REVIEW PAPER
Choosing an adequate design and analysis in cross-cultural personality research
Jia He 1,2
,
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
German Institute for International Educational Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Tilburg University, Netherlands
3
North-West University, South Africa
4
University of Queensland, Australia
Submission date: 2016-09-02
Final revision date: 2017-01-21
Acceptance date: 2017-01-21
Online publication date: 2017-02-20
Publication date: 2017-03-31
 
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2017;5(1):3–10
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The flourishing of cross-cultural personality research requires a keen eye for rigorous methodology in such research. With decades of experience in cross-cultural research methods, we have come to appreciate that methodological aspects of such studies are critical for obtaining valid findings. Ill-designed or -conducted studies may produce results that are difficult to interpret. A careful design and analysis can help to deal with various methodological problems in cross-cultural personality studies. Drawing on the extensive knowledge that has been accumulated in cross-cultural and personality research in the past decades, we describe a framework of bias and equivalence that enables the choice of adequate research methods and the avoidance of pitfalls that endanger valid conclusions in cross-cultural personality research. Specifically, we focus on sampling issues, test adaptations, and the combination of emic and etic approaches in this short review article. We encourage researchers to use the tools and experience that are available to considerably enlarge our insights in cross-cultural differences and similarities in personality research.
 
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Behrens, K. Y. (2004). A multifaceted view of the concept of Amae: Reconsidering the indigenous Japanese concept of relatedness. Human Development, 47, 1–27. doi: 10.1159/000075366.
 
2.
Boehnke, K., Lietz, P., Schreier, M., & Wilhelm, A. (2011). Sampling: The selection of cases for culturally comparative psychological research. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 101–129). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
 
3.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
 
4.
Church, T. A. (2009). Prospects for an integrated trait and cultural psychology. European Journal of Personality, 23, 153–182. doi: 10.1002/per.700.
 
5.
Church, T. A., Alvarez, J. M., Mai, N. T. Q., French, B. F., Katigbak, M. S., & Ortiz, F. A. (2011). Are cross-cultural comparisons of personality profiles meaningful? Differential item and facet functioning in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1068–1089. doi: 10.1037/a0025290.
 
6.
Danner, D., Aichholzer, J., & Rammstedt, B. (2015). Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity, and stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.004.
 
7.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London, United Kingdom: Hodder and Stoughton.
 
8.
Fetvadjiev, V. H., Meiring, D., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Nel, J. A., & Hill, C. (2015). The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups. Psychological Assessment, 27, 827–837. doi: 10.1037/pas0000078.
 
9.
Fetvadjiev, V. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). Measures of personality across cultures. In D. H. Saklofske & G. Matthews (eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 752–776). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
10.
Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 263–282. doi: 10.1177/0022022104264122.
 
11.
Grimm, S. D., & Church, T. A. (1999). A cross-cultural study of response biases in personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 415–441. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1999.2256.
 
12.
Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Wiley.
 
13.
Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Mohler, P. P. (eds.). (2003). Cross-cultural survey methods. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
 
14.
He, J., Bartram, D., Inceoglu, I., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2014). Response styles and personality traits: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1028–1045. doi: 10.1177/0022022114534773.
 
15.
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). Self-presentation styles in self-reports: Linking the general factors of response styles, personality traits, and values in a longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 129–134. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.009.
 
16.
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, NY: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
 
17.
McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (eds.). (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
 
18.
Merten, T., & Ruch, W. (1996). A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the German versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 281–291. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00185-9.
 
19.
Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Meiring, D., & de Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80, 915–948. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00751.x.
 
20.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.660.
 
21.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (vol. 1, pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
22.
Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L. R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurement equivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005.
 
23.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297299.
 
24.
Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 243–262. doi: 10.1177/1745691610369465.
 
25.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & He, J. (in press). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural personality research. In T. A. Church (ed.), Personality across cultures.
 
26.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 
27.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29.
 
28.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119–135. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004.
 
29.
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2010). The interpersonal nature of self-esteem: Do different measures of self-esteem possess similar interpersonal content? Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.005.
 
eISSN:2353-561X
ISSN:2353-4192