The NEO-PI-3 is a fourth-generation instrument that has been shown to improve the psychometrics and readability of its immediate precedent, the NEO-PI-R. We examined the psychometric properties of the Chinese versions of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 using three datasets (Ns = 913, 299, 403) collected using both monolingual and bilingual designs. The Chinese NEO-PI-3 scales displayed a five-factor structure in which the facets had the highest loadings on their intended factors. The structure demonstrated strong invariance across both languages (English vs. Chinese) and gender groups, maintained high test-retest reliability, and attained slightly better internal consistency than the NEO-PI-R. We also examined the affective underpinnings of personality factors and well-being measures using the Chinese Circumplex Model of Affect. Consistent with past findings, Neuroticism and Extraversion were most related to affect, while Satisfaction with Life and Subjective Happiness shared the affective core of pleasant feelings and medium arousal. Based on these results, the Chinese NEO-PI-3 appears to be a sound instrument to measure personality in Chinese communities and to compare personality across cultures.
AnglimJ.HorwoodS.SmillieL. D.MarreroR. J.WoodJ. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
ButcherJ. N.HanK. (1996). Methods of establishing cross-cultural equivalence. In ButcherJ. N. (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 44–63). University of Minnesota Press.
5.
ButcherJ. N.MoschS. C.TsaiJ.NezamiE. (2006). Cross-cultural applications of the MMPI-2. In ButcherJ. N. (Ed.), MMPI-2: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 505–537). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11287-018
6.
CattellH. E. P.MeadA. D. (2008). The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). In BoyleG. J.MatthewsG.SaklofskeD. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 135–159). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7
7.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
8.
ChenP.WuJ.LuoL.GaoH.WangM.ZouX.LiY.ChenG.LuoH.YuL.HanY.JiaF.HeG. (2019). Population genetic analysis of modern and ancient DNA variations yields new insights into the formation, genetic structure, and phylogenetic relationship of Northern Han Chinese. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, Article 1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01045
9.
ChenS. X.Benet-MartínezV.NgJ. C. K. (2014). Does language affect personality perception? A functional approach to testing the Whorfian hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12040
10.
ChenS. X.BondM. H. (2010). Two languages, two personalities? Examining language effects on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385360
11.
ChenS. X.LamB. C. P.BuchtelE. E.BondM. H. (2014). The conscientiousness paradox: Cultural mindset shapes competence perception. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1923
12.
CheungF. M.CheungS. F.ZhangJ.LeungK.LeongF.YehK. H. (2008). Relevance of Openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture: Aspects of its cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311968
13.
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
14.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
15.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
16.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1993). Bullish on personality psychology. The Psychologist, 6(7), 302–303.
17.
CostaP. T.Jr.TerraccianoA.McCraeR. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
18.
DaiG.HanK.HuH.ColarelliS. M. (2010). Cultural differences and measurement invariance of selection tools: A case of examining Chinese NEO PI-R conscientiousness scale. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 1(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408001011117644
19.
De FruytF.De BolleM.McCraeR. R.TerraccianoA.CostaP. T.Jr., & Collaborators of the Adolescent Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2009). Assessing the universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24 cultures. Assessment, 16(3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109333760
20.
De VriesR. E.RealoA.AllikJ. (2016). Using personality item characteristics to predict single-item internal reliability, retest reliability, and self-other agreement. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2083
21.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
22.
EberhardD. M.SimonsG. F.FennigC. D. (Eds.). (2021). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (24th ed.). SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/
23.
EysenckH. J.EysenckS. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck personality scales (adults). Hodder and Stoughton.
24.
FountoulakisK. N.SiamouliM.MoysidouS.PantoulaE.MoutouK.PanagiotidisP.KemeridouM.MavridouE.LoliE.BatsiariE.PretiA.TondoL.GondaX.MobayedN.AkiskalK.AkiskalH.CostaP.McCraeR. (2014). Standardization of the NEO-PI-3 in the Greek general population. Annals of General Psychiatry, 13(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-014-0036-9
25.
FurnhamA.GuenoleN.LevineS. Z.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (2013). The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised: Factor structure and gender invariance from exploratory structural equation modeling analyses in a high-stakes setting. Assessment, 20(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112448213
GoldbergL. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In WheelerL. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). SAGE.
28.
HathawayS. R.McKinleyJ. C. (1951). The MMPI manual. The Psychological Corporation.
29.
HeineS. J.LehmanD. R.PengK.GreenholtzJ. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903
HongY.-y.MorrisM. W.ChiuC.-y.Benet-MartínezV. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
32.
HrebíckováM. (2008). NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-3) in diagnostics of children and adolescents. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 52(5), 425–442.
33.
JiaoL. Y.YangY.XuY.GaoS. Q.ZhangH. Y. (2019). Good and evil in Chinese culture: Personality structure and connotation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(10), 1128–1142. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01128
34.
KällmenH.WennnbergP.AndreassonP.BergmanH. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the personality inventory NEO-PI-3. International Journal of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, 2(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.23937/2572-4037.1510011
35.
KuppensP.TuerlinckxF.YikM.KovalP.CoosemansJ.ZengK. J.RussellJ. A. (2017). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience varies with personality and culture. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12258
36.
LaajajR.MacoursK.Pinzon HernandezD. A.AriasO.GoslingS. D.PotterJ.Rubio-CodinaM.VakisR. (2019). Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances, 5(7), Article eaaw5226. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226
37.
Le CorffY.Busque-CarrierM. (2016). Structural validity of the NEO Personality Inventory 3 (NEO-PI-3) in a French-Canadian sample. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 9(3), 461–472.
38.
Lorenzo-SevaU.ten BergeJ. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
39.
Lorenzo-SevaU.TimmermanM. E.KiersH. A. L. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
40.
LuiP. P.SamuelD. B.RollockD.LeongF. T. L.ChangE. C. (2020). Measurement invariance of the five factor model of personality: Facet-level analyses among Euro and Asian Americans. Assessment, 27(5), 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119873978
41.
LuoJ.DaiX. (2011). Meta-analysis of Big-five factor personality tests in China. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(6), 740–752.
42.
LyubomirskyS. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. Penguin Press.
43.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indices and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
44.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural. Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220
45.
McCraeR. R.AllikJ. (Eds.). (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5
46.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1983). Joint factors in self-reports and ratings: Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness to Experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 4(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(83)90146-0
47.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729101700217
48.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (2010). NEO Inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3), NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
49.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr.MartinT. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05
50.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr.YikM. (1996). Universal aspects of Chinese personality structure. In BondM. H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 189–207). Oxford University Press.
McCraeR. R.KurtzJ. E.YamagataS.TerraccianoA. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
53.
McCraeR. R.TerraccianoA., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). 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
54.
McCraeR. R.YikM.TrapnellP. D.BondM. H.PaulhusD. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.1041
55.
McCraeR. R.ZondermanA. B.CostaP. T.Jr.BondM. H.PaunonenS. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8
58.
PoropatA. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
59.
QuyG. S. (2011). Adapting the NEO-PI-3 for a South African context: A pilot study using a South African student population [Master’s thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. http://hdl.handle.net/10539/9752
60.
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
61.
SieglerI. C.BrummettB. H. (2000). Associations among NEO personality assessments and well-being at midlife: Facet-level analyses. Psychology and Aging, 15(4), 710–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.4.710
62.
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/10.1037/pspp0000096
63.
StrickhouserJ. E.ZellE.KrizanZ. (2017). Does personality predict health and well-being? A metasynthesis. Health Psychology, 36(8), 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000475
64.
TerraccianoA.McCraeR. R.BrantL. J.CostaP. T.Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.493
65.
TsaiJ. L.KnutsonB.FungH. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288
66.
TsaiJ. L.LouieJ. Y.ChenE. E.UchidaY. (2007). Learning what feelings to desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206292749
67.
WangD.CuiH. (2003). Processes and preliminary results in the construction of the Chinese personality scale (QZPS). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(1), 127–136.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
70.
WoodA. M.JosephS.MaltbyJ. (2009). Gratitude predicts psychological well-being above the Big Five facets. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 443–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.012
71.
WuK.LindstedK. D.TsaiS. Y.LeeJ. W. (2008). Chinese NEO-PI-R in Taiwanese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.025
72.
XiC.ZhongM.LeiX.LiuY.LingY.ZhuX.YaoS.YiJ. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01454
73.
XiaL. X.HuangX. T. (2008). Development of the Self-supporting Personality Scale for Adolescent Students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(5), 593–603.
74.
YangJ. F. (2010). Cross-cultural personality assessment: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.8.1097
75.
YangJ. F.McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr.DaiX.YaoS.CaiT.GaoB. (1999). Cross-cultural personality assessment in psychiatric populations: The NEO-PI-R in the People’s Republic of China. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.359
YikM. (2010a). Affect and interpersonal behaviors: Where do the circumplexes meet?Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.10.003
YikM. (2022). [Unpublished raw data on the relationships between NEO-FFI-3 and happiness]. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
80.
YikM.BondM. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced scale. International Journal of Psychology, 28(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599308246919
81.
YikM.MuesC.SzeI. N. L.KuppensP.TuerlinckxF.De RooverK.KwokF. H. C.SchwartzS. H.Abu-HilalM.AdebayoD. F.AguilarP.Al-BahraniM.AndersonM. H.AndradeL.BratkoD.BushinaE.ChoiJ. W.CieciuchJ.DruV.. . . RussellJ. A. (2022). On the relationship between valence and arousal in samples across the globe. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001095
82.
YikM.RussellJ. A. (2001). Predicting the Big Two of affect from the Big Five of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(3), 247–277. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2322
83.
YikM.RussellJ. A. (2004). On the relationship between circumplexes: Affect and Wiggins’ IAS. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_4
84.
YikM.RussellJ. A.AhnC. K.Fernández DolsJ. M.SuzukiN. (2002). Relating the Five-Factor Model of personality to a circumplex model of affect: A five language study. In McCraeR. R.AllikJ. (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures (pp. 79–104). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_5
85.
YikM.RussellJ. A.SteigerJ. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023980
86.
ZhangB.LiY. M.LiJ.LuoJ.YeY.YinL.ChenZ.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2022). The Big Five Inventory–2 in China: A comprehensive psychometric evaluation in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211008245
