See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252105465

A Five-Factor Theory Perspective

Article · January 2002

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_15

CITATIONS READS
113 6,750

2 authors, including:

Jüri Allik
University of Tartu
309 PUBLICATIONS 20,748 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jüri Allik on 03 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE

JÜRI ALLIK* & ROBERT R. MCCRAE**

*University of Tartu, **National Institute on Aging, NIH

Abstract. Five-Factor Theory (FFT) is a conceptualization of the personality system that identifies traits as
abstract Basic Tendencies rooted in biology. In this chapter, FFT is examined in relation to recent findings in
cross-cultural psychology reported in this volume. FFT correctly predicts the universality of personality
structure, maturation, and gender differentiation. FFT suggests that differences in the mean levels of traits
across cultures may be due to differences in the distribution of trait-related alleles, and that cultural dif-
ferences may be the effect, rather than the cause, of trait level differences. Reports of substantial cohort and
acculturation effects pose challenges to FFT and provide special opportunities for future research.

Keywords: Personality theory, personality traits, culture, personality-and-culture research

1. FIVE-FACTOR THEORY

In contrast to the Five-Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & John, 1992), which is in an
empirical generalization about the covariation of personality traits, Five-Factor Theory
(FFT; McCrae & Costa, 1996, 1999) is an attempt to conceptualize recent findings
about personality traits in the context of the development and operation of the whole
personality system. FFT describes how biology and culture interact in the development
of habits, attitudes, values, roles, and relationships, which express both the individual’s
traits and the press of the social environment. The components of FFT are familiar;
what is distinctive is the role assigned to each in personality functioning.
FFT originated in efforts to understand the extraordinary stability of personality
traits across periods of many years (Costa & McCrae, 1994a): Longitudinal research
had shown that decades of life experience appear to have little systematic impact on
basic personality traits. Combined with findings from behavior genetic studies that had
shown a powerful effect of genes and a vanishingly small effect of the shared envi-
ronment (Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997), these observations led to the proposal
that traits are endogenous dispositions, relatively untouched by life experience. That
theory certainly explains the findings of longitudinal stability and heritability; in this
chapter we consider how well it squares with cross-cultural results, and what it suggests
for future research on personality and culture.

303
R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures, 303-321. © 2002
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
304 ALLIK & MCCRAE

Figure 1. A representation of the personality system, with categories of variables,

specific examples, and arrows indicating causal pathways.
Adapted from McCrae & Costa, 1999.

1.1. The Personality System

Figure 1 represents personality as a system. The chief inputs are Biological Bases and
External Influences—the organism and the environment. The ultimate output is labeled
the Objective Biography; it is the cumulative record of a person’s acts and experiences.
At any one point in time it represents the individual’s behavior. More novel and
interesting are the distinctions made within the system, specifically, the distinction
between Basic Tendencies and Characteristic Adaptations.
At issue is the definition of traits. Phenotypically, traits can be described as en-
during tendencies to think, feel, and behave in consistent ways: Extraverts talk a lot, in
many situations; conscientious people are methodical and persistent over long periods
of time. Some theorists have equated traits with the behavior itself (Buss & Craik,
1983); others have identified traits as broad habits that account for consistencies in
behavior (Pervin, 1994). By contrast, FFT asserts that traits are much deeper constructs:
Basic Tendencies, rooted in biology, that are not directly accessible either to observa-
tion or to introspection. It is precisely because they are so deeply grounded in the
organism that they resist the shaping influences of the environment.
How, then, do they operate? According to FFT, they interact with the environment
in shaping those psychological structures that directly guide behavior: Habits, values,
plans, skills, scripts, schemas, relationships. These are called Characteristic Adapta-
tions; they are characteristic because they reflect the individual’s underlying disposi-
tions, and they are adaptations because they are designed to respond to the require-
ments of the environment. For example, an extravert might find that she enjoys talking
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 305

to people; learn the techniques of a good salesman; and take a job selling insurance.
What she does during most of the day is a direct reflection of her occupational role, but
indirectly it expresses her Extraversion.
Perhaps the most studied aspect of Characteristic Adaptations is the Self-Concept,
an acquired view of the self based on life experience and social feedback. It, too, can be
shaped by traits, as when an individual high in Neuroticism ignores his talents and
accomplishments and builds a self-image around his perceived faults. The Self-Concept
is of special significance because it is the source of information that people draw on
when completing personality questionnaires.

1.2. The “Dogma” of Endogenous Influences

Once the constructs are understood, most of FFT in not controversial: Who would
dispute, for example, that people develop value systems which help to guide behavior in
relevant situations? But FFT distinguishes itself from almost all other personality
theories by its claim that traits are strictly endogenous, changing only in response to
intrinsic maturation or other biological inputs. In addition to genes, these biological
influences include intrauterine hormones, brain injury and illness, psychopharma-
cological interventions, and aging processes.
McCrae and Costa (1999) do not suppose that this postulate is literally true—that
the environment never has any effect whatsoever on traits—but they do believe that it is
a parsimonious first approximation to the truth. It accounts for the stability of person-
ality in adulthood (McCrae & Costa, in press), the limited role of parental influence
(Rowe, 1994), even the existence of human-like personality traits in other animals
(Gosling, 2001).
Perhaps more important, it provides a clear basis for formulating testable
hypotheses. Almost any set of findings would be compatible with a theory that allows a
mix of biological and environmental influences. But the principle of strictly endo-
genous influences makes clear predictions and suggests novel interpretations in many
cases. It serves as a what Francis Crick (1990) called a scientific “dogma.” These “are
speculative and so may turn out to be wrong. Nevertheless, they help to organize more
positive and explicit hypotheses. If well formulated, they act as a guide through a
tangled jumble of theories. Without such a guide, any theory seems possible” (p. 109).
One characteristic feature of Crick’s dogmas is that they can be formulated in terms
of a fundamental prohibition. For example, one of the most basic dogmas of physics
postulates that no material particle can travel faster than the speed of light. Analo-
gously, the central dogma of molecular biology postulates that genetic information
flows only outward from DNA to RNA to protein. Although this postulate was
eventually proved wrong by the discovery of retroviruses, in which information is
transferred from RNA to DNA, it served as an exquisite guiding principle for the whole
field of molecular biology. The central dogma of FFT postulates that there is no
“transfer” from culture and life experience to basic personality traits. Postulating this as
a general heuristic principle stimulates the search for conditions—apparently not very
frequent ones—where this general postulate is violated. An analysis of these special
circumstances should lead to a deeper understanding of the origins of traits.
306 ALLIK & MCCRAE

1.3. FFT and Personality Assessment

Because traits are not directly observable, knowledge about their properties must be
inferred from information about people’s concrete habits, attitudes, preferences, and
social skills. In other words, personality traits can be assessed only through asking
questions about Characteristic Adaptations. Because Characteristic Adaptations are
shaped by both traits and the environment, these trait indicators are inherently fallible.
Belonging to a fundamentalist religion may be an indicator of experiential closedness
(Streyffeler & McNally, 1998), but it may also be the result of growing up in a
fundamentalist community. The general strategy for dealing with this ambiguity is by
averaging across a large pool of items, covering many different manifestations of a trait.
The relevant Characteristic Adaptations can be assessed by direct observation; or by
observer ratings, in which the acquired knowledge of the informant is utilized; or by
self-reports, which are based on the Self-Concept. 1 It is well-known that the Self-
Concept is not infallibly accurate, and personality researchers are painfully aware that
respondents are sometimes less than candid in their answers. Given the length of the
inferential chain from self-reports through the Self-Concept through Characteristic
Adaptations to Basic Tendencies, it is remarkable that personality measures work at all
(cf. Funder, 1989). But the success of trait psychology in predicting real life outcomes
(Barrick & Mount, 1991) and the convergence of personality scores across observers
(Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995) and separated twins (Tellegen et al., 1988) provide
ample evidence that they do.
When personality information has been gathered, it must be interpreted relative to
some normative group. If groups or individuals from two different cultures are to be
compared, an entirely new set of difficult issues arises. Is a given Characteristic Adap-
tation an equally valid trait indicator in two cultures? Praying five times a day would be
seen as strong evidence of piety in America, but means virtually nothing in Saudi
Arabia, where it is compulsory. Is the Self-Concept systematically biased? Americans
are said to self-enhance, whereas Japanese do not (Heine, Lehman, Markus, &
Kitayama, 1999). Lodhi, Deo, and Belhekar (2002) argue that socially desirable
responding is more pronounced in India than America, leading to inflated scores on
desirable personality traits. All these issues need to be borne in mind when considering
cross-cultural comparisons.
In principle, FFT offers a way around all these difficulties: One could measure the
biological bases and infer trait levels from these. At present, we do not know what the
underlying biology is, nor have we made much demonstrable progress since 1967,
when Eysenck published his landmark volume. If and when the genes or neuropsychic
structures or neurohormones that underlie personality traits are identified, it will lead to
a revolution in personality assessment with profound implications for cross-cultural
comparisons.

1
When we ask respondents to tell us directly about their traits, as on adjective rating scales, we are asking
them to make inferences based on their knowledge of their Characteristic Adaptations. People do not have
direct, intuitive knowledge of their trait standing.
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 307

2. PERSONALITY-AND-CULTURE RESEARCH

The classic field of culture and personality research, as practiced by such anthro-
pologists as Benedict, Mead, and Linton, was based on the premise that culture shaped
personality, largely through child-reading practices. It may seem that by denying the
direct influence of culture on personality traits, FFT has abandoned interest in the
personality-and-culture relationship. But traits can be expressed only in interaction with
the environment, by developing Characteristic Adaptations that change over time in res-
ponse to biological maturation and changes in the environment. The interaction of
personality traits with the cultural environment constitutes a major subject for person-
ality-and-culture research, but a different set of questions arise in the framework of
FFT: How do different personality types adapt to various cultures? How do specific
personality traits support cultural practices in the societies in which people live? Can
cultures speed up or slow down the intrinsic course of maturation? Perhaps most
crucially, FFT makes it reasonable to reverse the classic causal scheme and ask if
personality traits in the aggregate and over time can shape culture. Would a society of
introverts develop different customs and traditions than a society of extraverts?
In an effort to systematize these kinds of questions, McCrae (2000) proposed that
analyses could be conducted on three levels. Transcultural analyses look for universals
in personality that transcend cultural differences. Intracultural analyses examine the
specific expression of traits in a given culture; in the language of FFT, they are
concerned with cultural differences in Characteristic Adaptations. Intercultural analyses
compare cultures on aggregate trait characteristics (typically means), and study their
relations to features of culture. Rolland’s (2002) chapter on the generalizability of the
FFM is a clear instance of a transcultural analysis; Konstable, Realo, and Kallasmaa’s
(2002) search for variations in trait structure is an intercultural analysis. Lima (2002)
discusses boredom as a typically Portuguese manifestation of high Neuroticism (N)
and low Extraversion (E) in what might be considered an intracultural analysis.

2.1. Transcultural Evidence Supporting FFT

Transcultural analyses are most directly relevant to an evaluation of FFT. If, as FFT
asserts, N, E, Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness
(C) are biologically-based aspects of human nature, then they must be universal: One
species, one structure. A decade ago that would have been a doubtful proposition at best
(Juni, 1996), but a variety of studies have now made it clear that, even with imperfect
measuring instruments, the FFM can be detected in all cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997;
Paunonen, 1996). Related individual difference variables, such as emotions (Yik,
Russell, Ahn, Fernandes Dols, & Suzuki, 2002) and values (Schwartz, 1992) also
appear to be universal, perhaps in part because they are related to species-wide Basic
Tendencies.
Studies in the United States show that there are small but consistent changes in the
mean levels of personality traits across the adult life span. When college students are
compared to older adults, adults score higher on A and C but lower on N, E, and O
(Costa & McCrae, 1994b). These changes cannot be attributed to cohort differences,
308 ALLIK & MCCRAE

because similar trends can be observed in longitudinal studies (e.g., McGue, Bacon, &
Lykken, 1993). According to FFT, these are intrinsic maturational changes, tied to
some kind of biological clock. If so, then they ought to be observed everywhere; and in
fact, cross-cultural studies have revealed the same patterns of development in very
different cultures, including several non-Western societies (Costa, McCrae et al., 2000;
McCrae et al., 1999). These are particularly impressive findings because different
countries have had different recent histories that might have been expected to leave
distinctive marks on successive cohorts. But personality traits are transhistorical as well
as transcultural: Chinese generations that endured the Cultural Revolution show the
same age differences as middle-class Americans (Yang, McCrae, & Costa, 1998).
Lynn and Martin (1997) noted that women obtained higher mean scores on N in all
37 nations where the results of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire were available.
Men scored higher than women on E in 30 countries and on Psychoticism in 34
countries. Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality Inventory data from 26
cultures (total N = 23,031) confirmed that women report themselves to be higher in N
and A, whereas men are higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas (Costa,
Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001). These findings are clearly consistent with the univer-
sality demanded by FFT. However, that study also showed that the magnitude of sex
differences was smaller in traditional cultures (e.g., Zimbabwe) than in modern,
progressive nations (e.g., Belgium). That finding, initially counterintuitive, cannot be
directly explained by FFT, but it is not necessarily inconsistent with it. Costa et al.
(2001) argued that the effect might be accounted for by attribution processes: In
traditional cultures, men and women attribute their masculine and feminine traits to role
requirements, and thus do not incorporate them into their Self-Concepts. FFT predicts
that observers from outside traditional cultures (and thus not prone to the same
attribution error) would rate traditional women as clearly higher in N and A than their
male compatriots. This is a testable hypothesis derived from FFT.

2.2. A Political Experiment

FFT makes the bold claim that environmental interventions cannot alter personality
traits (although they can certainly change Characteristic Adaptations and the resulting
behavior). But changing human nature has long been a goal of religions and govern-
ments, and many political systems have tried to create a new type of personality to fit
their ideological objectives. How successful have these experiments been? In this
respect it is very instructive to compare people living in Eastern and Western Germany,
because between 1945 and 1989 they lived under dramatically different political
systems. Did Communist control of education, law, the mass media, and the economy
result in a new Homo Sovieticus in the German Democratic Republic? If so, it should be
possible to detect differences between East and West German personality profiles. Note
that this is an elegant natural experiment: Before 1945, the “participants” shared a
common ancestry, language, culture, and history; they were assigned to one of two
conditions by accidents of geography that must have approximated randomization.
When Anglietner and Ostendorf (2000) administered the German NEO-PI-R to large
(Ns = 2,174; 5,234) Eastern and Western German samples, they found identical factor
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 309

structures. More tellingly, they also showed very similar mean levels: East Germans
scored about one-fifth standard deviation lower than West Germans on O, but did not
differ on any of the other factors. These surprising findings are precisely what FFT
would predict.

3. FFT AND INTERCULTURAL COMPARISONS

Analyses at the intercultural level compare cultures with respect to traits and seek
associations between traits and features of culture. Most often, mean levels of traits
have been the focus of interest, but one could also ask about cultural differences in
standard deviations of trait scores (McCrae, 2002), or in the alignment of factors
(Konstabel et al., 2002). FFT does not make direct predictions about intercultural
comparisons. Nothing in the theory leads one to expect that Russians will be higher in
N than Swedes, or that mean national level of E should be associated with cultural
individualism. But FFT does provide a way of interpreting whatever findings are
observed, and these interpretations are, in principle, subject to empirical test.
As Poortinga, Van de Vijver, and Van Hemert (2002) make clear, intercultural
comparisons are fraught with interpretive perils. There are many reasons why raw
scores on translations of an instrument might not be comparable, and most psycho-
logists do not gather probability samples that would be truly representative of the
cultures they hope to compare. Nevertheless, as McCrae (2002) has shown, compari-
sons of available data produce meaningful, often striking, results. We will discuss three
of them—culture-level factor structure, cultural correlates, and geographical distribu-
tion—from the perspective of FFT. First, however, we need to address the problem of
national character as it bears on the interpretation of scores.

3.1. Judgments of National Character

If there are systematic differences in the levels of personality traits in different cultures,
one might expect that they would have been noticed by now. And in fact, people have
long claimed that societies can be described in terms of distinctive national characters.
Descriptions of national character might be based on scholarly study (e.g., Benedict,
1946), or might simply reflect popular prejudice. National stereotypes are often shared
by nations and their neighbors (Peabody, 1985), and they are very resistant to change
(Peabody & Shmelyov, 1996).
Until recently, the accuracy of judgments of national character could not be
assessed, because there was no standard (other than consensus) against which they
could be evaluated. But the personality data described in this volume give at least one
way to judge accuracy: Do perceptions of national character correspond to mean levels
of personality traits?
McCrae (2001) asked eight prominent cross-cultural psychologists to identify the
personality factor that had been used to rank 26 cultures based on their mean NEO-PI-R
scores. He asked, for example, which personality factor is lowest among Hong Kong
Chinese and South Koreans, but highest among Norwegians and Americans? Rather
surprisingly, these experts all considered this a difficult task and were unable to identify
310 ALLIK & MCCRAE

factors at a better-than-chance level.

H⊆ebí ková et al. (2002) searched the literature for speculations about the national
character of Czechs, Poles, and Slovaks, but these characterizations did not agree well
with the means of self-reported data. For example, contrary to the belief that Polish
people are traditional and closed, Polish adolescents rated themselves as most open in
comparison with Czechs and Slovaks. On the other hand, Lima (2002) found some
support for writers’ views of the Portuguese in the mean levels of her NEO-PI-R data.
The most focused and systematic attempt to compare national stereotypes with the
means of self-reported personality traits was undertaken by Church and Katigbak
(2002). In this study, 43 judges who had lived in both the Philippines and the United
States for a considerable time, rated whether Filipinos or Americans would tend to
show a particular trait more. These bicultural judges were in high agreement with each
another, but were not consistent with the mean NEO-PI-R profiles.
It is possible to fault the methodology of these studies. McCrae’s (2001) judges may
not have been familiar with all 26 cultures; Church’s trait descriptions may not have
matched the NEO-PI-R constructs exactly. But the strong preponderance of negative
findings suggests that mean trait levels and national stereotypes are not alternative
measures of the same construct. Why not? What do they each represent?
One attractive interpretation is to discount beliefs about national character as a form
of mythology (cf. Pennebaker, Rime, & Blankenship, 1996). National stereotypes may
be historical accidents, or self-serving attributions, or totems that serve the function of
cementing group identity, rather than veridical accounts of aggregate personality traits.
Indeed, it seems unrealistic to expect that people could reach correct judgments of mean
personality profiles. The measured differences are rather small for most traits, and it
may be impossible for individuals to perceive them accurately (Stricker, 2000). It is
unclear how individuals make a composite judgment of a large body of people (most of
whom they have never met), and we have long known that statistical predictions are
more accurate than clinical judgments (Meehl, 1954) and do not necessarily agree with
them.
On the other hand, Church and Katigbak (2002) make a good point when they note
that “the backgrounds of our bicultural judges would seem to be fairly ideal for their
task. Thus, if their judgments of average cultural differences are not valid, it is not clear
whose judgments would be” (p. 149). Echoing cautions raised by Poortinga et al.
(2002), they conclude from these findings that mean level comparisons across cultures
must be viewed with skepticism.
The research agenda here is clear. Replications of Church and Katigbak’s study
should be conducted in a wide variety of cultures. That information would allow a
definitive test of the concordance of mean levels and national stereotypes, but it would
also allow far more informative analyses. For example, it might be the case that certain
domains or facets consistently show convergence, whereas other do not; a comparison
of the two might suggest reasons. National stereotypes, gathered within the compre-
hensive framework of the Five-Factor Model, could also be used in intercultural
comparisons: Are they geographically ordered? Do they have culture-level correlates?
Finally, one could test the relative predictive utility of judgments and assessed means:
Which tells us more about industrial production or rates of homicide or artistic styles?
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 311

Pending a resolution of these issues, we can return to a consideration of measured mean

trait scores and their interpretation from the perspective of FFT.

3.2. The Culture-Level Factor Structure

McCrae (2001, 2002) reported culture-level factor analyses of NEO-PI-R facet scores.
In these analyses, aggregate data from college age and adult men and women were
treated as cases. The resulting factors reflect the covariation of traits across cultures. As
Bond (2001) has noted, there is no logical requirement that this structure will have any
resemblance to the factor structure observed when individual data are analyzed. We
might, for example, find that cultures tend to promote either emotional or intellectual
approaches to exploring the world, but not both. In that case, a culture-level factor
might emerge contrasting Openness to Feeling with Openness to Ideas—traits that are
positively related at the individual level.
In fact, however, the observed culture-level factors closely resemble individual-
level factors, and can readily be interpreted as N, E, O, A, and C. There are three
possible explanations for this intriguing finding, and all deserve attention.

Artifact. A first possibility is that mean trait levels do not in fact covary meaningfully
across cultures; instead, the observed factor structure results from the operation of
response biases. For example, all the Neuroticism items of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) are keyed in the positive direction; an
intercultural factor analysis of those items might uncover a factor resembling N simply
because cultures vary systematically on acquiescent response tendencies. That interpre-
tation cannot be applied to the NEO-PI-R, however, because all scales (in all
translations) are roughly balanced to control the effects of acquiescence. Again, as
discussed in McCrae (2002), extreme versus neutral responding is unlikely to explain
either mean levels or covariation of traits.
Social desirability, however, is a more promising candidate. Lodhi, Deo, and
Belhekar (2002) suggest that high A scores among Marathi-speaking Indians might be
due to socially desirable responding. If social desirability affects all—and only—facets
of A, then cultural variation on this response tendency would tend to create an A factor.
It is possible that this accounts in part for the observed structure, but it cannot account
for it completely. If intercultural factor structure were nothing but social desirability,
we would expect a single evaluative factor (contrasting N with E, O, A, and C) or
perhaps two factors, corresponding to Positive Valence (E and O) and Negative
Valence (N vs. A and C; McCrae & Costa, 1999). There is no obvious way in which
familiar response styles could give rise to the culture-level FFM.

Cultural mechanisms. The culture-level factor structure could be the result of cultural
influences that mimic sources of structure at the individual level (McCrae, Jang,
Livesley, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2001). In this interpretation, differences in trait levels
across cultures are real, and they are created by cultural processes. For example, Open-
ness to Ideas and Openness to Feelings may covary because some cultures encourage
312 ALLIK & MCCRAE

Openness in general, whereas others discourage it. Indeed, the appearance of a culture-
level FFM seems to imply that any cultural influences must operate on a factor-by-
factor basis. Perhaps the same child-rearing practices that foster need for achievement
also encourage caution and deliberation, leading to high C; perhaps the same kinship
systems that inhibit gregariousness also inhibit cheerfulness, leading to low E.
It must be stressed that, at present, no one has demonstrated that child-rearing
practices or kinship systems or any other features of culture in fact influence the mean
levels of traits. Rohner and colleagues (e.g., Rohner & Britner, 2002) have gathered an
impressive array of evidence to show that perceived parental rejection is associated
with poorer psychological adjustment around the world, but the causal order is not
clear: Perhaps individuals high in N misperceive their parents to have been rejecting
even when they were not; perhaps parents of high N children come to reject them
because they are so difficult. These alternative interpretations are consistent with FFT,
which provides another explanation for the factor structure.

Endogenous influences. A simple explanation for the culture-level FFM can be derived
from FFT. People living in the same culture by and large share a common ancestry, and
thus genetic similarity. The alleles that shape personality factors may be more common
in some of these populations than others, and we know from studies of individuals that
facets that define the same factor are genetically related (McCrae et al., 2001). Thus,
the Agreeableness factor emerges in culture-level analyses because societies differ in
the distribution of Agreeableness-related genes.
Poortinga et al. (2002) have argued that a genetic explanation for group differences
in personality traits is unlikely, because there is no compelling reason why certain traits
would be differentially selected in different groups. But Tooby and Cosmides (1990)
have hypothesized that, within the normal range, personality traits are of no evolu-
tionary significance, and are thus perpetuated as genetic noise. Random fluctuations in
personality-related genes in ancestral populations may have been preserved and
transmitted to contemporary cultures.

3.3. Cultural Correlates

If culture does not affect the mean levels of personality traits, then we might find no
association between features of culture and mean levels of traits. Indeed, this is
precisely what Angleitner and Ostendorf (2000) reported when they examined the
former East and West Germanys. Long-standing differences in religion, educational
policies, and political ideology had no lasting impact on NEO-PI-R scores. But that
situation was imposed on the people of Germany by conquering nations. Where insti-
tutions and customs have evolved naturally, some association is possible, according to
FFT, because personality traits may help shape culture.
Consider, for example, the correlations McCrae (2002) reported for Hofstede’s
(2001) Power Distance dimension. Groups low in E and O and high in C scored high on
Power Distance, implying that their members had a high tolerance for status differences
and preferred a hierarchical structure in society, with some people giving orders and
some taking them. This would appear to be a natural social organization for people who
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 313

are closed and conscientious, because it is both predictable and efficient. The prepon-
derance of introverts would also be consistent with the fact that in hierarchical
organizations there are always more people taking orders than giving them—a situation
more tolerable for introverts than extraverts.
It remains to be seen how such fit between aggregate personality and social struc-
ture develops. Presumably trial and error is involved; structures that work well are
retained, whereas those that do not are discarded. Social structures may develop on
small scales, perhaps within the family, and become a model for larger organizational
patterns (as filial piety became the model for ministers’ relations to the emperor in
Confucian societies; Gabrenya & Hwang, 1996).
There is one way, consistent with FFT, that cultural patterns could contribute to the
personality profiles of nations: Individuals may be selected in or out. Extraverts lost in
the lower levels of a hierarchy in a high Power Distance society may decide to try their
luck elsewhere; individuals low in C may be forced out. Draguns, Krylova, Oryol,
Rukavishnikov, and Martin (2000) speculated that the closedness and introversion of
their reindeer-herding sample may have been due to self-selection, as more adventurous
members of the group left for more interesting climates. It is known that extraverts are
more susceptible to boredom and higher in excitement seeking than introverts, and thus
perhaps more willing to take the risks of emigration. Lynn (1981) noted that nations
like Australia, Canada, and the United States, whose populations are almost entirely
made up of relatively recent immigrants, tend to have higher E scores than the Euro-
pean countries from which the emigrants largely came. The effects of self-selection
were not seen in Angleitner and Ostendorf’s (2000) study of East Germany, presumably
because it was infamously prohibited.
We wish to make it clear that we are not claiming that personality traits are the only
or even the most important influence on social structure and other cultural patterns.
Obviously, climate, economics, religion, and the fortunes of war all have powerful
influences on customs and institutions and on the resulting conduct of life. Only over
long time periods and in favorable circumstances would one expect to see effects of
aggregate personality traits.

3.4. The Geography of Personality

Although the Hofstede dimensions are linked to a wide variety of outcomes and
national characteristics, they are ultimately based on self-report responses, and it might
be argued that response biases create the correlations with personality measures. The
same shared social desirability biases that lead people in some cultures to describe
themselves as conscientious may also lead them to endorse high Power Distance values.
It would be useful to have correlates that entirely avoid issues of method variance.
Geographical location is one, and several studies have shown that personality traits
are organized geographically. Costa et al. (2001) reported that European countries
differed from Asian and African countries in the degree of gender differentiation.
McCrae (2002) showed a similar pattern with trait variances, which are larger in
Europe. Allik and McCrae (2001) showed more detailed associations between psycho-
logical and physical proximity. They used cluster analysis to identify similarities among
314 ALLIK & MCCRAE

personality profiles in 26 cultures. Pairs of cultures with closest profiles included Spain
and Portugal, Indonesia and the Philippines, Zimbabwe and Black South Africa, and
Taiwan and South Korea. These associations are remarkable when it is considered that
different languages and often different sampling methods were used in each country.
Geographically adjacent cultures often share both geophysical features, like climate,
and cultural features, like religion or language family. In addition, however, they are
likely to share ancestry and thus to have overlapping gene pools (Cavalli-Sforza,
Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Psychologists in general have a long-standing bias toward
environmental explanations, and most would probably favor a cultural account of these
findings. But FFT holds that the genetic similarities are the more likely sources of
personality similarities, and as we have seen, FFT is strongly supported by several lines
of evidence, including many of the findings of cross-cultural studies.
A direct test of this view provides modest support. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994)
provide data on genetic distances between cultures, which are determined by similarity
in the distribution of a variety of alleles. By and large, these genetic distances cor-
respond to known patterns of human migration. From the data in Table 3 of McCrae
(2002) we can calculate personality profile distances, most simply as the Euclidean
distance between the five factor scores. Genetic distances are given by Cavalli-Sforza et
al. for 16 of the cultures in McCrae; the correlation between genetic and personality
profile distances across the 120 pairs of cultures is r = .19, p < .05. When Yugoslavia,
which is identified as an outlier by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994, p. 268), is omitted, the
correlation rises to r = .24, N = 105, p < .05. These correlations are modest in part
because there is relatively little genetic differentiation within European countries, and
correspondingly little variation in mean personality levels. If the analysis were con-
ducted on samples from around the world, larger associations would probably be found.
Of course, even very large correlations would not prove causal associations.
Genetically related groups tend to share geography, history, and culture as well as
genes, and genetic distance may simply serve as a marker of cultural distance.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

It is not possible to discuss the idea of genetic differences among human groups without
acknowledging the potential for its misuse. Historically, traits attributed to despised
minorities have been used to justify enforced sterilization, slavery, and genocide. It is
common to ascribe undesirable traits to members of other cultures, but to suggest that
they are genetically based seems further to imply that there is no hope that they will
change. In this way, psychology may unwillingly give ammunition to racists.
If there were no mean level differences in traits across cultures, or if the data were
clearly uninterpretable, we would have been spared the task of dealing with these
issues. But there are meaningful differences, and it is scientifically possible, even
likely, that these are due in some degree to genetics. Personality psychologists need to
learn how to evaluate such claims cautiously but thoroughly, and to begin to deal with
the ethical implications if they are in fact supported. It is probably only a matter of time
before someone identifies a gene linked to a trait and demonstrates that the distribution
of the gene alleles differs across cultures (cf. Gelernter, Kranzler, & Satel, 1999).
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 315

Questions will then arise about the implications for social behavior, and if we
psychologists are not prepared to answer them, someone else will—someone who may
be less scientifically informed, and perhaps less well-intentioned, than we are.
Any suggestion that there may be biologically-based differences in personality
between two groups should be properly qualified, noting the limitations of the available
evidence. That is, of course, true of any scientific conclusion, but special care is needed
here. FFT suggests that different personality profiles across cultures may result from
differences in the distribution of trait-related alleles. But that is only one possible
interpretation of the evidence, and we must be clear that the question is far from settled.
In justifying intercultural comparisons, McCrae (2002) relied on the principle that
errors in some datasets are likely to average out when comparisons are made across a
range of cultures. This is a reasonable assumption, but it must be kept in mind that the
resulting conclusions apply only at a general level. There is considerable evidence that
Asian cultures are lower in Extraversion than European cultures, but the evidence that
Chinese are less extraverted than Danes is much weaker.
Any discussion of cultural differences must also point out the magnitude of the
effects and the range of individual differences within cultures. The factor means in
McCrae (2002) have standard deviations ranging from 2.65 to 3.72 T-score points, or
about one-third the magnitude of individual differences within cultures. Even if our
characterizations of cultures’ personality profiles were perfectly accurate, knowing a
person’s culture would tell us rather little about his or her own personality profile.
Stereotypes should not be applied to individuals.
Finally, it must be emphasized that behavior, the Objective Biography, is not deter-
mined solely or even principally by personality traits. Since the person–situation debate,
personality psychologists have been sensitized to the fact that traits typically account
for only a small portion of the variance in behaviors. This is a fortiori true of aggregate
personality traits and the behavior of groups. If we judged Vietnamese Americans by
their low C scores, we might anticipate poor performance in school and at work; in fact,
because of their cultural background, they have succeeded admirably (Leininger, 2002).

4. CHALLENGES TO FIVE-FACTOR THEORY

Not all cross-cultural findings offer clear support to FFT—indeed, some appear flatly to
contradict it. An examination of these cases is likely to be particularly informative
about FFT and the interpretations of cross-cultural results that it suggests. Two of the
most important are cohort effects and secular trends, and effects of acculturation on
personality traits. At present, neither line of research provides decisive evidence against
FFT, but both pose clear challenges.

4.1. Birth Cohort Effects and Secular Trends

Societies and cultures are not frozen; they continuously change and evolve. For ex-
ample, in the United States each successive generation during the last fifty years spent
less time reading newspapers, working on community projects, and visiting their
friends, and more time watching television (Putnam, 2000). Similar changes can be
316 ALLIK & MCCRAE

observed all over the world where people have, in the last few decades, become sub-
jectively happier, less concerned about money, and somewhat less obedient to tradi-
tional authorities (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Do these global societal
changes affect personality traits?
There are some hints that they might. McCrae (2002) reported on the similarity of
personality scores across gender and across age groups. Mean levels on the five factors
were strongly correlated when men were compared with women of the same age and
culture (rs = .77 to .88); the correlations were weaker when adults were compared with
college-age samples (rs = .48 to .81). These smaller correlations might be due to cohort
effects that vary by culture. 2
Adult developmentalists (Schaie & Labouvie-Vief, 1974) have long been con-
cerned with generational effects, which have been shown to have a powerful influence
on cognitive functioning. Until recently, personality traits appeared to be largely
immune to cohort effects: Age differences in the mean levels of adult personality traits
are small, and can be accounted for by known maturational changes in trait levels
(McCrae & Costa, in press). But Twenge (2000, 2001) has recently reported meta-
analyses that claim to find dramatic cohort effects on N and E: American college
students have increased in both N and E by nearly a full standard deviation over the
past half century.
If these findings are not artifactual, they appear to constitute a falsification of the
dogma of endogenous influences. Changes in population genetics over the past fifty
years are not sufficient to account for such large effects, and it seems unlikely that
changes in health or diet would increase N and E (although they have had profound
effects on physical characteristics such as stature in the period since the Industrial
Revolution; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994). The source would seem to be the psychological
impact of the environment.
But Twenge’s data are puzzling. Cross-sectional studies of adults born in the same
time period as the subjects in her analyses ought to show profound age differences:
Later-born (and thus younger) men and women ought to be much more extraverted and
neurotic. In fact, the differences, although in the right direction, are tiny in magnitude
(Costa et al., 1986), and replicate tiny longitudinal increases (Costa, Herbst, McCrae, &
Siegler, 2000). If the cohort effects reported by Twenge in college students actually
occurred, they seem to have evaporated by the time the students reached adulthood.
Artifactual explanations are also possible. Most of the studies Twenge (2000)
reviewed used the Eysenck N scales, which are keyed exclusively in the positive direc-
tion. If acquiescence became more widespread over the past half-century, that could
account for the findings. Again, changes may have occurred in social desirability.
Perhaps admitting to signs of anxiety or depression was less acceptable in the 1950s
than in the 1990s. Until all these possibilities are sorted out, the question of cohort
effects will remain a mystery.

2
However, they might also be due to sampling biases. Men and women were always sampled from the
same population (e.g., all were college students, or all were community members), whereas the two age
groups might represent somewhat different populations (e.g., students vs. community members).
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 317

4.2. Acculturation Studies

Most cross-cultural studies cannot shed light on the relative importance of nature and
nurture in personality development, because most societies consist of individuals who
share both biological ancestry and culture. Acculturation studies, however, offer a way
to unconfound these two: Immigrants are often assimilated into a new culture long be-
fore they lose their genetic ethnic identity. According to FFT, ancestry ought to be more
important than the current social environment in shaping personality dispositions.
Leininger (2002) touches on possible acculturation effects in her Vietnamese-
American sample, but the design is not ideal. Because data are not available from
respondents in Vietnam, the only possible comparisons are between two generations of
Vietnamese Americans and between subsamples who live in traditional versus Ameri-
canized communities, and these comparisons are complicated by age differences and
the possibilities of self-selection.
Although there is a large literature on the psychology of acculturation, there appears
to be only a single study in which individuals of the same age but different levels of
acculturation are compared on personality traits. 3 McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, and
Paulhus (1998) examined personality profiles in Chinese undergraduates in Hong Kong
and Vancouver. Recent immigrants to Canada closely resembled their compatriots in
Hong Kong. Ethnic Chinese born in Canada also shared many feature of the Hong
Kong personality profile: Compared to European Canadians, they scored higher on
Anxiety, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability, and lower on Assertiveness, Activity,
and Excitement Seeking. These findings are consistent with FFT and its emphasis on
endogenous determinants of personality.
But there were also significant acculturation effects. Canadian-born Chinese were
higher than recent immigrants in E, O, and A when self-reports of personality were
examined; when rated by Chinese acquaintances, the effects were replicated for E and
O, and for the Trust, Altruism, and Tender-Mindedness facets of A.
Analyses of self-report data also suggested acculturation effects for Vulnerability,
which was higher for recent immigrants, and Competence, which was lower. That
finding was not replicated in peer rating data. The resolution of this discrepancy was
found when the data were analyzed by the status of the rater: Peer raters who were
recent immigrants from Hong Kong rated targets higher in Vulnerability and lower in
Competence regardless of the target’s place of birth. It appears that these two facets are
susceptible to social judgment effects. Hong Kong residents appear to have a different,
and harsher, standard by which to judge Competence. What changes with acculturation
is not standing on the real personality trait, but the standards by which it is judged.
Social standards are, of course, Characteristic Adaptations, and their modification by
culture is understandable within FFT.
The increases in E (especially Warmth, Excitement-Seeking, and Positive Emo-
tions), O, and facets of A cannot be explained by the social judgment mechanism, and
constitute a challenge to FFT. If we wish to retain FFT without modification, we would
need to interpret these changes as artifacts. One possibility is that the individual items

3
Tsai and Pike (2000) examined acculturation effects on MMPI-2 clinical scales, and found that more
acculturated Asians more closely resembled Americans.
318 ALLIK & MCCRAE

of the NEO-PI-R have a different significance in different cultural contexts: Perhaps the
Characteristic Adaptations we assess do not have quite the same implications for
inferring Basic Tendencies in Hong Kong and in Canada. A plausible example of this is
altruistic behavior. Being helpful to strangers is a clear indicator of Agreeableness in
individualistic cultures, but not in collectivistic cultures (McCrae et al., 1998). There,
resources are saved for the family or other in-group members. The same amount of
generosity may be present in the two cultures, but it is distributed differently. In this
interpretation, Chinese do not become more agreeable with time in Canada; they simply
express their Agreeableness in a more Canadian way.
That proposal saves the dogma of endogenous origins, but at the cost of conceding
that the personality profiles collected across cultures are subject to distortions. 4 It is, of
course, not surprising that some distortions appear when an instrument is translated and
imported into a very different context; the question is, how serious are they? The errors
cannot be both large and random, rendering the data meaningless, or else we would not
find culture-level correlates. And if the distortions are small, then they can probably be
safely disregarded.
It is possible, however, that the distortions are large and systematic, and that culture-
level correlates are spurious. What, aside from real differences, could account for the
fact that Europeans portray themselves as extraverts, whereas Asians respond like
introverts? Perhaps E is more highly valued in individualistic cultures; or perhaps
attribution is the mechanism (cf. Costa et al., 2001): Asians living in close social groups
may attribute sociability not to themselves, but to their collectivistic circumstances.
They may act like extraverts, but believe it is their duty rather than their disposition.
An alternative solution to the problems posed by the McCrae et al. (1998) study is to
modify FFT, by acknowledging that some External Influences can affect personality
traits. Culture in fact refers to a huge class of External Influences that affect every
aspect of one’s life. It is not implausible to think that so pervasive and powerful an
environmental manipulation as acculturation could reshape one’s Basic Tendencies.
The problem would be to determine which aspects of acculturation are operative. Most
of the events one experiences in a lifetime do not appreciably change personality traits
(McCrae & Costa, in press)—why would changing cultures?
This chain of speculations illustrates the kind of thinking that must go on as we
progress in understanding personality and culture. But it would be absurd to reach any
conclusions based on a single study. Acculturation studies are powerful tools, but we
will be in a much better position to use them when we have a broad body of research on
which to reflect.

REFERENCES
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). The geography of personality traits: Patterns of trait profiles across 26
cultures. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tartu.
Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (2000, July). The FFM: A comparison of German speaking countries
(Austria, Former East and West Germany, and Switzerland). Paper presented at the XXVIIth Interna-
tional Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.

4
Indeed, from the perspective of a Five-Factor Theory purist, data for different ethnic groups should probably
be collected only from third-generation Americans, who would all interpret the items in American fashion.
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 319

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Bond, M. H. (2001). Surveying the foundations: Approaches to measuring group, organizational, and national
variation. In M. Erez & U. Kleinbeck (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy
(pp. 395-412). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90,
105-126.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2002). The Five-Factor Model in the Philippines: Investigating trait
structure and levels across cultures. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model across
cultures (pp. 129-154). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C. (2000). Personality at midlife: Stability,
intrinsic maturation, and response to life events. Assessment, 7, 365-378.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994a). “Set like plaster”? Evidence for the stability of adult personality.
In T. Heatherton & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21-40). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994b). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through
adulthood. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of
temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Senin, I. G., Rukavishnikov, A. A., Shimonaka,
Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., Takayama, M., Allik, J., Kallasmaa, T., & Realo, A. (2000). Personality
development from adolescence through adulthood: Further cross-cultural comparisons of age differences.
In V. J. Molfese & D. Molfese (Eds.), Temperament and personality development across the life span
(pp. 235-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986).
Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Openness. Psychology and Aging, 1, 144-149.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Crick, F. (1990). What mad pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery. London: Penguin.
Draguns, J. R., Krylova, A. V., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., & Martin, T. A. (2000). Personality
characteristics of the Nentsy in the Russian Arctic. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 126-140.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975 ). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego:
EdITS.
Funder, D. C. (1989). Accuracy in personality judgment and the dancing bear. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor
(Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 210-223). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interper-
sonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656-
672.
Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., & Hwang, K.-K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the
Good Earth. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309-321). Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Gelernter, J., Kranzler, H., & Satel, S. L. (1999). No association between D-2 dopamine receptor (DRD2)
alleles or haplotypes and cocaine dependence or severity of cocaine dependence in European- and
African-Americans. Biological Psychiatry 45, 340-345.
Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research?
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 45-86.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-
regard? Psychological Bulletin, 106, 766-794.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
320 ALLIK & MCCRAE

H⊆ebí ková, M., Urbánek, T., ermak, I., Szarota, P., Ficková, E., & Orlická, L. (2002). The NEO Five-
Factor Inventory in Czech, Polish, and Slovak contexts. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-
Factor Model across cultures (pp. 53-78). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43
societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional
values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.
Juni, S. (1996). Review of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.),
12th Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 863-868). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Konstabel, K., Realo, A., & Kallasmaa, T. (2002). Exploring the sources of variations in the structure of
personality traits across cultures. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model across
cultures (pp. 29-52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Leininger, A. (2002). Vietnamese-American personality and acculturation: An exploration of relationships
between personality traits and cultural goals. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model
across cultures (pp. 197-225). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Lima, M. P. (2002). Personality and culture: The Portuguese case. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The
Five-Factor Model across cultures (pp. 249-260). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing.
Lodhi, P. H., Deo, S., & Belhekar, V. M. (2002). The Five-Factor Model of personality: Measurement and
correlates in the Indian context. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model across
cultures (pp. 227-248). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Lynn, R. (1981). Cross-cultural differences in Neuroticism, Extraversion and Psychoticism. In R. Lynn (Ed.),
Dimensions of personality: Papers in honor of H. J. Eysenck (pp. 263-286). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender differences in Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism in 37
countries. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 369-373.
McCrae, R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personality and culture studies. American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10-31.
McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Person-
ality, 69, 819-846.
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 across cultures (pp. 105-126). New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical
contexts for the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51-87). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psycho-
logist, 52, 509-516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139-153). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (in press). Personality in adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective.
New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Maru©i , I., Bratko,
D., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J.-H., & Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Age differences in person-
ality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35, 466-477.
McCrae, R. R., Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2001). Sources of structure:
Genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of
Personality, 69, 511-535.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal
of Personality, 60, 175-215.
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.
McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality stability and change in early adulthood: A
behavioral genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 29, 96-109.
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Paunonen, S. V., Keinonen, M., Trzebinski, J., Forsterling, F., Grishenko-Roze, N., Kouznetsova, L., Chan,
D. W. (1996). The structure of personality in six cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27,
 FIVE-FACTOR THEORY PERSPECTIVE 321

339-353.
Peabody, D. (1985). National characteristics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peabody, D., & Shmelyov, A. G. (1996). Psychological characteristics of Russians. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 26, 507-512.
Pennebaker, J. W., Rime, B., & Blankenship, V. E. (1996). Stereotypes of emotional expressiveness of
Northerners and Southerners: A cross-cultural test of Montesquieu’s hypotheses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 372-380.
Pervin, L. A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103-113.
Poortinga, Y. H., Van de Vijver, F., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2002). Cross-cultural equivalence of the Big Five:
A tenative interpretation of the evidence. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model
across cultures (pp. 281-302). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A
study of twins reared together using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65,
449-475.
Rohner, R. P., & Britner, P. A. (2002). Worldwide mental health correlates of parental acceptance-rejection:
Review of cross-cultural and intracultural evidence. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Compara-
tive Social Science, 36, 15-47.
Rolland, J.-P. (2002). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of personality. In R. R.
McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model across cultures (pp. 7-28). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Rowe, D. C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York: Guilford.
Schaie, K. W., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1974). Generational vs. ontogenetic components of change in adult
cognitive behavior: A fourteen-year cross-sequential study. Developmental Psychology, 10, 305-320.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical
tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-
65). New York: Academic Press.
Streyffeler, L. L., & McNally, R. J. (1998). Fundamentalists and liberals: Personality characteristics of
Protestant Christians. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 579-580.
Stricker, L. A. (2000). Using just noticeable differences to interpret test scores. Psychological Methods, 5,
415-424.
Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988). Personality
similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031-
1039.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual:
The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17-68.
Tsai, D. C., & Pike, P. L. (2000). Effects of acculturation on the MMPI-2 scores of Asian American students.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 216-230.
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The Age of Anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and Neuroticism, 1952-1993.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1007-1021.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Birth cohort changes in Extraversion: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1966-1993.
Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 735-748.
Yang, J., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1998). Adult age differences in personality traits in the United
States and the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 53B, P375-
P383.
Yik, M. S. M., Russell, J. A., Ahn, C.-K., Fernandes Dols, J. M., & Suzuki, N. (2002). Relating the Five-
Factor Model of personality to a circumplex model of affect: A five language study. In R. R. McCrae &
J. Allik (Eds.), The Five-Factor Model across cultures (pp. 79-104). New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers.

AUTHOR NOTE

Address correspondence to Jüri Allik, Department of Psychology, University of Tartu,

Tiigi 78, Tartu 50410, Estonia. E-mail: [email protected]

View publication stats