692 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
Schlüter, Schmidt, and Meuleman (2012) 
demonstrate how multilevel structural equa -
tion modeling (SEM) can be used to test 
and explain measurement invariance across 
cultural groups. Church et al. (2011) used 
multigroup confirmatory factor analysis to 
detect differential item function (DIF) in the 
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI). They 
found a high rate of DIF among Americans, 
Mexicans, and Pilipino (56.3–71.2% by Dc2 
and 44.6–48.8% by D CFI [comparative fit 
index]). Furthermore, when they removed 
the DIF items and recomputed the facet 
means, they observed substantial changes 
in mean differences (see Oishi, 2006, for 
another DIF analysis). Church et al. (2011, 
p. 1079) state that “for seven of these eight 
facets, the cultural differences that were sta -
tistically significant for the original scales 
were no longer significant for the purified 
scales.” Thus, equivalence of questionnaire 
items continues to be a major concern for 
culture and personality researchers.
Fourth, novel approaches have been taken 
to address response style issues. For example, 
Mõttus et al. (2012) utilized anchoring vi -
gnette ratings to control for response styles; 
participants from 20 countries rated exactly 
the same 30 hypothetical persons’ behav -
iors related to conscientiousness, and the re -
searchers used extreme and neutral ratings 
to correct for self-  reported conscientious -
ness. Raw self-  reported conscientiousness 
was the lowest among Japanese, followed by 
South Koreans among the 20 nations. Once 
they corrected for the response styles, both 
Japanese and Korean self-  reported conscien -
tiousness scores moved up. Similarly, Hong 
Kong and Germany’s conscientiousness 
rankings moved up substantially, whereas 
rankings for Burkina Faso, Philippines, and 
Malaysia moved down after the corrections.
Finally, to circumvent social desirability 
and various other issues that characterize 
self- reports, some researchers have used ar -
chives that are created by ordinary citizens in 
naturalistic everyday settings. For instance, 
in studying cultural differences in approach– 
avoidance motivation, Hamamura, Meijer, 
Heine, Kamaya, and Hori (2009) analyzed 
comments made on the website’s (Amazon) 
book reviews by ordinary consumers, and 
helpfulness ratings of the comment. Results 
showed that approach-  focused content was 
more prevalent in American reviews com -pared to Japanese reviews, and that the op -
posite pattern exists for avoidance-  focused 
content. Likewise, Koopmann-  Holm and 
Tsai (2014) studied cultural differences in 
affect valuation by analyzing Hallmark 
greeting cards in the United States and Ger -
many, and found that American sympathy 
cards contain less negative and more posi -
tive content than German sympathy cards. 
Last, some researchers have utilized official 
speeches made by politicians to gauge his -
torical changes. For example, Oishi, Gra -
ham, Kesebir, and Galinha (2013) content- 
analyzed the State of the Union addresses 
from 1790 (George Washington) to 2010 
(Barack Obama) to understand historical 
changes in the meaning of happiness.
Traits
When certain personality questionnaires are 
translated into other languages, considerable 
cross-  cultural similarities in the structure of 
personality have been demonstrated (e.g., 
McCrae et al., 2005). However, when natu -
ral (i.e., indigenous) language descriptors are 
used, researchers often find many culture- 
specific dimensions. De Raad et al. (2010) 
used factor analysis to derive the structural 
equivalence of 14 trait taxonomies from 12 
languages. They found that three factors 
(extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeable -
ness) comprise a cross-  culturally replicable 
structure of personality. Saucier et al. (2014) 
analyzed person descriptors in nine lan -
guages and found that two dimensions are 
universal: social self-  regulation (e.g., honest, 
kind, generous) and dynamism (e.g., active, 
brave, bold). Using the semistructured in -
terview method, Valchev et al. (2013) also 
examined natural language personality de -
scriptions of South African Blacks, Whites, 
and Indians, and found that the two di -
mensions (agency–  communion) similar to 
Saucier et al. (2014) emerged. Furthermore, 
they found that South African Blacks used 
contextual descriptions far more frequently 
than Whites.
Recently, researchers have also explored 
cultural variations in lay philosophies about 
traits. Church and colleagues (2012), for in -
stance, found that Americans and Mexicans 
are more likely to believe that a person be -
haves consistently across situations than did 
Filipinos and Japanese. Likewise, Mexicans 