficient knowledge of others from other cultures, it would make little sense for
them to directly judge people described only by group labels from other cultures.
That is, we cannot ask ordinary Americans to judge the personalities of Chinese, or
ask ordinary Chinese to judge the personalities of Americans because both groups
would simply base their judgments upon inaccurate stereotypes. For the purpose of
obtaining “true” personality differences, people or group labels may not serve as the
targets of judgments.
Alternatively, descriptions of American and Chinese can serve as the targets
of judgments. We can systematically identify the ways in which the personalities of
Americans and Chinese are described in everyday language in America and China,
translate these descriptions between English and Chinese so as to form a common
pool, and have these descriptions judged simultaneously by people in America and

17
China on the Big Five traits. While group labels of other cultures (Americans to
Chinese participants or Chinese to American participants) make little sense to
ordinary, non-bicultural participants, the descriptions of people’s personalities can
make much better sense to ordinary participants from both cultures.
To this point, the only option appears to develop systematic ways of
describing American and Chinese personalities in everyday language. In the next
several sections, I will argue that our specific ways of describing personalities are
deeply rooted in the theoretical traditions of personality and culture research. More
specifically, I will argue that our solution is built upon an integration of the social
cognitive approach to personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998) and the dynamic
constructivist approach to culture (Hong et al., 2000). To provide a broader
theoretical background, in the next and second section of this article, I briefly review
the intellectual history and current status of personality research. The social
cognitive approach is contrasted with the traditional trait approach to personality. In
the third section, I briefly review the intellectual history and current status of culture
research. The dynamic constructivist approach is contrasted with the traditional
dimensional approach to culture. In the fourth section, I articulate our solution to the
problems in the recent research on personality and culture that integrated the social
cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture.
In the fifth section, I report four empirical studies to implement the integration.

18
Lastly, in the sixth section, implications of the new perspective on personality and
culture research are discussed.

Trait and Social Cognitive Approaches to Personality
One primary task for personality psychology is to describe, explain and
predict how people are similar to or different from each other (Allport, 1937;
Goldberg, 1993). Like any scientific enterprise, a first issue for the field is to locate
a reasonable unit of analysis—the basis on which an individual should be considered
similar to or different from another. In 1884, Galton hypothesized that a basic unit
of analysis in personality is located in our lexicon. That is, to the extent that we rely
on our languages to make sense of our social world, meaningful and important
aspects of individual differences in personality should have been encoded as single
terms in our languages.
This lexical hypothesis became an important building block for the scientific
study of personality. Early personality psychologists relied on this hypothesis,
searched dictionaries for single terms that described personality traits, and developed
multiple taxonomies of personality traits (e.g., Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, 1943;
Norman, 1963).

19
The Controversy
Although the internal validity of various trait measurement tools had been
established, external validity in the form of using traits to predict behaviors was
severely challenged in the mid 1960s. After a review on the validity of personality
traits in predicting behaviors, Mischel (1968) concluded that:
With the possible exception of intelligence, highly generalized
behavioral consistencies have not been demonstrated and the concept of
personality traits as broad response predispositions is thus untenable (p. 146).
This critique led to a controversy for over twenty years in personality and
social psychology known as the person-situation debate (Kenrick & Funder, 1988;
Ross & Nisbett, 1991). At the core of the debate is the argument that personality
traits do not strongly predict behaviors across situations and over time.
Solutions
Solutions to the person-situation debate have been twofold. On the one hand,
limitations of Mischel’s initial critique were addressed, and the trait position was
reasonably well defended. Perhaps most notably, in a series of theoretical and
empirical works, Funder and colleagues showed that personality traits are no less
powerful than situations in predicting behaviors (Funder, 1999, 2001; Funder &
Colvin, 1991; Funder & Ozer, 1983; Kenrick & Funder, 1988; See also Roberts &
Pomerantz, 2004). A number of researchers further demonstrated that individual
differences in personality traits can be mapped onto five highly converging
distinctions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and

20
Openness to experience (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1981, 1993; McCrae & Costa,
1985, 1999). Additionally, summarizing a fairly substantial body of literature, Ozer
and Benet-Martínez (2006) recently showed that personality traits do predict a wide
range of individual, interpersonal, and social/institutional outcomes.
On the other hand, personality psychologists also moved beyond the trait
conception to a social cognitive approach to personality (e.g., Bandura, 2001; Cantor,
1990; Cervone, & Shoda, 1999; Dweck, 1996; Read, Jones, & Miller, 1990; Read &
Miller, 1989). Perhaps mostly notably, Mischel and colleagues argued that
personality traits can be expressed in terms of people’s distinctive if (situation) then
(behavior) contingencies (if situation X, then the person does A, but if situation Y,
then the person does B). Furthermore, a complex network of cognitive-affective
units (CAUs) mediates the relationship between situational features and behavioral
expressions (Mischel, 2004; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; 1998; Mischel, Shoda, &
Mendoza-Denton, 2002; Shoda & Mischel, 1993, 1998). A series of studies
conducted at a summer camp by Mischel and colleagues supported the general
theoretical claims of this approach (Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1989, 1993ab, 1994;
Wright & Mischel, 1987, 1988).
The trait and social cognitive approaches to personality are the two dominant
paradigms in modern personality research. They can be contrasted on three major
aspects. First, the trait approach has a relatively long tradition in personality

21
research. Therefore, more empirical work has been done under this tradition, and
methodologies of this approach are more unified. In contrast, the social cognitive
approach is a relatively new endeavor. Therefore, less empirical work has been
done, and the methodologies used seem to be less unified. Second, while the trait
approach tends to capture main effects of and individual differences on personality
trait distinctions, the social cognitive approach tends to capture situation-behavior
interactions at the individual level and intra-individual variations. Lastly, it has been
argued by trait psychologists that the trait approach is fundamentally a descriptive,
rather than an explanatory model (Saucier, Hampson, & Goldberg, 2000). The social
cognitive approach, on the other hand, seems to hold more explanatory power, based
upon its emphasis on the mediating mechanisms between situational features and
behavioral expressions.

Dimensional and Dynamic Constructivist Approaches to Culture
Interestingly, the intellectual history of cultural psychology is strikingly
similar to personality psychology. A primary task for cultural psychology is to
describe, explain, and predict how people from one culture are similar to or different
from those in other cultures (Triandis, 1980). The issue of the unit of analysis for
cultural psychology has been no different from personality psychology in nature—on
what basis should one culture be considered similar to or different from another.

22
With its early roots in anthropology, cultural psychology was born as a
discipline in the 1970s with the appearance of the Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology and Triandis’s (1972) book on subjective culture (Schimmack, Oishi, &
Diener, 2005). Several publications in the following years became classics in the
field. Perhaps most notably, in an oft-cited book, Hofstede (1980) proposed that
nearly all cultures can be mapped onto such dimensions as power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity. Among these dimensions,
individualism-collectivism has received a tremendous amount of attention and is
widely accepted as a fundamental distinction in cultural research (Triandis, 1988,
1989, 1995). A variation of this dimension in the self domain, the independent-
interdependent self construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), has also been extremely
influential. Along this line, a number of other dimensions to distinguish cultures
were proposed (e.g., complexity, Chick, 1997; high-low context, Hall, 1976;
traditional versus secular–rational values, and survival versus self-expression values,
Inglehart & Norris, 2003; social axioms, Leung & Bond, 2004; tightness, Pelto, 1968;
Triandis, 1994, 1995; conservatism, hierarchy, mastery, autonomy, egalitarian
commitment, and harmony, Schwartz, 1992, 1994).
The Controversy
Similar to the person-situation debate in personality and social psychology,
the validity of cultural dimensions was also challenged. Takano and Osaka (1999),

23
for example, reviewed 15 studies comparing individualism-collectivism tendencies
in Americans and Japanese and found no support for this dimension in the expected
direction. In another review, Matsumoto (1999) reached very similar conclusions for
the dimension of independent-interdependent self construals. More recently,
Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) meta-analyzed a very extensive body of
literature on individualism-collectivism and concluded that:
As a general package, the empirical evidence does support the notion
that (European) Americans differ in IND and COL from others and that IND
and COL do influence basic psychological processes. However, the empirical
basis for this conclusion is not as firm as might be desired or as casual
reading of textbooks in psychology would have the reader believe.
Replications are rare, and often domain of research, sample, method, and
design go hand in hand. Therefore, it is hard to say whether cultural
differences attributed to difference in IND or COL are generalizable across
populations or regions or whether differences found are limited to the
countries studied in our meta-analyses (p. 43).
Solutions
Responses to the claim that cultural dimensions lack external validity have
also been twofold. On the one hand, confidence in the use of individualism-
collectivism has been restored. It was shown that, for example, the effects of
individualism-collectivism can be quite strong when national differences in response
styles are statistically controlled (Schimmack et al., 2005).
On the other hand, an alternative, dynamic constructivist approach to culture
has been proposed (Hong et al., 2000). From this perspective, culture should not be
viewed as a static, integrated, domain-general set of constructs. Instead, it is more

24
dynamic, discrete, and should be conceptualized as “an internalized form of a loose
network of domain-specific knowledge structures or representations that is shared
widely within a culture” (Hong & Chiu, 2001, p. 188). Thus, whether or not the
previously assumed cultural differences would appear, disappear, or reverse depend
upon the accessibility, availability, and applicability (Higgins, 1996; Wyer & Scrull,
1986) of the relevant cultural knowledge in specific situations. A number of studies
on cultural frame switching have supported the general thesis of this approach (Hong
et al., 2000; Lehman et al., 2004). The dynamic constructivist approach has received
increasingly more attention and is having a profound influence in cultural research.
The dimensional and dynamic constructivist approaches to culture are the
two dominant paradigms in modern culture research. They can also be contrasted on
three major aspects. First, the dimensional approach has a relatively long tradition in
cultural psychological research. Therefore, more empirical work has been done, and
the methodologies used are more unified. In contrast, the dynamic constructivist
approach is a relatively new endeavor. Therefore, less empirical work has been done,
and the methodologies used seem to be less unified. Second, while the dimensional
approach tends to capture main effects of and intercultural differences on cultural
dimensions, the dynamic constructivist approach tends to capture situation-behavior
interactions at the culture level and intra-cultural variations (Hong & Mallorie, 2004).
Lastly, the dimensional approach provides an extremely parsimonious framework to

25
describe cultures. The dynamic constructivist approach, on the other hand,
complements the earlier approach by providing stronger explanatory power based
upon its emphasis on online, situation-specific activations of cultural knowledge
structures.

An Integration of the Social Cognitive Approach to Personality
and the Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture
Thus far, of the four approaches related to personality and culture research,
the traditional trait approach to personality has been connected to the traditional
dimensional approach to culture (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). The social cognitive
approach to personality, on the other hand, has yet to be connected to the dynamic
constructivist approach to culture. While the two foregoing sections provided a
broad conceptual background of the theoretical approaches in personality and culture
research, in this section, I describe how the social cognitive approach to personality
and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture can be meaningfully integrated,
and how this integration can address the two problems of reference group effect and
different lay theories of personality traits in different cultures in the study of
personality and culture.
The Social Cognitive Approach to Personality

26
According to the social cognitive approach, personality can be
conceptualized in terms of a set of distinctive if (situation) then (behavior)
contingencies and the mediating mechanisms between situational features and
behavioral expressions. In this formulation, of particular importance is the
operationalization of the mediating mechanisms between situational features and
behavioral expressions. Mischel and Shoda (1995, 1998) have suggested that these
mediating mechanisms form a complex network consisting of a number of cognitive
affective units such as encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affects, goals and values,
and competencies and self-regulatory plans. While these suggested mediating
mechanisms allow a wide range of possibilities, the specific ways in which they can
be empirically captured have not been formulated systematically.
I argue that the mediating mechanisms between situational features and
behavioral expressions can be sufficiently captured by the explanations people
provide for their behaviors in situations. This operationalization clearly does not
preclude any mediating mechanisms suggested by previous researchers. Instead, as
explanations often play an essential role in eliciting, influencing, and interpreting
behaviors (Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993; Simonson & Nowlis, 2000; Read,
1987; Read & Miller, 1993), they are likely to capture a wide variety of mediating
mechanisms suggested by previous researchers. In personality psychology, it has
been well established that personality judgments must take information concerning

27
the target person’s behaviors in situations into account. Here, I argue that the
patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations together give us the most precise
descriptions of personalities. One example further illustrates the heuristic utility of
this operationalization. When two persons are in the same situation (“when I see a
group of pretty girls”) and behave similarly (“I do not approach them”), their
different explanations (“because I want to stay cool” versus “because I do not want
to be embarrassed”) suggest very different personalities. Moreover, several recent
studies have shown that explanations for behaviors in situations well reflect the
attitudes, beliefs, norms, and values widely shared in a culture (Briley, Morris, &
Simonson, 2000). Thus, having people describe the kinds of situations they find
themselves in, their behavioral responses to those situations, and their explanations
of behaviors in those situations may allow us to sample more culturally typical
personalities.
To conclude, it is suggested that personality can be conceptualized and
described by a set of distinctive if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and the
explanations for the behaviors in situations; or in short, patterns of situations,
behaviors, and explanations.
The Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture
According to the dynamic constructivist approach, culture can be considered
as a set of knowledge structures widely shared within a cultural group. Only when

28
the cultural knowledge structures are accessible, available, and applicable to the
specific situations can cultural influences on behaviors be activated. Some of the
situations established are: when people are assigned to certain roles, the setting is
public versus private, accountability is varied, high stress and time pressure exists,
the stimulus event is ambiguous, certain primes in the setting exist, and the task
requires articulated reasons for decisions (Morris & Fu, 2001).
Personalities, conceptualized as patterns of situations, behaviors, and
explanations, can be conceived of as knowledge structures widely distributed within
cultures. In other words, an important aspect of the cultural knowledge structures
can be thought of as the situations people find themselves in, their behavioral
responses to those situations, and their explanations for their behaviors in those
situations. As knowledge structures, information about the situations, behaviors, and
explanations distributed in one culture can be empirically sampled. Furthermore,
such information can be translated from one culture to another, and evaluated by
members of both cultures in reference to their own group. Earlier, without explicitly
referring to the notion of knowledge structures derived from the dynamic
constructivist approach, similar procedures have already been employed successfully
to study self-enhancement and self-criticism (Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, &
Norasakkunkit, 1997), and influence and adjustment (Morling, Kitayama, &
Miyamoto, 2002) across cultures.

29
Taken together, the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic
constructivist approach to culture can be integrated in such a way as to allow us to
sample descriptions of personalities in terms of if (situation) then (behavior)
contingencies and explanations for the contingencies in America and China, translate
these descriptions between English and Chinese so as to form a common pool, and
have these descriptions judged simultaneously by people in America and China. As
we discussed earlier, this solution should well avoid the undesirable outcomes of the
two problems in the recent research on personality and culture, and reveal “true”
patterns of personality profiles that are distinct from the ones based solely upon
personality trait measures.

Overview of the Studies
In this article, I report four studies to address the two problems in the recent
research on personality and culture by an integration of the social cognitive approach
to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture. Since our earlier
discussions have only established conceptual relationships between the trait approach
and the social cognitive approach to personality, in Study 1 and 2 we intended to
establish empirical relationships between these two approaches. Specifically, Study
1 decomposed personality traits (the trait approach) into patterns of situations,
behaviors, and explanations (the social cognitive approach) in America and China.

30
Study 2 reversed the procedure of Study 1 and established strong empirical
relationships between the trait approach and the social cognitive approach to
personality in both America and China. Study 3 implemented the integration of the
social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to
culture and manipulated the targets of judgments so as to obtain “true” personality
profiles without the problems in the recent research on personality and culture.
Study 4 replicated Study 3 and further explored whether the target person’s national
identities would influence how personalities are judged in different cultures.

Study 1
The main objective of Study 1 was to decompose personality traits (the trait
approach) into patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations (the social
cognitive approach) in America and China. Operationally, we first measured
American and Chinese students with a prototypical personality trait instrument so as
to obtain the “normative” personality profiles of American and Chinese students.
Second, we asked American and Chinese students to generate patterns of situations,
behaviors, and explanations (SBEs) based upon their personality trait ratings.
Method
Participants

31
The participants were 109 non-Asian American students (50 men and 59
women) from a private university in the western United States and 102 Chinese
students (47 men and 55 women) from a public university in Beijing, China. The
mean age was 20.19 (SD = 2.22) in the American sample and 20.52 (SD = 1.55) in
the Chinese sample.
Procedure
Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to learn how they
describe themselves in terms of personality traits, as well as the kinds of situations
they find themselves in, their behavioral responses to those situations, and their
explanations for their behaviors in those situations. They were first asked to rate
themselves on the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, &
Swann, 2003). Every two TIPI items (one positively keyed and one negatively
keyed) were related to one of the Big Five dimensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experiences). Examples of
the TIPI items included “I see myself as extraverted, enthusiastic” (positively keyed
to Extraversion) and “I see myself as critical, quarrelsome” (negatively keyed to
Agreeableness). Participants were asked to rate themselves on these items from 1
(disagree strongly), 4 (neither agree nor disagree), to 7 (agree strongly). Then, based
upon each trait rating, they were asked to provide two real-life examples of situations,
behaviors, and explanations in a format of “When/If situation, I behavior, because

32
explanation” that describe their actual experiences and can best demonstrate their
trait ratings. The opening “When” and “If” were provided to be completely
interchangeable, both are to specify the context in which behaviors take place and
the explanations given for them. In short, every participant was asked to rate 10 trait
items, and write 2 examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations after each trait
rating. All participants received and responded to the questionnaires in their native
language, English or Chinese. The English version of the questionnaire, and the
simplified Chinese version of the TIPI are shown in Appendix A and B, respectively.
We chose the recently developed 10-item TIPI in the present research for
three reasons. First, we wanted to choose a relatively short measure with a strong
trait tradition. Within the trait approach to personality, other instruments such as the
240-item NEO Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992),
the 100-item unipolar markers (Goldberg, 1992), the 60-item NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI;
John & Srivastava, 1999), and the 40-item mini-markers (Saucier, 1994) are all
significantly longer than the 10-item TIPI. In our first study, participants were asked
not only to rate themselves on trait items, but also to generate two examples of
situations, behaviors, and explanations after each trait rating. Compared to the other
instruments, all 40 items or more, the 10-item TIPI makes the task of generating
examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations much easier for most participants.

33
Furthermore, in addition to an English version, a traditional Chinese version of the
TIPI has already been provided conveniently at the authors’ website. Because
simplified Chinese, rather than traditional Chinese, is the predominant text used in
mainland China, a simplified Chinese version of the TIPI was developed, based upon
its English and traditional Chinese versions, in the present research by four English-
Chinese bilinguals who are Chinese natives and have lived in the U.S. for more than
five years. Second, we chose the TIPI because it was developed based upon other
well-established instruments to capture the complete domain of the Big Five
dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability,
and Openness to Experiences (Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999).
Furthermore, the TIPI has demonstrated sufficient convergence between self and
other ratings, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity with the BFI and NEO-
PI-R (Gosling et al, 2003). Third, although other instruments may bring increased
validity and reliability to measuring the Big Five, we chose the TIPI because the
main purpose of our studies was not to provide psychometrically the best personality
profiles of Americans and Chinese. Instead, our focus was on the contrasts between
studying personality and culture on the basis of personality trait measures only, and
one that integrated the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic
constructivist approach to culture. To the extent that the TIPI provides a reasonably
broad measure of the Big Five along the tradition of the trait approach to personality,

34
any future findings that reveal the contrasts between the two distinctive ways of
studying personality and culture should remain unthreatened.
Results and Discussion
Two major sets of results were expected in this study; the personality profiles
of American and Chinese students as measured by the TIPI, and the situations,
behaviors, and explanations generated based upon the trait ratings. As a first step,
we calculated the inter-item correlations of the 10 TIPI items in America and China.
As Table 1 indicates, in the American sample, eight items related to four
(Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Emotionally stability, and Openness to
Experiences) of the Big Five dimensions achieved significant levels of correlations (r
= -.46, -.49, -.52, and -.46, respectively, all p < .01). Two items related to the
dimension of Agreeableness (“I see myself as sympathetic, warm”, and “I see myself
as critical, quarrelsome”) correlated in the expected direction, however not to a
significant degree (r = -.10, p = .32). In this Chinese sample, six items related to
three (Extraversion, Emotionally stability, and Openness to Experiences) of the Big
Five dimensions achieved significant levels of correlations (r = -.34, -.40, and -.37,
respectively, all p < .01). Two items related to Agreeableness and two others related
to Conscientiousness (“I see myself as dependable, self-disciplined”, and “I see
myself as disorganized, careless”), correlated in the expected direction, however not
to a significant degree (r = -.18, p = .08, and r = -.13, p = .19, respectively).

35
Among other possibilities, these less than satisfactory correlations might
reflect poor construct validity of the TIPI on the dimensions of Agreeableness (and
Conscientiousness in Chinese), a peculiar sample of participants, a less accurate
translation, or a somewhat different condition in which the TIPI was administered.
Related to the last possibility, the original TIPI only asks people to rate themselves
on the trait items. Our study also asked people to generate real-life examples of
situations, behaviors, and examples based upon their trait ratings. This additional
task might have engaged the participants in a somewhat different mental process
than simply rating themselves on trait items. For example, the task to generate self-
descriptive situations, behaviors, and explanations may have “biased” participants’
trait ratings in a socially, or culturally more desirable manner (cf. Briley et al, 2000).
For another example, the task to generate self-descriptive situations, behaviors, and
explanations may also have “corrected” participants’ trait ratings. That is, shortly
after participants rated themselves on a trait item, their task to generate the situations,
behaviors, and explanations may let them realize that they are not exactly the kind of
persons described by their trait ratings. Consequently, they may revise their earlier
(and subsequent) trait ratings so as to describe themselves in a more realistic manner.
Nevertheless, at an epistemological level, it would be very difficult to argue that
rating oneself on trait items without thinking about the related situations, behaviors,
and explanations in real life is a better approximation of people’s real personality

36
than rating oneself on trait items and at the same time, thinking about the related
situations, behaviors, and explanations in real life. Furthermore, as we have
discussed earlier, it is important to note that our study does not intend to argue that
the personality profiles obtained by TIPI are the most accurate observations of the
personalities of Americans and Chinese. To the extent that the TIPI provides a
personality measure characteristic of the traditional trait approach, any findings that
illustrate the contrasts between the distinctive ways of studying personality and
culture should remain unthreatened.
Personality profiles of American and Chinese students in terms of the means
and standard deviations of their self-reported TIPI scores on the Big Five dimensions
are shown in Table 2. Americans scored no differently on Extraversion (M = 4.61,
SD = 1.40) than Chinese (M = 4.38, SD = 1.25), t(209) = 1.27, p = .206. Americans
scored lower on Agreeableness (M = 5.03, SD = 1.11) than Chinese (M = 5.43, SD =
1.04), t(209) = -2.65, p = .009. Furthermore, Americans scored higher on
Conscientiousness (M = 5.81, SD = 1.19) than Chinese (M = 5.08, SD = 1.07), t(209)
= 4.63, p < .001. Americans scored no differently on Emotional Stability (M = 4.47,
SD = 1.49) than Chinese (M = 4.31, SD = 1.31), t(209) = .82, p = .412. Lastly,
Americans scored higher on Openness to Experiences (M = 5.66, SD = 1.20) than
Chinese (M = 4.81, SD = 1.15), t(209) = 5.25, p < .001. Figure 2 illustrates the

37
personality profiles of American and Chinese students based upon their mean scores
on the Big Five dimensions.
The other objective of this study was to obtain a pool of situations, behaviors,
and explanations (SBEs) based upon the trait ratings in America and China. In the
American sample, the 109 participants generated a total of 1956 SBEs after their trait
ratings. Among these SBEs, 877 were generated by men and 1079 were generated
by women. In the Chinese sample, the 102 participants generated a total of 1711
SBEs after their trait ratings. Among these SBEs, 802 were generated by men and
909 were generated by women. Together, these SBEs captured a wide range of
everyday situations, behaviors, and explanations in which people’s personalities
manifest in America and China. Table 3 illustrates some SBEs generated by
American students.

Study 2
In Study 1, participants were asked to generate SBEs based upon their
personality trait ratings. Each SBE was generated based upon, and therefore
corresponded to, only one self-reported score on a particular TIPI item. Study 2
reversed this procedure; that is, a different group of participants were asked to rate
the SBEs randomly sampled from Study 1 on their corresponding trait items. Thus,
the trait scores from Study 1 can be referred to as self-ratings, and the trait scores

38
from Study 2 can be referred to as other-ratings. Study 2 was designed to determine
empirical relationships between the trait and the social cognitive approaches to
personality by examining the correlations between the self-ratings and the averaged
other-ratings. If the social cognitive approach (as operationalized in terms of SBEs)
is a sufficient alternative to the trait approach to personality, the correlations between
the self-ratings (the trait approach to personality) and the averaged other-ratings (the
social cognitive approach to personality) should be quite high.
Method
Participants
The participants were 192 American university students (42 men and 150
women) from a private university in the western United States and 108 Chinese
university students (43 men and 65 women) from a public university in Beijing,
China. The mean age was 19.99 (SD = 1.58) in the American sample and 20.59 (SD
= 0.93) in the Chinese sample.
Procedure
Within each culture (American and Chinese) in Study 1, the SBEs generated
can be divided into a total of 20 sets (2 genders × 10 TIPI items). To obtain stimulus
materials for Study 2, a list of 5 SBEs was randomly selected from each set to form a
list of 100 SBEs. This procedure was subsequently replicated four more times to
obtain a total of 5 non-overlapping lists of 100 SBEs for each culture. These SBEs

39
were sampled not because they corresponded to either high or low scores on the TIPI
items. Instead, they were randomly sampled and represented a wide range of
distribution of the TIPI scores. Within each list of 100 SBEs, every 10 of them were
related to one particular TIPI item, and every 20 of them were related to one Big
Five dimension. Across the five lists of the total 500 SBEs, 50 of them were related
to each particular TIPI item, and 100 of them were related to each Big Five
dimension.
Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to understand how
they make personality judgments. Participants were then given a list of 100
situations, behaviors, and explanations and asked to rate these SBEs on their
corresponding TIPI items. Each SBE was rated only on its corresponding TIPI item.
For example, one example of SBEs was: “When I am in class, I participate, because I
want people to notice me”. After reading this SBE, participants’ task was to form an
impression of the person who provided the SBE, and indicate the extent to which
they (1) strongly disagree, to (4) neither agree nor disagree, to (7) strongly agree
with the statement: I see this person as extraverted, enthusiastic.
Participants from each culture were randomly divided into five different
groups and each group rated only one of the five lists of 100 SBEs. In the American
sample, 39, 41, 35, 28, and 49 participants rated their five non-overlapping lists of
English SBEs originally generated by American students from Study 1. In the

40
Chinese sample, 22, 24, 21, 21, and 20 participants rated their five non-overlapping
lists of Chinese SBEs originally generated by Chinese students from Study 1. The
English version of the instruction used in this study can be found in Appendix C.
Results and Discussion
The main objective of Study 2 was to establish empirical relationships
between the trait approach and the social cognitive approach to personality. For this
purpose, a mean and a median score of the other-ratings were calculated for each of
the 500 SBEs. One-way ANOVA indicated that the means and medians did not vary
across the five lists in the American or Chinese sample. Therefore, correlations
between the self- (from Study 1) and other- (from Study 2) ratings were calculated
across the five lists of 500 SBEs and on each of the Big Five dimensions (see Table
4).
In the American sample across all 500 SBEs, the correlation between self-
and averaged other- ratings was .82, p < .01. The correlation between self- and
median other- ratings was also .82, p < .01. In the Chinese sample across all 500
SBEs, the correlation between self- and averaged other- ratings was .64, p < .01.
The correlation between self- and median other- ratings was .61, p < .01. In both
American and Chinese samples, correlations between self- and median other- ratings
on each of the Big Five dimensions were also very high. In the American sample,
the correlations across dimensions were typically around .80, and in the Chinese

41
sample, the correlations across dimensions were typically around .60, all p < .01.
These impressive correlations suggest that people do have a strong ability to
decompose personality traits into patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations
(Study 1). At the same time, they also have a strong ability to make accurate
personality trait judgments based upon information concerning situations, behaviors,
and explanations (Study 2).
One interesting finding is that the correlations were higher for the American
sample compared to the Chinese sample. The relatively higher correlations in the
American sample might have resulted from a larger number of American participants
(192 versus the 108 Chinese participants), a better ability for Americans to generate
examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations based upon trait ratings, or a
better ability for Americans to make personality judgments based on the SBEs.
Nevertheless, in both American and Chinese samples and across all Big Five
dimensions, the self-ratings correlated impressively with other-ratings, providing
strong empirical evidence that the conception of personality based on traits can be
sufficiently operationalized in terms of if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies
and explanations for the contingencies. In other words, results from Study 1 and 2
also suggested that in both America and China, personality traits can be sufficiently
described in terms of patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations.

42
Study 3
In Study 1, we obtained a personality profile of American and Chinese
students based upon the traditional trait approach to personality using personality
trait measures. The methodology and results of Study 1 were very similar to the
ones from recent research on personality and culture. As we have discussed in detail
in the introduction, these results were very likely confounded by the reference group
effect and different lay theories of personality traits in different cultures. In Study 2,
we showed that personality traits can be sufficiently operationalized as patterns of
situations, behaviors, and explanations (SBEs) in both America and China.
Study 3 was designed to avoid the undesirable outcomes in the recent
research on personality and culture using the patterns of patterns of situations,
behaviors, and explanations. Operationally, we used a 2 (SBEs: American vs.
Chinese) × 2 (participants’, or raters’ nationalities: American vs. Chinese) design.
We manipulated the targets of judgments as both Americans and Chinese, randomly
selected the SBEs from both America and China, translated and back-translated them
between languages, and used a combined list of SBEs as stimulus materials for
American and Chinese participants to make personality judgments. Participants
were given no information concerning who originally generated the SBEs. In this
design, any stereotypes associated with Americans or Chinese should have not been
activated. Therefore, this design should simulate an ideal environment in which

43
Americans participants judged the personalities of American and Chinese in
comparison with their fellow Americans, and Chinese participants judged the
personalities of American and Chinese in comparison with their fellow Chinese.
Personality profiles obtained through this method should provide some very
interesting contrasts to the ones obtained through the traditional trait approach.
Method
Participants
The participants were 141 American university students (33 men and 108
women) from a private university in the western United States and 115 Chinese
university students (40 men and 75 women) from a public university in Beijing,
China. The mean age was 20.27 (SD = 2.28) in the American sample and 20.42 (SD
= 2.21) in the Chinese sample.
Procedure
Recall that in Study 1, the SBEs generated within each culture can be divided
into a total of 20 sets (2 genders × 10 TIPI items). Similar to the sampling procedure
of Study 2, in Study 3 a list of 5 SBEs was randomly selected from each set to form a
list of 100 SBEs within each culture. Since every two TIPI items were related to one
Big Five dimension, among the 100 SBEs sampled, 20 were related to Extraversion,
and other four non-overlapping sets of 20 SBEs were related to Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experiences, respectively.

44
Subsequently, the 100 American SBEs (or SBEs originally generated by
American students) were translated into Chinese and the 100 Chinese SBEs were
translated into English. One of three English-Chinese bilinguals completed the
translation first, and the translated sentences were back-translated by one of the other
two bilinguals to assure semantic equivalence. All three bilinguals were Chinese
natives and have lived in the U.S. for over five years. The English translated from
Chinese SBEs were further reviewed and discussed among a group of four American
undergraduate research assistants who are native English speakers to assure its
appropriateness in the American context. During this procedure, terms used in the
SBEs that were too culturally or locally specific (e.g., Margarita, name of the
specific university participants attended) were changed to more general ones (e.g.,
drink, university). After this procedure, the 100 American SBEs were merged with
the 100 Chinese SBEs to form one list of 200 SBEs in English and another list of the
same 200 SBEs in Chinese. These two lists of SBEs served as the main stimulus
materials for Study 3.
Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to understand how
they make personality judgments. Instructions for the study were identical to Study
2 (see Appendix C). Participants were then given the list of 200 situations, behaviors,
and explanations in their native language, English or Chinese, and asked to rate these
SBEs on their corresponding TIPI items. Participants received no information

45
concerning the sources of the SBEs (whether they were originally generated by
American or Chinese students). The English version of the 200 SBEs is listed in
Appendix D.
Results
The list of 200 SBEs can be divided into a total of 2 sets (American vs.
Chinese SBEs) such that the 100 American (or Chinese) SBEs described various
ways in which personalities of Americans (or Chinese) are manifested in terms of
situations, behaviors, and explanations along the Big Five dimensions in America (or
China). The list of 200 SBEs can also be divided into a total of 10 sets (2 cultures ×
5 Big Five dimensions). That is, the 20 SBEs in each set described one major
personality dimension of Americans or Chinese. For example, one set of 20 SBEs
would represent Extraversion of Americans, and another set of 20 SBEs would
represent Agreeableness of Chinese. Our main focus of analyses was therefore on
how personality dimensions of the American and Chinese SBEs were judged first by
all participants, and then separately by American participants, and by Chinese
participants. As a first step, for every participant within each set of 20 SBEs
representing one personality dimension of Americans or Chinese, a mean score was
calculated across the 20 scores the participant had provided. Table 5 shows the
means and standard deviations of the American and Chinese SBEs on each Big Five
dimension judged by all participants, American participants, and Chinese

46
participants. Next, we conducted individual 2 (SBEs: American vs. Chinese) × 2
(participants’ nationalities: American vs. Chinese) Mixed ANOVA on each of the
Big Five dimensions.
Extraversion
On the dimension of Extraversion, there was a significant main effect of
SBEs, F(1, 233) = 399.53, p < .001, η
p
2
= .63. That is, across American and Chinese
participants, American SBEs (M = 4.72, SD = .47) were judged significantly higher
than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.18, SD = .44), and the effect was strong. There was also a
significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 233) = 3.90, p < .05, η
p
2

= .02, although the effect was weak. That is, across American and Chinese SBEs,
American participants (M = 4.50, SD = .34) judged the SBEs significantly higher
than Chinese participants (M = 4.40, SD = .45). Comparing to the main effect of
SBEs ( η
p
2
= .63), however, the main effect of participants’ nationalities was quite
small ( η
p
2
= .02).
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, F(1, 233) = 52.60, p < .001, η
p
2
= .18. Independent
samples t-tests further showed that American participants (M = 4.87, SD = .38)
judged the American SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.56,
SD = .52), t(244) = 5.30, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.14, SD = .37)
judged the Chinese SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.23, SD

47
= .51), t(239) = -1.45, p = .15. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American
sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 4.23, SD = .51) were judged
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.14, SD = .37), t(128) = 25.11, p
< .001. In the Chinese sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 4.56, SD = .52)
were also judged significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.23, SD = .51), t(105)
= 7.20, p < .001. Thus, on the dimension of Extraversion, American participants
judged the Chinese SBEs very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same
Chinese SBEs. On the other hand, Chinese participants judged the American SBEs
significantly lower than how American participants judged the same American SBEs.
Agreeableness
On the dimension of Agreeableness, there was a significant main effect of
SBEs, F(1, 232) = 10.41, p < .001, η
p
2
= .04, although the effect was weak. That is,
across American and Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 5.01, SD = .50)
were judged significantly but only slightly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.94, SD
= .52). There was no significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 232)
= .14, p = .14, η
p
2
= .009. That is, across American and Chinese SBEs, American
participants (M = 5.02, SD = .40) judged the SBEs no differently than Chinese
participants (M = 4.93, SD = .55).
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, F(1, 232) = 42.63, p < .001, η
p
2
= .16. Independent

48
samples t-tests further showed that American participants (M = 5.13, SD = .42)
judged the American SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.87,
SD = .56), t(243) = 4.28, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.90, SD = .44)
judged the Chinese SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.97, SD
= .60), t(241) = -1.04, p = .30. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American
sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 5.13, SD = .42) were judged
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.90, SD = .44), t(125) = 7.45, p < .001.
In the Chinese sample of participants, however, American SBEs (M = 4.87, SD = .56)
were judged significantly lower than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.97, SD = .60), t(107) = -
2.16, p < .05. Again, on the dimension of Agreeableness, American participants
judged the Chinese SBEs very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same
Chinese SBEs. On the other hand, Chinese participants judged the American SBEs
significantly lower than how American participants judged the same American SBEs.
Conscientiousness
On the dimension of Conscientiousness, there was again a significant main
effect of SBEs, F(1, 229) = 1429.92, p < .001, η
p
2
= .86. That is, across American
and Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 5.32, SD = .53) were judged
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.12, SD = .34), and the effect was very
strong. There was also a significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1,
229) = 24.20, p < .001, η
p
2
= .10. That is, across American and Chinese SBEs,

49
American participants (M = 4.82, SD = .30) judged the SBEs significantly higher
than Chinese participants (M = 4.61, SD = .36). Compared to the main effect of
SBEs ( η
p
2
= .86), however, the main effect of participants’ nationalities was
relatively modest ( η
p
2
= .10).
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, F(1, 229) = 90.64, p < .001, η
p
2
= .28. Independent
samples t-tests further showed that American participants (M = 5.56, SD = .38)
judged the American SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 5.03,
SD = .54), t(237) = 8.88, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.08, SD = .31)
judged the Chinese SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.16, SD
= .38), t(242) = -1.78, p = .08. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American
sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 5.56, SD = .38) were judged
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.08, SD = .31), t(126) = 46.05, p
< .001. In the Chinese sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 5.03, SD = .54)
were judged significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.16, SD = .38), t(103) =
15.55, p < .001. Again, on the dimension of Conscientiousness, American
participants judged the Chinese SBEs very similarly to how Chinese participants
judged the same Chinese SBEs. On the other hand, Chinese participants judged the
American SBEs significantly lower than how American participants judged the same
American SBEs.

50
Emotional Stability
On the dimension of Emotional Stability, there was a significant main effect
of SBEs, F(1, 230) = 311.46, p < .001, η
p
2
= .58. That is, across American and
Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 4.50, SD = .41) were judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.04, SD = .36), and the effect was very strong.
There was no significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 230) = 2.19, p
= .14, η
p
2
= .01. That is, across American and Chinese SBEs, American participants
(M = 4.30, SD = .30) judged the SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M =
4.24, SD = .36).
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, F(1, 230) = 11.86, p < .001, η
p
2
= .05. Independent
samples t-tests further showed that American participants (M = 4.58, SD = .32)
judged the American SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.44,
SD = .49), t(243) = 2.69, p < .05. American participants (M = 4.03, SD = .34) judged
the Chinese SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.05, SD = .39),
t(240) = -.35, p = .73. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American sample of
participants, American SBEs (M = 4.58, SD = .32) were judged significantly higher
than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.03, SD = .34), t(125) = 22.10, p < .001. In the Chinese
sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 4.44, SD = .49) were also judged
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.05, SD = .39), t(105) = 7.63, p < .001.

51
Again, on the dimension of Emotional Stability, American participants judged the
Chinese SBEs very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same Chinese
SBEs. On the other hand, Chinese participants judged the American SBEs
significantly lower than how American participants judged the same American SBEs.
Openness to Experiences
On the dimension of Openness to Experiences, there was no significant main
effect of SBEs, F(1, 232) = .655, p = .42, η
p
2
= .003. That is, across American and
Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 4.68, SD = .38) were judged no
differently than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.69, SD = .37). There was a significant main
effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 232) = 11.74, p < .001, η
p
2
= .05. That is,
across American and Chinese SBEs, American participants (M = 4.76, SD = .33)
judged the SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.61, SD = .33).
Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, F(1, 232) = 13.97, p < .001, η
p
2
= .06. Independent
samples t-tests further showed that American participants (M = 4.79, SD = .34)
judged the American SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.54,
SD = .38), t(242) = 5.37, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.72, SD = .37)
judged the Chinese SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.66, SD
= .36), t(242) = 1.40, p = .16. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American
sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 4.79, SD = .34) were judged

52
significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.72, SD = .37), t(129) = 2.46, p < .05.
In the Chinese sample of participants, American SBEs (M = 4.54, SD = .37) were
judged significantly lower than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.66, SD = .36), t(103) = -2.73, p
< .05. Again, on the dimension of Openness to Experiences, American participants
judged the Chinese SBEs very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same
Chinese SBEs. On the other hand, Chinese participants judged the American SBEs
significantly lower than how American participants judged the same American SBEs.
Discussion
Main Effects across the Big Five Dimensions
Across the Big Five dimensions, there were four significant main effects of
SBEs on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability,
but no significant main effect on Openness to Experiences. While the main effect on
Agreeableness was weak ( η
p
2
= .04), the effects on Extraversion, Conscientiousness,
and Emotional Stability were quite strong ( η
p
2
= .63, η
p
2
= .86, and η
p
2
= .58,
respectively), suggesting that at least on these three dimensions, whether the SBEs
were originally generated by Americans or Chinese was a driving factor in how they
were judged. In other words, the personalities of Americans and Chinese appear
reliably different on the dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional
Stability in such a way that Americans are more extraverted, conscientiousness, and
emotionally more stable than Chinese.

53
Across the Big Five dimensions, there were three main effects of
participants’ nationalities on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness to
Experiences, but no significant main effect on Agreeableness or Conscientiousness.
Of the three significant main effects, none of them was particularly strong ( η
p
2
= .02,
η
p
2
= .10, and η
p
2
= .05, respectively), suggesting that whether participants were
Americans or Chinese was not a strong factor in how SBEs were judged.
Interactions across the Big Five Dimensions
There were five interactions between SBEs and participants’ nationalities
across all the Big Five dimensions, although their effect sizes ranged from small to
modest ( η
p
2
= .18, η
p
2
= .16, η
p
2
= .28, η
p
2
= .05, and η
p
2
= .06, respectively).
Across all Big Five dimensions, American participants judged the Chinese SBEs
very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same SBEs. On the other hand,
Chinese participants judged the American SBEs consistently lower than how
American participants judged the same American SBEs. This pattern may suggest
that, at least on the dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, American participants have a better-developed ability to make
accurate personality judgments as they judged the personalities of the out-group
members very similarly to how the out-group members judged their own
personalities.
Contrasts among Personality Profiles

54
Results from this study therefore depicted at least three personality profiles of
Americans and Chinese students based upon the SBEs judged by both American and
Chinese participants, judged only by American participants, and judged only by
Chinese participants. Figure 3 shows the mean profiles of American and Chinese
SBEs judged across American and Chinese participants. In short, across all
participants, American SBEs were judged to be more extraverted, slightly more
agreeable, more conscientious, emotionally more stable, and equally open to new
experiences than Chinese SBEs.
Figure 4 shows the mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs judged by
American participants. In short, to American participants, American SBEs were
judged to be more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, emotionally more stable,
and more open to new experiences than Chinese SBEs. Figure 5 shows the mean
profiles of American and Chinese SBEs judged by Chinese participants. In short, to
Chinese participants, American SBEs were judged to be more extraverted, less
agreeable, more conscientious, emotionally more stable, and less open to new
experiences than Chinese SBEs. Together, both American and Chinese participants
agreed that American SBEs appeared more extraverted, conscientious, and
emotionally more stable than Chinese SBEs. However, while American participants
considered American SBEs more agreeable and open than Chinese SBEs, Chinese
participants showed an opposite pattern.

55
As expected, these personality profiles were distinct from the one from Study
1 based upon the traditional trait approach to personality (Figure 2). Specifically, the
profile from Study 1 would suggest that Americans are equally extraverted, less
agreeable, more conscientious, equally emotionally stable, and more open to new
experiences than Chinese. In contrast, for example, the profile from Study 3 based
upon judgments of SBEs across American and Chinese participants would suggest
that Americans are more extraverted, slightly more agreeable, more conscientious,
emotionally more stable, and equally open to new experiences than Chinese.
Patterns on four of the Big Five dimensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional
Stability, and Openness to Experiences) were different, depending upon whether
personality was measured by trait ratings or by SBE ratings; only the pattern on
Conscientiousness remained the same.

Study 4
In Study 3, participants judged the list of SBEs from America and China
without knowing the sources of these SBEs. This design was intended to simulate an
ideal environment in which no stereotypes associated with Americans or Chinese
were activated in American or Chinese participants. In realistic intercultural
interaction settings, however, the target person’s nationality is often known, although
not necessarily significant, to the judge. If results from Study 3 were the “true”

56
scores of American and Chinese personalities, in Study 4, we investigated whether
the stereotypes that Americans hold of Americans and Chinese, and the stereotypes
that Chinese hold of Chinese and Americans, would play a significant role in how
personalities of others are judged in different cultures. For this purpose, we used a 2
(participants’ nationalities: American vs. Chinese) × 2 (targets’ nationalities:
American vs. Chinese) × 2 (SBEs: American vs. Chinese) design, with the additional
factor of targets’ nationalities added to Study 3.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The instructions and SBEs used in this study were identical to Study 3 except
for the manipulation of targets’ nationalities. The participants were 155 American
university students from a public university in the western United States and 152
Chinese university students from a public university in Beijing, China. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. In one condition, 81 American
students (21 men and 60 women, age M = 20.19, SD = 1.62) and 79 Chinese students
(45 men and 34 women, age M = 18.77, SD = 0.99) were told that the SBEs they
were about to read were written by American students in our prior studies. After
reading a particular SBE, participants were asked to form an impression of the
American student who provided the SBE and to rate this student on a particular trait
item. In the other condition, 74 American students (20 men and 54 women, age M =

57
19.80, SD = 2.33) and 73 Chinese students (29 men and 44 women, age M = 19.26,
SD = 0.85) were told that the SBEs they were about to read were written by Chinese
students in our prior studies. After reading a particular SBE, participants were asked
to form an impression of the Chinese student who provided the SBE and to rate this
student on a particular trait item. In other words, participants were given the same
list of 200 situations, behaviors, and explanations in their native language, English or
Chinese, and asked to rate these SBEs on their corresponding TIPI items. For
example, one example of SBE was: “When I am doing something that is new to me,
I look forward to it a lot, because I am really excited to begin”. After reading this
SBE, participants’ task was to form an impression of the person who provided the
SBE and indicate the extent to which they strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7)
with the statement: I see this American/Chinese student as extraverted, enthusiastic.
Results
Similar to Study 3, the list of 200 SBEs can be divided into a total of 10 sets
(2 cultures × 5 Big Five dimensions). For every participant, we first calculated a
mean score across the 20 scores the participant had provided in each set. Table 6
shows the means and standard deviations of the American and Chinese SBEs judged
by American and Chinese participants when the targets were Americans or Chinese.
We then conducted individual 2 (SBEs: American vs. Chinese) × 2 (participants’

58
nationalities: American vs. Chinese) × 2 (targets’ nationalities: American vs. Chinese)
Mixed ANOVA on each of the Big Five dimensions.
Extraversion
On the dimension of Extraversion, there was a significant main effect of
SBEs, F(1, 271) = 522.87, p < .001, η
p
2
= .67. That is, across participants’ and
targets’ nationalities, American SBEs (M = 4.67, SD = .43) were judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.13, SD = .44), and the effect was strong. There
was no significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 271) = .24, p = .62,
η
p
2
= .001, or targets nationalities, F(1, 271) = 1.22, p = .27, η
p
2
= .004. That is,
across SBEs and targets’ nationalities, American participants (M = 4.42, SD = .39)
judged SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.39, SD = .39). Across
SBEs and participants’ nationalities, the SBEs were judged no differently when
targets’ nationalities were American (M = 4.38, SD = .36) or Chinese (M = 4.43, SD
= .41).
There was a significant interaction between SBEs and participants’
nationalities, F(1, 271) = 44.37, p < .001, η
p
2
= .14. Independent samples t-tests
further showed that American participants (M = 4.76, SD = .41) judged American
SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.58, SD = .44), t(284) =
3.67, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.07, SD = .45) judged Chinese SBEs
significantly lower than Chinese participants (M = 4.19, SD = .42), t(290) = -2.40, p

59
< .05. Paired samples t-test showed that in the American sample of participants,
American SBEs (M = 4.76, SD = .41) were judged significantly higher than Chinese
SBEs (M = 4.07, SD = .45), t(135) = 20.76, p < .001. In the Chinese sample of
participants, American SBEs (M = 4.58, SD = .44) were also judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.19, SD = .42), t(138) = 12.34, p < .001. Thus, on
the dimension of Extraversion, different from Study 3, there was no strong evidence
to suggest that American participants had a better-developed ability to make accurate
personality judgments than Chinese participants.
There was, however, no significant interaction between SBEs and targets’
nationalities, F(1, 271) = .12, p = .73, η
p
2
= .000, or between participants
nationalities and targets’ nationalities, F(1, 271) = .65, p = .42, η
p
2
= .002. Lastly,
no significant interaction among SBEs, participants’ nationalities, and targets’
nationalities was obtained, F(1, 271) = .16, p = .69, η
p
2
= .001.
Agreeableness
On the dimension of Agreeableness, there was a significant main effect of
SBEs, F(1, 266) = 14.88, p < .001, η
p
2
= .05. That is, across participants’ and
targets’ nationalities, American SBEs (M = 4.97, SD = .52) were judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.89, SD = .52), although the effect was weak.
There was no significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 266) = 1.48, p
= .23, η
p
2
= .006, or targets nationalities, F(1, 266) = .01, p = .91, η
p
2
= .000. That

60
is, across SBEs and targets’ nationalities, American participants (M = 4.97, SD = .38)
judged the SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.90, SD = .57).
Across SBEs and participants’ nationalities, the SBEs were judged no differently
when targets’ nationalities were American (M = 4.94, SD = .49) or Chinese (M =
4.93, SD = .50).
There was also a significant interaction between SBEs and participants’
nationalities, F(1, 266) = 37.92, p < .001, η
p
2
= .13. Independent samples t-tests
further showed that American participants (M = 5.06, SD = .41) judged the American
SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.88, SD = .61), t(284) =
2.90, p < .05. American participants (M = 4.85, SD = .42) judged the Chinese SBEs
no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.92, SD = .60), t(285) = -1.15, p = .25.
Paired samples t-test showed that in the American sample of participants, American
SBEs (M =5.06, SD = .41) were judged significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M =
4.85, SD = .42), t(132) = 7.29, p < .001. In the Chinese sample of participants,
American SBEs (M = 4.88, SD = .61) were also judged no differently than Chinese
SBEs (M = 4.92, SD = .60), t(136) = -1.59, p = .11. Thus, on the dimension of
Agreeableness, American participants judged the Chinese SBEs very similarly to
how Chinese participants judged the same Chinese SBEs. On the other hand,
Chinese participants judged the American SBEs significantly lower than how
American participants judged the same American SBEs.

61
There was, however, no significant interaction between SBEs and targets’
nationalities, F(1, 266) = 1.47, p = .23, η
p
2
= .006, or between participants
nationalities and targets’ nationalities, F(1, 266) = 2.96, p = .09, η
p
2
= .01. Lastly,
no significant interaction among SBEs, participants’ nationalities, and targets’
nationalities was obtained, F(1, 266) = .006, p = .94, η
p
2
= .00.
Conscientiousness
On the dimension of Conscientiousness, there was a significant main effect of
SBEs, F(1, 272) = 1270.57, p < .001, η
p
2
= .82. That is, across participants’ and
targets’ nationalities, American SBEs (M = 5.22, SD = .59) were judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.11, SD = .32), and the effect was strong. There
was also a significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 272) = 35.52, p
< .001, η
p
2
= .12. That is, across SBEs and targets’ nationalities, American
participants (M = 4.79, SD = .35) judged the SBEs significantly higher than Chinese
participants (M = 4.54, SD = .36). There was, however, no significant main effect of
targets nationalities, F(1, 272) = .50, p = .48, η
p
2
= .002. That is, across SBEs and
participants’ nationalities, the SBEs were judged no differently when targets’
nationalities were American (M = 4.65, SD = .38) or Chinese (M = 4.67, SD = .38).
There was also a significant interaction between SBEs and participants’
nationalities, F(1, 272) = 60.10, p < .001, η
p
2
= .19. Independent samples t-tests
further showed that American participants (M = 5.47, SD = .48) judged the American

62
SBEs significantly higher than Chinese participants (M = 4.96, SD = .58), t(286) =
8.10, p < .001. American participants (M = 4.11, SD = .32) judged the Chinese SBEs
no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.10, SD = .33), t(288) = .39, p = .70.
Paired samples t-test showed that in the American sample of participants, American
SBEs (M = 5.47, SD = .48) were judged significantly higher than Chinese SBEs (M =
4.11, SD = .32), t(138) = 37.72, p < .001. In the Chinese sample of participants,
American SBEs (M = 4.96, SD = .58) were also judged significantly higher than
Chinese SBEs (M = 4.10, SD = .33), t(136) = 16.96, p < .001. Thus, on the
dimension of Conscientiousness, American participants judged the Chinese SBEs
very similarly to how Chinese participants judged the same Chinese SBEs. On the
other hand, Chinese participants judged the American SBEs significantly lower than
how American participants judged the same American SBEs.
There was, however, no significant interaction between SBEs and targets’
nationalities, F(1, 272) = .00, p = .99, η
p
2
= .00, or between participants nationalities
and targets’ nationalities, F(1, 272) = 1.46, p = .23, η
p
2
= .005. Lastly, no significant
interaction among SBEs, participants’ nationalities, and targets’ nationalities was
obtained, F(1, 272) = 1.84, p = .18, η
p
2
= .007.
Emotional Stability
On the dimension of Emotional Stability, there was a significant main effect
of SBEs, F(1, 278) = 323.71, p < .001, η
p
2
= .54. That is, across participants’ and

63
targets’ nationalities, American SBEs (M = 4.43, SD = .37) were judged significantly
higher than Chinese SBEs (M = 3.99, SD = .34), and the effect was strong. There
was no significant main effect of participants’ nationalities, F(1, 278) = .03, p < .86,
η
p
2
= .00, or targets nationalities, F(1, 278) = .00, p = .99, η
p
2
= .00. That is, across
SBEs and targets’ nationalities, American participants (M = 4.21, SD = .28) judged
the SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.20, SD = .32). Across
SBEs and participants’ nationalities, the SBEs were judged no differently when
targets’ nationalities were American (M = 4.21, SD = .30) or Chinese (M = 4.21, SD
= .30).
There was no significant interaction between SBEs and participants’
nationalities, F(1, 278) = 1.19, p = .28, η
p
2
= .004, between SBEs and targets’
nationalities, F(1, 278) = 1.07, p = .30, η
p
2
= .004, or between participants
nationalities and targets’ nationalities, F(1, 278) = .02, p = .89, η
p
2
= .00. Lastly, no
significant interaction among SBEs, participants’ nationalities, and targets’
nationalities was obtained, F(1, 278) = .25, p = .62, η
p
2
= .001.
Openness to Experiences
On the dimension of Openness to Experiences, there was no significant main
effect of SBEs, F(1, 265) = .10, p = .75, η
p
2
= .00, participants’ nationalities, F(1,
265) = 2.80, p = .10, η
p
2
= .01, or targets nationalities, F(1, 265) = .20, p = .65, η
p
2

= .001. That is, across participants’ and targets’ nationalities, American SBEs (M =

64
4.63, SD = .40) were judged no differently than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.64, SD = .42).
Across SBEs and targets’ nationalities, American participants (M = 4.67, SD = .36)
judged the SBEs no differently than Chinese participants (M = 4.60, SD = .38).
Across SBEs and participants’ nationalities, the SBEs were judged no differently
when targets’ nationalities were American (M = 4.63, SD = .41) or Chinese (M =
4.65, SD = .33).
There was no significant interaction between SBEs and participants’
nationalities, F(1, 265) = 1.22, p = .27, η
p
2
= .005, between SBEs and targets’
nationalities, F(1, 265) = .23, p = .88, η
p
2
= .00, or between participants nationalities
and targets’ nationalities, F(1, 265) = 2.50, p = .16, η
p
2
= .01. Lastly, no significant
interaction among SBEs, participants’ nationalities, and targets’ nationalities was
obtained, F(1, 265) = .03, p = .87, η
p
2
= .00.
Discussion
Main Effects across the Big Five Dimensions
Across the Big Five dimensions, there were four significant main effects of
SBEs on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability,
but no significant main effect on Openness to Experiences. While the main effect of
SBEs on Agreeableness was weak ( η
p
2
= .05), the effects of Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability were quite strong ( η
p
2
= .67, η
p
2
= .82,
and η
p
2
= .54), suggesting that at least on these dimensions, whether the SBEs were

65
originally generated by Americans or Chinese was a driving factor in how they were
judged. In other words, the personalities of Americans and Chinese appear reliably
different on the dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability
in such a way that Americans are more extraverted, conscientious, and emotionally
stable than Chinese. Such patterns also well replicated the patterns of results from
Study 3.
Across the Big Five dimensions, there was only one significant main effect of
participants’ nationalities on Conscientiousness, and the effect was not particularly
strong ( η
p
2
= .12), suggesting that whether participants were Americans or Chinese
was not a strong factor in how SBEs were judged. Again, this result replicated the
patterns of non significant main effect of participants’ nationalities from Study 3.
Across the Big Five dimensions, there was no main effect of targets’
nationalities, suggesting that whether the targets’ nationalities were American or
Chinese was not at all a strong factor in how SBEs were judged. In other words,
when participants judged the personalities of others, they relied primarily on the
information concerning the situations others find themselves in, their behavioral
responses to those situations, and their explanations for their behaviors in situations.
At the same time, the nationalities of others did not influence how their personalities
were judged.
Interactions across the Big Five Dimensions

66
Across the Big Five dimensions, there were three significant interactions
between SBEs and participants’ nationalities on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, but not on Emotional Stability or Openness to Experiences. The
sizes of the significant effects were modest ( η
p
2
= .14, η
p
2
= .13, and η
p
2
= .19,
respectively), replicating the three relatively stronger interactions on Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness ( η
p
2
= .05, and η
p
2
= .06, respectively) in
Study 3. On the other hand, only on the dimensions of Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness, was the specific pattern in which American participants judged
Chinese SBEs similar to how Chinese participants judged the same SBEs obtained.
Thus, the assertion that Americans may have a better-developed ability of making
accurate personality judgments of out-group members may not hold, or only within
the two personality dimensions of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
More important to Study 4, no effect associated with targets’ nationalities
was obtained, suggesting that in both America and China, the information
concerning situations, behaviors, and explanations was sufficient for people to make
reliable personality judgments. In realistic everyday life, for example, as long as the
target person usually “dresses flashy at a party because she likes getting attention”,
this person will be judged to be more extraverted regardless of whether she is an
American or a Chinese.
Contrasts among Personality Profiles

67
Results from this study depicted personality profiles that were very similar to
the ones from Study 3. For example, across all participants, American SBEs were
judged to be more extraverted, slightly more agreeable, more conscientious,
emotionally more stable, and equally open to new experiences than Chinese SBEs.
In contrast, the profile from Study 1 based upon the traditional trait approach to
personality would suggest that Americans are equally extraverted, less agreeable,
more conscientious, equally emotionally stable, and more open to new experiences
than Chinese. Again, patterns on four of the Big Five dimensions (Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experiences) were different,
depending upon whether personality was measured by trait ratings or by SBE ratings,
and only the pattern on Conscientiousness remained the same.

General Discussion
Our studies thus far have obtained a personality profile based solely upon
personality trait measures (Study 1), and shown that personality traits can be
operationalized reliably as patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations, and
that the social cognitive approach to personality can reliably measure what the trait
approach does (Study 2). Additionally, we have shown that an integration of the
social cognitive approach and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture can
effectively study personality and culture without the undesirable outcomes of the

68
reference group effect and different lay theories of personality traits in different
cultures that are prevalent in recent research on personality and culture (Study 3 and
4).
In Study 1, based solely upon personality trait measures, the personality
profile suggested that Americans are equally extraverted, less agreeable, more
conscientious, equally emotionally stable, and more open to new experiences than
Chinese. In Study 3 and 4, based upon the integration of the social cognitive
approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture, the
results obtained through the SBEs suggested that Americans are more extraverted,
slightly more agreeable, more conscientious, emotionally more stable, and equally
open to new experiences than Chinese. Clearly, the SBE profiles presented a
significantly different picture than the trait profile of personality between Americans
and Chinese. To our understanding, personality profiles obtained based upon SBEs
are more likely to be a much better approximation to the “true” personalities of
Americans and Chinese than the profiles obtained based solely upon personality trait
measures.
Recall that in the introduction, for reasons related to the reference group
effect, we argued that cross-cultural differences based solely upon personality trait
measures (e.g., the TIPI profiles obtained from Study 1) were scientifically less
credible than the ones based upon the SBEs (e.g., the SBE profiles obtained from

69
Study 3 and 4) in intercultural comparisons. And for reasons related to the lay
theories of personality traits in different cultures, we further argued that the TIPI
profiles are practically less useful than the SBE profiles in realistic intercultural
interaction settings.
At a more general level, we argue that results from any cross-cultural or
cross-group studies that are designed in the following manner can be confounded.
Specifically, in one sample in a study, the participants were from Culture A, the
targets of judgments were from Culture A, and the reference group was also from
Culture A. In another sample, the participants were from Culture B, the targets of
judgments were from Culture B, and the reference group was also from Culture B.
Next, participants from both cultures indicated the extent to which they agree or
disagree with some statements related to a core construct. Lastly, results from each
culture were aggregated and it was concluded that people from Culture A are similar
to or different from people from Culture B on the construct under study.
From the perspective of the reference group effect, people from these two
cultures might have relied on different reference groups and therefore biased their
judgments. From the perspective of different lay theories of personality traits in
different cultures, people from these two cultures might have based their judgments
upon the different ways in which the core construct is defined in different culture.

70
To address these problems in the study of personality and culture, the present
research integrated the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic
constructivist approach to culture. To obtain the “true” personality profiles of people
in different cultures, however, some limitations of the present research must be
addressed in the near future.
First, samples of the present studies were limited to college students.
Although there is some evidence showing that the results of personality traits ratings
can be generalized to the general population (McCrae, 2001; McCrae, 2002; McCrae
& Terracciano, 2005a), it is an empirical question to be addressed in future research
whether the present results can be generalized to the general population.
Second, the patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations from Study 1
were established only through self-reports. Although there is some evidence
showing the results of self-reported personality traits ratings do not differ
significantly from other-reported personality traits ratings (McCrae et al., 1998;
McCrae & Terracciano, 2005b), it is again an empirical question whether self-
reported SBEs may be biased (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). In future research, for
example, participants may be asked explicitly to provide personality trait ratings and
descriptions of situations, behaviors, and explanations of someone they are very
familiar with. Such work should reduce various biases in self-presentation processes.

71
Third, all studies reported in the present research were based upon a 10-item
measure of Big Five personality traits (TIPI: Gosling et al., 2003). Although this
measure has demonstrated reasonably sufficient validity and reliability, future
research can adopt other Big Five measures with higher validity and reliability (e.g.,
the 40-item mini-markers, the 44-item BFI, the 60-item NEO-FFI). Fourth, in Study
3 and 4, only 10 descriptions of situations, behaviors, and explanations were sampled
from each set (2 genders × 5 Big Five dimensions) of Study 1 in each culture so as to
limit the total amount of ratings at 200 for every participant. Essentially, then, there
were only 20 SBEs to represent one major personality dimension in each culture and
100 SBEs to present the personalities of Americans or Chinese. Although the
selection of SBEs was random in the present research, future research should sample
different sets of the SBEs, or give participants larger sets of SBEs to rate so as to
further validate the present findings. Fifth, all studies reported in the present
research were designed in the context of studying Americans and Chinese
personalities. In future research, personalities of people in other cultures can be
examined. Last, all studies reported in the present research were designed to
compare statistical relationships between Americans and Chinese on the Big Five
dimensions. In future research, the contents of the situations, behaviors, and
explanations prevalent in different cultures can be systematically examined so as to
unpack the contents of different lay theories of personality traits in different cultures.

72
Despites these limitations, the SBE approach, or the integration of the social
cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture,
has a range of advantages and can open a number of opportunities for personality
and culture research in the future. First, the SBE approach connects not only
theoretically, but also empirically well with the traditional trait approach to
personality (Study 1 and 2). Second, to our knowledge, the SBE approach is among
the first to fully operationalize the social cognitive approach to personality. Third, as
we have discussed in detail, the SBE avoids the undesirable outcomes of the
reference group effect prevalent in the recent research on personality and culture.
Fourth, the SBE approach allows the possibility to examine different lay theories of
personality traits in different cultures. Fifth, the SBE approach does not rely on
bicultural participants. Sixth, the SBE approach simulates an ideal and realistic
environment of intercultural personality trait judgments.
Specifically related to personality research, if personality can be
conceptualized and operationalized in terms of if (situation) then (behavior)
contingencies and explanations for the contingencies, one person is similar to
another because they go to similar situations, behave in similar ways, and for similar
reasons. One person is different from another because they go to different situations,
behave in different ways, or for different reasons. At the methodological level, for
example, experience sampling techniques (Reis & Gable, 2000) and day

73
reconstruction method (Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004) are
promising ways to document intra-individual variations of situations, behaviors, and
explanations at different times in different situations for an individual.
Specifically related to culture research, if culture can also be conceptualized
and operationalized in terms of if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and
explanations for the contingencies, one culture is similar to another because
members of the cultural groups go to similar situations, behave in similar ways, and
for similar reasons. One culture is different from another because members of one
cultural group go to different situations, behave in different ways, or for different
reasons from members of the other cultural group.
Once a culture is documented in terms of situations, behaviors, and
explanations, the antecedents and consequences of these patterns of situations,
behaviors, and explanations can be explored. It may be hypothesized, for example,
that an important aspect of acculturation is to train new comers to go to appropriate
situations, behave in appropriate ways, and for appropriate reasons. How these
patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations are established and how they
evolve are interesting questions to be explored in future research.
Relatedly, a simple test can be developed to examine the numbers and
relative impact of the patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations prevalent in
different cultures. In a classic study, Pelto (1968) contrasted societies in which

74
social norms are tightly or loosely imposed on individuals. Deviation from
appropriate behaviors is less tolerated in tight societies and more tolerated in loose
societies. Triandis (1994, 1995) further pointed out that loose societies tend to be
found in relatively heterogeneous societies. The tightness-looseness analysis
suggests that there might be some cultures in which only a small number of
homogeneous situations, behaviors, and explanations are collectively endorsed,
whereas in other cultures there might be a large number of heterogeneous situations,
behaviors, and explanations that are collectively endorsed. These possibilities are
also interesting to explore in the future.
Clearly, culture does not limit itself solely to geographic boundaries such as
people in the East and West or America and China (Nisbett, 2003; Triandis, 1995).
Instead, culture can be thought to exist in any social groups such as ethnicities,
genders, religious groups, and organizations as long as their members share similar
knowledge of situations, behaviors, and explanations. Future research should
explore these different conceptions of culture as well.
Lastly, the present research also has implications for more systematic
research in understanding the dynamics of intercultural interactions. For both
scientific and practical reasons, it has become more and more important to
investigate how people understand and interact with others from other cultural
contexts, and how to become a culturally appropriate person (Weiss, 1994ab). As

75
the present research has illustrated, information concerning situations, behaviors, and
explanations can be a valuable and less ambiguous source for such purposes. A
program of research, for example, can be developed to investigate when one interacts
with others from other cultural contexts, how one would attribute their interaction
partners’ patterns of situations, behaviors, and explanations to their personalities, or
to their cultures, and how these attributions would further guide one’s behaviors.

Conclusion
The recent revival of personality and culture research has focused almost
exclusively on profiling people in different cultures on personality traits measures.
The present research proposes an alternative perspective that integrated the social
cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture.
From this new perspective, it is argued that essentially, cultures can be understood by
their members, and members of a given culture can be understood by the situations
they find themselves in, their behavioral responses to those situations, and their
explanations for their behaviors in those situations. This new perspective well
addresses the two problems of the reference group effect and different lay theories of
personality traits in different cultures that are prevalent in the recent research of
personality and culture, and more importantly, it opens a number of new
opportunities for the study of personality and culture in the future.

76
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The
authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns
of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13-28.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs, 47(1, Whole No. 211).
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies,
K., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive
adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Biernat, M. & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-and race-based standards of
competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for
devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.
Biernat, M. & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20.
Biernat, M., Manis, M. & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of
judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485-499.
Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis–
A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 73–77.

77
Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is the “we”? Levels of collective identity
and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-
93.
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture:
Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 157-178.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “having” and “doing” in the study of
personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45, 735-750.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into
clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506.
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (Eds). (1999). The coherence of personality: Social-
cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Chick, G. (1997). Cultural complexity: the concept and its measurement. Cross-
Cultural Research, 31, 275–307.
Chiu, C-y., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit
theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19-
30.
Church, A. T. (Ed.). (2001). Introduction. Journal of Personality, 69, [special issue].
Church, A. T., & Lonner, W. J. (Eds.). (1998). Personality and its measurement in
cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 [special
issue].
Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Katigbak, M. S., Avdeyeva T., Emerson, A. M., Vargas,
J. J. F., & Ibanez, J. R. (2003). Measuring individual and cultural differences in
implicit trait theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 332-
347.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-
PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model.
Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-40.

78
Duijker, H. C. J., & Frijda, N. H. (1960). National character and national
stereotypes. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 30, 348-362.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C-y., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117-140.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures–A
critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on
Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78–88.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Edison, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality:
Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 80, 1011-1027.
Fleeson, W., & Jolley, S. (in press). The challenge and opportunity of intraindividual
variability in trait-relevant behavior: A theory of human flexibility. In D.
Mroczek & T. Little (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Development. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person
perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197-221.
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons,
situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21-34.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (1983) Behavior as a function of the situation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 107-112.
Galton, E. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179-185.

79
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for
universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality
and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologists, 48, 26-34.
Gorer, G., & Rickman, J. (1949). The People of Great Russia. London: The Cresset
Press.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of
the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-
528.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Lueng, C. &
Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan
and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and
malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 599-615.
Heine, S., J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with
cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability and
salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. E. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:
Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking
traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.
Hong, Y. & Chiu, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural
differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of culture
differences. Social Cognition, 19, 181-196.

80
Hong, Y., & Mallorie, L. M. (2004). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture:
Lessons learned from personality psychology. Journal of Research in
Personality, 38, 59-67.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American
Psychologist, 55, 709-720.
Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., &
Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of
interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 1, 67–86.
Hsu, F. L. K. (Ed.). (1961). Psychological anthropology. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1963). Clan, caste, and club. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Hyman, H. (1942). The psychology of subjective status. Psychological Bulletin, 39,
473-474.
Inglehart, R. & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change
around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Inkles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal
personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 977–1020). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Welesley.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York:
Guilford Press.
Johnson, J. A. (1999). Persons in situations: Distinguishing new wine from old wine
in new bottles. European Journal of Personality, 13, 443-453.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A
survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The Day
Reconstruction Method (DRM). Science, 306, 1776-1780.

81
Kammrath, L. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W., (2005). Incorporating If...
Then... personality signatures in person perception: Beyond the person-
situation dichotomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 605-
618.
Kardiner, A. (1939). The individual and his society. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Kardiner, A. (1945). Psychological frontiers of society. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Kardiner, A., Linton, R., Du Bois, C., & West, J. (1945). The psychological
foundations of society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from
the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes--Toward a system
view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 89-
96.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997).
Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-
enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
Latane, B. & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?
New York: Appleton-Century -Crofts.
Lee, Y. T., McCauley, C. R., & Draguns, J. G. (1999). Personality and person
perception across cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C. Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 689-714.
Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multi-
cultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197.
LeVine, R. A. (2001). Culture and personality studies, 1918-1960: Myth and history.
Journal of Personality, 69, 803-818.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

82
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Linton, R. (1945). The cultural background of personality. New York: Appleton-
Century Crofts.
Lynn, R. (1971). Personality and national character. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and
Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
McCrae, R. R. (Ed.). (2000). Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 44,
[special issue].
McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural
comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819–846.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural
comparisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of
personality across cultures (pp. 105-125). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McCrae, R. R. (2004). Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of
Research in Personality, 38, 3-14.
McCrae, R. R. & Allik, J. (Eds.). (2002). The Five-Factor Model across cultures.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s adequate taxonomy:
Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in
questionnaires. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human
universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(2nd ed., pp. 139-154). New York, NY: Guilford.

83
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Yik, M. (1996). Universal Aspects of Chinese
personality structure. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese
psychology (pp. 189-207). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005a). Personality profiles of cultures:
Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
407-425.
McCrae, R. R. & Terracciano, A. (2005b). Universal features of personality traits
from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.
McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998).
Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and
peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1041-1055.
Mead, M. (1953). National character. In A. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today
(pp. 642-667). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, J. G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory–Beyond
individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 97–109.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY, US: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 1-22.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological review, 102, 246-268.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality
dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229-258.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior profiles
as a locus of consistency in personality. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11, 50-54.

84
Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical
environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological
Science, 17, 113-119.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize
influence in the U.S. and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311-323.
Morris, M. W., & Fu, H. (2001). How does culture influence conflict resolution? A
dynamic constructivist analysis. Social Cognition, 19, 324-349.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently…and why. New York: The Free Press.
Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal
reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:
Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574- 583.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism
and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Ozer, D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
Pelto, P. J. (1968). The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction,
April, 37-40.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E. & Wang, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing
values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329-
344.
Poortinga, Y. H. & Van Hemert, D. A. (2001). Personality and culture demarcating
between the common and the unique. Journal of Personality, 69, 1033-1060.
Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to
causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288-302.

85
Read, S. J., Jones, D. K., & Miller, L. C. (1990). Traits as goal-based categories: The
importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1048-1061.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1989). Inter-personalism: Toward a goal-based theory of
persons in relationships. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality
and social psychology (pp. 413-472). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1993). Rapist or "regular guy": Explanatory coherence
in the construction of mental models of others. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 526-540.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying
everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 190-222). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, B. W., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). On traits, situations, and their
integration: A developmental perspective. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8, 402-416.
Robins, R. W. (2005). The nature of personality: Genes, culture, and national
character. Science, 310, 62-63
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives on
social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sapir, E. (1938). Why cultural anthropology needs the psychiatrist. Psychiatry, 1, 7-
12.
Sapir, E. (1994). The psychology of culture: A course of lectures. J. Irvine (Ed.).
New York, NY: Mouton de Grunyter.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg s unipolar Big Five
markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality
factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847-879.
Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of
lexical personality factors. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in personality
psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 1-36). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

86
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism-Collectivism: A valid
and important dimension of cultural differences. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 9, 17-31.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism /collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G.
Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications
(pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54, 93-105.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Social judgment and attitudes: Warmer, more social, and less
conscious. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 149-176.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49,
11-36.
Sherif, M. A. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1993). Cognitive social approach to dispositional
inferences: What if the perceiver is a cognitive social theorist? Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 574-585.
Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1998). Personality as a stable cognitive-affective
activation network: Characteristic patterns of behavior variation emerge from a
stable personality structure. In S. J. Read, L. C. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist
models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 175-208). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1989). Intuitive interactionism in person
perception: Effects of situation-behavior relations on dispositional judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 41-53.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1993a). Links between personality
judgments and contextualized behavior patterns: Situation-behavior profiles of
personality prototypes. Social Cognition, 11, 399-429.

87
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1993b). The role of situational demands
and cognitive competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1023-1035.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the
organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations
into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 674-687.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for
uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on
reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S. & Gelfand, M. J. (1995).
Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A
theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.
Swann, W. B. Jr. & Seyle, C. (2005). Personality psychology’s comeback and its
emerging symbiosis with social psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 155-165.
Takano, Y. & Osaka, E. (1999). An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan
and the U.S. on individualism /collectivism. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2, 311-341.
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of
traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15, 253-276.
Ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (2002). The structure of situations from a
personality perspective. European Journal of Personality, 16, 81-102.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. Oxford, England: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (Ed.). (1980). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Triandis, H. C. (1983). Essentials of studying cultures. In D. Landis & R. Brislin
(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 1, pp. 82–117). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism and individualism: A reconceptualization of a
basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.),
Personality, attitudes, and cognitions (pp. 60–95). London: MacMillan.

88
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives on personality. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.). Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 439-
464). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influence on personality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.
Weiss, S. E. (1994a). Negotiating with “Romans” – Part 1. Sloan Business Review,
35, 51-61.
Weiss, S. E. (1994b). Negotiating with “Romans” – Part 2. Sloan Business Review,
35, 85-99.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The
interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-
412.
Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., & Saiz, J. L. (1998). The importance of
psychological traits: A cross-cultural study. New York: Plenum.
Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional
constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 1159-1177.
Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1988). Conditional hedges and the intuitive
psychology of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 454-
469.
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context.
Psychological Review, 93, 322–359.

89
Appendix A
Questionnaire Used in Study 1

Welcome to our study of personality.
In this study, we hope to learn both how you describe your personality in terms of
traits, and also the kinds of situations you find yourself in, your behavioral responses to
those situations, and your explanations for your behaviors in those situations.
Below please find 10 pairs of personality traits that may or may not apply to you.
Each pair is followed by space for two examples from you that can best illustrate your
personality trait rating. Please first rate each pair of personality traits to indicate the extent
to which you agree or disagree with that statement. Note you should rate the extent to which
the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the
other.
After your rating of each pair of traits, write two real-life examples that best
illustrate your personality trait rating. These examples should be concerned with the kinds
of situations you find yourself in, your behavioral responses to those situations, and your
explanations for the behaviors in situations. The examples should also be worded in a
format of “When/If situation, I behavior, because explanation”. The opening “When” and
“If” are completely interchangeable, both are to specify the context in which behaviors take
place and the explanations given for them.
For instance, if you agree strongly with the statement “I see myself as extraverted
and enthusiastic”, you might write an example such as “If I am about to sing a song in front
of my friends at a Karaoke bar, I ask them to be quiet and listen to me, because this is my
time to shine”. If you disagree moderately with the statement “I see myself as sympathetic
and warm”, you might write an example such as “When my parents want me to stay home
on holidays and I don’t really want to, I tend not to compromise with them, because I
wouldn’t really mind hurting their feelings just a little”.
There are no right or wrong answers in rating your personality and writing the
examples. Your examples can be related to any people or life domains. But please make
sure that they are your actual experiences and best illustrate your personality trait ratings.
Your work is much appreciated.

I see myself as:

(1). _____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree

90
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(2). _____ Critical, quarrelsome.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(3). _____ Dependable, self-disciplined.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(4). _____ Anxious, easily upset.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little

91
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(5). _____ Open to new experiences, complex.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(6). _____ Reserved, quiet.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(7). _____ Sympathetic, warm.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately

92
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(8). _____ Disorganized, careless.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(9). _____ Calm, emotionally stable.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

(10). _____ Conventional, uncreative.

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

93

Example 1: If (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.
Example 2: When (situation) ___, I (behavior) ___, because (explanation) ___.

94
Appendix B
The Simplified Chinese Version of the TIPI Used in Study 1

我认为自己是：(I see myself as)

1 = 完全不同意 (Disagree strongly)
2 = 基本上不同意 (Disagree moderately)
3 = 有一点不同意 (Disagree a little)
4 = 没意见 (Neither agree nor disagree)
5 = 有点同意 (Agree a little)
6 = 基本上同意 (Agree moderately)
7 = 完全同意 (Agree strongly)

(1). _____ 外向、热情的 (Extraverted, enthusiastic).
(2). _____ 挑剔、好争论的 (Critical, quarrelsome).
(3). _____ 可靠、自律的 (Dependable, self-disciplined).
(4). _____ 紧张焦虑、容易心烦的 (Anxious, easily upset).
(5). _____ 接受新经验、复合型的 (Open to new experiences, complex).
(6). _____ 拘谨、安静的 (Reserved, quiet).
(7). _____ 有同情心、温暖的 (Sympathetic, warm).
(8). _____ 缺乏条理、粗心大意的 (Disorganized, careless).
(9). _____ 沉着、情绪稳定的 (Calm, emotionally stable).
(10). _____ 传统、缺乏创造性的 (Conventional, uncreative).

95
Appendix C
Instructions Used in Study 2

Welcome to our study of personality.
In this study, we are interested in learning how you make a series of personality
judgments. We will be giving you a list of descriptions concerning the situations some
others are in, their behavioral responses to the situations, and the explanations they provided
for their behaviors. All the descriptions of situations, behaviors, and explanations were
collected in our prior studies and written by other college students like you.
For example, one such description is: “If I am about to sing a song in front of my
friends at a Karaoke bar, I ask them to be quiet and listen to me, because this is my time to
shine”. After reading this description, your task is to form an impression of this person’s
personality and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with a statement such as
the one below:
I see this person as Extraverted, enthusiastic.
A 7-point scale you will be using is also shown below:

1 = Disagree strongly
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree a little
4 = Neither agree nor disagree
5 = Agree a little
6 = Agree moderately
7 = Agree strongly

Note you should make your judgments based upon the pair of personality traits
(Extraverted AND Enthusiastic), even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the
other.
Every one of the descriptions is in fact provided by a unique individual. Please rate
the personality traits as accurately as you can.

96
Appendix D
The 200 Situations, Behaviors, and Explanations Used in Study 3 and 4

A list of 5 situations, behaviors, and explanations (SBEs) were randomly sampled
from each of the 40 sets (2 cultures × 2 genders × 10 TIPI Items) of SBEs generated from
Study 1 to form a master list of 200 SBEs. These 200 SBEs were presented in random order
to participants in Study 3 and 4 but are divided into the 40 sets (10 TIPI Items × 2 cultures ×
2 genders) below.

I. SBEs Related to Extraversion

1-1. Extraverted, Enthusiastic SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(1) When I first entered university, I engaged in many club activities, because I wanted to
experience college life and meet many new individuals.
(2) When I am doing something that is new to me, I look forward to it a lot, because I am
really excited to begin.
(3) When go dancing at a club, I dance crazily with my hands in the air, because it is really
fun to be wild and fun.
(4) When I get a bad grade on a test, I think positively, because I try to not let things get me
down.
(5) When I am around new people, I am very friendly and I like to make conversation,
because I want people to get a good impression of me and I want to meet new people.

1-2. Extraverted, Enthusiastic SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(6) When I meet somebody new, I act really excited to meet them to make them feel
welcome, because enthusiasm can break the ice for many social situations.
(7) When I am tired, I usually remain introverted, because it is easier to reorder my thoughts
(8) When I meet new people, I am very open to them, because I feel that’s a good way to
connect to people.
(9) When I eat some good stuff, I get really happy and start telling everyone why I love it so
much, because I feel like I can persuade people to eat it more.
(10) When I am in a large discussion group, I tend to share my thoughts freely, because I
want to discuss and be heard.

1-3. Extraverted, Enthusiastic SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(11) When I am at a public gathering or in an elective course, I chat with strangers, because I
like meeting different people.

97
(12) When I get together with friends, I take the initiative to stir up people’s enthusiasm,
because I don’t like to see anyone reserved at a party.
(13) When strangers ask me for directions, I tell them with great enthusiasm and even show
them the way, because it makes me very happy.
(14) When watching sports with my classmates, I fervently cheer on the players from our
team, because they are our team and to have no cheering would let them down.
(15) When meeting new people, I am not nervous and can naturally get along with them,
because I am interpersonally skilled.

1-4. Extraverted, Enthusiastic SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(16) When meeting with strangers, I usually don’t take the initiative to say hello, because I
don’t want to.
(17) When someone needs my help, I do my best to help him or her, because helping others
is the origin of happiness.
(18) When I am in a new class, I chat with the person next to me on my own initiative,
because I hope to become close friends with his/her in the future.
(19) When there is a show/presentation, I would sign up to participate, because I want people
to know me.
(20) When I am with elders, I am usually not myself; I am often constrained, because I am
afraid that they will judge me.

2-1. Reserved, Quiet SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(21) When a room is quiet, I start conversation, because I love to have conversations with
different people.
(22) When we go out to a party, I usually watch my friends do karaoke or crazy things rather
than joining them, because I think a lot about how others view me.
(23) When there are big groups of people that I don’t know, I tend to be quieter, because I
feel out of place.
(24) When out with a new group of people, I tend not to be a wallflower, because being
reserved is not a fun experience for me.
(25) When I need to get a task done, I will seclude myself, because it is important to finish
the task.

2-2. Reserved, Quiet SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(26) When a discussion is going on, I usually remain quiet until spoken to, because I don’t
appreciate it when I am interrupted and choose not to do the same, and also am sensitive
about my positions.

98
(27) When my friends and I go out, I like to dance a lot and go crazy, because it is extremely
fun.
(28) When I could read a book instead of going to a party, I might read a book, because
sometimes I like to spend time by myself.
(29) When I try to study in groups, I am always the one that tries to talk to the other study
partners, because I can’t sit in silence that long.
(30) When someone is seriously hurt, I stop whatever I am doing and try to help, because I
do not want to be thought of as insensitive.

2-3. Reserved, Quiet SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(31) When many strangers are around, I don’t like talking much, because it is hard to join in
the conversations of others.
(32) When I am in front of people, I cannot loosen up, because I am nervous.
(33) When a professor asks the class a question, if I think I know the answer but am not sure,
I definitely won’t put up my hand to answer it, because I am afraid of being laughed at if I
give a wrong answer.
(34) When I am alone, I read, because I like having moments of self-reflection and
meditation.
(35) When meeting strangers, I take the initiative to talk to them, because I like making new
friends.

2-4. Reserved, Quiet SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(36) When I am in a great/terrible mood, I prefer to be by myself, because I can go through
my emotions alone.
(37) When I am with other people, I talk to them on my own initiative, because it would
bring us closer.
(38) When the circumstances do not force me to take the role as a leader to coordinate and
organize things, I usually sit back since my own disposition tends to keep my inner world
peaceful.
(39) When I am at the dinner table, I don’t jump in on conversations on my own initiative,
because I prefer to listen to what other people are saying.
(40) When talking to strangers, I would be reserved and will not talk much, because I feel
like there is no need to show off.

II. SBEs Related to Agreeableness

3-1. Sympathetic, Warm SBEs Generated by American Female Students

99
(41) When someone is having a bad day, I try to listen to them, because I don’t like people I
care about to be upset.
(42) When my sister broke her ankle and she wasn’t able to play volleyball for 4 to 6 weeks,
I talked to her calmly and mentioned all the pros and cons and just kept her encouraged to
stay strong, because I never like to see her put her self down and not play.
(43) When a friend is upset, I can tell that they are down and will approach them to see what
is wrong, because I care about them and how they feel and I want to help if I can.
(44) When someone seems to need a hug or a little ‘pick-me-up’, I will try to make them
laugh or give them that hug, because something as simple as that can make a big difference
in the rest of their day.
(45) When someone is embarrassed or uncomfortable, I do my best to be accommodating
and make them feel at home, because I can sympathize with their feelings.

3-2. Sympathetic, Warm SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(46) When a friend is upset and crying, I feel uncomfortable, because I don’t feel like my
words will help them.
(47) When If I see someone asking for change, I usually give them something even if its a
not a lot, because I figure that a kind gesture makes a difference.
(48) When someone wants to talk with me about I problem, I listen, because it helps them
and lets me do something productive.
(49) When somebody needs to talk to me about something, I listen, because sometimes
listening does more than talking.
(50) When I notice that my friends appear sad or distraught, I talk to them about why they
feel that way, because I care about there well being.

3-3. Sympathetic, Warm SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(51) When a friend of mine is having trouble, I take the initiative to help him/her out,
because I think this is what I should do.
(52) When one of my friends is ill, I bring her medicine and ask how she is feeling, because
being ill must make her feel helpless.
(53) When seeing poor people, I give them charity or even shed tears for them, because I
think I should be grateful for my current situation.
(54) When my roommate is in trouble, I let her tell me, because I am gentle.
(55) When someone asks for my help, even someone of whom I don’t have a good opinion, I
still help him/her out, because I take pleasure in helping others.

3-4. Sympathetic, Warm SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

100
(56) When I read biographies and news reports, I get worked up, because my emotions can
be easily provoked.
(57) When I pass by a station with beggars, I give them small change, because I think those
people need help.
(58) When seeing my classmate in trouble, I stop what I am doing to help the individual,
because I think it will be good for both of us.
(59) When someone is in trouble, I would go help him/her, because it is what I know I
should do.
(60) When I have an opportunity to spend time with my family, even though at the time I
want to do something else, I try to be with them, because I think it brings them warmth.

4-1. Critical, Quarrelsome SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(61) When competition is the underlining factor, I seek to win whatever the competition is
about, because that is my personality.
(62) When I am judging other people, I am not critical, because I don’t want them to
compete with me.
(63) When I think something is not being done correctly, I have no problem giving my two
cents, because anything worth doing is worth doing right.
(64) When a friend comes to me for advice on something they did wrong, I am always ready
to listen objectively, because I don’t want to criticize their actions.
(65) When there is a conflict, I shy away, because I do not like arguments.

4-2. Critical, Quarrelsome SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(66) When someone cuts me off in traffic, I get over it quickly, because no real harm is done
and it’s not worth my time to do anything about it.
(67) When I am correcting others’ essays or work, I qualify suggestions with compliments,
because I don’t want to seem harsh.
(68) When I hear someone say something that I know to be false or I believe differently
about, I tend to speak my mind or argue until my point is made, because it is hard for me to
let something like that go or for people to believe in misinformation.
(69) When someone says something I disagree with, I become very angry, because many
times I feel it is an ignorant comment.
(70) When someone doesn’t get their part of the project done, I make sure to talk to them
rationally, because yelling at them won’t really help.

4-3. Critical, Quarrelsome SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

101
(71) When I am with my close friends, I point out their shortcomings, because the bar I set
for myself and my acquaintances is high.
(72) When I discuss something related to study with my classmates, I voice my own views
even though they might not be well grounded, because being persuaded makes me frustrated.
(73) When we discuss where to go, I accept others’ opinions, because I’m fine with any
decision they come to.
(74) When I go out in a group and they decide on an activity or restaurant I don’t like, I
don’t complain because I don’t want to ruin the entire atmosphere for everyone else.
(75) When others do something wrong (cut in line, for example), I point it out, because I
think moral principles should be observed.

4-4. Critical, Quarrelsome SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(76) When meeting someone eccentric, I would pretend not to see him/her so that I won’t get
in conflict with him or her, because I think everything/everyone exists for a reason.
(77) When my job was done well, I will still re-evaluate it, because I think I can always do
better.
(78) When I know that I am right but the other people would not stop arguing, I usually give
up, because it is not worth it.
(79) When I am certain of my views, I try to persuade others, because I tend to insist on my
opinions.
(80) When lodging becomes a problem during a trip, I often try to find pleasure elsewhere
rather than complaining, because it is useless, and I have a positive disposition.

III. SBEs Related to Conscientiousness

5-1. Dependable, Self-disciplined SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(81) When my friends need me, I am there for them, because that who I am even when they
aren’t there for me I listen to their endless whining.
(82) When I tell a friend that I will be there if s/he needs me, I am always available to
him/her within a few hours, because it is important to keep your word.
(83) When there was a party a few nights before my midterm, I stayed at the library to study
even though I wanted to go, because I wanted to get a good grade.
(84) When I were to tell someone I would do a favor for them, I would always make sure to
do it, because I want people to count on me for things.
(85) When I tell somebody I will meet them at a certain time, I always arrive 5 minutes early,
because I am afraid of being late and upsetting them.

5-2. Dependable, Self-disciplined SBEs Generated by American Male Students

102

(86) When I am given a work/school task, I do whatever work is necessary to complete it on
time, because that is part of being successful.
(87) When I am challenged, I always complete the challenge, because I must prove to myself
that I can do certain things.
(88) When I have someone depending on me, I do all that I can to get done what they need
me to get done, because this is how I would expect them to treat me.
(89) When someone who I truly consider my friend needs my help, I will do almost anything,
because that’s what life is all about--meaningful relationships and trust--not to mention
sometimes I need that help too.
(90) When I need to finish school work, I make sure to organize my time well and focus on
the work intensely, because it is important for me to be hardworking and complete tasks.

5-3. Dependable, Self-disciplined SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(91) When class is over, I go study by myself because I need to digest what I have learned.
(92) When I have a complicated task at hand, I finish it on time, although sometimes I
dawdle for a while before I start working on it, because I am responsible for myself and
others.
(93) When I undertake major responsibility, I surely do my best, because I think it is
important to be responsible.
(94) When I am in a situation where a group task needs to be done but I happen to have
something else I like to do, I will do what I like to do, because I think others would still do
the things for the group if I didn’t do them, and I really like to do what I like.
(95) When a good friend of mine made a big deal out of nothing, I got angry and managed to
calm down within 20 minutes, because there was no need to take it seriously.

5-4. Dependable, Self-disciplined SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(96) When I want to get up early; I would set the alarm clock and I am usually able to get up
when the alarm goes off, because I am a man of strong will.
(97) When I play games, I often don’t stop playing even when I have an exam the next day,
because I cannot control myself.
(98) When I promised someone something, I do my best to do it, because I have learned to
do so since I was a kid.
(99) When I have a meeting, I am never late and I usually show up a little early, because I
think being punctual shows one’s reliability.
(100) When playing basketball, I sometimes lose track of time and keep playing until it is
dark, because I am too into it.

103
6-1. Disorganized, Careless SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(101) When I have a big project to do, I am careful about planning my time, because I want
to make sure that I leave enough time to do it well.
(102) When I am handling property of value whether my own or someone else’s, I respect it
to great lengths, because I take pride in the good conditions of my stuff and I despise
careless people (ex. person who dented my car door in PSD).
(103) When my room is disorganized, I clean it, because I can’t stand clutter and not being
able to find things.
(104) When I am in a busy/stressful time of year, I often let my room become messy and
forget things if I don’t write them down, because I have too much to think and worry about
and do not have time to focus on minor details.
(105) When my room is a bit messy, I clean it right way, because I can’t stand messes.

6-2. Disorganized, Careless SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(106) When dealing with homework materials, I don’t organize them, because the effort isn’t
worth the gain.
(107) When I need to make a difficult decision, I always think it through a lot, because there
is nothing to be gained by being hasty.
(108) When I make an appointment, I write it in my day planner, because I need to keep
track of my appointments and I do not want to double book.
(109) When I put something down, I can’t remember where I put it, because I don’t pay
attention to what I’m doing.
(110) When my room is messy, I clean it up promptly, because I hate having a mess.

6-3. Disorganized, Careless SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(111) When I have many things to do in a day, I usually forget many small things because I
am too careless.
(112) When I do things I think are important, I make plans, take notes, execute the plans--
and I won’t miss these important things--because they are so important that I won’t tolerate
carelessness.
(113) When lose stuff, I accept it, because it happens to me all the time.
(114) When I work on a problem or something that requires meticulous attention, I always
make some minor mistakes, because I have done so many times and got into the habit of
doing without thinking.
(115) When I have many things to do on my own, I don’t know how to plan for them as a
whole, each according to its specific conditions, because I think that things change so fast
that an established plan is always inconsistent with the reality.

104

6-4. Disorganized, Careless SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(116) When I am doing something, I’ll carefully arrange things and take each step into
consideration before I do it, because I want it to be good.
(117) Whenever my desk gets messy, I seldom organize it, because there is no need to.
(118) When I am working on something, I usually get distracted and often move on to
something else, because I haven’t carefully thought through what to do and I am free-willed.
(119) When I am busy with assignments, I often let my desk stay messy, because I don’t feel
like organizing it.
(120) Whenever I need to make a decision for something, I would analyze things rationally
rather than emotionally, because I am used to thinking rationally.

IV. SBEs Related to Emotional Stability

7-1. Calm, Emotionally Stable SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(121) When I don’t get the grade I was expecting, I try not to stress about it, because I try to
realize that it won’t change the grade.
(122) When I am in an uncomfortable situation, I keep calm, because I believe one should
make the best of every situation.
(123) When someone angers me, I don’t lash out but I think about what I want to say first,
because I prefer to stay calm and go with the flow rather than get riled up.
(124) When people argue with me, I could get my feelings hurt, because it is hard for me to
not take things personally.
(125) When my parents are fighting, I mediate arguments, because I’m usually the calm one.

7-2. Calm, Emotionally Stable SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(126) When I have time alone to think, I tend to get stressed out, because my life is not
where I would like for it to be.
(127) When my baseball teammates got flustered because of a series of good plays by the
other team, I remained calm, because getting flustered only hurts your own cause.
(128) When an emotional situation occurs, I don’t show much emotion, because I am really
not usually affected by it.
(129) When I wake up, I might be sad, because I don’t know.
(130) When there is an emotionally draining situation, I keep myself cool, because I am able
to maintain composure.

7-3. Calm, Emotionally Stable SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

105

(131) When something unexpected happens to me, I would be upset for about half an hour
and then calm down to think, because it is necessary to be steady and calm and think it over
in order to solve the problem.
(132) When I am upset, I try to adjust my mood and it often works, because it does not help
solve the problem if I am upset.
(133) When something happens suddenly and everyone is complaining or irritable, I tend to
accept the reality or think about other solutions, because I think complaint is useless
although I am also upset.
(134) When something minor irritates me, I can become very agitated, because I feel
offended and cannot bear it at heart or in principle.
(135) When something really good happens, I become very excited, because I am an
emotional person and my state of mind fluctuates a lot.

7-4. Calm, Emotionally Stable SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(136) When something major happens, I am able to stay calm, because I have had many self-
reflections from the past.
(137) When there is a good opportunity in front of me, I get very excited and often express
my emotions freely, because I am not composed enough.
(138) When I am taking an exam, I am calm, because I feel confident about myself.
(139) When conflicts arise in small groups, I would encourage everyone to think about our
common goals and interests, because quarrels would only make things worse.
(140) When there is a complicated problem like injecting medicine into a mouse during a lab
session, and my classmates won’t do it because their hands are too shaky, I would do it
calmly without my hands shaking at all and it would be successful, because I feel like it is
just an injection.

8-1. Anxious, Easily Upset SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(141) When I get nervous or stressed about tests, I try to focus my attention on something
else, because otherwise I find myself constantly worrying about how I will do.
(142) When I have a test coming up, I sometimes bite my nails, because I feel anxious.
(143) When someone tells me something upsetting, I try to look at the bright side of the
situation, because I would rather be happy than upset.
(144) When I am pressed for time, I usually don’t freak out, because I am normally a calm
person.
(145) When something goes a little wrong, I imagine situations of absolute disaster, because
I feel like things rarely go right for me especially if I imagine that they will.

106
8-2. Anxious, Easily Upset SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(146) When I am presented with a problem that does not interest me, I ignore it, because it is
not important enough for me to be worried about.
(147) When I am not able to do something I really wanted, I just move on, because
something good will come around eventually.
(148) When I am unable to focus on my work, I get frustrated, because I am wasting time
rather than getting something done.
(149) When someone hasn’t met a deadline and hasn’t gotten back to me, I worry or get
upset , because I expect people to do what they say they will do.
(150) When I am presented with a conflict, I stay calm, because I don’t want to complicate
the situation.

8-3. Anxious, Easily Upset SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(151) When things are not going well, I write in a diary or watch romantic movies because
after a while, I forget whatever was making me upset.
(152) When I have a task at hand, I am very anxious and stressed out before it’s finished,
because I am afraid that something unexpected might happen during the process.
(153) When the exam approaches and I am not well prepared, I am agitated and anxious in
doing almost everything, because I am afraid of failing the exam.
(154) When I don’t feel I am capable enough of accomplishing something, I won’t be at ease
and will reveal it, because I am not sure.
(155) When something comes up that needs attention, I think of several solutions quickly,
because it’s a good idea to have a back-up plan.

8-4. Anxious, Easily Upset SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(156) When things start piling up, I often don’t know what to do, because I worry about my
gains and losses.
(157) When my presentation is coming up shortly, and I am getting a little nervous, and my
hands are turning cold, because I have not spoken in front of people since I was a kid.
(158) When I am uncertain about the job for tomorrow, I usually have a hard time falling
asleep, because I cannot stop thinking about it.
(159) When I have an exam coming up, I usually don’t get nervous, because I believe that
nature would take its course.
(160) When I have an upcoming interview, I dream about it for the whole night, because I
have no control over my dreams.

V. SBEs Related to Openness to New Experiences

107

9-1. Open to New Experiences, Complex SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(161) When someone suggests we eat food that I have never tried before, I always say it’s
alright, because I love to try new food.
(162) When I meet someone new, I know they do not meet the whole me, because I am a shy
person who does not show all my layers until I get to know a person.
(163) When someone asked me to go on a backpacking trip to a remote place for a month, I
would definitely go, because I love adventure and being able to escape from daily structure
sometimes.
(164) When I try to decide what I want to do in the future, I get somewhat overwhelmed,
because I have a complex personality with so many different interests.
(165) When my friend mentioned kickboxing, I asked her if I could go too, because I want to
give everything a try.

9-2. Open to New Experiences, Complex SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(166) When my friends asked me to go sky diving, I would be there in a second, because its
an awesome new experience and would be wicked fun.
(167) When the opportunity for a new experience arises, I take it, because I want to try
everything over.
(168) When I get to discuss complicated issues with people, I become excited, because there
is so much to learn from people who see complex issues differently.
(169) When I’m asked to try new and different foods, I generally say no, because I like what
I like - there’s no use in trying out a new tool if the old one works perfectly.
(170) When I took a literature class and explored literature, poetry, and drama readings, I
had to be very creative and involved with others in class to translate our readings through
acting and discussion, because I learned things I never knew about and met some great
people.

9-3. Open to New Experiences, Complex SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(171) When a new job opportunity is presented to me, I look forward to it but I also hesitate,
because while I like taking on challenges, I am also concerned about potential consequences.
(172) When I go out shopping with my friends, I often look for clothing in styles that I have
never worn before, because I think I look better if I wear many different styles.
(173) When I see something new in society, I accept it relatively quickly, but I am never first
to do so, because I need some time to investigate the new trend.
(174) When I am in some activities or try something new, I won’t actually participate,
because I am afraid of making a fool of myself.

108
(175) When facing something new, I ask others about their experiences in similar situations,
because I hope to get some hints from them about how to make the experience easier.

9-4. Open to New Experiences, Complex SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(176) When I see some food I have never tried before, I am willing to try it, because just so I
will know what it tastes like.
(177) When/If for the sake of a competition I must learn something or in some area that I am
totally unfamiliar with, I would work very hard to the point where I forget about my meals
and sleep, because I am used to it.
(178) When my professor talks about some improved method, I want to find out how the
original method worked, because I am curious about the history.
(179) When others give me ideas and suggestions, I am more than happy to accept them,
because I think their opinions will help me make a better decision.
(180) When I see something new, I am likely to try it, because I am used to trying new
things.

10-1. Conventional, Uncreative SBEs Generated by American Female Students

(181) When I am assigned a creative writing piece in English class, I usually dread writing it,
because I don’t feel very confident in my ability to write creatively.
(182) When I try to do things with friends, I am happy doing the same things or other things,
because I can have fun doing the same things.
(183) When given the opportunity to be artistic, I enjoy it and try to come up with something
new, because I enjoy it.
(184) When I talk to people about my hobbies, I sometimes feel that I am boring and just
like everyone else, because I don’t have any one defining talent or hobby.
(185) When I am working on a project, I like to stay close to the guidelines, because I am not
sure if others will like my ideas.

10-2. Conventional, Uncreative SBEs Generated by American Male Students

(186) When I have a chance to express myself artistically, I take it, because love letting
creativity shine.
(187) When I am asked to come up with a campaign slogan and poster, I get right to work,
because I can see how this is in some way going to benefit someone.
(188) When given an option, I normally do what is easiest, because I am fairly conventional.
(189) When I’m taking an essay test with broad guidelines, I tend to write in such a way that
the professor usually responds by saying that was unique approach, because I usually will
answer the question in a very unconventional fashion.

109
(190) When I am relaxed, I write poetry, because it allows me to express my thoughts.

10-3. Conventional, Uncreative SBEs Generated by Chinese Female Students

(191) When I am at a brainstorming session, I have many ideas because I am imaginative.
(192) When choosing a new friend, I take into consideration his/her age, family background,
etc., because these traditional criteria are very useful.
(193) When older people offer advice, I usually don’t take their input seriously, because I
don’t believe in their outdated experiences.
(194) When we have a discussion together, I always have some unique ideas, because I think
differently from others.
(195) When there was a competition for designing class logos, I won the competition,
because my design was the most creative one.

10-4. Conventional, Uncreative SBEs Generated by Chinese Male Students

(196) When having a tough math problem, I am inclined to look for reference materials,
because I can hardly solve it on my own.
(197) Whenever I go to a theme park, I try many exciting things, because only then can I
gain more new experiences.
(198) When my professor assigns problems that involve thinking or creativity, I usually put
them off or give up, because I don’t think I have the capability.
(199) When playing intelligence games, I always start from the conventional way of thinking,
because conventional thinking is what I always consider first.
(200) When everyone needs to make suggestions, I can always come up with new ideas,
because I don’t like getting stuck in a rut.

Table 1
Correlations among the 10 TIPI Items in American and Chinese Samples
TIPI Item
TIPI Item (“I see myself as:”) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Extraversion
1. Extraverted, enthusiastic -- -.34** -.07 .25* .02 .00 -.02 -.04 .22* .05
2. Reserved, quiet -.46** -- .10 -.13 .29** -.04 .02 .38** -.29** .16

Agreeableness
3. Sympathetic, warm .11 .00 -- -.18 .11 .02 .07 .21* -.03 .06
4. Critical, quarrelsome .03 .22* -.10 -- .07 .20* -.15 .20* .11 -.16

Conscientiousness
5. Dependable, self-disciplined .10 .05 -.07 -.10 -- -.13 .09 .13 -.11 .10
6. Disorganized, careless -.01 .04 .05 .20* -.49** -- -.23* .26** .03 -.05

Emotional Stability
7. Calm, emotionally stable .11 .09 -.08 -.24* .16 .01 -- -.40** .14 .00
8. Anxious, easily upset -.09 .15 .15 .40** -.02 .13 -.52** -- -.18 .01

Openness to New Experiences
9. Open to experiences, complex .14 -.18 .01 -.21* -.08 .13 .12 -.18 -- -.37**
10. Conventional, uncreative -.10 .24* .03 .08 .23* -.12 .01 .13 -.46** --
Note. N
American
= 109, N
Chinese
= 102. Inter-item correlations in the American sample are shown in the lower left triangle of the table. Inter-item
correlations in the Chinese sample are shown in the upper right triangle of the table. Correlations between positively and negatively keyed
TIPI items for the same dimension are shown in bold typeface.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.

110

Table 2
Self-reported Personality Profiles of American and Chinese Students Based upon the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
Whole Sample Female Male
Culture E A C ES O E A C ES O E A C ES O

American (N = 109) (N = 59) (N = 50)
Mean 4.61 5.03 5.81 4.47 5.66 4.69 5.28 6.15 4.03 5.53 4.52 4.74 5.40 4.98 5.80
SD 1.40 1.11 1.19 1.49 1.20 1.37 .95 .93 1.48 1.23 1.45 1.22 1.34 1.36 1.14

Chinese (N = 102) (N = 47) (N = 55)
Mean 4.38 5.43 5.08 4.31 4.81 4.30 5.44 5.05 4.13 4.62 4.47 5.41 5.12 4.52 5.03
SD 1.25 1.04 1.07 1.31 1.15 1.26 1.10 1.02 1.27 1.09 1.25 .99 1.14 1.32 1.18
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness.

111

Table 3
Examples of Situations, Behaviors, and Explanations Generated by American Students
Extraversion
Extraverted, enthusiastic Reserved, quiet
When I am at a party, I dress flashy, because I like getting
attention and it provides conversation starters (6).
When I am in school, I usually like to sit alone, because I feel
overwhelmed by all the people (6).
Agreeableness
Sympathetic, warm Critical, quarrelsome
When I see friends or acquaintances in public, I smile and/or
say hello, because I value their friendship and want them to
see that (5).
When someone is bothering me, I try to avoid them rather than
confront them, because I don’t like to start fights (2).
Conscientiousness
Dependable, self-disciplined Disorganized, careless
When someone asks me to complete a task, I make sure to get
it done and to the best of my ability, because I don’t like
letting others down (6).
When my room starts to get messy, I clean it up, because I want to
find stuff and I respect my roommate (2).
Emotional Stability
Calm, emotionally stable Anxious, easily upset
When I get a bad grade, I get upset, because I do not like to
fail (3).
When my roommate takes my food, I don’t really care, because there
is no need to make a big deal out of it (2).
Openness to New Experiences
Open to new experiences, complex Conventional, uncreative
When I’m offered food I’ve never had before, I try it, because
I’ve never had it and it might be really good (6).
When I am doing a project, I try and think of something new and
different, because I like doing my own thing (2).
Note. Participants first rated themselves on the TIPI items (in italics above and started with “I see myself as”) from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Based upon their specific trait rating scores, they were asked to generate two examples of the situations they find themselves
in, their behavioral responses to those situations, and their explanations for their behaviors in those situations after each trait rating. These
situations, behaviors, and explanations should be their actual experiences and best demonstrate their trait ratings. The original trait rating
scores provided by participants are shown in parentheses above after the examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations.

112

Table 4
Correlations between Self- and Other- Ratings of SBEs on the TIPI Items
SBEs related to
Culture All SBEs E A C ES O

Americans .82** .81** .83** .83** .75** .89**
Mean .82** .81** .81** .81** .75** .89**
Median

Chinese
Mean .64** .59** .77** .59** .66** .61**
Median .61** .52** .73** .60** .62** .56**
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness. Correlations between self-
and other- ratings of all SBEs within each culture are shown in bold typeface.
** p < .01

113

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of the American and Chinese SBEs Judged by American and Chinese Students
Situations, Behaviors, and Explanations
E A C ES O
Judged by American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese
Total
Mean 4.72 4.18 5.01 4.94 5.32 4.12 4.50 4.04 4.68 4.69
SD .47 .44 .50 .52 .53 .34 .41 .36 .38 .37

Americans
Mean 4.87 4.14 5.13 4.90 5.56 4.08 4.58 4.03 4.79 4.72
SD .38 .37 .42 .44 .38 .31 .32 .34 .34 .37

Chinese
Mean 4.56 4.23 4.87 4.97 5.03 4.16 4.44 4.05 4.54 4.66
SD .52 .51 .56 .60 .54 .38 .49 .39 .38 .36
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness. American SBEs refer to the
examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations generated by American students to represent the personalities of Americans. Chinese SBEs
refer to the examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations generated by Chinese students to represent the personalities of Chinese.

114

Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of the American and Chinese SBEs Judged by American and Chinese Students When Targets’ Nationalities
Were American or Chinese
Situations, Behaviors, and Explanations
E A C ES O
Participants-
Targets
American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese American Chinese
American
- American
Mean 4.74 4.06 5.04 4.80 5.42 4.10 4.45 3.97 4.64 4.60
SD .36 .44 .41 .39 .52 .33 .34 .35 .42 .47

American
- Chinese
Mean 4.78 4.07 5.09 4.91 5.54 4.13 4.44 3.99 4.72 4.71
SD .43 .47 .41 .45 .42 .31 .35 .32 .34 .37

Chinese
- American
Mean 4.53 4.15 4.95 4.96 4.98 4.09 4.43 3.98 4.60 4.65
SD .43 .41 .61 .62 .59 .36 .41 .35 .45 .46

Chinese
- Chinese
Mean 4.63 4.24 4.82 4.88 4.95 4.11 4.39 4.01 4.57 4.59
SD .45 .43 .60 .58 .58 .29 .39 .34 .37 .37
Note. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O = Openness. American SBEs refer to the
examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations generated by American students to represent the personalities of Americans. Chinese SBEs
refer to the examples of situations, behaviors, and explanations generated by Chinese students to represent the personalities of Chinese.

115

116

Figure 1. A process model of personality trait judgment.

Participants
Reference
Groups
Targets
Traits
Lay
Theories

117

Mean Profiles of American and Chinese Students
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
EA C ES O
Americans Chinese

Figure 2. Mean profiles of American and Chinese students based upon self-reported TIPI
scores. E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional
Stability; O = Openness. Americans scored no differently on Extraversion (M = 4.61, SD =
1.40) than Chinese (M = 4.38, SD = 1.25), t(209) = 1.27, p = .206. Americans scored lower
on Agreeableness (M = 5.03, SD = 1.11) than Chinese (M = 5.43, SD = 1.04), t(209) = -2.65,
p = .009. Americans scored higher on Conscientiousness (M = 5.81, SD = 1.19) than
Chinese (M = 5.08, SD = 1.07), t(209) = 4.63, p < .001. Americans scored no differently on
Emotional Stability (M = 4.47, SD = 1.49) than Chinese (M = 4.31, SD = 1.31), t(209) = .82,
p = .412. Americans scored higher on Openness to New Experiences (M = 5.66, SD = 1.20)
than Chinese (M = 4.81, SD = 1.15), t(209) = 5.25, p < .001.

118

Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by all participants)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
EA C ES O
American SBEs Chinese SBEs

Figure 3. Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by all participants). E =
Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O =
Openness. Across all participants, American SBEs (M = 4.73, SD = .47) were judged more
extraverted than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.18, SD = .44), F(1, 233) = 399.53, p < .001.
American SBEs (M = 5.01, SD = .50) were also judged more agreeable than Chinese SBEs
(M = 4.94, SD = .52), F(1, 232) = 10.412, p < .001. Furthermore, American SBEs (M = 5.32,
SD = .47) were judged more conscientious than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.12, SD = .34), F(1,
229) = 1429.92, p < .001. American SBEs (M = 4.50, SD = .41) were also judged
emotionally more stable than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.04, SD = .36), F(1, 230) = 311.46, p
< .001. Lastly, across American and Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 4.68, SD
= .38) were judged no differently on openness to new experiences than Chinese SBEs (M =
4.69, SD = .37), F(1, 232) = .66, p = .419.

119
Mean Profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by Americans)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
EA C ES O
American SBEs Chinese SBEs

Figure 4. Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by Americans). E =
Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O =
Openness. To American participants, American SBEs (M = 4.87, SD = .38) were judged
more extraverted than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.14, SD = .37), t(128) = 25.11, p < .001.
American SBEs (M = 5.13, SD = .42) were also judged more agreeable than Chinese SBEs
(M = 4.90, SD = .44), t(125) = 7.45, p < .001. Furthermore, American SBEs (M = 5.56, SD
= .38) were judged more conscientious than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.08, SD = .31), t(126) =
46.05, p < .001. American SBEs (M = 4.58, SD = .32) were also judged emotionally more
stable than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.03, SD = .34), t(125) = 22.10, p < .001. Lastly, American
SBEs (M = 4.79, SD = .34) were judged slightly more open to new experiences than Chinese
SBEs (M = 4.72, SD = .37), t(129) = 2.46, p < .05.

120

Mean Profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by Chinese)
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
EA C ES O
American SBEs Chinese SBEs

Figure 5. Mean profiles of American and Chinese SBEs (Judged by Chinese). E =
Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; ES = Emotional Stability; O =
Openness. To Chinese participants, American SBEs (M = 4.56, SD = .52) were judged more
extraverted than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.23, SD = .51), t(105) = 7.20, p < .001. American
SBEs (M = 4.87, SD = .56) were also judged slightly less agreeable than Chinese SBEs (M =
4.97, SD = .60), t(107) = -2.16, p < .05. Furthermore, American SBEs (M = 5.03, SD = .54)
were judged more conscientious than Chinese SBEs (M = 4.16, SD = .38), t(103) = 15.55, p
< .001. American SBEs (M = 4.44, SD = .49) were also judged emotionally more stable than
Chinese SBEs (M = 4.05, SD = .39), t(105) = 7.63, p < .001. Lastly, American SBEs (M =
4.54, SD = .38) were judged slightly less open to new experiences than Chinese SBEs (M =
4.66, SD = .36), t(103) = -2.73, p < .05.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The study of personality and culture has a long and distinguished tradition in psychology and anthropology. Recently, research on personality and culture has focused almost exclusively on profiling people from different cultures on personality trait measures. In this dissertation, I first consider two problems that may confound the results from the recent work: the reference group effect (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002), and lay theories of personality traits in different cultures. To address these two problems, at the theoretical level, I propose an alternative perspective that integrates the social cognitive approach to personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998) and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). Essentially, this new perspective argues that personality and culture can be meaningfully conceptualized and operationalized in terms of distinctive patterns of if (situation) then (behavior) contingencies and explanations for the contingencies. At the empirical level, it is shown that while personality profiles based solely upon personality trait measures suggested that Americans are equally extraverted, less agreeable, more conscientious, equally emotionally stable, and more open to new experiences than Chinese, the profiles based upon the new perspective of situations, behaviors, and explanations suggested that Americans are more extraverted, slightly more agreeable, more conscientious, emotionally more stable, and equally open to new experiences than Chinese. Advantages and implications of this new perspective and a number of opportunities it opens for personality and culture research in the future are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Neural correlates of learning and reversal of approach versus withdraw responses to in- and out-group individuals

PDF

Implicit theory ideology about human attributes and aggression

PDF

A social-cognitive approach to modeling design thinking styles

PDF

Do you see what I see? Personality and cognitive factors affecting theory of mind or perspective taking

PDF

School social dynamics as mediators of students personal traits and family factors on the perpetration of school violence in Taiwan

PDF

Psychological correlates of certainty strength: measuring the relative influence of evidence, opinion of personal contacts & importance to self-identity

PDF

Applying adaptive methods and classical scale reduction techniques to data from the big five inventory

PDF

Personal and environmental influences on preparing for transition from sport: a social cognitive approach to exploring the collegiate experiences of Black former NFL players

Asset Metadata

Creator Yang, Yu (author)

Core Title Personality and culture revisited: Integrating the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/26/2009

Defense Date 05/17/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag culture,OAI-PMH Harvest,Personality

Language English

Advisor Read, Stephen J. (committee chair), Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee member), Overbeck, Jennifer R. (committee member), Walsh, David A. (committee member)

Creator Email yuyang@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m692

Unique identifier UC1329748

Identifier etd-Yang-20070726 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-522741 (legacy record id),usctheses-m692 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Yang-20070726.pdf

Dmrecord 522741

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Yang, Yu

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu