Comprehensive measures of the personality sphere have been developed in the West and widely used in other cultural settings. Such importation has advantages for economizing resources but short circuits the development of local personality theory. This article describes work on indigenous personality measurement in Chinese cultural settings using the lexical and questionnaire approaches of trait theory. In both cases, locally developed measures define the personality sphere differently and reveal a dimension of personality variation not detected by imported and purportedly comprehensive instruments. The additional dimension revealed from the questionnaire approach has been labeled Chinese Tradition. Facets from this dimension have been shown to add power to the imported measures in predicting social outcomes. It may thus be prudent to encourage the development of measures derived from local cultural traditions to ensure a truly comprehensive and effective coverage of the personality sphere.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Benet, V. (1995). Toward a Spanish taxonomy of personality descriptors. Generality of the “Big Seven” factor model with indigenous and imported constructs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
3.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119-128.
4.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Brislin, R. W. , Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Cheung, F. M. , Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181-199.
7.
Cheung, F. M. , Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (1998). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five factor model complete? Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
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.
9.
Enriquez, V. G. (1987). Decolonizing the Filipino psyche: Impetus for the development of psychology in the Philippines. In G. H. Blowers & A. M. Turtle (Eds.), Psychology moving East (pp. 265-287). Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Gan, Y. Q. (1998). Healthy personality traits and unique pathways to psychological adjustment: Cultural and gender perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
11.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Developing a taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms. In D. Fiske (Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: Problems with language imprecision (pp. 43-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Kwan, V.S.Y. , Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.
13.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
14.
McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
15.
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.
16.
Mishra, G. , & Gergen, K. J. (1993). On the place of culture in psychological science. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 225-243.
17.
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.
18.
Schwartzer, R. C. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universitat.
19.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism-collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
20.
Sun, H. , & Bond, M. H. (in press). Interactant's personality and status as determinants of influencer's choice of tactics. In J.P.Li, A. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in China. New York: Macmillan.
21.
Van de Vijver, F. , & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 106-170). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
Yang, K. S. , & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095.
24.
Yik, M.S.M. , & Bond, M. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced scale. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 75-95.
25.
Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227-246). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
Zhang, J. X. , & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college students in two Chinese societies: The added value indigenous constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 402-417.
