Personalities

Individuals' personalities are moulded by the environment, people, and experiences to which they are exposed, and as a result, people within a culture tend to share qualities. Culture refers to a specific group's or society's conventions, common ideals, and social conduct. The definition of culture acknowledges that there are shared or comparable features that cause people to affiliate with or subscribe to a specific culture. Personality refers to the collection of characteristics that define an individual.The idea of shared personality within a culture therefore bears the meaning that there are certain dispositions shared by members of a certain society which are distinctive from other societies. According to Franz Boas, who was the first researcher on cultural relativism, human beings derive their identity through culture as opposed to biology (Colon & Hobbs, 2015). The study of differences in personality across different societies is important as it helps understand the commonalities in character which prevents biased stereotyping of individuals, as well as enabling the prediction of future behavior, for example, that of consumers in business.

In this paper, the manner in which personality differs across cultures will be studied. The research will be conducted through a review of journal articles that delve into the topic. The purpose of conducting this review is to establish character distinctiveness across cultures as mere stereotypical generalizations. The paper will elaborate the reasons why further research into the interaction of culture and other social dynamics is affective of the persona of an individual. Other factors that affect dispositions include socio-economic status and external factors or events outside of a society such as war or diseases. Although culture plays an important role in the determination of the personality of an individual, the common traits are evident in other cultures and as a result, the underlying factors which create the similarities across different cultures require more examination.

Woo et al., posit that personality differs not only based on geography but also within those boundaries from which an observation is made (Rentfrow, Jokela, & Lamb, 2015). Culture, which is shaped by historical factors such as illnesses, affects the nature of people. The article observes that although transnational differences in behavior have been focused on in research, the variations within a nation are often ignored. Deviations in personality across transnational cultures that are debunked include those formulated using the Big Five Framework of Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, neuroticism and extraversion. Examples of such differences noted across different cultures include: low levels of extraversion among citizens of Asian countries, high neuroticism among Western European countries and high openness among Americans in Central and South American states. The levels on identity scores are based on the average derived from interviewed or observed persons’ behavior being contrasted with those of persons from other areas.

The authors argue that previous research into the personality differences across culture do not give narrower assessments of variations within those cultures. Through a study conducted in Britain using the Big Five personality traits and their relation to the Political, Economic, Social and Health (PESH) indicators, the authors came to the conclusion that there are regional character traits within each geographical location. The levels of neuroticism or openness were higher than the national average in some areas and much lower in others. In their discussion of their findings, the authors agreed that there are other factors within cultures which affect the personality traits of individuals.

The article’s importance was that it acknowledged the influence of culture on personality but differed with the notion that there are distinct identities across different cultures. The authors argued that a multiplicity of factors affect the ways in which individuals’ personalities were shaped. In one culture, there are people who can choose to be assertive despite adverse environmental conditions and become successful while others become complicit and resigned to their fate. However, the different character traits observed by researchers in various societies are generalized observations that do not take into account the deviations within the same culture but rather look at the averages of the behavior exhibited by some individuals within the particular culture. The danger that emanates from such conclusions is the development of harmful stereotypes which fail to take into account the important differences which can affect the perception of a society.

According to a study conducted by Hutz et al., on the relationship between positive personality traits across the Brazilian and American cultures, it was concluded that there are cross-cultural differences (Hutz, Midgett, Pacico, Bastianello, & Zanon, 2014). The traits which were studied were optimism, subjective well being and self esteem. Hope, according to the study, referred to the sense of succeeding due to the involvement between agency and pathways. Self esteem was propounded as being the assessments that individuals made and maintained of themselves. Subjective well being was defined as the judgment made subjectively on whether or not people were happy with their life components. The instruments used included the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, Negative Affect Scale and Adult Dispositional Hope Scale. The participants of the study were 179 Americans between the ages of 18 and 61; and 499 Brazilians between the ages of 17 and 53. The results were to the effect that Brazilians exhibited lower scores in positive affect, hope and life satisfaction.

Social conditions and cultural variations were attributed as the reasons behind the differences in positive personality traits amongst the two cultures. The results which were derived using Pearson correlations were explained through the individualistic configuration of the American society wherein people were more concerned for their personal well being and that of members of their nuclear family as opposed to the larger community. Individuals within the society were therefore more hopeful regarding their role as agents worldwide as opposed to the Brazilians who are more communally minded than Americans and therefore have more social obligations that affect them. The research concluded by positing that personality varies across culture based on the cultural effects on an individual. Although the authors agreed that the study of the differences in persona across cultures was general, they went ahead to allege that the results from the study were important in understanding different nationalities and the subjects from those cultures.

The research is important because it proves the generalized nature of researches conducted on the variations in personality across different cultures. Of importance is the fact that the explanation provided for such personality differences were the cultures of individualism versus communal orientation. However, such generalized statements fail to take into account the fact that there are communal cultures within the United States who nevertheless exhibit lower levels of hope, optimism and other personality traits than their American counterparts. The research did not indicate that the subjects from the United States were derived from equal proportions to the national survey of populations in order to include more communally oriented cultures such as Mexicans and Native Americans in order to assess the mean averages of the United States culture.

Lee et al., posit that the studies of personality differences across cultures base research used to illustrate such distinctions on limited observation of interactions with a few members of the society (Lee, McCauley, & Draguns, 2013). Moreover, he argues that the behavior observed through the collection of empirical data is a sum of the conscious behavior exhibited by subjects of a study. Through their research conducted on Americans and Japanese’s personality in business interactions, the authors unearthed the fallacies espoused by other authors on Japanese stereotypes. Authors such as Doi (Doi, 1962), had propounded that Japanese people are distant and nonverbal in their business interactions with foreigners. The Americans interviewed in the study however opined that the common personality traits of the Japanese included inquisitiveness into the personal lives of the people they interacted with in business. Although a stimulating environment was important in influencing personality and psychological differences such as curiosity and assertiveness; there was a need for a critical examination of the reason why people exposed to the same conditions would behave differently and that such differences within a culture would be observed in other cultures.

The contrast between the responses given by the interviewees in the study conducted by Lee and those of authors such are Doi are based on the different methods used in the conduct of their researches. In the former, the author observed with Japanese businessmen and interviewed them with their permission. Because such people were aware that they were being interviewed or observed, they acted consciously and such consciousness affected the ability to derive accurate information on their personality. The Americans interviewed by Lee however had prior interactions with Japanese businessmen and in their recollection of their experience, they assessed that Japanese people were not distant. The research went further to interview Japanese businessmen themselves in order to find out their perception of their character in business transactions. Through open ended discussions; it was established that Japanese businessmen use personal questions in order to create friendship and trust in work settings. However, in case they believed that the person queried was annoyed by the questions or rebuffed them, they concluded that such behavior was a sign of rejection of friendship and therefore withdrew thereby causing some people to observe them as being distant.

The research proves that researches into differing personalities across cultures are limited by the manner in which they are conducted thereby reducing them to stereotypes. The authors argue that even in cases whereby such stereotypes are not negative, they are still incorrect because they do not accurately depict the personality of individuals based on the different circumstances that such people are exposed to. The different settings that people are exposed to affect the manner in which they behave; for example, in a business setting, a person may behave differently from the family setting. Generalizations made based on one social sphere are dangerous because they are thereafter used as a standard of the behavior of other members of the community. The sentiments of the authors ring true especially when the observations into the interaction of personality and culture are observed.

According to Mazaheri et al., who conducted a study into the manner in which culture affects online behavior, there are distinct personalities across cultures (Mazaheri, Richard, Laroche, & Ueltschy, 2014). The online platforms such as social media have not made human behavior globally homogenous. The research conducted among online users from three national cultures: China, Middle East and North America (United States and Canada) proved that there are some distinct consumer traits exhibited by members based on their society. National culture was defined as the social conventions and common values across a defined geographical region. Using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions of power distance, masculinity, long term orientation, individualism and uncertainty avoidance, the research established that culture affects the response of an individual to web design features used on an online site.

The research showed that despite online activity being a cross cultural phenomenon, distinct personality traits are observable in aspects such as consumer purchasing habits which are conceived as being culturally inbound. China was observed as being the most long-term oriented country when it comes to online behavior and patterns; which analysis had significance in the personality traits of the people within the culture. Emotional components studied across the societies also showed variations in personality with Middle Eastern consumers being most focused on pleasure and dominance. Customer perception was most prevalent in China. Although the research was significant because it offered insight into consumer traits across different societies, it did not conclusively distinguish between different characteristics displayed by consumers due to culture and those developed by other factors. An example of a reason which could resulted in the extravagant online shopping habits in Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, is the superfluous oil revenue in the country.

In another study conducted on internet addiction, there was a proposition made that there are specific types of internet addiction which differ in forms across cultures (Montag, et al., 2015). The general internet addiction was postulated as a reference to problematic usage of Internet while specific forms were aimed at deciphering the specific Internet activity whose usage was excessive; such as online gaming or social networks activities. Through the study of 636 participants from countries such as China, Sweden, Taiwan and Germany, the authors were able to determine that personality traits related to internet addiction differed across societies. Questionnaires, based on the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) to analyze general internet addiction; and the Gaming Addiction Scale, were used as a template to assess specific forms of internet addiction.

The study concluded that the relationship between general and specific forms of internet addiction were highest in Germany compared to the other countries. China came in a close second. Although the study did not offer any analysis on the cultural factors attributable to such differences in internet addiction, it can be argued that they were insightful in establishing cross-cultural character variations. However, the study of personality differences associated with internet addiction fails to acknowledge the deviations in technological development which affect internet usage per country or among users. The highly industrialized countries in the study; namely China and Germany, were shown to have the highest rate of internet addiction. However, further studies were necessary in order to establish whether internet connectivity in the country had an impact on the internet addiction as opposed to a generalized conclusion stereotyping personality on the internet.

Although the study was important because it offered insight on online personality associated with culture; it failed to give justification of the higher rates of internet addiction in some countries and to provide an analysis of possible factors, other than culture, which influenced the outcome. The result was the generalized stereotype formed about Germans and Chinese being internet addicts without deciphering whether the prolonged usage of the internet, for example, had some positive effects on the users, for example when it was used to develop ideas on software creation. More research was necessary in order to understand the influencing factors behind internet personalities and behavior on a cross-cultural basis.

Pollet et al., propound more arguments against the generalization of researches conducted into the manner in which personalities differ across cultures (Pollet, Tybur, Frankenhuis, & Rickard, 2014). The authors argue that in the recent past, researches into the topic have extensively used macro data to make generalized assertions which are thereafter portrayed as representing inter and intra-individual processes. The article therefore aimed to demystify the ecological fallacy which posits information derived at a larger level as being applicable on a smaller scale. The Simpson paradox, which refers to the ability of statistical relationships to change after data is aggregated and the effect of an unknown variable ensues, was used to explain how character variations on a transnational level, for example, may prove wrong when applied in a national context. The authors argued that the way in which such large statistical data can affect a smaller scale is unknown and as such, generalizations should be avoided. Moreover, there was an argument that such studies fail to acknowledge that people behave differently based on different contexts. An person who was informed, for example, that such a research would be used to assess their country would choose to give more favorable responses due to patriotisms thereby affecting the accurateness of information gleaned from them. The solution provided to remedy the situation is the use of data collected from multiple levels in research or the alternative focus on longitudinal projects.

Other secondary issues which are associated with cross-cultural assessments include: Galton’s problem referring to the lack of statistical independence and measurements which are non-equivalent. Galton’s problem, which is associated with the lack of random sampling, is acknowledged by the article as one of the reasons behind the lack of accurateness in information derived in the cross-cultural studies on personality which are not reflective of an entire society. Macro-level research is argued as a means of avoiding the research requirement of random sampling in order to prevent the invalidity of the inferences statistically derived. The lack of statistical independence occurs when there is collectivism reflected in the responses of interviewees in research as opposed to individual reflections.

The importance of the article is that it offers effective solutions to the problems experienced in the collection of data on the differences in personality across cultures. The authors suggest that the manner in which human nature can be accurately studied is through the use of individual-level samples acquired from micro societies. The article does not however assess the manner in which inferences derived from personality traits on a small scale can be inaccurate when transformed to a macro scale because of the variations in behavior of individuals depending on the context. The authors also assume that interviewees would be more truthful on a micro rather than larger scale without providing evidence in support of such a position. All in all, the article offers important contributions that should be implemented in the study of cross-cultural personality differences.

Conclusion

Researches conducted on differences in personality exhibited across cultures are mere stereotypes which can be demystified through the manner in which such studies are conducted. Research conducted on human nature is affected by several factors which are not only academic. Participants in interviews may modify their behavior while under observation or in order to protect their egos through positive assessments. Researchers also portray the limitations of their studies through the use of generalized data which is thereafter used to make conclusions about individuals’ behavior within a culture. The result is that the wrong conclusions may be arrived at. It is of utmost importance that research conducted focuses on remedying the generalization of the study of characters across different societies. Such researches should be conducted in all fields including the political, educational, health and business aspects.



Bibliography

Colon, G. A., & Hobbs, C. A. (2015). the intertwining of culture and nature: Franz Boas, John Dewey, and Deweyan strands of American anthropology. Journal of the History of Ideas, 76(1) , 139-162.

Doi, T. (1962). Amae: A key concept for understanding Japanese personality structure. In R. Smith, & R. K. Beardsley, Japanese culture: Its Development and characteristics (pp. 132-139). Chicago: Aldine.

Hutz, C. S., Midgett, A., Pacico, J. C., Bastianello, M. R., & Zanon, C. (2014). The Relationship of Hope, Optimism, Self Esteem, Subjective Well-Being, and Personality in Brazilians and Americans. Psychology, 5 , 514-522.

Lee, Y.-T., McCauley, C. R., & Draguns, J. G. (2013). Personality and Person Perception across Cultures. Psychology Press.

Mazaheri, E., Richard, M. O., Laroche, M., & Ueltschy, L. C. (2014). The influence of culture, emotions, intangibility, and atmospheric cues on online behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67 , 253-259.

Montag, C., Bey, K., Sha, P., Chen, Y.-F., Liu, W.-Y., Zhu, Y.-K., et al. (2015). Is it meaningful to distinguish between generalized and specific Internet addiction? Evidence from a cross-cultural study from Germany, Sweden, Taiwan and China. Asia- Pacific Psychiatry, 7(1) , 20-26.

Pollet, T. V., Tybur, J. M., Frankenhuis, W., & Rickard, I. (2014). What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Human Nature, 25(3) , 410-429.

Rentfrow, P. J., Jokela, M., & Lamb, M. E. (2015). Regional personality differences in Great Britain. PloS one, 10(3) , e0122245.