culture<\/h3>\r\n
The term culture<\/strong> refers to all of the beliefs, customs, art, and traditions of a particular society.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n Culture is passed down through language, family life, schools, media, and community traditions. It is also reinforced through social feedback\u2014behaviors that \u201cfit\u201d cultural expectations may be rewarded, while behaviors that don\u2019t fit may be discouraged (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Because of this, personality psychologists often ask:<\/p>\r\n Most evidence suggests the answer is both<\/b><\/span>: some patterns appear broadly across cultures, while others are shaped strongly by local values and norms.<\/p>\r\n A major concern in psychology is that much research has historically focused on WEIRD<\/b><\/span> populations\u2014people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (Henrich et al., 2010). That matters because ideas about \u201cnormal\u201d personality or \u201chealthy\u201d development may not transfer neatly to other cultural settings (Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008).<\/p>\r\n Researchers have also pointed out that many published personality studies have not consistently included race\/ethnicity when interpreting results, which can limit what we know about how social structure and lived experience shape personality (Cortina et al., 2012).[footnote]Cortina, L. M., Curtin, N., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Where is social structure in personality research? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 259\u2013 273. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0361684312448056[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n There is evidence that the expression and emphasis<\/b><\/span> of traits can vary across cultures, and personality psychology has been encouraged to take a more active role in improving equity and cultural understanding (Arshad & Chung, 2022).<\/p>\r\n Researchers often use the Big Five<\/b><\/span> traits to compare patterns across groups (e.g., conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion). Some cross-cultural research suggests that average trait levels and the meanings of traits<\/i> can differ depending on cultural values and social norms (Benet-Martinez & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2003).<\/p>\r\n It\u2019s also important to remember that the Big Five model was developed largely using Western samples. Many psychologists see it as useful across many settings, but it may not capture every culturally important personality characteristic in every region.<\/p>\r\n Many cultural psychologists describe cultures along an individualism\u2013collectivism<\/b><\/span> dimension.<\/p>\r\n Western nations such as the United States, England, and Australia tend to score higher on individualism (Oyserman et al., 2002). Many countries in Asia, Africa, and South America tend to score higher on collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995).<\/p>\r\n These values can shape personality development by influencing what is praised, expected, and practiced. For example, Yang (2006) found that people in more individualist settings often describe personality in more personally oriented terms, while people in more collectivist settings often describe personality in more socially oriented terms.<\/p>\r\n This is also one reason psychologists are cautious about applying personality inventories across cultures without context. For example, Frewer and Bleus (1991) found that results from the Eysenck Personality Inventory were most meaningful when interpreted within the cultural norms of Papua New Guinean university students. Dana (1986) also argued that personality assessment with Native American clients should account for tribe-specific cultural context and history to avoid biased interpretations.<\/p>\r\n Culture doesn\u2019t only differ across countries\u2014there can also be regional differences within the same nation. Rentfrow and colleagues analyzed responses from over 1.5 million people in the United States and identified three broad regional personality clusters (Rentfrow et al., 2013):<\/p>\r\n One explanation for these patterns is selective migration<\/b><\/span> (Rentfrow et al., 2013): people often move to places that \u201cfit\u201d their preferences, values, and lifestyle needs. For example:<\/p>\r\n Rentfrow and colleagues (2009) also suggested that regional psychological profiles can relate to other regional patterns (like economic vitality or entrepreneurship). These are correlations<\/b><\/span>, not proof that personality causes those outcomes\u2014but they show how personality, environment, and culture can overlap.<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n Researchers use three approaches to study personality in cultural context:<\/p>\r\n For example, researchers have used the cultural-comparative approach to test whether the Big Five appears across many cultures, and some evidence suggests these broad traits show stability in many settings (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2005). At the same time, indigenous approaches highlight traits and values that do not always map neatly onto Western frameworks (Cheung et al., 2011).<\/p>\r\n As you have seen already, personality is shaped by both genetic and environmental factors. The culture in which you live is one of the most important environmental factors that shape your personality (Triandis & Suh, 2002).<\/p>\n The term culture<\/strong> refers to all of the beliefs, customs, art, and traditions of a particular society.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n Culture is passed down through language, family life, schools, media, and community traditions. It is also reinforced through social feedback\u2014behaviors that \u201cfit\u201d cultural expectations may be rewarded, while behaviors that don\u2019t fit may be discouraged (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Because of this, personality psychologists often ask:<\/p>\n Most evidence suggests the answer is both<\/b><\/span>: some patterns appear broadly across cultures, while others are shaped strongly by local values and norms.<\/p>\n A major concern in psychology is that much research has historically focused on WEIRD<\/b><\/span> populations\u2014people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (Henrich et al., 2010). That matters because ideas about \u201cnormal\u201d personality or \u201chealthy\u201d development may not transfer neatly to other cultural settings (Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008).<\/p>\n Researchers have also pointed out that many published personality studies have not consistently included race\/ethnicity when interpreting results, which can limit what we know about how social structure and lived experience shape personality (Cortina et al., 2012).[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n There is evidence that the expression and emphasis<\/b><\/span> of traits can vary across cultures, and personality psychology has been encouraged to take a more active role in improving equity and cultural understanding (Arshad & Chung, 2022).<\/p>\n Researchers often use the Big Five<\/b><\/span> traits to compare patterns across groups (e.g., conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion). Some cross-cultural research suggests that average trait levels and the meanings of traits<\/i> can differ depending on cultural values and social norms (Benet-Martinez & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2003).<\/p>\n It\u2019s also important to remember that the Big Five model was developed largely using Western samples. Many psychologists see it as useful across many settings, but it may not capture every culturally important personality characteristic in every region.<\/p>\n Many cultural psychologists describe cultures along an individualism\u2013collectivism<\/b><\/span> dimension.<\/p>\n Western nations such as the United States, England, and Australia tend to score higher on individualism (Oyserman et al., 2002). Many countries in Asia, Africa, and South America tend to score higher on collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995).<\/p>\n These values can shape personality development by influencing what is praised, expected, and practiced. For example, Yang (2006) found that people in more individualist settings often describe personality in more personally oriented terms, while people in more collectivist settings often describe personality in more socially oriented terms.<\/p>\n This is also one reason psychologists are cautious about applying personality inventories across cultures without context. For example, Frewer and Bleus (1991) found that results from the Eysenck Personality Inventory were most meaningful when interpreted within the cultural norms of Papua New Guinean university students. Dana (1986) also argued that personality assessment with Native American clients should account for tribe-specific cultural context and history to avoid biased interpretations.<\/p>\n Culture doesn\u2019t only differ across countries\u2014there can also be regional differences within the same nation. Rentfrow and colleagues analyzed responses from over 1.5 million people in the United States and identified three broad regional personality clusters (Rentfrow et al., 2013):<\/p>\n One explanation for these patterns is selective migration<\/b><\/span> (Rentfrow et al., 2013): people often move to places that \u201cfit\u201d their preferences, values, and lifestyle needs. For example:<\/p>\n Rentfrow and colleagues (2009) also suggested that regional psychological profiles can relate to other regional patterns (like economic vitality or entrepreneurship). These are correlations<\/b><\/span>, not proof that personality causes those outcomes\u2014but they show how personality, environment, and culture can overlap.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n Researchers use three approaches to study personality in cultural context:<\/p>\n For example, researchers have used the cultural-comparative approach to test whether the Big Five appears across many cultures, and some evidence suggests these broad traits show stability in many settings (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 2005). At the same time, indigenous approaches highlight traits and values that do not always map neatly onto Western frameworks (Cheung et al., 2011).<\/p>\n\r\n\t
Why Culture Matters in Personality Research<\/b><\/h3>\r\n
Personality Across Cultures<\/h2>\r\n
Personality in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n\t
Regional Personality Differences<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n\t
![\"A](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2015\/02\/04190900\/42c32988b15b58a10d863cbe3cadf835595eaf48.jpeg\")
<\/a> Figure 1<\/strong>. Researchers found three distinct regional personality clusters in the United States. People tend to be friendly and conventional in the Upper Midwest and Deep South; relaxed, emotionally stable, and creative in the West; and stressed, irritable, and depressed in the Northeast (Rentfrow et al., 2013).[\/caption]\r\n<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\t
Approaches to Studying Personality in a Cultural Context<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t
Cultural Understandings of Personality<\/h2>\n
culture<\/h3>\n
\n
Why Culture Matters in Personality Research<\/b><\/h3>\n
Personality Across Cultures<\/h2>\n
Personality in Individualist and Collectivist Cultures<\/h3>\n
\n
Regional Personality Differences<\/h3>\n
\n
<\/a>\n
Approaches to Studying Personality in a Cultural Context<\/h3>\n
\n