In general, people are influenced by the standards set forth by groups of others; however, the levels of such conformity vary between people and across cultures. Here, we investigated factors related to country-level personality profile conformity (i.e., person-culture personality fit) across ∼5.9 million participants, residing in 57 different countries. We examined how each of the Big Five personality traits and cultural tightness are associated with variation in person-culture personality fit. We found that scoring higher in Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and residing in a tight cultural context explains increased personality profile conformity, while scoring higher in Openness and Neuroticism and residing in a loose cultural context explains lower personality profile conformity. Furthermore, we found that Openness and Extraversion interact with cultural context to predict levels of personality profile conformity. These findings reveal that both dispositional and cultural factors correspond to the tendency to conform to country-level norms.
AlesinaA.DevleeschauwerA.EasterlyW.KurlatS.WacziargR. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.
2.
BartramD. (2013). Scalar equivalence of OPQ32: Big Five profiles of 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 61–83.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
4.
BleidornW.SchönbrodtF.GebauerJ. E.RentfrowP. J.PotterJ.GoslingS. D. (2016). To live among like-minded others: Exploring the links between person-city personality fit and self-esteem. Psychological Science, 27(3), 419–427.
5.
BrandesC. M.TackettJ. L. (2019). Contextualizing neuroticism in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 238–245.
6.
ButlerJ. C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 28(1), 1–14.
7.
ChurchA. T. (2016). Personality traits across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 22–30.
8.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
9.
DeYoungC. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–1151.
10.
DollingerS. J.LeongF. T.UlicniS. K. (1996). On traits and values: With special reference to openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(1), 23–41.
11.
DurkeeP.LukaszewskiA.von RuedenC.GurvenM.BussD. M.Tucker-DrobE. M. (2022). Niche diversity predicts personality structure across 115 nations. Psychological Science, 33, 285–298.
12.
EckJ.GebauerJ. E. (2022). A sociocultural norm perspective on Big Five prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 554–575.
13.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.
14.
ErikssonK.HaasB. W. (2022). A New View of Dyad-Level Analysis of Personality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
ErikssonK.StrimlingP.GelfandM.WuJ.AbernathyJ.AkotiaC. S.AldashevA.AnderssonP. A.AndrighettoG.AnumA.ArikanG.AycanZ.BagherianF.BarreraD.Basnight-BrownD.BatkeyevB.BelausA.BerezinaE.BjörnstjernaM.Van LangeP. A. (2021). Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–11.
16.
FleesonW. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 83–87.
17.
FulmerC. A.GelfandM. J.KruglanskiA. W.Kim-PrietoC.DienerE.PierroA.HigginsE. T. (2010). On “feeling right” in cultural contexts: How person-culture match affects self-esteem and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1563–1569.
18.
GebauerJ. E.BleidornW.GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.LambM. E.PotterJ. (2014). Cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with religiosity: A sociocultural motives perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 1064–1091.
19.
GebauerJ. E.EckJ.EntringerT. M.BleidornW.RentfrowP. J.PotterJ.GoslingS. D. (2020). The well-being benefits of person-culture match are contingent on basic personality traits. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1283–1293.
20.
GebauerJ. E.SedikidesC.LüdtkeO.NeberichW. (2014). Agency-communion and interest in prosocial behavior: Social motives for assimilation and contrast explain sociocultural inconsistencies. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 452–466.
21.
GelfandM. J.HarringtonJ.FernandezJ. (2017). Cultural tightness-looseness: Ecological affordances and implications for personality. In ChurchA. T. (Ed.), The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures (pp. 206–236). Praeger.
22.
GelfandM. J.HarringtonJ. R.JacksonJ. C. (2017). The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 800–809.
23.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.ArnadottirJ. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.
24.
GerlachM.FarbB.RevelleW.AmaralL. A. N. (2018). A robust data-driven approach identifies four personality types across four large data sets. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 735–742.
25.
GoslingS. D.VazireS.SrivastavaS.JohnO. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104.
26.
GrazianoW. G.HabashiM. M.SheeseB. E.TobinR. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person × situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599.
27.
GüngörD.BornsteinM. H.De LeersnyderJ.CoteL.CeulemansE.MesquitaB. (2013). Acculturation of personality: A three-culture study of Japanese, Japanese Americans, and European Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(5), 701–718.
28.
GurvenM. D. (2018). Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11420–11427.
29.
HeineS. J.BuchtelE. E.NorenzayanA. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19(4), 309–313.
30.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
31.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.PetersonJ. B. (2009). Metatraits of the Big Five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1085–1102.
32.
HofstedeG.McCraeR. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.
33.
HuxleyE.BizumicB.KennyA. (2015). The role of ethnocentrism in the relationship between openness to experience and ethnic prejudice. Ethnic and Cultural Identity: Perceptions, Discrimination and Social Challenges, 1, 85–101.
34.
JohnO. P.DonahueE. M.KentleR. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.
35.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives (Vol. 2). University of California Berkeley.
36.
KajoniusP.Mac GiollaE. (2017). Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLOS ONE, 12(6), e0179646.
37.
KalishY.RobinsG. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28(1), 56–84.
38.
KerberA.RothM.HerzbergP. Y. (2021). Personality types revisited–a literature-informed and data-driven approach to an integration of prototypical and dimensional constructs of personality description. PLOS ONE, 16(1), e0244849.
39.
LaajajR.MacoursK.HernandezD. A. P.AriasO.GoslingS. D.PotterJ.Rubio-CodinaM.VakisR. (2019). Challenges to capture the big five personality traits in non-WEIRD populations. Science Advances, 5(7), eaaw5226.
40.
LalandK. N.Odling-SmeeJ.FeldmanM. W. (2001). Cultural niche construction and human evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(1), 22–33.
41.
LukaszewskiA. W.GurvenM.von RuedenC. R.SchmittD. P. (2017). What explains personality covariation? A test of the socioecological complexity hypothesis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 943–952.
42.
LukaszewskiA. W.LewisD. M.DurkeeP. K.SellA. N.SznycerD.BussD. M. (2020). An adaptationist framework for personality science. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1151–1174.
43.
MacDonaldG.SaltzmanJ. L.LearyM. R. (2003). Social approval and trait self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 23–40.
44.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.
45.
McCraeR. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.
46.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.
47.
MurrayD. R.TrudeauR.SchallerM. (2011). On the origins of cultural differences in conformity: Four tests of the pathogen prevalence hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 318–329.
48.
OmotoA. M.SnyderM.HackettJ. D. (2010). Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1703–1734.
49.
PaulhusD. L.JohnO. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060.
50.
PelhamB.HardinC.MurrayD.ShimizuM.VandelloJ. (2022). A truly global, non-WEIRD examination of collectivism: The Global Collectivism Index (GCI). Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 3, 100030.
51.
PoortingaY. H.Van HemertD. A. (2001). Personality and culture: Demarcating between the common and the unique. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 1033–1060.
52.
RentfrowP. J. (2020). Geographical psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 165–170.
53.
RobertsB. W.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS.GoldbergL. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139.
54.
RobertsB. W.PomerantzE. M. (2004). On traits, situations, and their integration: A developmental perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 402–416.
55.
SaucierG. (2009). What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 620–637.
56.
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.
57.
SmaldinoP. E.LukaszewskiA.von RuedenC.GurvenM. (2019). Niche diversity can explain cross-cultural differences in personality structure. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(12), 1276–1283.
58.
VolkS.ThöniC.RuigrokW. (2011). Personality, personal values and cooperation preferences in public goods games: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 810–815.
59.
WoodD.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 861–879.
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.
