Unit 4 General Psychological Issues in Cultural Perspective

Subunit 4 Personality and Values Across Cultures

Article 2

8-1-2002

Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures:

Philippine Examples
A. Timothy Church
Washington State University, church@mail.wsu.edu

Marcia S. Katigbak
Washington State University

Recommended Citation
Church, A., & Katigbak, M. S. (2002). Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine
Examples. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/
2307-0919.1039
This Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Article is brought to you for free and open access (provided uses are educational in nature)by IACCP
and ScholarWorks@GVSU. Copyright 2002 International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. All Rights Reserved. ISBN
978-0-9845627-0-1

Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

Abstract
Trait perspectives are dominant in the study of personality cross-culturally. We review the
questions addressed by researchers who study personality traits across cultures, including,
among others, whether traits are used in all cultures to understand persons and their
behavior, the universality versus culture-specificity of traits, the validity of imported and
indigenous measures of personality traits, and the meaningfulness of trait comparisons
across cultures. We then summarize evidence relevant to these questions in one collectivistic
culture, the Philippines. Overall, personality research in the Philippines supports the
applicability of traits and trait theory as a basis for understanding persons and their behavior
across cultures.
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
License.

This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

Church and Katigbak: Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

Introduction
Central to western personality psychology is the concept of traits, typically defined as
relatively stable or enduring individual differences in thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Although some cultural psychologists question the importance of traits in understanding or
predicting behavior in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1998), trait
perspectives continue to dominate the study and measurement of personality across
cultures (Church, 2000). In studying personality traits and their measurement across
cultures, the following questions are relevant:
1. Are personality traits useful in describing or understanding persons and their
behavior in all cultures?
2. Do persons in different cultures describe each other in terms of similar or
comparable traits?
3. How well do the trait dimensions assessed by imported personality inventories
replicate or function across cultures?
4. How culture-specific are the trait dimensions assessed by indigenous personality
inventories?
5. Do indigenous personality measures outperform or provide additional prediction of
behavior beyond that provided by imported measures?
6. Are particular traits expressed or manifested in a similar manner in all cultures?
7. Can cultural differences in the level of particular personality traits be inferred from
comparisons of average scores on personality measures across cultures?
8. Are subgroup differences in personality traits (e.g., gender differences) the same in
all cultures?
9. Do persons in different cultures vary in their beliefs about the extent to which
behavior is determined by traits versus contextual factors?
10. Are the biological or socio-cultural bases of personality traits the same in different
cultures?
As these questions indicate, researchers who investigate personality cross-culturally are
typically interested in the usefulness of the trait concept in understanding and predicting
behavior across cultures, the universality versus culture-specificity of traits and their
expression, the validity of imported and indigenous trait measures, cultural and subcultural
differences in trait levels, and the biological or socio-cultural bases of traits.
Cross-cultural personality researchers around the world have addressed these
questions in varying degrees. Below, we address each question with a focus on the
Philippine context, often drawing on our own studies in each area. An exception: We do
not address the last question about the bases of personality traits. Although a few
researchers have examined the heritability of personality traits across cultures, no such
studies have been conducted in the Philippines.

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 2

Do Filipinos use traits in describing or understanding persons and their behavior?

Yes. Researchers have shown that Filipinos readily apply trait terms in describing
themselves and others (Church & Katigbak, 2000). For example, in our own studies of
mental health conceptions, Filipino college students made extensive use of trait terms in
describing Filipinos with good or poor psychological health (Church & Katigbak, 1989). In
addition, Filipino psychologists have made extensive use of trait concepts in describing
Filipino personality characteristics and in the development of indigenous instruments
(Guanzon-Lapea, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998).
Are the trait terms used by Filipinos comparable to those used by persons in other
cultures?
Overall, yes. This question addresses the comparability of personality trait lexicons across
cultures. Clearly, one can identify many trait terms in Filipino languages that are difficult to
translate or that have culture-specific connotations. However, in comprehensive studies of
the Filipino (Tagalog) trait lexicon we have found that the person-descriptive lexicon in
Filipino is roughly comparable in size to the person-descriptive lexicons in many other
languages, including German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Czech, and Polish, all of
which are substantially smaller, however, than the English person-descriptive lexicon
(which has many obscure terms) (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996). Also, by classifying
Filipino trait adjectives into an existing taxonomy of person-descriptive categories we
concluded that different person-descriptive lexicons address comparable aspects of
persons and their behavior (e.g., personality traits; abilities; experiential, physical, and
behavioral states; social roles and effects; attitudes and world views; anatomy and
appearance).
Most importantly, by classifying Filipino and English trait adjectives into the 133
refined subcategories of a personality taxonomy based on the Big Five dimensions
(Surgency/Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Intellect), we concluded that the Filipino and English lexicons make comparable trait
distinctions. These results, and recent results in several additional languages, suggest that
a Big Five taxonomy can encompass most, if not all, of the trait distinctions made in most
cultures.
How well do the trait dimensions assessed by imported personality inventories
replicate in the Philippines?
Rather well. Cross-cultural researchers typically investigate this question by translating
and administering personality inventories developed in one culture (usually in the U.S. or
Europe) in a new culture. By examining the "structure" or relationships among the
imported scales or items (typically using a statistical procedure referred to as factor
analysis), researchers determine whether the same underlying personality dimensions or
"factors" can account for the relationships among the items or scales, and thus be
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

Church and Katigbak: Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

meaningfully used to assess these trait dimensions in the new culture. For example, three
studies thus far have found that the Big Five dimensions, as assessed by the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory, replicate rather well in the Philippines (Church & Katigbak,
2002).
How culture-specific are the trait dimensions assessed by indigenous Philippine
personality inventories?
Most are not highly culture-specific. A large number of indigenous personality measures
have been developed in the Philippines, although only a few measure a fairly
comprehensive set of traits or dimensions (Guanzon-Lapea et al., 1998). In one series of
studies (e.g., see Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998), we obtained Filipinos' ratings of their
own personalities using large sets of trait adjectives from the lexical studies referred to
earlier. Factor analyses of these responses in several samples have indicated that six
substantive dimensions provide a rather comprehensive and replicable representation of
Filipino personality structure based on the lexical approach. English labels for these
dimensions are Concerned for Others versus Egotism, Gregariousness,
Temperamentalness, Self-Assurance, Conscientiousness, and Intellect. By correlating
scores on these dimensions with measures of the Big Five, we showed that the indigenous
and Big Five dimensions overlap considerably, but do not carve up the personality space
in precisely the same manner.
In another series of studies, we used interviews and open-ended questionnaires to
derive Filipino college students' conceptions of healthy and unhealthy personality (Church
& Katigbak, 1989). Later, college students responded to items written to assess these
personality concepts. Factor analyses of the students' responses resulted in six
dimensions that showed some conceptual overlap with the lexical dimensions described
above: Concern for Others, Affective Well-being, Emotional Control, Social Potency,
Responsibility, and Broad-Mindedness. Subsequently, we found moderate to strong
correlations between these dimensions and dimensions of the Big Five or five-factor
model, as assessed with the NEO-PI-R (Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996).
Two other indigenous personality inventories are well-known in the Philippines, the
Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilpino (PPP) and Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP)
(Guanzon-Lapea et al., 1998). The inventory authors drew on personality descriptions
provided by cultural informants and Filipino personality literature to select the traits to
assess. For example, English labels for the traits assessed by the PPP are
Responsibleness, Orderliness, Achievement Orientation, Honesty, Thoughtfulness,
Respectfulness, Humility, Obedience, Capacity for Understanding, Helpfulness, Emotional
Stability, Patience, Sensitiveness, Sociability, Cheerfulness, Social Curiosity, Creativity,
Risk-Taking, and Intelligence. Some of these traits may be particularly salient in the
Philippines (e.g., Respectfulness, Obedience, Humility, Social Curiosity). Furthermore, an
inspection of the item content of these inventories reveals references to situations and
behaviors that seem particularly relevant for the Philippines setting. However, we recently
found that most of the trait dimensions measured by these indigenous measures overlap
Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 2

considerably with the Big Five dimensions; only a few Philippine scales were less well
accounted for by the five-factor model (Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapea, Carlota, del
Pilar, 2002). In sum, studies of indigenous Philippine lexical and inventory dimensions
suggest that Big-Five-like dimensions are relevant in the Philippines and that indigenous
Philippine dimensions are not very culture-specific.
Do indigenous Philippine measures outperform or provide additional prediction of
behavior beyond that provided by imported measures?
Outperform? So far, no. Additional prediction? Yes. In the study just described, we also
compared the ability of the indigenous and imported (NEO-PI-R) scales to predict various
self-reported behavioral and attitudinal criteria deemed relevant in Philippine society:
smoking, drinking, gambling, praying, accident proneness, tolerance of homosexuality,
tolerance of extramarital sexual relations, and tolerance of premarital sexual relations
(Katigbak et al., 2002). We found that the best indigenous and imported predictors
generally correlated with these criteria about equally well; however, the indigenous
predictors usually did provide additional prediction of the criteria, as reflected in modest
but statistically significant increases in multiple correlations, beyond that provided by the
imported scales alone.
Are particular traits expressed or manifested differently in the Philippines?
Probably to some extent, but evidence is limited. Two sources of evidence are relevant.
First, one could examine whether the behavioral correlates of particular traits are similar
across cultures (e.g., are higher levels of Conscientiousness manifested in higher job
performance ratings in all cultures?). Second, one could examine whether the behavioral
indicators of particular traits, for example, as captured in inventory items, are comparable
across cultures.
Evidence of the first type is sparse cross-culturally, including in the Philippines.
Investigators have rarely compared the correlates of the same traits in multiple cultures.
Studies in the Philippines present a mixed picture. For example, in a study of academic
motives, we found a pattern of correlations between various academic motives and
student grade point averages that was very similar for American and Filipino college
students (Church & Katigbak, 1992). In contrast, we have found cross-cultural differences
in the personality correlates of individualism-collectivism between U.S. and Philippine
samples (Grimm, Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1999) and Watkins and Astilla (1980) failed
to replicate in the Philippines correlations found in U.S. samples between first-year college
grades and scores on the California Psychological Inventory.
Regarding the second type of evidence, we have found that a large proportion
(about 40%) of the items in the NEO-PI-R (administered to Filipino college students in
English, a language of instruction) exhibited "differential item functioning" or item bias
across cultures (Huang, Church, & Katigbak, 1997). That is, in many cases, the behaviors
depicted in the items were better or more relevant indicators of the intended traits in either
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

Church and Katigbak: Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

the Philippines or the U.S., as compared to the other culture. With very few exceptions,
however, the behaviors depicted in the items were sufficiently relevant indicators of the
intended traits in both cultures to be retained. Overall, the extent to which particular traits
are manifested in comparable behaviors across cultures is an unresolved question.
Can average trait levels of Filipinos, as compared to other cultural groups, be
inferred from comparisons of scores on personality inventories across cultures?
Cross-cultural researchers differ considerably in their optimism regarding the validity of
such trait-level comparisons across cultures. Methodologists point to a variety of construct,
method, and item biases that can reduce the equivalence of personality measures and the
comparability of scores across cultures. Judging from our previous reviews of Philippine
literature, we suspect that such mean comparisons often do reveal valid cultural
differences (Church & Katigbak, 2000); many of the cultural differences reported seem
consistent with expectations based on perceptions of Filipino culture and personality. Also,
in an analysis of thirty-six cultures, including the Philippines, McCrae (2002) found
sensible correlations between cultural means on the Big Five and various cultural
dimensions (e.g., cultural means on Extraversion correlated highly with individualism).
The problem is the difficulty of knowing when these cultural comparisons reveal true
cultural differences and when they are confounded by conceptual, methodological, and
item biases. For example, in addition to the study of differential item functioning mentioned
above, we have also investigated various response biases that Filipinos might exhibit
when filling out personality inventories. In one study, Church and Katigbak (1992) found
that Filipino college students averaged higher than American students on every academic
motive they assessed, suggesting that direct score comparisons might be confounded by
cultural differences in acquiescence response bias. In a more comprehensive study,
however, using a large number of instruments varying in scale content and format, Grimm
and Church (1999) found that Filipinos and Americans did not show consistent differences
in acquiescence, extreme responding, or midpoint responding; however, Americans did
respond to trait measures in a more socially desirable manner than did Filipinos.
In an attempt to investigate more directly the meaningfulness of profile comparisons
across cultures, we investigated whether mean profile levels of Filipinos, as compared to
American norms, could be predicted from the literature on Filipino personality and the
ratings of 43 bicultural judges regarding whether Filipinos or Americans would tend to
average higher, or would average the same, on the 30 traits assessed by the NEO-PI-R
inventory (Church & Katigbak, 2002). Hypotheses about average cultural differences
derived from the literature agreed well with the judgements of the bicultural raters, but the
resulting predictions received only limited or partial support in the Filipino mean profiles,
plotted using U.S. norms. In sum, the question of whether direct score comparisons with
personality measures provide valid information about cultural differences in trait levels
remains one of the greatest challenges in the study of personality across cultures.

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 2

Are subgroup differences in personality traits the same in the Philippines as in

other cultures?
In studying personality across cultures, it is important to be mindful of the heterogeneity
within most cultures with respect to ethnicity, language, education, urbanization, and
modernization; such subgroup differences, as well as age and gender differences, might
be associated with within-culture variability in personality traits. Of these within-culture
variables, gender differences have been studied most extensively. Because many
hypothesized gender differences in traits (e.g., more agentic or assertive traits in men,
more communal traits in women) are consistent with both evolutionary/biological and
socio-cultural (e.g., social role theory) explanations, cross-cultural studies might not be
able to clarify whether biological or socio-cultural influences, or both, underlie male-female
differences in personality traits. Cross-cultural studies of gender differences will be most
definitive regarding the causes of gender differences if no consistent patterns of gender
differences are found across cultures; whereas consistent patterns of gender differences
across cultures are consistent with either biological or social role explanations, significant
cultural differences in patterns of gender differences would tend to rule out strictly
biological explanations.
Comparisons across a wide range of cultures suggest that gender differences in
personality traits, although modest in size, are indeed fairly consistent across cultures, so
that biological explanations can not be ruled out. For example, in a study comparing NEOPI-R mean profiles across 26 cultures, including the Philippines, Costa, Terracciano and
McCrae (2001) found that: (a) women are consistently higher than men in Neuroticism and
Agreeableness; (b) in most cultures, women are higher than men in more communal
facets of Extraversion (Warmth, Gregariousness, and Positive Emotions), but lower in
more agentic facets (Assertiveness, Excitement-Seeking); (c) women average higher than
men in Openness to Aesthetics, Feelings, and Actions, but lower in Openness to Ideas;
and (d) in most cultures, women are more Dutiful than men, but few consistent gender
differences exist for other facets of Conscientiousness. Costa et al. (2001) noted that most
of these differences are consistent with gender stereotypes and are compatible with both
biological and social-role explanations of gender differences.
In a more recent Philippine sample (Katigbak et al., 2002), again with the Filipino
NEO-PI-R, we replicated many but not all of these gender differences: (a) Filipino women
averaged higher in all Neuroticism facets except Impulsivity; (b) women averaged higher in
the Straightforwardness facet of Agreeableness, but men were slightly higher in Trust and
Tender-mindedness; (c) women did not average higher in the communal aspects of
Extraversion, but men did average higher in Excitement-seeking; (d) women were higher
in Openness to Aesthetics and men were higher in Openness to Ideas; and (d) the only
gender difference in the Conscientiousness domain involved the slightly higher average
Deliberation scores for men. All effect sizes were small, however.
Surprisingly, Costa et al. (2001) found that gender differences were larger in cultures
that are more western, wealthy, and individualistic; in particular, gender effect sizes were
larger for European and American cultures than for African and Asian cultures, including
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

Church and Katigbak: Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

the Philippines. From a social role theory perspective, greater differentiation of social roles,
and hence larger gender differences in personality, would be expected in more traditional
cultures, but this was not the case. Costa et al.'s preferred explanation of this finding is
that gender differences in more traditional or collectivistic cultures might be attributed to
gender role requirements rather than to traits, so that perceived gender differences in
behavior would not be reflected in trait assessments. This explanation is consistent with
the view of some cultural psychologists that personality traits are viewed as less important
in understanding persons and their behavior in collectivistic cultures (Church, 2000).
Several early studies in the Philippines reported personality differences associated
with social class and urban-rural differences, which suggest the influence of socio-cultural
factors in personality. For example, greater autonomy, self-assertion and self-confidence,
but reduced deference, succorance, affiliation, and moral values have been associated in
these studies with higher social-class and urban background (Church, 1987). It is not clear
whether similar social class or urban-rural differences would be found in other cultures, but
these differences do resemble those associated with the traditionalism-modernism
distinction in the cross-cultural literature.
Do Filipinos differ from individuals in other cultures in their beliefs about whether
behavior is determined by traits or contextual factors?
Some cultural psychologists expect that individuals in collectivistic cultures such as the
Philippines will attribute less importance to traits as compared to roles, norms, and other
contextual factors in descriptions of persons and their behavior. Church (2000) reviewed
evidence for and against this prediction, and hypothesized that such attributional
differences might be associated with cultural differences in implicit beliefs regarding the
extent to which behavior is determined by traits versus contextual factors.
In a series of studies, we have developed an instrument to assess individuals' beliefs
about the "traitedness" versus contextual nature of behavior, encompassing five belief
components: (a) belief in the longitudinal stability of personality traits; (b) belief in the
cross-situational consistency of trait-relevant behavior; (c) belief in the ability to predict
behavior from traits; (d) belief in the ability to infer traits from relatively few behavioral
instances; and (e) belief in the importance of traits in understanding persons and their
behavior. Preliminary results in cross-cultural comparisons involving the United States,
Mexico, and the Philippines suggest that (a) these beliefs can be reliably assessed across
cultures; (b) their component structure is comparable across cultures; and (c) individuals in
all three cultures endorse implicit trait beliefs to a fair extent. In future studies we will
examine whether cultural differences in implicit trait beliefs are associated with cultural
differences in the actual traitedness of behavior. This is a key issue for trait theory
generally and for the viability of the trait concept cross-culturally.

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 2

Summary
In this chapter we provided an overview of the questions typically addressed by
researchers who study personality traits cross-culturally. Then, we summarized the current
status of the evidence regarding these questions for one collectivistic culture, the
Philippines. We concluded that: (a) Filipinos readily apply trait terms in describing
themselves and others; (b) Filipinos make trait distinctions that are comparable to trait
distinctions made in other languages and cultures; (c) trait dimensions assessed by
imported personality inventories replicate rather well in the Philippines; (d) most
indigenous Filipino personality dimensions are not highly culture-specific; (e) indigenous
Filipino personality measures provide additional prediction of behavior beyond that
provided by imported measures; (f) the best behavioral indicators of particular traits, as
depicted, for example, in inventory items, may vary across cultures; (g) the question of
whether direct mean score comparisons with personality measures provide valid
information about cultural differences in trait levels remains one of the major unresolved
issues in the study of personality across cultures; (h) some subgroup differences in
personality (e.g., gender differences) appear to replicate fairly well across cultures; and (i)
individuals in all cultures may endorse, at least to some extent, belief in the longitudinal
stability, cross-situational consistency, and predictive validity of traits. Overall, this
research supports the applicability of personality traits and trait theory as a basis for
understanding persons and their behavior across diverse cultures.
References
Church, A. T. (1987). Personality research in a non-western culture. Psychological
Bulletin, 102, 272-292.
Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Towards an integrated cultural trait
psychology. Journal of Personality, 68, 651-703.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report structure of
personality in a non-Western culture: An investigation of cross-language and crosscultural generalizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 857-872.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1992). The cultural context of academic motives: A
comparison of American and Filipino college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 23, 40-58.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2000). Trait psychology in the Philippines. American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 73-94.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2002). The five-factor model in the Philippines:
Investigating trait structure and levels across cultures. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik
(Eds.), The five-factor model across cultures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. S. (1996). Toward a taxonomy of trait
adjectives in Filipino: Comparing personality lexicons across cultures. European
Journal of Personality, 10, 3-24.
http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

10

Church and Katigbak: Studying Personality Traits Across Cultures: Philippine Examples

Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. S. (1998). Further exploration of Filipino
personality structure using the lexical approach: Do the big-five or big-seven
dimensions emerge? European Journal of Personality, 12, 249-269.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality
traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
Grimm, S. D., & Church, A. T. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation of response biases in
personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 415-441.
Grimm, S. D., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S. Reyes, J. A. S. (1999). Self-described traits,
values, and moods associated with individualism and collectivism: Testing I-C theory
in an individualistic (U.S.) and a collectivistic (Philippine) culture. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 30, 466-500.
Guanzon-Lapea, M. A., Church, A. T., Carlota, A. J., & Katigbak, M. S. (1998).
Indigenous personality measures: Philippine examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 249-270.
Huang, C. D., Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1997). Identifying cultural differences in
items and traits: Differential item functioning in the NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 192-218.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., & Akamine, T. X. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of
personality dimensions: Relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two
cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 99-114.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., Guanzon-Lapea, M. A., Carlota, A. J., & del Pilar, G. H.
(2002). Are indigenous personality dimensions culture-specific? Philippine
inventories and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82, 89-101.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63-87.
McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons.
In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model across cultures. (pp. 105126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Watkins, D., & Astilla, E. (1980). Intellective and non-intellective predictors of academic
achievement at a Filipino university. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
40, 245-249.
About the Authors
A. Timothy Church received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Minnesota and
is currently a Professor of Counseling Psychology at Washington State University,
Pullman, WA, USA. From 1982 to 1984 he was a visiting professor at De La Salle
University in the Philippines and has conducted collaborative research involving the
Philippines since that time. His primary research interests involve cross-cultural and
indigenous personality structure and assessment and the integration of cultural and trait

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

11

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 4, Chapter 2

psychology perspectives. He is currently an Associate Editor for the Journal of CrossCultural Psychology. E-mail: church@mail.wsu.edu.
Marcia S. Katigbak, a native of the Philippines, received her Ph.D. in Educational
Psychology/Measurement from Washington State University where she is a research
associate for the Culture and Personality project in the Department of Educational
Leadership and Counseling Psychology. Her research interests include personality
structure and assessment across cultures and indigenous psychologies. E-mail:
mkchurch@mail.wsu.edu.
Questions for Discussion
1. What questions are typically addressed by researchers who are interested in
personality traits and their measurement across cultures? Why are the answers to
these questions important for personality psychology and our understanding of
human nature?
2. Do you expect that the findings summarized here for the Philippines will be similar
to findings in other western or nonwestern cultures? Why or why not?
3. Discuss some implications of the findings summarized here for counseling,
personnel selection, and interpersonal communication across cultures.
4. Why might comparisons of personality trait levels of different cultural or ethnic
groups be controversial and need to be made with considerable caution? Take into
account both measurement and socio-political considerations.
5. How do you make use of trait terms (e.g., dominant, kind, lazy, moody, openminded) in describing yourself and others? Do you think such personality
characteristics predict well what people will do in various situations? Do you think
these personality characteristics are fairly stable or rather changeable over time for
most people? Compare your views on these questions with those of others in your
class.
6. If you are familiar with another language, can you think of any trait terms that would
be difficult to translate into English or other languages? If so, what behaviors or
meanings are associated with these traits that seem especially culture-specific?
Are you aware of English translations for these trait terms that are at least
somewhat similar in meaning?
7. What are the "Big Five" dimensions in personality research? Why do you think the
"discovery" of the Big Five is considered important by many personality and crosscultural psychologists?
8. What are the implications of within-culture diversity for cross-cultural comparisons
of personality traits?

http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss4/2

12