Personality and culture

Demarcating between the common and the unique

Y.H. Poortinga, D.A. van Hemert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives, (ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) situationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of inclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situationist interpretation of cross- cultural differences. Finally, three possible strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as well as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are taken seriously.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1033-1060
JournalJournal of Personality
Volume69
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Cite this

@article{9df247bf576943c2a3679706e045306a,
title = "Personality and culture: Demarcating between the common and the unique",
abstract = "Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives, (ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) situationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of inclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situationist interpretation of cross- cultural differences. Finally, three possible strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as well as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are taken seriously.",
author = "Y.H. Poortinga and {van Hemert}, D.A.",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1111/1467-6494.696174",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "1033--1060",
journal = "Journal of Personality",
issn = "0022-3506",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "6",

}

Personality and culture : Demarcating between the common and the unique. / Poortinga, Y.H.; van Hemert, D.A.

In: Journal of Personality, Vol. 69, No. 6, 2001, p. 1033-1060.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Personality and culture

T2 - Demarcating between the common and the unique

AU - Poortinga, Y.H.

AU - van Hemert, D.A.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives, (ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) situationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of inclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situationist interpretation of cross- cultural differences. Finally, three possible strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as well as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are taken seriously.

AB - Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives, (ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) situationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of inclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situationist interpretation of cross- cultural differences. Finally, three possible strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as well as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are taken seriously.

U2 - 10.1111/1467-6494.696174

DO - 10.1111/1467-6494.696174

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 1033

EP - 1060

JO - Journal of Personality

JF - Journal of Personality

SN - 0022-3506

IS - 6

ER -