Introduction to

Personality
You have probably noticed that some people are very social
and outgoing while others are very quiet and reserved. Some
people seem to worry a lot while others never seem to get
anxious. Each time we use words like social, outgoing, reserved
or anxious to describe people around us, we are talking about a
person’s personality. Personality is one of the things that make
us unique from one another. Our personalities are thought to
be long term, stable, and not easily changed (Caspi, Roberts,
& Shiner, 2005) leading some psychologists argue that
personality is heritable and biological.
Personality is not the same thing as character, which refers to
qualities that a culture considers good and bad. Temperament,
as we learned earlier, is hereditary and includes sensitivity,
moods, irritability, and distractibility. In this way, temperament
can be seen as part of our personality and offers support for
biological and universal aspects of personality.
Once we understand someone’s personality, we can predict
how that person will behave in a variety of situations. Think
about what it takes to be successful in college. You might say
that intelligence is factor in college success and you would
be correct but personality researchers have also found that
traits like Conscientiousness play an important role in college
success. Highly conscientious individuals study hard, get their
work done on time, and are less distracted by nonessential
activities that take time away from school work. Over the long
term, this consistent pattern of behaviors can add up to
meaningful differences in academic and professional
development. Personality traits are not just a useful way to
describe people; they actually help psychologists predict if

Introduction to Personality | 181

someone is going to be a good worker, how long he or she will
live, and the types of jobs and activities the person will enjoy.
There are many psychological perspectives that try to explain
personality including behaviorist, humanist and sociocultural
perspectives. This chapter will focus solely on the trait theory
of personality and how combinations of traits create unique
personality profiles. This chapter will also review how
personality traits are identified and measured across cultures.

182 | Introduction to Personality

Trait Theory
Personality traits reflect people’s characteristic patterns of
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Trait theory in psychology
rests on the idea that people differ from one another based on
the strength and intensity of basic trait dimensions. There are
three criteria that characterize personality traits: (1) consistency,
(2) stability, and (3) individual differences.

• Individuals must be somewhat consistent across

situations in their behaviors related to the trait. For
example, if they are talkative at home, they tend also to be
talkative at work.
• A trait must also be somewhat stable over time as
demonstrated behaviors related to the trait. For example,
at age 30 if someone is talkative they will also tend to be
talkative at age 40.
• People differ from one another on behaviors related to the
trait. People differ on how frequently they talk and so
personality traits such as talkative exist.

A major challenge for trait theorists was how to identify traits.

They started by generating a list of English adjectives (after
reading about bias in Chapter 3 I bet you can see a problem
here). Early trait theorists Allport and Odbert identified about
18, 000 words in the English language that could describe
people (Allport & Odbert, 1936). The list was later reduced to
4,500 by Allport but even this was far too many traits. In an
effort to make the list of traits more manageable, Raymond
Cattell (1946, 1957) narrowed the list to 16 factors and developed
a personality assessment called the 16PF. Later, psychologists
Hans and Sybil Eysenck focused on temperament (Eysenck,
1990, 1992; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963) and hypothesized two

Trait Theory | 183

specific personality dimensions: extroversion/introversion and
neuroticism/stability.
While Cattell’s 16 factors may be too broad, the 2-factor
system proposed by the Eysenck’s has been criticized for being
too narrow. Another personality theory, called the Five Factor
Model (FFM), effectively hits a middle ground. The five factors
are commonly referred to as the Big Five personality traits
(McCrae & Costa, 1987). It is the most popular theory in
personality psychology today and the most accurate
approximation of the basic trait dimensions (Funder, 2010).
Traits are scored along a continuum, from high to low rather
than present or absent (all or none). This means that when
psychologists talk about Introverts (e.g., quiet, withdrawn,
reserved) and Extroverts (e.g., outgoing, social, talkative), they
are not really talking about two distinct types of people but
rather they are talking about people who score relatively low or
relatively high along a continuous dimension.
The five traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A helpful way to
remember the traits is by using the mnemonic OCEAN.
Scores on the Big Five traits are mostly independent which
means that a person’s position on the continuum for one trait
tells very little about their standing on the other traits. For
example, a person can be extremely high in Extraversion and
be either high or low on Neuroticism. Similarly, a person can
be low in Agreeableness and be either high or low in
Conscientiousness. In the FFM you need five scores to describe
most of an individual’s personality.

184 | Trait Theory

Five Factor Model and
Cross-Cultural
Research
We have learned that culture is transmitted to people through
language, as well as through social norms which establish
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors which are then
rewarded or punished (Henrich, 2016; Triandis & Suh, 2002).
With an increased understanding of cultural learning,
psychologists have become interested in the role of culture in
understanding personality.
The idea that personality can be described and explained
by five traits has important implications, as does the fact that
most personality tests were constructed and initially tested in
Western countries (e.g., method validation from Chapter 3).
Western ideas about personality may not apply to other
cultures (Benet-Martinez & Oishi, 2008).
There are two main cultural approaches for researching
personality.

• Etic traits are considered universal constructs that are

evident across cultures and represent a biological bases of
human personality. If the Big Five are universal then they
should appear across all cultures (McCrae and Allik, 2002).
• Emic traits are constructs unique to each culture and are
determined by local customs, thoughts, beliefs, and
characteristics. If personality traits are unique to individual
cultures then different traits should appear in different
cultures.

Cross cultural research of personality uses an etic framework

Five Factor Model and

Cross-Cultural Research | 185
and researchers must ensure equivalence of the personality
test through validation testing. The instrument must include
equivalence in meaning, as well as demonstrate validity and
reliability (Matsumoto & Luang, 2013). For example, the phrase
feeling blue is used to describe sadness in Westernized
cultures but does not translate to other languages. Differences
in personality across cultures could be due to real cultural
differences, but they could also be consequences of poor
translations, biased sampling, or differences in response styles
across cultures (Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martínez, 2007).
Most of the cross-cultural research on FFM and Big Five has
been done using the NEO-PI (and its subsequent revisions)
which has demonstrated equivalence, reliability and validity
across several cross-cultural studies (Costa & McCrae, 1987;
McCrae, Costa & Martin, 2005). Research using the NEO-PI
found support for the entire Five-Factor Model in Chinese,
Dutch, Italian, Hungarian, German, Australian, South African,
Canadian, Finnish, Polish, Portuguese, Israeli, Korean, Japanese,
and Filipino samples, in addition to other samples (McCrae,
Costa, Del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998).
Rentfrow, Kosinski, Stillwell, Gosling, Jokela and Potter (2013)
identified regional personality differences within the United
States using the Big Five personality dimensions. The
researchers analyzed responses from over 1.5 million
individuals found that there are three distinct regional
personality clusters
Cluster 1 is in the Upper Midwest and Deep South and is
dominated by people who fall into the friendly and
conventional personality which is defined by moderately high
levels of Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness,
moderately low Neuroticism, and very low Openness. The
cluster has predominantly White residents with comparatively
low levels of education, wealth, economic innovation, and
social tolerance but are civically engaged in their communities.
Cluster 2 includes the West and is dominated by people who

186 | Five Factor Model and Cross-Cultural Research

are more relaxed, emotionally stable, calm, and creative which
is defined as low Extraversion and Agreeableness, very low
Neuroticism, and very high Openness. There are
disproportionate numbers of non-White residents in this
region, in addition to people who are wealthy, educated, and
economically innovative.
Cluster 3 includes the Northeast which has more people who
are stressed, irritable, and depressed. The personality profile
shows low Extraversion, very low Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness, very high Neuroticism, and moderately
high Openness. There are disproportionate numbers of older
adults and women in this region, in addition to affluent and
college-educated individuals.
One explanation for the regional differences is selective
migration (Rentfrow et al., 2013). Selective migration is the
concept that people choose to move to places that are
compatible with their personalities and needs. For example, a
person high on the agreeable scale would likely want to live
near family and friends, and would choose to settle or remain
in such an area. In contrast, someone high on openness would
prefer to settle in a place that is recognized as diverse and
innovative (such as California).
Personality tests rely on self-report which is susceptible to
response bias like socially desirability responding. To evaluate
this possibility, McCrae and colleagues (2005) recruited
students from 50 cultural groups and modified the NEO-PI
to be in the third person (i.e., he, she, his, her). The research
participants were asked to complete the form on someone else
that they knew very well (McCrae et al., 2005). The same five
factors emerged in this study. These results provided empirical
support for the FFM and for the use of self-report instruments
when conducting cross-cultural personality research. Think
about it – there was no reason for the students to respond in
a desirable way because they were answering questions about
someone else.

Five Factor Model and Cross-Cultural Research | 187

Big Five as Universals
Finding similar factors across many cultures has provided
support for the universality of of the FFM personality trait
structure. The five dimensions (Big Five) also seem to emerge
in similar developmental stages (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae
et al., 1999) which provides additional support for universal
traits. Longitudinal studies have found consistency in
personality changes that occur across the lifetime, in both
adults and adolescents (McCrae, et al., 1999; McCrae et al.,
2000). Big Five research conducted with American and Flemish
teens showed similar changes in personality from ages 12 to
18 (McCrae, et al., 2000) In addition, the period from young
adulthood to middle adulthood is associated with increases
in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness (Donnellan & Lucas,
2008) and decreases in Neuroticism, Openness, and
Extraversion in several countries, including the United States,
Germany, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, and South Korea (McCrae, et
al.,1999; Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, & Costa, 2005).

Big Five or More

Although support for the Big Five across cultures is strong, it

is unclear whether or not the Big Five personality traits are
the best possible measure of personality for all cultures. Some
researchers suggest that important aspects of some cultures
are not captured by the Five Factor Model (Funder, 2010;
Ashton, et al., 2004; Ashton & Lee, 2007). Results from several
European and Asian studies have found overlapping
dimensions with the Five Factor Model, as well as additional,
culturally unique dimensions (Church, 2002). Several cross-
cultural studies have identified other dimensions of personality

188 | Big Five as Universals

not captured by the Big Five including traits unique to China,
Denmark, Bolivia and the Philippines.
Chinese psychologists created an indigenous personality test
named the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI)
which identified several traits that were not part of the Big Five
that have been labelled Interpersonal Relatedness (Cheung,
Leung, Fan, Song, Zhang, & Zhang, 1996; Cheung, et al., 2001).
Support for this model was originally developed in studies
conducted in mainland China and Hong Kong, China, but the
existence of the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension of
personality has also been found in samples from Singapore,
Hawaii, and the Midwestern United States.
A distinct Filipino personality structure was also identified
when an indigenous personality test was used in conjunction
with a Western developed personality test. Church and
colleagues (1998, 2002) used indigenous Filipino personality
scales and the revised NEO-PI and found that there was
overlap between the Filipino scales and the Five Factor Model.
Researchers also found several unique indigenous factors such
as Pagkamadaldal (Social Curiosity) and
Pagkamapagsapalaran (Risk-Taking) that had predictive
power greater than the Five Factor Model alone (Katigbak,
Church, Guanzon-Lapeña, Carlota, & del Pilar, 2002). These new
indigenous factors are highly predictive of smoking, gambling,
praying and tolerance of behaviors outside of social norms
(Matsumoto & Luang, 2013).
Studies conducted in Denmark and the Netherlands found
an authoritarian personality structure. Hofstede and colleagues
(1993) analyzed data from 1,300 Danes and found a sixth
dimension not related to the five-factor model which they
labelled Authoritarianism. This is an interesting finding
because dominance and authoritarianism is connected to
animal studies and animal personality (Hofstede, Bond & Luk,
1993).
Tsimane, a horticultural group living in the Bolivian Amazon

Big Five as Universals | 189

were administered a modified version of the FFM and there
was little support for the five factors – two factors emerged that
were not part of the Big Five. This is an example of research
that used a non-industrial, non- WEIRDO sample and raises
questions about whether FFM can generalize to non-industrial
cultures (Gurven et al., 2013).
Ashton and Lee (2007) identified Honesty-Humility as a sixth
dimension of personality when using English and Asian based
adjectives to describe traits. People high in this trait are sincere,
fair, and modest; whereas those low in the trait are
manipulative, narcissistic, and self-centered. The HEXACO
model is often used when traits of agreeableness or emotions
are of particular interest in research. It should be clear that
although there is strong support for the Big Five across
cultures, some research suggests the existence of other traits
besides simply the Big Five, which may ultimately improve our
understanding of personality across different cultures.

190 | Big Five as Universals

Cultural Considerations
and Personality
When measuring personality, we need to remember that when
comparing traits across cultures we are using group averages.
There are certainly differences in personality traits between
cultural groups but there is still a lot variability that exists within
a specific culture (McCrae et al., 2005). Individualist cultures
and collectivist cultures place emphasis on different basic
values. People who live in individualist cultures tend to believe
that independence, competition, and personal achievement
are important. Individuals in Western nations such as the
United States, England, and Australia score high on
individualism (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmier, 2002). People
who live in collectivist cultures value social harmony,
respectfulness, and group needs over individual needs.
Individuals who live in countries in Asia, Africa, and South
America score high on collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis,
1995). These values influence personality. For example, Yang
(2006) found that people in individualist cultures displayed
more personally oriented personality traits, whereas people in
collectivist cultures displayed more socially oriented
personality traits.
We also need to remember that people do not act
consistently from one situation to the next and people are
influenced by situational forces and culture. For example,
individuals who score high on the Extraversion scale are likely
to be outgoing and enjoy socializing but where, when and how
they socialize will be influenced by culture (McCrae et al., 1998).

Cultural Considerations and

Personality | 191
Indigenous Personality

Much of this chapter has been dedicated to the etic approach

for understanding personality which posits that personality is
innate, biological and universal but still acknowledges that
culture plays an important in shaping personality by way of
geography (environment), resources, and social supports.
Indigenous Personality is a perspective that suggests
personality can only be understood and interpreted within the
context of the culture. In this way personality is considered
emic, meaning that it is culturally specific and can only
understood within the culture from which it originates. This
means that personality is not something that can be measured
by a universal test.
The indigenous approach came about in reaction to the
dominance of Western approaches to the study of personality
in non-Western settings (Cheung et al., 2011). Because Western-
based personality assessments cannot fully capture the
personality constructs of other cultures, the indigenous model
has led to the development of personality assessment
instruments that are based on constructs relevant to the
culture being studied (Cheung et al., 2011). Although there is
debate within the indigenous psychology movement about
whether indigenous psychology represents a more
universalistic or a more relativistic approach (Chakkarath, 2012),
most of these 10 characteristics are advocated by the majority
of those in the indigenous psychology movement.

192 | Cultural Considerations and Personality

Self and Culture
At the foundation of all human behavior is the self—our sense
of personal identity and of who we are as individuals. Because
an understanding of the self is so important, it has been
studied for many years by psychologists (James, 1890; Mead,
1934) and is still one of the most important and most
researched topics in psychology (Dweck & Grant, 2008; Taylor &
Sherman, 2008).

Identity

Identity refers to the way individuals understand themselves as

part of a social group. It is a universal construct and depends on
how we view ourselves and how we are recognized by others.
Identity may be acquired indirectly from parents, peers, and
other community members or more directly through
enculturation. A person may hold multiple identities such as
teacher, father, or friend. Each position has its own meanings
and expectations that are internalized as identity. In this way,
the specific content of any individual’s or group’s identity is
culturally determined. Also, forming a connection with your
identity is influenced by your culture. For example, in the
United States it is common to link identity with a particular
ethnic or racial group (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Asian
American, and Jewish American among others) but we should
remember that these categories are products of immigration
and history. The history is unique to the United States so
individuals from other cultures do not identify with the same
cultural groups (Matsumoto & Luang, 2013).
We should also think of identity as dynamic and fluid. It can
change depending on the context and the culture. Think about

Self and Culture | 193

it – when someone asks you where you are from, if you are in a
foreign country you might say the United States. In a different
situation you might say that you are from California even
though you were actually born in Kansas and in a very small
state like Hawaii you might identify by your high school
(Matsumoto & Luang, 2013).
Our personal identity is the way that we understand
ourselves and is closely related to our concept of self. Social
identity reflects our understanding that we are part of social
groups. Our sense of self is linked to how we see the world
around us and how we see our relationships.

Self

Some nonhuman animals, including chimpanzees,

orangutans, and perhaps dolphins, have at least a primitive
sense of self (Boysen & Himes, 1999). We know this because
of some interesting experiments that have been done with
animals. In one study (Gallup, 1970), researchers painted a red
dot on the forehead of anesthetized chimpanzees and then
placed the animals in a cage with a mirror. When the chimps
woke up and looked in the mirror, they touched the dot on
their faces, not the dot on the faces in the mirror. This action
suggests that the chimps understood that they were looking at
themselves and not at other animals, and thus we can assume
that they are able to realize that they exist as individuals. Most
other animals, including dogs, cats, and monkeys, never realize
that it is themselves they see in a mirror.
Infants who have similar red dots painted on their foreheads
recognize themselves in a mirror in the same way that chimps
do, and they do this by about 18 months of age (Asendorpf,
Warkentin, & Baudonnière, 1996; Povinelli, Landau, & Perilloux,
1996). The child’s knowledge about the self continues to
develop as the child grows. By two years of age, the infant

194 | Self and Culture

becomes aware of his or her gender as a boy or a girl. At age
four, the child’s self-descriptions are likely to be based on
physical features, such as hair color, and by about age six, the
child is able to understand basic emotions and the concepts
of traits, being able to make statements such as “I am a nice
person” (Harter, 1998).
By the time children are in grade school, they have learned
that they are unique individuals, and they can think about and
analyze their own behavior. They also begin to show awareness
of the social situation—they understand that other people are
looking at and judging them the same way that they are
looking at and judging others (Doherty, 2009).

Self and Culture | 195

Characteristics of the
Self-Concept
Part of what is developing in children as they grow is the
fundamental cognitive part of the self, known as the self-
concept. The self-concept is a knowledge representation that
contains knowledge about us, including our beliefs about our
personality traits, physical characteristics, abilities, values,
goals, and roles, as well as the knowledge that we exist as
individuals.
The specific content of our self-concept powerfully affects
the way that we process information relating to ourselves. But
how can we measure that specific content? One way is by
using self-report tests. One of these is a deceptively simple
fill-in-the-blank measure that has been widely used by many
scientists to get a picture of the self-concept (Rees & Nicholson,
1994). All of the 20 items in the measure are exactly the same,
but the person is asked to fill in a different response for each
statement. This self-report measure, known as the Twenty
Statements Test (TST), can reveal a lot about a person because
it is designed to measure the most accessible—and thus the
most important—parts of a person’s self-concept.

Twenty Statements Test

Try it for yourself (at least 5 times)

I am (fill in the blank) _______________________________

196 | Characteristics of the

Self-Concept
 I am (fill in the blank) _______________________________

I am (fill in the blank) _______________________________

I am (fill in the blank) _______________________________

I am (fill in the blank) _______________________________

Although each person has a unique self-concept, we can

identify some characteristics that are common across the
responses given by different people on the measure.

• Physical characteristics
• Personality
• Social identity

Physical characteristics are an important component of the

self-concept, and they are mentioned by many people when
they describe themselves. If you’ve been concerned lately that
you’ve been gaining weight, you might write, “I am
overweight.” If you think you’re particularly good looking (“I am
attractive”), or if you think you’re too short (“I am too short”).
Those things might have been reflected in your responses. Our
physical characteristics are important to our self-concept
because we realize that other people use them to judge us.
People often list the physical characteristics that make them
different from others in either positive or negative ways (“I am
blond,” “I am short”), in part because they understand that
these characteristics are salient and thus likely to be used by
others when judging them (McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka,
1978).
A second aspect of the self-concept relating to personal
characteristics is made up of personality traits—the specific

Characteristics of the Self-Concept | 197

and stable personality characteristics that describe an
individual (“I am friendly,” “I am shy,” “I am persistent”). These
individual differences are important determinants of behavior,
and this aspect of the self-concept varies among people.
The remainder of the self-concept reflects its more external,
social components; for example, memberships in the social
groups that we belong to and care about. Common responses
for this component may include “I am an artist,” “I am Jewish,”
and “I am a mother, sister, daughter.” As we will see later in this
chapter, group memberships form an important part of the
self-concept because they provide us with our social identity
—the sense of our self that involves our memberships in social
groups.

198 | Characteristics of the Self-Concept

Self and Culture
Although we all define ourselves in relation to these three
broad categories of characteristics—physical, personality, and
social – some interesting cultural differences in the relative
importance of these categories have been shown in people’s
responses to the TST. For example, Ip and Bond (1995) found
that the responses from Asian participants included
significantly more references to themselves as occupants of
social roles (e.g., “I am Joyce’s friend”) or social groups (e.g., “I
am a member of the Cheng family”) than those of American
participants. Similarly, Markus and Kitayama (1991) reported
that Asian participants were more than twice as likely to
include references about other people in their self-concept as
did their Western counterparts. This greater emphasis on
either external or social aspects of the self-concept reflects the
relative importance that collectivistic and individualistic
cultures place on an interdependence versus independence
(Nisbett, 2003).
Interestingly, bicultural individuals who report acculturation
to both collectivist and individualist cultures show shifts in their
self-concept depending on which culture they are primed to
think about when completing the TST. For example, Ross, Xun,
and Wilson (2002) found that students born in China but living
in Canada reported more interdependent aspects of
themselves on the TST when asked to write their responses
in Chinese, as opposed to English. These culturally different
responses to the TST are also related to a broader distinction
in self-concept, with people from individualistic cultures often
describing themselves using internal characteristics that
emphasize their uniqueness, compared with those from
collectivistic backgrounds who tend to stress shared social

Self and Culture | 199

group memberships and roles. In turn, this distinction can lead
to important differences in social behavior.
One simple yet powerful demonstration of cultural
differences in self-concept affecting social behavior is shown in
a study that was conducted by Kim and Markus (1999). In this
study, participants were contacted in the waiting area of the
San Francisco airport and asked to fill out a short questionnaire
for the researcher. The participants were selected according to
their cultural background: about one-half of them indicated
they were European Americans whose parents were born in
the United States, and the other half indicated they were Asian
Americans whose parents were born in China and who spoke
Chinese at home.
After completing the questionnaires (which were not used
in the data analysis except to determine the cultural
backgrounds), participants were asked if they would like to
take a pen with them as a token of appreciation. The
experimenter extended his or her hand, which contained five
pens. The pens offered to the participants were either three or
four of one color and one or two of another color (the ink in
the pens was always black). As shown in Figure 1 and consistent
with the hypothesized preference for uniqueness in Western,
but not Eastern cultures, the European Americans preferred
to take a pen with the more unusual color, whereas the Asian
American participants preferred one with the more common
color.
Through these and other experiments two dimensions of
self-concept emerged, the independent construal (concept)
and the interdependent concept. Western, or more
individualist cultures, view the self as separate and focus on
self, independence, autonomy and self-expression are
reinforced through social and cultural norms. This is the
independent self-concept. Non-western or collectivistic
cultures view the self as interdependent and inseparable from
social context and individuals socialized to value

200 | Self and Culture

interconnectedness consider the thoughts and behaviors of
others. Fitting in is valued over standing out.
Results from the TST studies described earlier provide
additional support for the role of culture in shaping self-
concept. Different demands that cultures place on individual
members means that individuals integrate, synthesize, and
coordinate worlds differently, producing differences in self-
concept. Variations in self-concepts occur because different
cultures have different rules of living and exist within different
environments (natural habitat).

Intra-cultural Differences in Self-Concept

Cultural differences in self-concept have even been found in

people’s self-descriptions on social networking sites. DeAndrea,
Shaw, and Levine (2010) examined individuals’ free-text self-
descriptions in the About Me section in their Facebook profiles.
Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, and with previous
research using the TST, African American participants had the
most the most independently (internally) described self-
concepts, and Asian Americans had the most interdependent
(external) self-descriptions, with European Americans in the
middle.
As well as indications of cultural diversity in the content of the
self-concept, there is also evidence of parallel gender diversity
between males and females from various cultures, with
females, on average, giving more external and social responses
to the TST than males (Kashima et al., 1995). Interestingly, these
gender differences have been found to be more apparent in
individualistic nations than in collectivistic nations (Watkins et
al., 1998).

Self and Culture | 201

Neural Basis for Self
There is neuro-cultural evidence supporting the two
definitions of self-construals first proposed by Markus and
Kitayama (e.g., independent and interdependent, 1991). Neuro-
cultural research of self uses neuroscience and imaging
techniques to describe and understand the biological
processes that underlie our understanding of self (Chiao,
Harada, Komeda, Li, Mano, Saito….2009; Zhu, Zhang, Fan, &
Hana, 2007). One of the more common methods of
determining brain areas that pertain to different cognitive
processes is by using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI) which measures blood flow in the brain. Areas with
higher blood flow on fMRI scans are said to be activated. Chiao,
et al., (2009) using fMRI results identified individualistic and
collectivistic views of self in samples of Japanese and American
students.
Chiao and colleagues (2009) found that participants who
viewed themselves collectivistically showed greater fMRI
activation in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) than those
who viewed themselves individualistically. The reverse is true
when people describe themselves individualistically but these
results were not clearly associated with specific cultures (e.g.,
Japan and United States). As described by the researchers,
“cultural values and not necessarily their cultural affiliation”
modulated the neural responses in their brains.

202 | Neural Basis for Self

Beyond East and West
Differences
The work by Markus and Kitayama (1991) has had a major effect
on social, personality and developmental psychology and
raised awareness for cultural considerations in psychology.
Despite the positive impact, there has been limited empirical
support for independent and interdependent self-construals
(Matsumoto, 1999) with some studies reporting contradictory
findings. Recent research conducted by 71 researchers, across
33 countries and encompassing 55 cultural groups challenged
the dichotomous view first proposed by Markus and Kitayama.
The researchers conducted a series of studies (Vignoles…. 2016)
that examined a single dimension of Independent/
Interdependent, Western cultures as wholly independent, the
relationship between individualist and collectivist cultures and
Independent/Interdependent self-construals, as well as the role
of religious heritage and socioeconomic development of
cultures. Using data from over 7,000 adults, the authors
identified seven dimensions that encompass both
independent and interdependent self-construals:

• Difference
• Connection
• Self-Direction
• Self-Reliance
• Consistency
• Self-Expression
• Self-Interest

At the level of the individual these seven dimensions represent

the different ways that we see ourselves and our relationships

Beyond East and West

Differences | 203
with other people. The dimensions can also represent cultural
norms about self that are reinforced and maintained by
cultural practices and social structures.
When the researchers tested the 7-dimension model, their
results contradicted many long-held beliefs about
independent, individualistic, interdependent and collectivist
cultures. First, Western cultures scored above average on five
of the dimensions but were below average on the dimensions
self-reliance and consistency. Thus, the common view that
Western cultures are wholly independent was not supported.
Latin American cultures had scores very similar to Western
cultures on the difference and self-expression dimensions but
scored higher on consistency and self-interest which also
challenged the common view of Latin America as wholly
interdependent. The economically poorest samples in the
study scored highest on self-interest and were negatively
associated with individualism, whereas Western cultures
scored high on commitment to others which challenges the
view that rich Western cultures are selfish.
Religious heritage was also an important variable in the
study. Muslim and Catholic samples had very distinct
dimension profiles that showed high scores for consistency.
This may be related to the tenets of both faiths that salvation is
related to behaviors so behaving consistently – across different
situations and settings would be important.
The results of Vignoles and colleagues demonstrated that
self, whether measured at the individual level or cultural level,
is not binary. Independence and interdependence is a complex
interaction of heritage, socioeconomic development,
settlement patterns, and ecological contexts. By moving away
from a dichotomous view of self, psychologists have an
opportunity to expand our understanding of self and its
relationship to culture.

204 | Beyond East and West Differences

Self-Enhancement and
Self-Effacement
Related to self-concept is self-enhancement, the processes
that we use to bolster self-esteem. Early research linked
enhancement with individualistic cultures (Kitayama et al.,
1999; Heine et al., 1999) however evidence for the culturally
specific model has been mixed. The more commonly accepted
view, pancultural perspective, argues that all cultures engage
in enhancement but how, when and to what extent differs by
culture (Brown, 2010; Becker et al., 2014; Sedikides et al., 2015).
Cai and colleagues (2016) explored a pancultural theory of self-
enhancement in Western (US) and Eastern (China) samples.
Results revealed that participants endorsed more positive traits
when describing themselves and also endorsed more negative
traits as non-self-descriptive. The degree of this effect was
higher in the Western than Eastern sample confirming that
self-enhancement is positive in both cultures but it is higher
among the Western sample.

Imagine you are the lead on a major work project

and have been asked to provide a status update on
the project to the executive board. You and your
team spend hours preparing the presentation. At
the end of the presentation, one of the board
members congratulates you on the project and the
presentation. In reply you say, “I am dedicated to
this project and work really hard to meet the

Self-Enhancement and
Self-Effacement | 205
 expectations.” This could be considered an example
of self-enhancement because you emphasize your
dedication and role to the project.

Self-effacement is the tendency to downplay one’s virtues or

characteristic. In general Asians tend to be more self-effacing
(although most studies only use samples from Japan and
China) (Kurman, 2003). Under normal conditions, self-
effacement is a facet of modesty and is not a lack of confidence
or of self-esteem. Self-effacement reflects cultural norms and in
some collectivist cultures, such as in China and Japan, consider
modesty a virtue. Self-effacing tactics are used to reduce the
social risk of offending others so in this way self-effacement is
not linked to self-esteem.
Let’s consider our earlier scenario and the congratulations
offered by a board member. If this time you say, “It had nothing
to do with me, it is my team.” This could be considered an
example of self-effacement because you understate your role
and emphasize the team members.
Most of the research in this area has focused on cross-cultural
research between Western and Eastern cultures. Suzuki and
colleagues (2008) examined the role of self-enhancement and
self-effacement and reactions to criticism among multicultural,
female youth in the United States. Results revealed that
European American and African American youth had more
self-enhancing reactions to praise. Asian American and
Hispanic youth were less self-enhancing and more self-effacing
than the other two groups. The differences in reactions to
praise were explained by differences in generational histories
in the United States and cultural exposure. The youth with the

206 | Self-Enhancement and Self-Effacement

highest self-enhancing reactions (European Americans and
African Americans) were all born in the United States with
greater exposure to individualist norms.
Asian American and Hispanic study participants reported
that at least one person in their household were born abroad
in less individualist and more collectivist cultures. These
differences explain why the Asian American and Hispanic
youths might have had more self-effacing reactions.
Better than average effect (BTAE; Wylie, 1979) is considered
a form of bias or inaccuracy in self-assessment because while
most people are average, only a minority of people recognize
this reality. Research using the direct method asks participants
to evaluate themselves in comparison to an average person
on a single test (scale). Using the indirect method participates
rate themselves and the average person on separate scales and
average evaluation is subtracted from the ratings. Research on
the BTAE that in the United States adults typically consider
themselves to be more intelligent and more attractive than
average and this effect was stronger for male than females.
Early studies found that BTAE was associated with
individualistic and not collectivist cultures; one researcher even
asserted that it was not found in Japan but this research was
not conclusive. It is possible that BTAE is correlated with age.
Zell (2016) found that older adults rated themselves worse than
average on some age-related measures. One study that
examined prisoners and BTAE found that a significant number
considered themselves to be more prosocial than other
prisoners (Sedikides, Meek, Alicke & Taylor, 2013).

Self-Enhancement and Self-Effacement | 207