 32. Culture and Personality  689
ticularly meaningful in the West), while ac -
knowledging the seemingly universal desire 
to understand individual differences (Heine 
& Butchel, 2009). Church (2001) notes that 
the cultural approach is often characterized 
by (1) a concern with psychological process -
es (vs. individual differences); (2) a focus on 
highly contextual descriptions of psycho -
logical phenomena in one or more cultures, 
often with little expectation of finding cul -
tural universals; and (3) an emphasis on ex -
perimental methodology, coupled with other 
methods, such as the use of survey data (e.g., 
Kim, Zeppenfeld, & Cohen, 2013), cultur -
al products (e.g., Morling & Lamoreaux, 
2008), and public records (e.g., Nisbett & 
Cohen, 1996). In contrast, the cross-  cultural 
approach  (e.g., Hendriks et al., 2003; 
Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martínez, 
2007) has traditionally been characterized 
by (1) a focus on individual differences (in 
values, beliefs, etc., but particularly person -
ality traits); (2) comparisons of multiple cul -
tures in the search for cultural universals, or 
culture-  specifics along with universals; (3) 
use of traditional, standardized psychomet -
ric questionnaires to measure both personal -
ity and cultural values; and (4) concern with 
the cross-  cultural equivalence of constructs 
and measures (see Figure 32.1).
Recently, the boundaries between cultural 
and cross-  cultural approaches have become 
less significant due to a range of welcome 
developments. The study of personality has 
become more contextualized. Findings from 
emic and imposed-  etic studies are becoming 
ever more integrated, and the processes by 
which culture influences behavior are bet -
ter understood. In addition, new generations 
of cultural researchers are trained in mul -
tiple methods (psychometric, experimental, 
and interpretive), and new data-  analytic 
techniques (e.g., use of big data, multilevel 
techniques, multigroup latent class analysis) 
are becoming ever more readily available. 
Currently, most personality researchers see 
personality variables (e.g., self- and other- 
ascribed traits, self-  concept and identity, 
well-being, goals) as reflecting, at least in 
part, distal and proximal cultural processes, 
in that cultural norms and values influence 
the meaning, function, and expected levels 
of these psychological attributes (McAdams 
& Pals, 2006). Similarly, there is growing interest in examining how personality pre -
dicts the way situations and contexts are 
construed across different cultures (e.g., 
Guillaume, et al., 2016)
An integrative view of the contributions 
made by the cultural and cross-  cultural ap -
proaches leads to some basic conclusions. 
In understanding behavior, personality re -
searchers ought to be mindful of the dynam -
ic interplay between the macrocontext (i.e., 
culture), the microcontext (the situation), 
and the individual’s dispositions and pref -
erences (i.e., personality). In other words, 
“culture is important because it helps define 
psychological situations and create mean -
ingful clusters of behavior according to a 
particular cultural logic. Individual differ -
ences are important because individuals 
vary in the extent to which they internalize 
or endorse (or reject) a cultural syndrome. 
Individuals are always in a cultural context, 
though they are not always of it” (A. Leung 
& Cohen, 2011, pp. 521–522).
New Approaches
Beyond the traditional cultural and cross- 
cultural approaches, there have been impor -
tant theoretical developments in culture and 
personality research. First, the dynamic con -
structivist approach  (Hong, Morris, Chiu, 
& Benet-Martínez, 2000) was developed to 
address some of the limitations in the initial 
wave of cross-  cultural social–  personality 
research, namely, its implicit or explicit 
view of culture as a stable, unitary, and 
all- encompassing influence. The dynamic 
constructivist approach, which is rooted in 
social constructivism (Gergen, 1985) and 
social psychological research on the dynam -
ics of knowledge activation (Higgins, 1996), 
does not view culture as a highly general 
structure (e.g., an overall mentality, world -
view, or value orientation). Rather, culture is 
internalized in the form of a loose network 
of domain-  specific knowledge structures, 
including implicit theories about the social 
world (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997). Ex -
amples of these are viewing human traits as 
relatively fixed attributes versus malleable, 
or seeing individual behavior as largely re -
flecting choice and internal traits versus re -
sponses to contextual pressures.