are discussed and resolved (e.g., OECD, 2010 ). Committee approaches have also been proposed in which a (sin-
gle) forward translation is prepared by a group of experts, who combine the specific domains of expertise that
are required for an instrument.
We can formulate two main recommendations. First, there is a need to more systematically address equiva-
lence issues in comparative personality studies. There are many good examples of studies that address the com-
parability of constructs across cultures. Statistical procedures are readily available to address the question of
whether constructs are identical across cultures in a particular data set (notably confirmatory factor analysis for
short instruments and exploratory factor analysis for long instruments). Like internal consistencies, results of
equivalence procedures should be routinely reported. Second, as measured by the number of tests of its equiva-
lence, the NEO-PI-R is clearly the instrument with the largest support for its equivalence (notably structural
equivalence). This impressive evidence is not matched by any other instrument. For several instruments, such as
the HEXACO-PI, ‘the jury is still out’ and we need more empirical evidence to draw any conclusions about their
cross-cultural stability.
In summary, Berry et al. (2011) have described three goals of cross-cultural psychology, which can also be
seen as three successive stages of the field. The first goal is to transport and test (Berry et al., 2011 ). Applied to per-
sonality, this goal amounts to examining the applicability of Western models and theories in new, often non-
Western cultural contexts. This is the etic approach (with its invariance agenda) in which the generalizability of
Western models is tested. The second goal is to explore other cultures in order to discover psychological variations
(Berry et al., 2011 ). This goal represents the emic, non-comparative approach (which falls beyond the scope of the
comparative approach of the present chapter). The third goal involves the attempt to generate a more universal psy-
chology by combining emic and etic models so as to explain culture-transcending and culture-specific aspects of
personality in a single model. The present chapter makes it clear that the research agenda of personality has
shown an emphasis on the first aspect and that we have made few inroads into combining emic and etic perspec-
tives. It is a challenge for the cross-cultural and personality research to make the field more inclusive and to not
only cover personality in the Western world but also personality in the majority world ( Kagitcibasi, 2007 ).
References *
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Towards a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology ,35,1 3/C028. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/0022022103260382 .
Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O., & Garcı ´a, L. F. (2002). A comparative study of Zuckerman’s three structural models for personality through the NEO-PI-
R, ZKPQ-III-R, EPQ-RS and Goldberg’s 50-bipolar adjectives. Personality and Individual Differences ,33, 713/C0725. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)
00186-6.
*Aluja, A., Garcı ´a, O., Rossier, J., & Garcı ´a, L. F. (2005). Comparison of the NEO-FFI, the NEO-FFI-R and an alternative short version of the
NEO-PI-R (NEO-60) in Swiss and Spanish samples. Personality and Individual Differences ,38, 591/C0604. Available from http://dx.doi.org/
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.014 .
*Aluja, A., Rossier, J., Garcı ´a, L. F., & Verardi, S. (2005). The 16PF5 and the NEO-PI-R in Spanish and Swiss samples: A cross-cultural compari-
son. Journal of Individual Differences ,26,5 3/C062. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1027/1614-0001.26.2.53 .
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2 /C0Personality measurement and testing (pp. 239 /C0260). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., De Vries, R. E., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., & Sergi, I. (2006). The HEXACO model of personality structure and indigenous
lexical personality dimensions in Italian, Dutch, and English. Journal of Research in Personality ,40, 851/C0875. Available from http://dx.doi.
org/doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.06.003 .
Barrett, P. T., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1984). The assessment of personality across 14 countries. Personality and Individual Differences ,5, 615/C0632.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(84)90110-7.
*Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial
similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences ,25, 805/C0819. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00026-9.
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990). Cross-cultural assessment of personality: The case for replicatory factor analysis. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger
(Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 8, pp. 27 /C048). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Ben-Porath, Y. S., Almagor, M., Hoffman-Chemi, A., & Tellegen, A. (1995). A cross-cultural study of personality with the Multidimensional
Personality Questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,26, 360/C0373. Available from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1177/
0022022195264002 .
Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology ,24,
721/C0735.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd
ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
*Note: References with an asterisk are included in the review as publications with direct information on cross-cultural equivalence.772 26. MEASURES OF PERSONALITY ACROSS CULTURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT