CHAPTER
26
Measures of Personality across Cultures
V elichko H. Fetvadjiev1,*and Fons J. R. van de Vijver2
1Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, and University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa;2Tilburg University,
Tilburg, The Netherlands, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, and University of Queensland,
St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
Cross-cultural research involving personality measures is burgeoning. The PsycINFO database shows a steady
increase, with the number growing in the last decade to more than 2000 publications per year ( Van de Vijver,
2013 ). The correlation between publication year and number of articles on cross-cultural topics is in the .80s. Our
primary interest was not in synthesizing the findings into a comprehensive picture of cross-cultural similarities
and differences in personality structure (‘the geography of personality traits’ /C0Allik & McCrae, 2004 ), but to
address the evidence garnered to support the validity of cross-cultural comparisons of personality instruments .
Which personality instruments have been used in multiple countries and what is known about the psychometric
qualities, notably cross-cultural comparability issues, of the instruments reported in these studies?
The first part of the chapter sets the stage by describing a framework used to evaluate the cross-cultural use of
personality measures. Distinctions between emic and etic studies, translations and adaptations, as well as proce-
dures for comparing data from personality instruments obtained in different cultures are described. The second
part of the chapter provides an overview of the instruments frequently employed in cross-cultural studies and
the level of support for the comparability of constructs and scores across cultures.
Emic/C0Etic/Universal /C0Culture-Specific
The emic /C0etic distinction refers to the two traditional research strategies used to study phenomena in different
cultures ( Berry, 1989; Van de Vijver, 2010 ). The terms ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ were borrowed from the study of linguis-
tics. Specifically, ‘etic’ refers to research that studies cross-cultural differences, whereas ‘emic’ refers to research
that fully studies one culture with no (or only a secondary) cross-cultural focus. Etic research seeks to define
common phenomena across cultures which can be used to define a set of universal phenomena among all cul-
tures, whereas emic research lacks this aspect.
Proponents of the emic viewpoint posit that phenomena should be studied from within their own cultural con-
text. For example, studies of Chinese students’ learning strategies should provide a detailed overview of these
strategies and presumably relate them to relevant features of Chinese culture, such as Confucian philosophy
(Watkins & Biggs, 1996 ). In contrast, etic researchers might use a questionnaire to compare the learning strategies
of Chinese vs. American students.
Many researchers now recognize that the two strategies are better viewed as lying on a continuum rather than
as mutually exclusive and incompatible ( Cheung, Van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011; Helfrich, 1999 ). Thus, the
emic/C0etic distinction has been redefined as referring to endpoints of a continuum that ranges from cultural speci-
ficity (emic) to universality (etic).
In this new approach, emic and etic aspects can coexist and work together because many phenomena studied
in cross-cultural research have both universal and culture-specific aspects ( Cheung et al., 2011 ). For example,
*Until 2014, Velichko H. Fetvadjiev was publishing by the family name of Valchev.
752Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00026-7 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.