Values

651333
research-article2016
JCCXXX10.1177/0022022116651333Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyNg et al
Article
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
2016, Vol. 47(7) 981–996
Examining Variability in Values © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Attributed to Culture: Using sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022022116651333
Personality as a Relative jccp.sagepub.com
Benchmark
Vincent Ng1, Sang Eun Woo1, Louis Tay1, and Jeff Foster2
Abstract
Prior work examining the role of cultural groupings (i.e., national membership) on personal
values showed small to moderate amounts of variability attributable to culture, refuting the idea
that culture determines values. We extend this research by examining the proportion of variance
in values that could be explained by cultural membership. Because there is no definitive level of
proportion of variance that would lead to a conclusion that values are culturally determined,
personality, which is arguably not culturally determined, was used as a relative benchmark.
Language groups were used as an alternate conception of cultural groupings. A large data set of
144,857 workers from across 31 major language groups revealed that language groups explained
a significant and non-negligible amount of variance in personal value dimensions (7%-17%).
Nevertheless, this was not significantly larger than any single personality dimension (3%-12%). In
other words, our data failed to support the notion that personal values are strongly determined
by cultural groupings compared with personality.
Keywords
cultural psychology, personality, values, attitudes, beliefs, language, methodology
Within cross-cultural psychology, one major perspective considers culture to be a system of

meaning that a group shares, whereas another major perspective conceptualizes culture as a set
of shared conditions (e.g., ecology and sociopolitical environment) that individuals within that
culture adapt to and internalize as individual-level attributes (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen,
2002). From the former perspective, individual-level values are a fundamental cultural element
shared by group members, in part constituting and characterizing distinguishable cultures
(Hofstede, 1980, 1984; Triandis, 1972). In the latter perspective, similar values are adopted by
cultural members as culture exerts ecological, social, and political influence via institutions that
eventuates in similar reward contingencies and shared social experiences (Smith & Schwartz,
1997). In either view, the construct of individual-level values is indistinguishably tied to culture
either by definition or causal determination. Based on this notion, many cross-cultural studies
1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

2Hogan Assessment Systems, Tulsa, OK, USA
Corresponding Author:
Vincent Ng, Purdue University, 703 3rd St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Email: ngv@purdue.edu
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

982 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 47(7)
have utilized aggregated individual-level ratings on personal values to characterize each cul-
tural group’s relative standing on cultural value dimensions, the most widely researched being
the dimension of individualism (Berry et al., 2002; see for review Oyserman, Coon, &
Kemmelmeier, 2002).
However, recent work using large data sets and different values measures has put such prac-
tices into question. Fischer and Schwartz (2011) found that only “small” portions (ranging from
4% to 22%) of variance in self-reported value ratings were accounted for by culture (as opera-
tionalized by national membership), which led the authors to the conclusion that self-endorsed
values are likely not strongly determined by culture. This is a strong, yet controversial claim
given that values have been the primary construct of investigation in measuring and comparing
cross-cultural differences (Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Triandis, 1972). In effect, using values rat-
ings to tap into culture would be untenable if little of the variation in values scores is associated
with cultural membership.
One key question is how much of the variance in values needs to be attributable to culture to
provide a strong support for the notion of values being “culturally determined.” Methodologically,
there does not appear to be a clear, theoretically grounded threshold for drawing such conclusions
(van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002). As a result, researchers are often left to use rules of thumb
(e.g., Muthén, 1991, 1994). The substantive meaning of Fischer and Schwartz’s (2011) findings
regarding “low” proportion of variance in values accounted for by national membership is rela-
tively open to interpretation without a meaningful reference point to ground such evaluations,
especially when the variance explained by culture varied widely depending on the value.
The present research seeks to address this issue by providing a relevant benchmark against
which the amount of values variance accounted for by cultural membership can be compared:
personality. We explore how much variance in both personality dimensions and values dimen-
sions can be explained by cultural membership. Because personality and its development has
been proposed to be relatively unrelated to shared environmental and social influences (McCrae
& Costa, 2008), comparing how much between-culture variance there is in values in relation to
personality will provide insight into the relative degree of cultural association of the two con-
structs given that absolute benchmarks are hard to establish. If culture does not account for vari-
ability in individual-level endorsement of values any more than it does personality, this would be
fairly strong evidence that differences in values are independent of cultural membership.
In summary, the goal of our article is to provide an empirical evaluation of the degree to which
differences in the psychological dimensions of personality and values can be explained by lan-
guage groups (which we operationalized as a proxy for culture in this article). In the following,
we discuss the methodological uncertainties with regard to an absolute benchmark for a construct
being culturally determined. As such, we propose the examination of values relative to personal-
ity traits given that they are generally viewed as invariant across cultures. We use empirical data
from 144,857 full-time workers to examine the extent values and personality variance are
accounted for by culture.
Benchmarking Variance Accounted for by Culture

Cross-cultural researchers frequently examine mean differences in psychological attributes
and behaviors at the level of collective units such as language groups (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
1997) or nations (Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008; McCrae, Terracciano, & 79 Members
of the Personality Profiles of Cultures, 2005; Schmitt & Allik, 2005). Implicit in such analyses
is the assumption that the central tendencies of self-ratings adequately characterize the cultural
groups to which these individuals belong (Fischer, 2006). However, the tenability of using
aggregated self-ratings of cultural members as indicators of cultural attributes for a given con-
struct rests on the assumption that significant variability in self-ratings can be attributed to

Ng et al 983
cultural membership. The lack of such evidence for substantial between-culture variability in
individual ratings indicates that cultural differences are not associated with individual differ-
ences in the construct under investigation, and cross-cultural comparisons along these particu-
lar dimensions using mean-level ratings of cultural members is not justified (van de Vijver &
Poortinga, 2002).
Thus, establishing that there is substantial between-group variation in mean-level individual
ratings is a necessary starting point in modeling potential grouping effects via multilevel model-
ing (MLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Within the MLM framework, culture effects can be
modeled statistically as a conceptually higher level grouping variable that predicts individual
scores for a given psychological dimension after controlling for individual-level factors. For
instance, cultural membership may predict individual-level ratings on values beyond individual
characteristics. A first step in modeling potential cultural membership effects in explaining val-
ues ratings would be to examine their relative contribution in estimating the overall mean on a
given value dimension in the population (Gelman & Hill, 2007). If there is very little variation in
between-groups (i.e., aggregated individual-level) ratings on a value, then this suggests that it
would be more parsimonious to use multiple regression instead of including a higher level group-
ing variable that provides little additional explanatory power using MLM (Aguinis, Gottfredson,
& Culpepper, 2013).
The intraclass correlation (ICC) provides a statistical index of potential higher level effects as
the ratio of between-group variation relative to both between-group and within-group variability
in ratings of a sample (ICC; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). This speaks to the proportion of total
variability that can be explained in terms of between-group differences in mean-level ratings.
Alternatively, the ICC can be thought of as the correlation among members within a group
(Gelman & Hill, 2007). This interpretation construes the ICC as the level of average within-
group homogeneity. In the context of the present study, either interpretation of the ICC represents
greater values similarity of individuals with other cultural in-group members in relation to cul-
tural out-group members. Thus, the higher the ICC, the more that the cultural membership needs
to be taken into account as a factor to accurately model values ratings (Gelman & Hill, 2007).
Furthermore, a high ICC for values ratings is necessary, although insufficient evidence in sup-
porting any theories that postulate cultural membership “determines” values ratings in conjunc-
tion with individual-level characteristics (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). However, the issue remains
as to what constitutes a substantially high ICC.
There are different opinions regarding what is a sufficient amount of variance that group
membership needs to account for before it is deemed an important predictor in individual-level
scores. Some have proposed that ICCs greater than .05 as a general, although admittedly arbitrary
cutoff (van de Vijver & Poortinga, 2002). Others have suggested that ICCs exceeding .10 may
indicate that higher level factors need to be included (Kahn, 2011). Others still have simply
described what can be expected in different areas of research. Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, and
Chen (2012) found that ICCs range from .15 to .30 in their review of a decade of research in
Journal of Applied Psychology. Peugh (2010) stated that values of .05 to .20 could be expected
in cross-sectional social science research. Hedges and Hedberg (2007) recommended that rea-
sonable expected values of ICC might be obtained by reviewing what past studies in the relevant
research area have found. Large-scale studies have demonstrated a wide range of ICCs for indi-
vidual values ratings, from .02 to .30 across samples and operationalizations (Fischer & Schwartz,
2011). The range was somewhat narrower when values were aggregated to value types at .06 to
.21 (Poortinga & Van Hemert, 2001). Although these findings give an indication of what range of
ICCs may be expected, the relatively small amount of variance accounted for by group member-
ship in general makes it difficult to determine what levels of ICC indicate meaningful relation of
individual-level ratings with group factors. In short, ICCs should be sufficiently different from
zero, but how sufficiently different remains unclear (Peugh, 2010).

Therefore, what is needed is a relevant and contrasting benchmark against which ICCs of
values can be compared. Mounting research in personality demonstrates its relative cross-cul-
tural invariance in three aspects: structure (Heine & Buchtel, 2009), genetic basis for its structure
(Yamagata et al., 2006), and development (McCrae et al., 2000). As such, its inclusion in the
present study provides a meaningful reference point in interpreting whether values vary by cul-
ture to a relatively larger degree.
Personality: A Relative Benchmark

There have been recent, related attempts in personality psychology to expand models of human
individuality to include social and cultural influences. These models propose that personality
derives from fundamental individual differences that have their origins in human evolution,
whereas characteristic adaptations (e.g., values) are mid-level motivational, socio-cognitive, or
developmental individual differences that arise from the interaction between personality and the
social context (McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 2008; Sheldon, Cheng, & Hilpert,
2011). Conceptualized as characteristic adaptations, values are more proximal to the immediate
contextual influences and, therefore, strongly associated with culture, whereas personality is
rooted primarily in biology and less associated with culture (McAdams & Pals, 2006).
Indeed, research supports models of personality that are less associated with culture.
Personality traits, both global dispositions and specific traits, are largely heritable (Bouchard,
1994; Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; McCrae et al., 2000). In studies of twins, Loehlin (1992)
found that more than half of personality is largely determined by genetics and very little, if any,
portion of personality variance can be explained in terms of shared environmental experience.
That is not to say personality has no association with culture. Indeed, Allik and McCrae (2004)
found in their comparison of 36 cultures (i.e., national groups) that geographically proximal cul-
tures were more similar in personality profile than distal cultures, but emphasized cautious inter-
pretation of these results as they may be the result of any combination of slight cultural differences
in ecology, social desirability responding, or distribution of genes responsible for personality
variability. However, there was much greater intracultural than intercultural variability in person-
ality scores, with the majority of aggregated scores within the average range of U.S. scores,
indicating that personality tends to be similar across cultures (McCrae, 2002).
Along these lines, investigations comparing personality and values have been conducted in
organizations (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005), but to our knowledge, only one study has
compared them in nation groups (Poortinga & Van Hemert, 2001). Specifically, using a data set
for personality and another for values, the variance of self-ratings of personality and values
attributable to culture were compared. Although this provides a landmark comparison, the use of
two different data sources may be a potential confound, and there remains a need to examine this
issue with same source data.
Summary
Because of uncertainties about an absolute level of variance that would lead one to establish that
values are or are not meaningfully associated with culture, we sought to examine this with a rela-
tive benchmark—personality dimensions. We aim to answer the question of whether culture can
explain more variability in values as compared with personality. If values explain significantly
more variability than personality, then this would lend evidence against the conclusion of Fischer
and Schwartz (2011) that values are not strongly related to culture. However, if the variance in
values accounted for by culture is not significantly different from that of personality, it would
undermine current cross-cultural theories suggesting that values are a fundamental element of
culture, or that culture plays a substantial role in eliciting values.

Ng et al 985
Method
Participants
A consulting firm specializing in personality and values assessment for personnel selection
and development provided data. The raw data comprised 145,792 full-time workers that rep-
resented 41 different language groups, including differentiations between types of the same
language (e.g., U.S. English, U.K. English, and Indian English). The differences between
items in these language “subtypes” varied, ranging from some simple spelling changes (e.g.,
“In school I enjoyed math.” vs. “In school I enjoyed maths”) to different item content (e.g.,
an item asking about wanting to become a fighter pilot had to be changed to account for
potential cultural differences in what that item reflected). In addition, data regarding the
country where respondents’ current job was located was also available in 100,625 cases,
encompassing 117 countries.
As can be seen in Table 1, the majority of the sample’s native language aligned with their
current job location. That is, most of the respondents worked in the country of origin of their
respective native language (54%). Of 41 native languages, 38 had at least some members who
specified that they worked in that native language’s country of origin. In 17 of the 41 language
groups, the country of origin of that language was where most of the language group members
worked. In the remaining language groups where this was not the case, the largest proportionate
job location in the majority of language groups was unspecified by respondents. These individu-
als very well could have worked in their native language’s country of origin. To examine differ-
ent operationalizations of culture and the extent to which results are robust across the
operationalizations, analyses were run using both respondents’ self-reported native language
and national job location.
To ensure reliability of cultural groupings, for both operationalizations of culture, groups (i.e.,
language groups or job location countries) with less than 100 members were excluded from the
analyses. For the job location nation subsample, this resulted in 99,548 valid cases representing
39 countries. For native language, this sample reduction resulted in 145,716 valid cases repre-
senting 35 unique languages. For all analyses, the vast majority of the sample had personality
data, but approximately only one third had values data. This was not expected to be an issue with
the present analyses because each cultural member is essentially interchangeable with any other
and given the purposes of estimating between-culture differences in the constructs of interest. We
also ran analyses only including cases where the respondent’s current job location was also the
country or countries (e.g., Korean speakers who worked in either North or South Korea were
included) of origin of the selected native language (N = 78,435). This subset of the sample is
expected to be most culturally representative of their respective cultures because they both work
in the culture’s associated nation and are also native speakers of its language. This subsample did
not exclude language groups with less than 100 members because that would have reduced the
number of language groups by one third.
Procedure
When accessing the surveys containing the measures via the consulting firm’s website, respon-
dents were asked to click a flag icon that best represented their native language. In cases where
the consulting firm was contracted to build a portal on behalf of their client company for more
direct employee access, the language options were more limited or set to one language. In some
instances, clients were asked to select among countries to indicate the nation in which their cur-
rent jobs were located. Disclosure of this information was optional and is reflected in the more
limited data available on this variable.

Table 1. Language Group Members’ Job Location Alignment With Languages’ Country of Origin.
Native language N Aligned job location(s) N % Largest unaligned

Brazilian Portuguese 10,000 Brazil 9,833 98.3
Czech 10,000 Czech Republic 8,481 84.8
U.K. English 10,000 United Kingdom 4,406 44.1
U.S. English 10,000 United States 1,581 15.8 Australia
Spanish 10,000 Spain 31 0.3 Unspecified
Aussie/New Zealand 10,000 Australia and New 9,827 98.3
English Zealand (Aotearoa)
Swedish 10,000 Sweden 9,771 97.7
Turkish 9,347 Turkey 6,685 71.5
Korean 7,063 Korea (North & South) 721 10.2 Unspecified
French Canadian 6,376 Canada 1,758 27.6 Unspecified
Norwegian 6,155 Norway 4,906 79.7
German 5,604 Germany 1,556 27.8 Unspecified
Kenyan English 5,218 Kenya 4,909 94.1
Danish 4,403 Denmark 2,351 53.4
Parisian French 3,825 France 34 0.9 Unspecified
Slovak 3,228 Slovak Republic 1,206 37.4 Unspecified
Chinese (simplified) 2,744 China and Hong Kong 1,039 37.9 Unspecified
Icelandic 2,545 Iceland 2,059 80.9
Romanian 2,274 Romania 117 5.1 Unspecified
Thai 2,254 Thailand 2,162 95.9
Polish 2,019 Poland 88 4.4 Unspecified
Chinese (traditional) 1,850 China and Hong Kong 671 36.3 Unspecified
Russian 1,708 Russia 898 52.6
Finnish 1,610 Finland 688 42.7 Unspecified
Dutch 1,581 Netherlands 11 0.7 Unspecified
South African English 1,117 South Africa 785 70.3
Castilian Spanish 1,082 Spain 90 8.3 Unspecified
Italian 863 Italy 2 0.2 Unspecified
Hungarian 734 Hungary 722 98.4
Bulgarian 702 Bulgaria 691 98.4
Greek 555 Greece 294 53.0
Indian English 276 India 8 2.9 Unspecified
Japanese 261 Japan 2 0.8 Unspecified
Bahasa Indonesian 205 Indonesia 0 0 Unspecified
Arabic 117 United Arab Emirates 25 21.4 Singapore
Greek English 28 Greece 23 82.1
Macedonian 15 Macedonia 0 0 Unspecified
Bahasa Malaysian 14 Malaysia 0 0 United Kingdom
Serbian 13 Serbia 3 23.1 Unspecified
Estonian 5 Estonia 1 20.0 Finland
Portuguese 1 Portugal 0 0 Unspecified
Total 145,792 78,435 53.8
Note. Job location(s) with largest sample size within each language group in bold. Aligned job location(s) = job
location(s) that is country of origin for language group; % = percentage of language group whose job location is in
language’s country of origin; largest unaligned = largest job location group when aligned job location(s) was not the
largest within language group.

Ng et al 987
Table 2. ICCs for Personality and Values (Language as Culture).
Personality ICC CILB CIUB Values ICC CILB CIUB

Learning approach .04 .02 .06 Affiliation .07 .04 .09
Sociability .04 .03 .06 Scientific .07 .04 .11
Inquisitive .06 .03 .08 Aesthetic .07 .05 .09
Prudence .08 .04 .12 Power .13 .07 .20
Interpersonal sensitivity .09 .05 .13 Hedonistic .10 .06 .14
Ambition .10 .05 .14 Altruistic .12 .08 .17
Adjustment .11 .08 .15 Commercial .12 .05 .18
Recognition .14 .08 .19
Tradition .16 .10 .21
Security .17 .11 .23
M .07 M .12
Note. ICC = intraclass correlation; CILB = lower bound of the 95% confidence interval; CIUB = upper bound of the 95%
confidence interval.
Measures
Personality. Personality was measured using the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), a 206-item
measure based on the Big Five personality model (Hogan & Hogan, 1992). Between 14 and 37
items were used to assess each of the seven dimensions of personality: adjustment, ambition,
sociability, interpersonal sensitivity, prudence, inquisitiveness, and learning approach. Each item
allowed for a true-false response (false = 0, true = 1).
Values. Values were measured using the 200-item Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI;
Hogan & Hogan, 1996). The MVPI contains 10 values subscales measuring recognition, power,
hedonism, altruistic, affiliation, tradition, security, commerce, aesthetics, and science. Each value
is measured using 20 items on 3-point response scale (1 = disagree, 2 = uncertain, 3 = agree).
Results
Our goal was to examine between-culture variability (relative to total variability) in values com-
pared with personality. To assess between-culture variability in values and personality, the ICCs
(ICC[1]) were calculated for all personality and values subscales (Bliese, 2000). The ICC(1) can
be interpreted as the proportion of variance that can be explained due to group membership, in
this case the language group to which respondents belong as a proxy for culture (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992). Tables 2 and 3 show the ICC(1) coefficients that indicate the amount of vari-
ability in values and personality scores attributable to native language group and job location
national membership, respectively. On average, 7% of personality differences and 12% of the
values differences can be explained by language group differences, whereas 8% of personality
differences and 10% of values variability are due to national membership of current job location.
Thus, there appears to be greater between-culture variability in values, although the differences
were not stark.
In terms of personality, between-language group differences explained the least in the learn-
ing approach dimension at 4% (95% CI = [.02, .06]). This was also the case when using job
location as the operationalization of culture at 3% (95% CI = [.02, 05]). The most variance in
personality dimensions explained by cultural membership was found in adjustment at 11%
(95% CI = [.08, .15])) and 14% (95% CI = [.10, .19]) for language group and job location nation

Table 3. ICCs for Personality and Values (Nation of Job location as Culture).

Prudence .12 .07 .16 Power .11 .06 .15
M .08 M .10
operationalizations of culture, respectively. Most personality dimensions exhibited small cul-

ture-level effects, although the adjustment score variance attributable to between-culture differ-
ences could be considered moderate in effect size (Cohen, 1992).
For values, cultural differences explained the least in affiliation value score variance. Language
group membership explained 7% (95% CI = [.04, .09]) whereas country of employment explained
6% (95% CI = [.04, .08]) of the variability in affiliation. Cultural differences explained the most
in security values variance at 17% (95% CI = [.11, .23]) for language group operationalization
and 13% (95% CI = [.09, .22]) for the job location operationalization. In relation to personality
traits, individual-level differences in values did not appear to be that much more attributable to
cultural differences, regardless of which operationalization of culture was used.
Personality and values did not appear to differ substantially in their respective associations
with cultural group membership. The ICC confidence interval for the least culturally determined
personality trait (i.e., learning approach) overlapped with the ICC confidence interval for the
least culturally determined value (i.e., affiliation). This same finding is also found with the most
culturally determined personality trait and value (adjustment and security, respectively). In fact,
there is significantly more variance in adjustment scores than affiliation scores accounted by
group membership when using job location nation as culture; this was marginally significant
when using language as culture. Thus, there are more between-culture differences in a dimension
of personality than one in values, which is quite contrary to each of their conceptualizations with
respect to environmental influence.
When using subsamples that only included respondents who worked in the country of origin
of their respective native language, the trend in which traits or values demonstrated greater or
lesser variability as a function of group membership was still consistent with the other analyses
(see Table 4). The grouping variable using this aligned subsample was language and as such it
makes the most sense to compare the results found with the results from the analyses grouping
on language using the larger sample (Table 2). The largest difference was found in the cultural
differences in adjustment between the two samples used. In the less restrictive sample (i.e.,
groups with at least 100 members), 11% (95% CI = [.08, .15]) in adjustment variance can be
attributed to between-language group differences. In the more restrictive sample (i.e., only
respondents whose native language matched with job location nation), 17% (95% CI = [.09, .26])
of adjustment score variability could be explained in terms of language group membership.

Ng et al 989
Table 4. ICCs for Personality and Values Using Only Workers Working in Native Language’s Country
of Origin (Language as Culture).

Prudence .10 .06 .14 Power .12 .06 .18
M .10 M .12
However, the difference was not significant. It is noteworthy that the confidence intervals using
the aligned subsample were fairly wide in general compared with the less restrictive sample and
the analyses using job location nation. In fact, the confidence interval for adjustment ICC confi-
dence intervals in the former essentially encompasses the adjustment ICC confidence intervals in
the latter two. In general, results appear to be consistent across various operationalizations of
culture.
Additional Analyses
Anonymous reviewers expressed concerns that personality and values are in a sense confounded.
Indeed, a recent meta-analysis by Parks-Leduc, Feldman, and Bardi (2015) has demonstrated that
personality and values are associated at small to moderate levels. To address these concerns, we
correlated values and personality using the aligned sample (see Table 5). Correlations between
values and personality ranged from essentially non-existent for altruistic values and the adjust-
ment personality trait (r = .00) to strong for scientific values and the inquisitive personality trait
(r = .56). No correlations were so strong as to suggest lack of discriminability between values and
personality.
Also, based on a reviewer’s recommendation, we used Allik’s (2005) approach to calculating
overall indices of variance attributable to culture by dividing the standard deviation of culture
means by the average within-culture standard deviation for each construct (see Table 5). Squaring
these figures yields the degree of between-culture variability relative to the average variability
within cultures for each of the constructs. The ratios for personality ranged from .26 (Inquisitive)
to .48 (Interpersonal sensitivity) and from .33 (Aesthetic) to .51 (Power) for values. These results
serve to further highlight (a) how much more within-culture score variance there is compared
with between-culture score variance, and more importantly (b) how similar values are to person-
ality dimensions in this regard.
Discussion
Using personality as a reference point, we examined how much variability in values scores could
be attributed to culture using both language groups and national membership as operationalizations

990
Table 5. Overall Index of Between-Culture Variation to Within-Culture Variation for and Correlations Between Values and Personality.
SDBT/M
(SDWI) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. (V) Affiliation .37
2. (V) Scientific .43 .05
3. (V) Aesthetic .33 .11 .17
4. (V) Power .51 .30 .33 .12
5. (V) Hedonistic .41 .28 .07 .23 .27
6. (V) Altruistic .44 .26 .21 .33 .16 .19
7. (V) Commercial .48 .18 .34 .04 .57 .20 .10
8. (V) Recognition .46 .30 .20 .21 .51 .36 .12 .39
9. (V) Tradition .46 .03 .21 .21 .22 −.02 .40 .18 .10
10. (V) Security .45 −.09 .16 −.02 .11 .10 .20 .21 .09 .33
11. (P) Learning approach .35 .13 .29 .16 .18 −.08 .10 .13 .06 .10 −.08
12. (P) Sociability .30 .50 .11 .17 .32 .26 .13 .16 .43 −.06 −.28 .18
13. (P) Inquisitive .26 .16 .56 .33 .27 .03 .22 .24 .21 .11 −.11 .38 .39
14. (P) Prudence .35 .04 .05 −.11 −.02 −.21 .19 .06 −.16 .21 .37 .16 −.16 .04
15. (P) Interpersonal sensitivity .48 .48 −.05 .05 .00 .00 .29 −.02 .00 .03 −.09 .15 .29 .16 .29
16. (P) Ambition .46 .33 .08 −.05 .34 −.12 .00 .18 .13 .01 −.23 .33 .42 .32 .12 .30
17. (P) Adjustment .45 .20 .02 −.14 −.04 −.21 .00 −.05 −.25 −.08 −.16 .23 .09 .12 .39 .42 .46

Note. Correlations p < .05 in bold. V = Values; P = Personality. SDBT/M (SDWI) = between-culture (language group) standard deviation divided by the average within-culture standard
deviation.
Ng et al 991
of culture. The confidence intervals for the ICCs suggest that there may not be fundamental differ-
ences between personality and values as far as how much variability is accounted for by culture
membership. Consider the best empirical support in the present study for our hypothesis that there
are more between-culture differences in values than personality by pitting the personality dimen-
sion with the lowest ICC against the value dimension with the lowest ICCs. The personality dimen-
sion with the lowest ICC confidence interval upper bound, learning approach, still overlapped with
the ICC confidence interval lower bounds of the value of affiliation across operationalizations of
culture. Furthermore, there appears to be some evidence that the personality trait of adjustment is
more related to culture than the value of affiliation. In addition, comparisons of the ICC confidence
intervals between values and personality dimensions demonstrate that although ICCs tend to be
markedly higher for values dimensions than personality dimensions, they do not appear to be sig-
nificantly higher either individually or collectively when considering the full range of dimensions
of both constructs.
The results corroborate past cross-cultural research results that used different operationaliza-
tions of culture, personality, and values. The two personality dimensions that displayed most
between-culture differences were ambition and adjustment. Ambition reflects tendencies toward
social adeptness, achievement orientation, and desire to attain leadership qualities (Hogan &
Hogan, 1992). Ambition is most similar to the personality trait of extraversion in the Big Five
framework. Low scores on adjustment reflects sensitivity to stress and a predisposition toward
negative affect, essentially a reverse-scored measure of the Big Five trait of neuroticism (Hogan
& Hogan, 1992). The Big Five traits of extraversion and neuroticism are the personality dimen-
sions that have demonstrated the greatest between-culture differences when using nations as the
proxy for culture (Allik & McCrae, 2004). For values, tradition emphasizes the importance of
history and religion, whereas security relates to endorsement of the importance of safety and
measures to ensure protection (Hogan & Hogan, 1996). These values find greatest correspon-
dence with values of the same name in other values measures such as the Schwartz Values Survey
(Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). They have also been found to be two of the three
most differentially endorsed values at the between-nation level, the remaining value of confor-
mity having no equivalent in the present study’s measure of values (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011).
Despite different operationalizations of all constructs, our results remain remarkably consistent
with those from studies investigating similar hypotheses.
In sum, personality and values are similar when it comes to their respective degree of cultural
association. The ICCs for both personality dimensions and values further indicate that how much
variance can be attributed to between-culture differences varies more among the dimensions of
each construct than between dimensions of the two constructs. Take personality dimensions, for
instance. There is a relatively low amount of between-culture differences in learning approach,
personality differences in the tendency to enjoy learning and academic pursuits. There are sig-
nificantly larger between-culture differences in adjustment or personality tendencies toward feel-
ing calm versus anxious. So the degree to which personality dimensions can be accounted for by
culture membership appears to depend on the dimensions in question. This was also true for
values dimensions: there were significantly less between-culture differences in endorsement of
affiliation than in security in general.
Theoretical Implications
Findings from the current study have further demonstrated that values do not appear to be largely
associated with culture membership, consistent with prior research (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011).
This seems contrary to current definitions of culture within cross-cultural psychology as a shared
system of meaning that (imperfectly) includes cultural elements such as values, beliefs, and prac-
tices (Fischer, 2012; Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). Some have sought to reconceptualize culture in

response to these emerging findings. For example, taking on a more sociological perspective,
Schwartz (2014) proposed that culture is a latent construct, an element of the context in which
people live, comprised of value emphases shaped by the unique ecology and history of that con-
text. These cultural value emphases are thought to develop as societies are forced to cope with
fundamental societal issues of how to manage the human activity occurring within that society
(Schwartz, 2006). These include issues related to how independent of the group its members
should act or think, whether established social hierarchies should be preserved or flattened, and
to what degree the natural and social environment should be disturbed for the sake of personal or
group goal attainment. Each culture’s unique profile of value emphases are then thought to be
expressed in the formalized functioning of social institutions (e.g., marriage, the legal system,
and the school system) that then exert normative pressures via opportunities and reward contin-
gencies (Schwartz, 2011, 2014). The great amount of individual variation in values within cul-
tures is thus thought to be a function of person-specific characteristics, unique social experiences,
and imperfect exposure to only parts and versions of national culture via social institutions in the
process of socialization. On this view, each person is a partial bearer of cultural knowledge, and
cultural values can be revealed via aggregation through the canceling out of individual-specific
variance in values. Although this conveniently explains the current findings, it does not provide
much direction in further understanding this large amount of individual variation in values that is
essentially equated with noise or error within the model.
Others have sought to measure perceived group-level cultural values more directly than aggre-
gating self-endorsed or personal values. For instance, Wan and colleagues (2007) asked individu-
als to rate the values of their imagined respective, average cultural group member in addition to
self-endorsed values ratings. These ratings of what a random, average cultural member would
endorse showed utility in predicting such outcomes as cultural identification. However, the bulk
of the research on these “intersubjective” ratings of values has demonstrated that even less vari-
ance in these values ratings seem to be attributable to cultural membership compared with self-
endorsement ratings (Fischer, 2012). More research is required to establish this as a promising
approach to characterizing cultural values.
Perhaps what is needed is a more inclusive approach in modeling cultural values. Reviews of
the cultural psychology literature have shown that the vast majority of cultural research uses
national membership as the operationalization (e.g., Taras, Rowney, & Steel, 2009). Despite this
widespread practice, there are many qualitatively distinct types of culture aside from national
membership, such as religion or socioeconomic status (Cohen, 2009, 2010). What is worth high-
lighting is that these operationalizations of culture are not mutually exclusive with each other.
Both religion and socioeconomic status are each types of culture that cut across national borders
and each other (see also Tay, Woo, Klafehn, & Chiu, 2010). Therefore, incorporating multiple
operationalizations of culture into multiple “level-two” predictors in MLM will likely yield a
much better model of individual values variation than any single type of culture. This approach
would shed light on which values are more or less associated with different types of culture. For
example, perhaps there are less between-nation differences in valuing affiliation than there are
between-socioeconomic status differences in valuing affiliation, such that wealthier groups value
affiliation less than those who are less wealthy. Such findings would provide seeds for cultural
theories regarding the mechanisms by which different value types are associated with culture.
Future research should use MLM to include individual-level and subculture membership influ-
ences in lieu of using nation as a culture proxy (Steel & Taras, 2010).
Limitations and Future Directions

One potential point of contention with the present study is that the antecedents of personality
dimensions are at least partially those of values. This would consequently make it seem difficult

Ng et al 993
for the former to serve as an adequate benchmark of the latter in comparing variance attributable
with culture. Indeed, there is some evidence for the genetic basis of values in both adult (Schermer,
Feather, Zhu, & Martin, 2008) and pre-adolescent children samples (Knafo & Spinath, 2011).
There also appears to be some commonality in the genetic origins of values and personality
dimensions, which in part explains their phenotypic covariation (Schermer, Vernon, Maio, &
Jang, 2011). These twin studies further indicated that common environmental factors explained
very little values variability compared with genetic and specific environmental factors, the impli-
cation being that culture is mostly associated with values due to selective pressures rather than
shared learning. Nevertheless, despite some shared genetic basis, both values and personality
have unshared variance that had the potential to evidence differential associations with culture,
whatever the definition. Furthermore, if the case is made that culture exerts influence via selec-
tive pressures that affect only the common genetic variance between personality and values, then
there is arguably nothing about values as a construct that makes it any more culturally salient than
personality. In either case, we believe that a comparison with personality is defensible.
Another potential limitation in our current study is the use of language groups as the opera-
tionalization for culture. However, our results are largely consistent with past cross-cultural
research examining between-culture differences in personality and values. In addition, the native
language groups in our sample generally aligned fairly well with the nation where native lan-
guage speakers worked, and the results generally stayed the same even when restricting the
sample to those who would theoretically be most representative of each of their respective cul-
tures. Furthermore, language itself is arguably representative of culture because it is a shared
meaning system that represents negotiated consensus and shared emphases along cultural dimen-
sions (Chiu, 2001; Lau, Chiu, & Lee, 2001) and has become especially salient in social-cognitive
approaches to cross-cultural psychology where language has been shown to act as a contextual
cue that primes cultural mind-sets, cognitive schemas of culture (Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, &
Chen, 2009). Language priming cultural mind-sets has been shown to result in differential self-
report response effects for both personality (Ramírez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter,
& Pennebaker, 2006) and values (Ralston, Cunniff, & Gustafson, 1995). In sum, using the lan-
guage respondents chose as their native tongue did not appear to be a severe limitation and did
not seem to produce any anomalous results.
Also, although our analytic procedure followed that of past studies to examine between-group
variability (e.g., Steel & Taras, 2010), the assumption is that mean-level differences are compa-
rable across language groups. However, because we only had access to scale-level data and not
item-level data, we did not test for the extent that such dimensions are measurement invariant
across cultures, or across levels, which could affect the obtained results (Tay, Woo, & Vermunt,
2014). More sophisticated analytic models for examining measurement invariant ICCs are
needed.
Finally, limiting the population to literate workers, as with relying on similarly homogeneous
samples, tends to overestimate between-culture differences by suppressing within-group hetero-
geneity (Poortinga & Van Hemert, 2001). Because the ICC is the ratio of between-group variance
to between- and within-group variance, this ratio is inflated when the within-group variance in
the denominator is limited. Literate, full-time workers may not sufficiently reflect all cultural
members for all cultures. As such, the estimates in between-culture differences in both personal-
ity and values are probably overestimates. This further underscores the relatively low covariation
between values and culture.
Conclusion
Using a large sample of more than 140,000 full-time employees, we have found that culture
appears to explain slightly more mean differences in values as compared with personality, but

differences do not appear to be large or significant. However, moderate between-culture value

differences found in the present study remind us that there are meaningful differences in values
between cultures. Nevertheless, as with cultural differences, there appeared to be greater variance
within constructs in how much dimension score variability could be explained in terms of culture
than between-construct differences. In this way, personality and values are more similar than
previously thought in how they relate to culture.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Culpepper, S. A. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for estimat-
ing cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management, 39, 1490-1528.
doi:10.1177/0149206313478188
Allik, J. (2005). Personality dimensions across cultures. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 212-232.
doi:10.1521/pedi.2005.19.3.212
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13-28. doi:10.1177/0022022103260382
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research
and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In J. K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, environment, and personality. Science, New Series, 264, 1700-1701.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chiu, C. (2001). Language and culture. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(2). doi:10.9707/2307-
0919.1098
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194-204. doi:10.1037/a0017793
Cohen, A. B. (2010). Just how many forms of culture are there? American Psychologist, 65, 59-61.
doi:10.1037/a0017793
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.
org/journals/bul/112/1/155/
Fischer, R. (2006). Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my values reflect my culture’s
values? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1419-1431. doi:10.1177/0146167206291425
Fischer, R. (2012). Intersubjective culture: Indeed intersubjective or yet another form of subjective assess-
ment? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71, 13-20. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000067
Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifac-
tual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1127-1144. doi:10.1177/0022022110381429
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination
of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1002-
1010. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1002
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials
in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60-87. doi:10.3102/0162373707299706
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 369-394. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163655

Ng et al 995
Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality
traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19, 309-313. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2008.02085.x
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1996). Motives, values, preferences inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan
Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan personality inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five personality dimensions
and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577-591. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880
Kahn, J. H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Overview and applications to research in counseling psychology.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 257-271. doi:10.1037/a0022680
Knafo, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on girls’ and boys’ gender-typed
and gender-neutral values. Developmental Psychology, 47, 726-731. doi:10.1037/a0021910
Lau, I. Y.-M., Chiu, C., & Lee, S. (2001). Communication and shared reality: Implications for the psycho-
logical foundations of culture. Social Cognition, 19, 350-371.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012). Understanding and estimating the power
to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
951-966. doi:10.1037/a0029358
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science
of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204-217.
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 of personality across cultures (pp. 105-125). New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist,
52, 509-516. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9145021
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L.
A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159-181). New York, NY: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hřebíčková, M., Avia, M. D., . . . Smith, P. B. (2000).
Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 173-186. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10653513
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407
Muthén, B. O. (1991). Multilevel factor analysis of class and student achievement components. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 28, 338-354.
Muthén, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 376-
398. doi:10.1177/1056492611432802
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectiv-
ism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3
Oyserman, D., Sorensen, N., Reber, R., & Chen, S. X. (2009). Connecting and separating mind-sets:
Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 217-235. doi:10.1037/
a0015850
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 3-29. doi:10.1177/1088868314538548
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85-112.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
Poortinga, Y. H., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2001). Personality and culture: Demarcating between the common
and the unique. Journal of Personality, 69, 1033-1060. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/11767817

Ralston, D. A., Cunniff, M. K., & Gustafson, D. J. (1995). Cultural accommodation: The effect of language
on the responses of bilingual Hong Kong Chinese managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
26, 714-727. doi:10.1177/002202219502600612
Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do
bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 99-120. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.001
Schermer, J. A., Feather, N., Zhu, G., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental
properties of the portrait values questionnaire. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 531-537.
doi:10.1375/twin.11.5.531
Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Maio, G. R., & Jang, K. L. (2011). A behavior genetic study of the con-
nection between social values and personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 233-239.
doi:10.1375/twin.14.3.233
Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in
53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623-642. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empiri-
cal tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative
Sociology, 5, 137-182.
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Values: Cultural and individual. In A. Chasiotis & S. M. Breugelmans (Eds.),
Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463-493). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical
findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 5-13. doi:10.1177/0022022113490830
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.3.550
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal functioning:
Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC) model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1-16. doi:10
.1080/1047840X.2011.532477
Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook
of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Vol. 3. Social and behavioral applications (2nd ed., pp. 77-118). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the
effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International
Management, 16, 211-233. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.002
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches,
challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of
International Management, 15, 357-373. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2008.08.005
Tay, L., Woo, S. E., Klafehn, J., & Chiu, C. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring culture: Problems and
solutions. In E. Tucker, M. Viswanathan, & G. Walford (Eds.), The handbook of measurement: How
social scientists generate, modify, and validate indicators and scales (pp. 177-202). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Tay, L., Woo, S. E., & Vermunt, J. K. (2014). A conceptual and methodological framework for psychomet-
ric isomorphism: Validation of multilevel construct measures. Organizational Research Methods, 17,
77-106. doi:10.1177/1094428113517008
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York, NY: Wiley.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141-156.
Wan, C., Chiu, C., Tam, K., Lee, S., Lau, I. Y., & Peng, S. (2007). Perceived cultural importance and actual
self-importance of values in cultural identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
337-354. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.337
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., . . . Jang, K. L. (2006). Is the genetic
structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and
Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 987-998. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.987

Values

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

651333

Within cross-cultural psychology, one major perspective considers culture to be a system of

1Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Benchmarking Variance Accounted for by Culture

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Personality: A Relative Benchmark

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Native language N Aligned job location(s) N % Largest unaligned

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Table 2. ICCs for Personality and Values (Language as Culture).

Personality ICC CILB CIUB Values ICC CILB CIUB

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Personality ICC CILB CIUB Values ICC CILB CIUB

operationalizations of culture, respectively. Most personality dimensions exhibited small cul-

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Personality ICC CILB CIUB Values ICC CILB CIUB

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Limitations and Future Directions

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

differences do not appear to be large or significant. However, moderate between-culture value

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at CORNELL UNIV on September 25, 2016

You might also like