Cross-cultural comparisons often focus on differences in broad personality traits across countries. However, many cross-cultural studies report differential item functioning which suggests that considerable group differences are not accounted for by the overarching personality factors. We argue that this may reflect cross-cultural personality differences at a lower level of personality, namely personality nuances. To investigate the degree of cultural similarities and differences between participants of 10 English speaking countries (of which nine formerly belonged to the British Empire), we scrutinized participants’ personality scores on the domain, facet, and nuance level of the personality hierarchy. More specifically, we used the responses of 9110 participants on the IPIP-NEO 300-item personality inventory in cross-validated and regularized logistic regressions. Based on the trait domain and facet scores, we were able to identify the country of residence for 60% and 73% of the participants, respectively. By using the nuance level of personality, we correctly identified the nationality of 89% of the participants. This pattern of results explains the lack of measurement invariance in cross-cultural studies. We discuss implications for cross-cultural personality research and whether the high degree of cross-cultural item-level differences compromises the universality of the personality structure.
AllikJ.ChurchA. T.OrtizF. A.RossierJ.HřebíčkováM.de FruytF.RealoA.McCraeR. R. (2017).
Mean profiles of the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
48(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117692100
2.
AllikJ.McCraeR. R. (2004).
Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
35(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260382
3.
BaerR. A.SamuelD. B.LykinsE. L. B. (2011).
Differential item functioning on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched meditators and nonmeditators. Assessment,
18(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110392498
BradleyA. P. (1997).
The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition,
30(7), 1145–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-3203(96)00142-2
6.
ChenF. F.SousaK. H.WestS. G. (2005).
Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling,
12, 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002).
Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,
9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
8.
ChurchA. T.AlvarezJ. M.MaiN. T. Q.FrenchB. F.KatigbakM. S.OrtizF. 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(5), 1068–1089. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025290
9.
ClauserB. E.MazorK. M. (1998).
Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
17(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00619.x
10.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). The Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
DavidovE.MeulemanB.CieciuchJ.SchmidtP.BillietJ. (2014).
Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology,
40(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137
13.
DongY.DumasD. (2020). Are personality measures valid for different populations? A systematic review of measurement invariance across cultures, gender, and age. Personality and Individual Differences. 160, Article 109956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109956 .
14.
EigenhuisA.KamphuisJ. H.NoordhofA. (2013).
Development and validation of the Dutch Brief Form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ-BF-NL). Assessment,
20(5), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112444920
15.
EigenhuisA.KamphuisJ. H.NoordhofA. (2015).
Personality differences between the United States and the Netherlands: The influence of violations of measurement invariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
46(4), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115570671
16.
EllemanL. G.CondonD. M.HoltzmanN. S.AllenV. R.RevelleW. (2020, August 18).
Smaller is better: Associations between personality and demographics are improved by examining narrower traits and regions [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dpmg2
FriedmanJ.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2010).
Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software,
33(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01
20.
GoldbergL. R. (1990).
An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
21.
GoldbergL. R. (1999).
A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe,
7(1), 7–28.
GreenwellB. M.BoehmkeB. C.McCarthyA. J. (2018). A simple and effective model-based variable importance measure. ArXiv:1805.04755 [Cs, Stat], 1–27. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04755
24.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1982).
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Radiology,
143(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747
HelwigN. E. (2017).
Adding bias to reduce variance in psychological results: A tutorial on penalized regression. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology,
13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.13.1.p001
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2007).
Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis,
15(3), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl013
29.
HoD. E.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. A. (2011).
MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software,
42(8), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i08
HofsteeW. K.De RaadB.GoldbergL. R. (1992).
Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure.Journal of personality and social psychology,
63(1), 146–163.
35.
HuangC. D.ChurchA. T.KatigbakM. S. (1997).
Identifying cultural differences in items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
28(2), 192–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022197282004
36.
JankowskyK.OlaruG., andSchroedersU. (2020)
Compiling measurement invariant short scales in cross-cultural personality assessment using ant colony optimization. European Journal of Personality,
34(3), 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2260
37.
JanssensA. C. J. W.MartensF. K. (2020).
Reflection on modern methods: Revisiting the area under the ROC curve. International Journal of Epidemiology, Article dyz274. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz274
38.
JohnsonJ. A. (2014).
Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality,
51, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
39.
JohnsonT.KulesaP.ChoY. I.ShavittS. (2005).
The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
36(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905
40.
KajoniusP.Mac GiollaE. (2017).
Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLoS One,
12(6): e0179646, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179646
41.
LuellenJ. K.ShadishW. R.ClarkM. H. (2005).
Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review,
29(6), 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X05275596
42.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2010).
A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling.Psychological Assessment,
22(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227
43.
McCraeR. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures. In McCraeR. R.AllikJ. (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125).
Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_6
44.
McCraeR. R. (2015).
A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
19(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314541857
45.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Del PilarG. H.RollandJ.-P.ParkerW. D. (1998).
Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
29(1), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198291009
46.
McCraeR. R.TerraccianoA. (2005a).
Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547
47.
McCraeR. R.TerraccianoA. (2005b).
Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407
48.
MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance.
Routledge.
49.
MõttusR.KandlerC.BleidornW.RiemannR.McCraeR. R. (2017).
Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
112(3), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000100
50.
MõttusR.McCraeR. R.AllikJ.RealoA. (2014).
Cross-rater agreement on common and specific variance of personality scales and items. Journal of Research in Personality,
52, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.005
51.
MõttusR.RozgonjukD. (2019).
Development is in the details: Age differences in the Big Five domains, facets, and nuances.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000276
52.
MõttusR.SinickJ.TerraccianoA.HřebíčkováM.KandlerC.AndoJ.MortensenE. L.Colodro-CondeL.JangK. L. (2018).
Personality characteristics below facets: A replication and meta-analysis of cross-rater agreement, rank-order stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
117(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000202
OlaruG.DannerD. (2020). Developing cross-cultural personality short scales with metaheuristic item selection procedures. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120918026
55.
OlaruG.SchroedersU.WilhelmO.OstendorfF. (2018).
A confirmatory examination of age-associated personality differences: Deriving age-related measurement-invariant solutions using ant colony optimization. Journal of Personality,
86(6), 1037–1049.
56.
OlaruG.SchroedersU.WilhelmO.OstendorfF. (2019).
‘Grandpa, do you like roller coasters?’: Identifying age-appropriate personality indicators. European Journal of Personality,
33(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2185
57.
OlaruG.WitthoeftM.WilhelmO. (2015).
Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale big-five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality,
59, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.001
58.
RajuN. S.LaffitteL. J.ByrneB. M. (2002).
Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory.Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(3), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.517
59.
RammstedtB.DannerD.BosnjakM. (2017).
Acquiescence response styles: A multilevel model explaining individual-level and country-level differences. Personality and Individual Differences,
107, 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.038
60.
RobinX.TurckN.HainardA.TibertiN.LisacekF.SanchezJ.-C.MüllerM. (2011).
pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics,
12(1): 77, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
61.
RollockD.LuiP. P. (2016).
Measurement invariance and the Five-Factor Model of personality: Asian international and Euro American cultural groups. Assessment,
23(5), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115590854
62.
SafdarS.FriedlmeierW.MatsumotoD.YooS. H.KwantesC. T.KakaiH.ShigemasuE. (2009).
Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures: A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement,
41(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014387
63.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ.McCraeR. R.Benet-MartínezV. (2007).
The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
38(2), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299
64.
SeebothA.MõttusR. (2018).
Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions: Items as personality markers. European Journal of Personality,
32(3), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2147
65.
SoderbergC. K. (2018).
Using OSF to share data: A step-by-step guide. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,
1(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757689
66.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017).
The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/0.1037/pspp0000096
67.
TibshiraniR. (1996).
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological),
58(1), 267–288.
68.
TibshiraniR. (2011).
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso: A retrospective. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology),
73(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2011.00771.x
69.
van de VijverF.TanzerN. K. (2004).
Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology,
54(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
70.
WaldmannP.MészárosG.GredlerB.FuerstC.SölknerJ. (2013).
Evaluation of the lasso and the elastic net in genome-wide association studies. Frontiers in Genetics,
4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00270
71.
WongN.RindfleischA.BurroughsJ. E. (2003).
Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the Material Values Scale. Journal of Consumer Research,
30(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/374697
72.
YarkoniT.WestfallJ. (2017).
Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
73.
ZeccaG.VerardiS.AntoniettiJ.-P.DahourouD.AdjahouissoM.Ah-KionJ.Amoussou-YeyeD.BarryO.BhowonU.BouattaC.Dougoumalé CisséD.MbodjiM.Meyer de StadelhofenF.Minga MingaD.Ng TseungC.Nouri RomdhaneM.OndongoF.RigozziC.SfayhiN., … RossierJ. (2013).
African cultures and the Five-Factor Model of personality: Evidence for a specific Pan-African structure and profile?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
44(5), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112468943
74.
ZouH.HastieT. (2005).
Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology),
67(2), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00503.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
