PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Are Indigenous Personality Dimensions Culture Specific? Philippine Inventories and the Five-Factor Model Marcia S. Katigbak and A. Timothy Church

Ma. Angeles Guanzon-Lapen˜a

Washington State University

De La Salle University

Annadaisy J. Carlota and Gregorio H. del Pilar University of the Philippines

The authors addressed the culture specificity of indigenous personality constructs, the generalizability of the 5-factor model (FFM), and the incremental validity of indigenous measures in a collectivistic culture. Filipino college students (N ⫽ 508) completed 3 indigenous inventories and the Filipino version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R). On the basis of the factor and regression analyses, they concluded that (a) most Philippine dimensions are well encompassed by the FFM and thus may not be very culture specific; (b) a few indigenous constructs are less well accounted for by the FFM; these constructs are not unknown in Western cultures, but they may be particularly salient or composed somewhat differently in the Philippines; (c) the structure of the NEO–PI–R FFM replicates well in the Philippines; and (d) Philippine inventories add modest incremental validity beyond the FFM in predicting selected culture-relevant criteria.

(e.g., McCrae, in press). Many psychologists have expressed concern, however, about the cross-cultural use of imported measures, arguing that (a) they limit the researcher to Western constructs of uncertain relevance in diverse cultures, (b) some behavioral exemplars of traits may differ across cultures, and (c) the emergence of a comprehensive or universal personality psychology will benefit from the propagation of constructs, theories, and measures independently in diverse cultures, prior to cross-cultural comparisons (Church, in press; Enriquez, 1979). In determining how crucial it is to identify and assess indigenous personality constructs the answers to three questions are relevant: (a) How culture specific or unique are the constructs assessed by indigenous measures? (b) How well do imported personality constructs generalize across cultures? (c) Do measures of indigenous constructs improve on, or add anything to, imported measures in the prediction of relevant criteria? In regard to the second question, there is increasing evidence of the cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions such as the Big Five (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability vs. Neuroticism, Openness to Experience or Intellect; De Raad, Perugini, Hrebı´ckova´, & Szarota, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1997; Paunonen & Ashton, 1998). Available evidence regarding the first and third questions is quite limited, however. Many of the inventories developed in different cultures measure constructs that do not seem very culture specific or unique. This may result from the convergence across cultures of the dimensions considered most salient to assess or from test developers drawing

In recent years, psychologists have shown a renewed interest in the relationship between culture and personality (Church, 2000; McCrae, 2000). Indeed, a fundamental question for personality theory, research, and measurement is the extent to which personality dimensions are universal or culture specific. Most frequently, this question has been addressed using an imported or imposedetic strategy, in which researchers investigate the replicability in other cultures of personality dimensions assessed by Western inventories (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Paunonen & Ashton, 1998). The use of imported inventories can facilitate the search for universal trait dimensions and cultural differences in trait levels

Marcia S. Katigbak and A. Timothy Church, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Washington State University; Ma. Angeles Guanzon-Lapen˜a, Department of Psychology, De La Salle University; Annadaisy J. Carlota and Gregorio H. del Pilar, Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines. Portions of this article were presented at the 27th International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, July 2000. Manuscript preparation was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant RO1M159941. We express appreciation to Dean Lito Sarmiento, Gina Magaling-Dimaano, Mercy Laurena, and Rev. Father Rey Evangelista for their assistance in the collection of data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marcia S. Katigbak or A. Timothy Church, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-2136. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, Vol. 82, No. 1, 89 –101 Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.89

89

90

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

on a common psychological literature in selecting constructs to include in their inventories. For example, the primary dimensions of the German Trier Personality Inventory and the Trier Behavioral Control Inventory converge rather well with dimensions of the Big Five or five-factor model (Becker, 1999). The higher order dimensions of the German Freiburg Personality Inventory (Fahrenberg, Hampel, & Selg, 1989) correspond well with Big Five extraversion and neuroticism. The higher order dimensions of the Spanish Dimensions of Interpersonal Orientation measure (Silva, Martinez-Arias, Rapaport, Ertle, & Ortet, 1997) resemble the two axes of the Western interpersonal circle (e.g., Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). The dimensions of the Dutch Rijks Psychologische Dienst Vragenlijst personality inventory and the Junior Dutch Personality Questionnaire will also appear familiar to Western personality psychologists (van Leest, 1997). The dimensions of some instruments developed outside Western Europe or North America—for example, the Japanese personality inventory developed by Yanai, Kashiwagi, and Kokusho (1987) and the South African Personality Questionnaire (see Taylor & Boeyens, 1991)—also resemble those in Western inventories, perhaps, in part, because the test developers drew on Western literature in selecting their constructs. Other researchers have used a more emic or indigenous approach to inventory development, in which the constructs assessed are derived from indigenous literatures, cultural informants, or native language trait terms. We find it interesting that those researchers who have derived indigenous dimensions from taxonomies of natural language trait terms generally have identified dimensions resembling the Big Five (De Raad et al., 1998; Saucier & Goldberg, in press). Recently, Indian psychologists have developed measures of constructs derived from Indian philosophy (Das, 1991; Mohan & Sandhu, 1986; Pande & Naidu, 1992), but the relationships between these dimensions and hypothesized universal dimensions such as the Big Five have not yet been investigated. Cheung et al. (1996) developed the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) to measure both universal (etic) and indigenous (emic) Chinese constructs. On the basis of joint factor analyses and regression analyses relating the CPAI scales and measures of the five-factor model, the test developers concluded that the CPAI measures constructs associated with the five-factor model plus a sixth dimension, labeled Interpersonal Relatedness, that is relatively independent of the Big Five (Cheung et al., 2001). Cheung et al. (2001) considered whether this dimension is unique to Chinese culture or might also be relevant in understanding interdependent aspects of personality in non-Chinese cultures. In the present study, we investigated indigenous constructs assessed by multidimensional inventories developed in the Philippines and related these constructs to the five-factor model, as assessed by a Filipino version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R; del Pilar, 1998; McCrae, Costa, del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998). Filipino, the national language of the Philippines, is based primarily on the Tagalog dialect and is a member of the Austronesian or Malayo–Polynesian language family. The Philippines has been exposed to Western influences since the Spanish and American colonial periods. However, the culture retains features—for example, emphases on group identity, social acceptance, close and extended family ties, and deference to authority (Church, 1987)—that are more characteristic of collectivistic cultures than the individualistic cultures in which most per-

DEL

PILAR

sonality inventories have been developed. Hofstede (1980) ranked the Philippines 30th out of 50 countries in individualism, whereas the United States ranked 1st. The Philippines ranked 3rd on power distance (i.e., the presence and acceptance of an unequal distribution of power in society), whereas the United States ranked only 35th. As an Asian society with a non-Indo-European language, Philippine culture is sufficiently different from American and Western European cultures to provide (a) a strong test of the generalizability of personality dimensions and (b) sufficient opportunity to identify culture-specific dimensions. Our primary goal was to answer the first question raised above, that is, how culture specific or unique are the constructs assessed by indigenous measures. By examining the constructs in multiple indigenous instruments, each developed independently, we should maximize the opportunity to identify culture-specific dimensions. The five-factor model may not cover all aspects of personality, even in Western cultures. Thus, indigenous dimensions that are relatively independent of the five-factor model might not be culture specific. On the other hand, if an indigenous dimension is well accounted for by the five-factor model (i.e., overlaps substantially with one or more domains or facets of the NEO–PI–R), it would be difficult to argue that the indigenous dimension is very culture specific. Our second goal was to replicate previous findings with the NEO–PI–R in the Philippines. Katigbak, Church, and Akamine (1996), using the English version of the NEO–PI–R, and McCrae et al. (1998), using a Filipino translation, found good Philippine replication of the Big Five dimensions, particularly when Procrustes factor rotations were used. Also, in both studies, when varimax rotations were used, the Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience dimensions were replicated, but the facet scales associated with the Extraversion and Agreeableness domains realigned into dimensions that Katigbak et al. labeled affiliation and surgency. The authors of both studies considered whether this reorientation of factors reflected meaningful cultural differences in personality structure or might be an artifact of arbitrary rotational differences across samples. If these cultural differences in factor orientations were repeated in the present sample, it would suggest that the differences were replicable and meaningful. Our final goal was to address whether measures of indigenous constructs improve on, or add anything to, imported constructs in predicting relevant criteria. To date, only Zhang and Bond (1998) have provided evidence on this point. They found that the scales associated with the CPAI Interpersonal Relatedness factor (formerly referred to as Chinese Tradition) provided incremental validity, beyond the Big Five dimensions, in predicting scores on a self-report measure of filial piety. Here, we compared the ability of indigenous and imported constructs to predict selected external criteria, which included self-reports of behaviors and attitudes judged to be relevant to Filipinos.

Method Sample A total of 511 college students in the Philippines answered at least one of four personality instruments. The sample sizes for each instrument were as follows: Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP; n ⫽ 387), Panukat ng

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS Mga Katangian ng Personalidad (PKP; n ⫽ 413), Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP; n ⫽ 386), and Filipino NEO–PI–R (n ⫽ 398). The sample sizes for analyses involving multiple instruments are noted when the analyses are described, and in all cases exceeded 300. Students were sampled from De La Salle University (n ⫽ 237), a private university in Manila; La Salle Lipa (n ⫽ 135), a private university in Lipa City; University of the Philippines at Diliman (n ⫽ 72), a state university in the Greater Manila area; and St. Francis de Sales Major Seminary (n ⫽ 67), a private seminary in Lipa City. Complete demographic data were available for the 413 participants who completed the PKP, which contained the demographic questions. Of these 413 participants, 271 were women (66%) and 142 were men (34%). The mean age was 18.91 (SD ⫽ 1.33). Year levels in college were as follows: first year (n ⫽ 35, 9%), second year (n ⫽ 241, 58%), third year (n ⫽ 88, 21%), fourth year (n ⫽ 46, 11%), and fifth year (n ⫽ 3, 0.7%). The students’ major fields of study were diverse. Tagalog was the original or native language of 84% of the participants. Three participants who rated their ability to understand a Tagalog questionnaire as “poor,” and who stated that their best language was English, were excluded. Judging from responses to a series of questions about language abilities and background, the remaining 508 participants had no difficulty understanding Filipino (Tagalog) questionnaires.

Indigenous Instruments PPP. The PPP has 210 items and 19 scales. Carlota (1985) identified the personality constructs from a review of Philippine literature and from descriptions of traits and behaviors given by Filipino respondents varying widely in age and occupational level. Items were written to assess the 16 traits that were mentioned most frequently by respondents, plus 3 traits of special interest to the test author. Items were constructed using the definitions and behavioral descriptions obtained from the literature and respondents. Final item selection was based on internal consistency analyses.

91

Respondents indicate their degree of agreement with each item using a 5-point scale (strongly agree, agree, cannot decide or nothing to say, disagree, strongly disagree). Sample PPP items, in English translation, are shown in the Appendix. Carlota (1985) organized the PPP scales into three conceptual clusters (interpersonal, personal, and intelligence/creativity; see Table 1). Reliability coefficients (alphas), reported previously, ranged from .56 to .84 (M ⫽ .69) for the interpersonal scales, from .70 to .89 (M ⫽ .81) for the personal scales, and from .51 to .94 (M ⫽ .72) for the intelligence/ creativity scales (Guanzon-Lapen˜a, Church, Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998). In the present sample, the internal consistency reliabilities (alphas) were moderate in size: .52 to .85 (M ⫽ .67) for the interpersonal scales, .69 to .74 for the personal scales (M ⫽ .72), and .45 to .79 (M ⫽ .61) for the intelligence/creativity scales. Carlota (1985) reported scale intercorrelations ranging from ⫺.09 to .33, indicating that the dimensions assessed are relatively distinct. No factor analyses of the subscales have been published previously. Carlota (1987) and Guanzon-Lapen˜a et al. (1998) reviewed validity studies with the PPP. PKP. The PKP was developed using a comprehensive lexical approach (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996). All 6,900 person-descriptive adjectives were culled with good interjudge reliability from a comprehensive Filipino dictionary. Subsequently, those adjectives that refer to personality traits were identified using the classifications of Filipino judges and samples of Filipino college students. Filipino self-ratings on various sets of trait adjectives, ranging in size from 281 to 861 adjectives, were factor analyzed previously in three large samples (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998; Church, Reyes, Katigbak, & Grimm, 1997). Seven dimensions with the following labels were found to replicate fairly consistently: (a) concern for others versus egotism (makakapwa vs. makasarili), (b) conscientiousness (disiplinado), (c) self-assurance (tiwala sa sarili), (d) temperamentalness (sumpungin), (e) intellect (matalino), (f) gregariousness (kalog), and (g) negative valence/infrequency (mga katangiang di-kanais-nais). The nega-

Table 1 Rotated Factor Matrix for Four-Factor Solution for PPP Scales Factor English (Filipino) Interpersonal scales Thoughtfulness (Pagkamaalalahanin) Social Curiosity (Pagkamadaldal) Respectfulness (Pagkamagalang) Sensitiveness (Pagkamaramdamin) Obedience (Pagkamasunurin) Helpfulness (Pagkamatulungin) Capacity for Understanding (Pagkamaunawain) Sociability (Pagkapalakaibigan) Personal scales Orderliness (Pagkamaayos) Emotional Stability (Pagkamahinahon) Humility (Pagkamapagkumbaba) Cheerfulness (Pagkamasayahin) Honesty (Pagkamatapat) Patience (Pagkamatiyaga) Responsibleness (Pagkaresponsable) Intelligence/creativity scales Creativity (Pagkamalikhain) Risk-Taking (Pagkamapagsapalaran) Achievement Orientation (Pagkamasikap) Intelligence (Pagkamatalino)

1

2

3

4

h2

.27 ⫺.23 .67 ⴚ.72 .34 .46 .68 .16

.66 ⫺.30 .40 ⫺.05 .23 .43 .20 .22

.22 .55 ⫺.09 ⫺.17 .03 .33 .18 .81

.03 .13 ⫺.01 ⫺.20 ⴚ.68 ⫺.04 .18 .07

.56 .46 .61 .60 .63 .51 .57 .74

⫺.01 .80 .57 .27 .44 .65 .22

.81 .04 .43 .06 .54 .33 .76

.06 .10 ⫺.12 .75 ⫺.22 .10 ⫺.07

.01 ⫺.04 .20 .22 .27 .16 .15

.66 .66 .56 .68 .61 .57 .66

.31 .31 .32 .28

.31 .16 .56 .27

.13 .28 .10 .30

.64 .52 .38 .65

.61 .48 .57 .66

Note. n ⫽ 387. The highest factor loading for each scale is shown in boldface. h2 represents variable communalities. PPP ⫽ Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino.

92

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

tive valence/infrequency dimension is comprised of extremely negative characteristics that are infrequently endorsed (e.g., troublesome, useless, drunkard, and stupid) and is comparable to negative valence dimensions identified in English, Hebrew, and Spanish lexical studies (Almagor, Tellegen, & Waller, 1995; Benet & Waller, 1997; Saucier, 1997). Church et al. (1998) also included Filipino positive valence terms (i.e., highly positive general evaluation terms) in their study but found that they tended to blend with the intellect terms in factor analyses. Church et al. (1998) reported ␣ reliabilities ranging from .85 to .95 for the scales they constructed to measure these dimensions using the best adjective markers for each dimension. Church et al. (1997, 1998) reported considerable overlap between six of the PKP dimensions and dimensions of the five-factor model. The most consistent one-to-one relationships were between Philippine gregariousness and Extraversion; Philippine concern for others versus egotism and Agreeableness; Philippine conscientiousness and Big Five Conscientiousness; and Philippine intellect and Big Five Intellect/Openness to Experience. The Philippine temperamentalness and self-assurance dimensions, although moderately correlated with Neuroticism, were found to be multidimensional in terms of the Big Five. The version of the PKP used in the present study contained 253 adjectives (items). Respondents rated the extent to which each trait adjective accurately described themselves using an 8-point bipolar scale (extremely inaccurate, quite inaccurate, somewhat inaccurate, a little inaccurate, a little accurate, somewhat accurate, quite accurate, extremely accurate). In a principal-components analysis of the 253 adjectives, with varimax rotations, six of the dimensions found in previous studies with the PKP were replicated (all but temperamentalness, and intellect and positive valence terms again blended on the same factor). When we did the same analysis without the positive and negative valence adjectives, all six substantive dimensions were identified in the six-factor solution (factor matrices are available from Marcia S. Katigbak). Also, as in previous studies (Church et al., 1997, 1998), a separate religiosity dimension was identified when additional components were extracted. The number of adjectives (items) and the alpha reliabilities for the scales used to measure these dimensions were as follows: Concern for Others versus Egotism (41 items, ␣ ⫽ .89), Gregariousness (33 items, ␣ ⫽ .90), Intellect (13 items, ␣ ⫽ .83), Temperamentalness (23 items, ␣ ⫽ .90), Self-Assurance (39 items, ␣ ⫽ .90), Conscientiousness (39 items, ␣ ⫽ .92), Religiosity (7 items, ␣ ⫽ .91), Negative Valence (15 items, ␣ ⫽ .83), and Positive Valence (10 items, ␣ ⫽ .81). English translations of sample adjectives for each scale are as follows: Concern for Others versus Egotism (just, generous, arrogant [reverse scored], selfish [reverse scored]), Gregariousness (noisy, cheerful, friendly, silent [reverse scored]), Intellect (brainy, talented, competent, intelligent), Temperamentalness (irritable, hot-headed, moody, calm [reverse scored]), Self-Assurance (strong-willed, brave, cowardly [reverse scored], weak [reverse scored]), Conscientiousness (industrious, organized, frugal, lazy [reverse scored]), Religiosity (religious, spiritual, pious), Negative Valence (troublesome, stupid, impudent), and Positive Valence (praiseworthy, valuable, exceptional). PUP. The developers of the PUP sought to construct a test that measured Filipino-oriented traits, behaviors, and attitudes (Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985). The authors wrote items to measure personality characteristics judged by the test authors to be salient for Filipinos, which were culled from Filipino dictionaries, proverbs, social science studies, word associations, and interviews with college students and other informants. The PUP has 141 items, which are organized into 24 trait scales and 2 validity scales. The scales have an average of six items. Sample items are shown in the Appendix. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each item using a 5-point bipolar scale (definitely no, no, nothing to say, true, definitely true). English translations of the scale names indicate that the PUP seeks to measure the following traits: ambition, coyness/unapproachability, thriftiness, perseverance, guts/daring, thoughtfulness, respectfulness, shyness, creativity, generosity, humility, self-control/re-

DEL

PILAR

straint, criticalness, sensitiveness, helpfulness, inquisitiveness, aggression, low tolerance for teasing, responsibleness, ficklemindedness, non-risktaking, excessive conformity, moodiness, and stubbornness. No reliability data for the PUP scales had been reported previously. In the present sample, we found the alpha reliabilities for these short scales to be too low (mean ␣ ⫽ .23) to allow confident conclusions about the culture specificity or incremental validity of the indigenous concepts assessed. Thus, we did not score the PUP items for these constructs or include the constructs in our comparisons of indigenous and imported constructs. To obtain some indication of whether the indigenous PUP item pool might define culture-specific dimensions, however, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the PUP items as a follow-up to our primary analyses of the other instruments. We summarize the results of this analysis in the Discussion section. In addition to the personality scales, the PUP includes 19 items that were designed to assess culturally relevant behaviors and attitudes for use as criterion variables in personality research studies (Guanzon-Lapen˜a et al., 1998, p. 257). We selected 8 of these criterion items for analysis. Of these, 5 refer to salient health, risk-related, and religious behaviors (i.e., smoking, drinking, gambling, accident proneness, and praying), all measured through self-report. Three other items are of particular relevance because they assess attitudes toward behaviors that are not infrequent in the Philippines, but which are counter to the religious and moral conservatism of the culture; these include attitudes toward homosexuality and attitudes toward extramarital and premarital sexual relations. Although we did not delineate specific hypotheses relating the personality scales to these criterion items, we expected that these criteria would be predictable from a range of indigenous and imported constructs such as self-discipline and conscientiousness, obedience and compliance, religiosity, openness to experience, and impulsivity and excitement seeking. The eight criterion items, in English translation, were as follows: (a) smoking behavior: “Smoking has become my habit,” (b) gambling behavior: “I am prone to gambling,” (c) drinking behavior: “I am prone to drinking alcohol,” (d) praying behavior: “I do not forget to pray, even when I have no particular wish or problem,” (e) accident proneness: “I don’t know why, but I often get hurt or meet accidents,” (f) attitude toward homosexuality: “There is nothing wrong with a man enjoying sex with another man, or a woman with another woman,” (g) attitude toward extramarital sexual relations: “If I cannot get physical satisfaction from my spouse or spouse-to-be, I am willing to accept or seek it from others,” and (h) attitude toward premarital sexual relations: “Even before marriage, I am willing to have sex with the person I love.” Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each item using a 5-point bipolar scale (definitely no, no, nothing to say, true, definitely true). We used scores on these criterion items to examine the incremental validity of the indigenous constructs in predicting relevant societal criteria.

Imported Instrument: Filipino NEO–PI–R The NEO–PI–R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) contains 5 domain scales, corresponding to the Big Five dimensions, and 6 facet scales per domain (see Table 2). McCrae et al. (1998) described the translation into Filipino using back-translation procedures (see also del Pilar, 1998). McCrae et al. reported alpha reliabilities for the 30 facet scales in a sample of 696 Filipino college students. The median alpha was .70, as compared with a median alpha of .71 in a U.S. norm sample. Three of the Openness to Experience facets, however, had alpha values ranging from .30 to .48, suggesting that some items can still be improved.1 In the present sample, most of the facet scales had moderately high internal consistency reliabil-

1

Since the present study was conducted, del Pilar has slightly revised the Filipino NEO–PI–R to improve the translation equivalence of some items.

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

Table 2 Joint Factor Analysis of PPP, PKP, and NEO–PI–R: Rotated Factor Matrix for Five-Factor Solution Scales PPP Responsibleness Orderliness Achievement Orientation Honesty Thoughtfulness Respectfulness Humility Obedience Capacity for Understanding Helpfulness Emotional Stability Patience Sensitiveness Sociability Cheerfulness Social Curiosity Creativity Risk-Taking Intelligence PKP Conscientiousness Concern for Others vs. Egotism Religiosity Temperamentalness Self-Assurance Intellect Positive Valence Gregariousness Negative Valence Filipino NEO facets Neuroticism Anxiety Angry Hostility Depression Self-Consciousness Impulsiveness Vulnerability Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-Seeking Positive Emotions Openness to Experience Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values Agreeableness Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement Striving Self-Discipline Deliberation

C

A

Na

E

O

h2

.73 .65 .48 .47 .45 .34 .28 .09 .13 .18 .13 .29 ⫺.07 .10 ⫺.03 ⫺.21 .28 .12 .35

.27 .21 .30 .38 .42 .58 .57 .57 .56 .56 .55 .53 ⫺.44 .23 .14 ⫺.26 .12 .16 ⫺.01

⫺.11 .12 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 .04 ⫺.24 ⫺.12 .09 ⫺.20 ⫺.09 ⴚ.55 ⫺.27 .51 ⫺.18 ⫺.24 .12 ⫺.28 ⫺.22 ⫺.37

⫺.10 .11 .07 ⫺.22 .17 ⫺.12 ⫺.16 .01 .10 .22 .08 .13 ⫺.04 .74 .67 .40 .05 .18 .26

.13 .01 .41 .32 .23 .20 .34 ⫺.32 .36 .28 .01 .31 ⫺.29 .15 .25 .14 .73 .50 .49

.65 .50 .49 .52 .46 .56 .55 .44 .51 .48 .63 .55 .54 .66 .59 .31 .70 .37 .57

.62 .34 .22 ⫺.03 .31 .15 .31 ⫺.23 ⫺.05

.31 .54 .48 ⫺.40 ⫺.05 ⫺.02 ⫺.13 ⫺.11 .20

⫺.19 ⫺.14 ⫺.00 .65 ⴚ.65 ⴚ.53 ⴚ.45 ⫺.06 ⴚ.31

⫺.18 ⫺.12 ⫺.00 ⫺.07 .05 .04 .07 .71 ⫺.21

⫺.23 ⫺.10 ⫺.25 .12 .22 .15 ⫺.04 .08 .03

.61 .45 .34 .61 .58 .33 .32 .58 .18

.00 ⫺.03 ⫺.21 ⫺.03 ⴚ.46 ⫺.23

⫺.07 ⫺.50 ⫺.14 .04 ⫺.39 ⫺.14

.70 .64 .57 .57 .32 .67

.05 ⫺.12 ⫺.25 ⫺.16 .16 ⫺.14

⫺.08 .01 .02 ⫺.09 .09 ⫺.36

.51 .68 .45 .36 .50 .66

.06 .05 .30 .12 ⫺.25 .12

.21 .19 ⫺.21 ⫺.20 ⫺.19 ⫺.03

⫺.13 ⫺.01 ⫺.27 ⫺.23 ⫺.04 .04

.77 .75 .43 .42 .50 .67

.18 ⫺.08 .34 .20 .21 .08

.68 .61 .51 .33 .39 .48

⫺.14 .28 .22 .01 .09 ⫺.09

⫺.23 .08 ⫺.05 .10 .06 .01

.09 .12 .23 ⫺.27 ⫺.07 ⫺.08

.08 .18 .27 .06 .14 .04

.49 .49 .40 .45 .67 .40

.33 .37 .33 .29 .49 .18

.10 .33 .38 .20 ⫺.28 .19

.46 .45 .51 .74 .45 .48

⫺.19 ⫺.03 ⫺.06 ⫺.14 .24 .09

.37 ⫺.25 .25 ⫺.12 ⫺.32 .17

.02 .03 .15 ⫺.12 .02 .14

.39 .37 .49 .63 .44 .33

.64 .71 .69 .72 .74 .64

⫺.11 .15 .15 .20 .20 .24

⫺.37 ⫺.01 ⫺.18 ⫺.19 ⫺.27 ⫺.21

.24 .04 ⫺.04 .19 .06 ⫺.16

.22 .04 .11 .13 .08 ⫺.01

.66 .52 .54 .64 .67 .54

Note. n ⫽ 304. The highest factor loading for each scale is shown in boldface. h2 represents variable communalities. C ⫽ Conscientiousness; A ⫽ Agreeableness; N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; O ⫽ Openness/Intellect; PPP ⫽ Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino; PKP ⫽ Panukat ng Mga Katangian ng Personalidad; NEO–PI–R ⫽ Revised NEO Personality Inventory. a The signs of the factor loadings for this factor were reversed to agree with the factor label (i.e., the factor was reflected).

93

ity, although the median alpha (.61) was lower than the median alpha (.70) reported by McCrae et al. in their Philippine sample. In particular, the Openness to Values (␣ ⫽ .22) and Openness to Feelings (␣ ⫽ .44) facet scales apparently contain items that will need revision to make them more relevant for the Philippine context. Also, for 8 of the facet scales we excluded one or two items that had poor item-total correlations. Previous researchers have applied principal-components analyses with varimax rotations to demonstrate the replicability of the NEO–PI–R structure at the scale level (Katigbak et al., 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 1998). Therefore, we did so as well. Factors corresponding to Big Five Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience were replicated clearly. As in previous Philippine studies (Katigbak et al., 1996; McCrae et al., 1998), the Agreeableness and Extraversion facet scales realigned into factors that Katigbak et al. labeled Affiliation and Surgency. Factor congruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) computed between the varimax-rotated solution in the current sample and those in the Katigbak et al. and McCrae et al. studies ranged from .92 to .96 and from .95 to .97, respectively. Katigbak et al. (1996) and McCrae et al. (1998) found the intended factor alignment of the NEO–PI–R facet scales, including the Agreeableness and Extraversion facets, when Procrustes rotations were used (i.e., when varimax factor matrices were rotated to a normative target matrix in which all facet scales loaded on the intended factor). We did in the current sample as well. The factor congruence coefficients computed between the Procrustes solution in the current sample and those in the Katigbak et al. and McCrae et al. studies ranged from .92 to .97 and from .96 to .98, respectively. These results indicate that the intended five-factor structure captures adequately the relationships among the NEO–PI–R facet scales in the Philippine setting.

Procedure All four instruments were administered in their Filipino versions. We distributed by hand research packets containing the four instruments, which were arranged in four different orders. Participants from De La Salle University in Manila and the University of the Philippines at Diliman filled out the instruments in one or two laboratory sessions as part of a psychology course requirement. Volunteer participants from La Salle Lipa filled out the instruments during two regular class periods. Students at the St. Francis de Sales Seminary filled out the instruments in one session with all participants gathered in a large auditorium. The students took an average of 2.5 hr to fill out the instruments, with some students choosing not to complete all four of them (see Sample section).

Results Indigenous Constructs and the Five-Factor Model: Are Indigenous Constructs Culture Specific? We investigated the relationships between the indigenous constructs of the PPP and PKP and the five-factor model—and thus the possible culture specificity of the indigenous constructs—in three ways. First, we examined the factor structure of the PPP scales alone (n ⫽ 387; 19 scales), then related the indigenous dimensions identified to the NEO–PI–R domain scores. Unlike the PKP, whose dimensions were derived using factor analyses, the factor structure defined by the many PPP scales had not yet been investigated. We wished to see how the higher order dimensions of the PPP would relate to the five-factor model. Second, we examined the joint factor structure of the indigenous and imported scales to determine whether dimensions beyond the Big Five could be identified (n ⫽ 304; 58 scales). Of particular interest would be dimensions defined largely by indigenous con-

94

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

structs (scales), suggesting the existence of culture-specific dimensions. Cheung et al. (2001) used the same method when they conducted a joint factor analysis of the scales of the CPAI and the Chinese NEO–PI–R and showed that an indigenous Chinese dimension beyond the five-factor model could be identified. On the one hand, this joint factor analysis has merit in the search for culture-specific dimensions beyond the Big Five. On the other hand, the joint structure might be overdetermined by the welldefined NEO–PI–R structure, possibly leading to an exaggerated impression of how well the indigenous constructs align with, or are encompassed by, the Big Five dimensions. Therefore, in a third set of analyses, we used simple Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses to relate the indigenous constructs to the domains and facets of the NEO–PI–R five-factor model (ns of 329 and 367 for the PPP and PKP, respectively; maximum of five predictors). These final analyses would determine the extent to which each indigenous construct can be accounted for by the Big Five dimensions. In combination, these multiple and distinct analyses should enable fairly definitive conclusions about the extent to which the indigenous constructs are culture specific, or at least relatively independent of the (possibly universal) five-factor model. A number of authors have offered guidelines on the preferred ratio of participants to variables in factor analysis. Other researchers have shown, however, that as long as the sample size is sufficiently large (e.g., 300 – 400) it is the size of the factor loadings and the variable-to-factor ratios that are most important in obtaining stable solutions (Arrindell & van der Ende, 1985; Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988; Kass & Tinsley, 1979). In the present study, the sample sizes for our factor analyses were all in the 300 – 400 range, the ratios of participants to factors and the factor saturations (i.e., loadings) were large, and the factors were clearly interpretable. All of these considerations argue for the stability and meaningfulness of the factor solutions obtained. Higher order structure of the PPP. We used principalcomponents analysis to examine the structure of the PPP scales.2 The scree test and Kaiser criterion suggested the need for three or four factors (the first five eigenvalues were 6.71, 2.10, 1.41, 1.15, and 0.82). We examined the three-factor solution to determine whether the three factors would correspond to the test author’s conceptual grouping of the scales into interpersonal, personal, and intelligence/creativity clusters, but they did not; also, the intelligence/creativity scales had high loadings on two factors, detracting from the simple structure of the solution. In the five-factor solution, the last factor was defined largely by a single scale (Obedience). Therefore, we decided that the four-factor solution, which is shown in Table 1, provided the best representation of the relationships among the PPP scales. The PPP scales with high loadings on Factor 1 included Respectfulness, Helpfulness, Capacity for Understanding, Humility, Honesty, and Patience. In Big Five terms, these resemble Agreeableness traits. The high negative loading for the Sensitiveness scale and the high positive loading for the Emotional Stability scale also suggest a lack of Neuroticism in persons who score high on this dimension. This combination of traits resembling Agreeableness and (inversely) Neuroticism reminds one of Tellegen’s (1985) higher order negative emotionality dimension. When we correlated the (regression method) factor scores for Factor 1 with the five domain scores of the Filipino NEO–PI–R, we found that

DEL

PILAR

Factor 1 correlated highly with Big Five Agreeableness (r ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .01) and (inversely) Neuroticism (r ⫽ ⫺.57, p ⬍ .01). The PPP scales that best defined Factor 2 included Orderliness, Responsibleness, and Achievement Orientation. In Big Five terms, these resemble Conscientiousness traits. Indeed, the factor scores for this dimension correlated most highly with the Conscientiousness domain scores of the NEO–PI–R (r ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .01). The high loadings for the Thoughtfulness and Honesty scales suggest that consideration for others and honesty are aspects of this dimension, at least in the Philippine context. The PPP scales with high loadings on Factor 3 included Social Curiosity, Sociability, and Cheerfulness. In Big Five terms, these resemble Extraversion traits; indeed, the correlation of the factor scores with Extraversion domain scores from the NEO–PI–R was quite high (r ⫽ .71, p ⬍ .01). Three of the scales in the PPP intelligence/creativity cluster (Creativity, Risk-Taking, and Intelligence) had their highest loadings on Factor 4. In Big Five terms, these traits resemble aspects of Openness to Experience. Indeed, the factor scores correlated highest, but only moderately, with NEO–PI–R Openness to Experience domain scores (r ⫽ .45, p ⬍ .01). The high negative loading of the Obedience scale on this factor makes sense: High scorers on the Obedience scale are not willing to disobey unimportant rules or adopt unpopular opinions. In sum, although the PPP is an indigenous instrument, the higher order dimensions defined by its scales show moderate to strong resemblance or overlap with four of the Big Five dimensions. The small number of PPP scales that measure aspects of Neuroticism (i.e., PPP Sensitiveness and Emotional Stability) may account for the failure to identify a distinct dimension resembling Big Five neuroticism. Joint structure of the indigenous and imported instruments. In conducting a joint principal-components analysis of the PPP, PKP, and NEO–PI–R scales, our primary goal was to determine whether any dimensions beyond the five-factor model would emerge, particularly dimensions defined largely by indigenous scales (e.g., see Cheung et al., 2001). Therefore, we examined solutions of five to seven components. The pattern of eigenvalues indicated a break after the fifth factor, suggesting that five factors were sufficient, and these five factors were interpretable (the first 10 eigenvalues were 13.41, 6.14, 3.30, 3.13, 2.46, 1.83, 1.64, 1.48, 1.21, 1.15). Therefore, we present the five-factor solution first (see Table 2). In the five-factor solution, the Big Five dimensions were clearly evident. Furthermore, unlike in the varimax solution for the NEO– PI–R scales alone, which was summarized in the Method section, all but one of the NEO–PI–R facet scales aligned with the intended Big Five dimensions (Impulsiveness did load .32 on Neuroticism,

2

Although researchers differ on the relative merits of principalcomponents versus principal-axes solutions in exploratory factor analyses, we used principal-components analyses throughout the study to be consistent. Previous studies with the PKP and NEO–PI–R, with which we compared our results, used principal-components analyses. In our experience, the results obtained using principal-components and principal-axes solutions are generally similar.

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

but had a higher loading, ⫺.46, on Conscientiousness).3 Both of the indigenous instruments have scales that are strong and sensible markers of Big Five conscientiousness (Factor 1), Agreeableness (Factor 2), Neuroticism (Factor 3), and Extraversion (Factor 4). Only the PPP, however, has scales that are good markers of Openness to Experience (Factor 5). Note also that the PPP Sensitiveness and Emotional Stability scales, which failed to identify a distinct Neuroticism dimension in the factor analysis of the PPP scales alone, now have high loadings on the Big Five Neuroticism factor. The PKP Intellect scale failed to show much relationship with the Openness to Experience/Intellect dimension, unlike in previous research (Church et al., 1998). We considered two possible explanations for this. First, the PKP Intellect scale may measure controlled intellect, whereas the NEO–PI–R measures expressive intellect (Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). Second, the PKP intellect dimension has shown some tendency to function like a positive valence dimension, blending with the positive valence items in factor analyses. Filipinos value modesty, so for Filipino students to describe themselves as intelligent, brainy, talented, learned, competent, and wise may require them to respond in a very, if not overly, positive or self-confident manner. This may account for the inverse association of both the PKP Intellect and Positive Valence scales with the Neuroticism dimension. Finally, only the PKP Negative Valence scale failed to load at least .40 on one of the Big Five factors. We have suggested that the Negative Valence scale may measure a response tendency more than a substantive trait. Indeed, if Negative Valence assessed a substantive trait, one would expect it to load positively, not negatively, on the Neuroticism factor. Although the five-factor solution seemed to account well for both the indigenous and imported constructs, we inspected the sixand seven-factor solutions to determine whether some indigenous scales might split off to identify culture-specific dimensions (the factor solutions are available from Marcia S. Katigbak). The sixth factor in each solution was defined by high positive loadings for the PKP Positive Valence and PKP Intellect scales and a high negative loading for the NEO–PI–R Modesty scale. This factor, which might be labeled Positive Valence or Immodesty, reflects a willingness to describe oneself in very positive terms. This is apparently a positive evaluation factor that is probably not unique to the Philippines (e.g., see Almagor et al., 1995; Benet & Waller, 1997; Saucier, 1997). In the seven-factor solution, the Openness to Experience factor from the five-factor solution split into two factors, one defined largely by the PPP Intelligence/Creativity scales (plus the Openness to Actions facet scale) and the other by five of six NEO–PI–R Openness to Experience facet scales. Given that the PPP Intelligence/Creativity scales and NEO–PI–R Openness to Experience scales strongly defined the same factor in the five-factor solution, we suspect that this factor splitting was primarily the result of the greater method variance shared by scales within the same instrument. In short, the joint factor analyses provided little evidence of culture-specific dimensions beyond the five-factor model. Relating individual indigenous constructs to the five-factor model. Pearson and multiple correlations relating each indigenous construct to the Big Five dimensions are shown in Table 3. The multiple correlations (R) and squared multiple correlations (R2) were obtained by regressing each indigenous scale onto the

95

NEO–PI–R domain scales. These results indicate that most of the indigenous constructs overlap considerably with one or more of the Big Five dimensions. Many of the indigenous scales show good one-to-one convergence with individual Big Five dimensions. In other cases, the relationships are less discriminant, with the indigenous scales overlapping with multiple Big Five dimensions. The PKP Positive and Negative Valence scales are among those indigenous scales that exhibit the least overlap with the Big Five dimensions, as quantified by the R2 values. However, these two scales might be viewed as validity or response-style scales. As noted above, the PKP Intellect scale might also be functioning as a validity or positive evaluation scale in the present sample. The other scales that showed modest overlap with the Big Five dimensions (i.e., R2 values of less than .20) include PPP Social Curiosity, PPP Risk-Taking, and PKP Religiosity. In sum, these analyses indicate that most of the indigenous constructs overlap considerably with one or more dimensions of the five-factor model. We turn now to whether the indigenous constructs exhibit incremental validity in predicting selected attitudes and self-reported behaviors.

Incremental Validity of Indigenous Constructs We first compared how well the indigenous PPP and PKP constructs and the NEO–PI–R facet scales could predict the selfreported behavioral and attitudinal criteria (n ⫽ 308; maximum of six predictors). The specific traits assessed by the NEO–PI–R facet scales might target these criteria more precisely (i.e., have greater fidelity) than would the broader Big Five domains. Table 4 shows (a) the three best indigenous and imported predictors for each criterion (i.e., those indigenous and imported scales with the highest Pearson correlations with the criteria),4 (b) the multiple correlations (R) and squared multiple correlations (R2) obtained when we regressed each criterion onto all six predictors, (c) indigenous R2 change values from a hierarchical regression, which quantify the incremental proportion of variance in the criterion accounted for by the three indigenous predictors beyond that accounted for by the three imported predictors, and (d) imported R2 change values, which quantify the incremental proportion of variance in the criterion accounted for by the three imported predictors beyond that accounted for by the three indigenous predictors. Several observations can be noted. First, the indigenous and imported constructs in combination provided statistically signifi3 The better alignment of the extraversion and agreeableness facets with the intended Big Five dimensions in the joint principal-components analysis, as compared with the principal-components analysis of the NEO– PI–R scales alone, is not anomalous. This could result, for example, from the Philippine scales being concentrated more closely along the extraversion and agreeableness axes than along the alternative affiliation and surgency axes. 4 It is conceivable that better scale predictors, for multiple regression purposes, could be found for one or more criteria by searching for scales with the highest (partial) correlations with the criteria, controlling for other potential predictors. Such an analysis would probably capitalize on chance, however. Our consistent use of the indigenous and imported scales with the highest simple Pearson correlations with each criterion should enable us to get a reasonable sense of whether the indigenous and imported scales can contribute incremental validity in predicting these criteria.

96

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

DEL

PILAR

Table 3 Pearson and Multiple Correlations Relating Indigenous Philippine Constructs to the Five-Factor Model Philippine dimensions PPP scales Emotional Stability Sensitiveness Patience Intelligence Sociability Cheerfulness Social Curiosity Creativity Risk-Taking Respectfulness Humility Helpfulness Capacity for Understanding Obedience Responsibleness Orderliness Achievement Orientation Honesty Thoughtfulness PKP scales Temperamentalness Self-Assurance Intellect Positive Valence Negative Valence Gregariousness Concern for Others vs. Egotism Religiosity Conscientiousness

N

E

O

A

C

R

R2

⫺.58** .55** ⫺.48** ⫺.43** ⫺.30** ⫺.33** .12** ⫺.36** ⫺.26** ⫺.41** ⫺.34** ⫺.28** ⫺.35** ⫺.05 ⫺.30** ⫺.13** ⫺.24** ⫺.28** ⫺.24**

.14** ⫺.20** .19** .36** .66** .61** .32** .24** .31** .04 ⫺.04 .27** .20** ⫺.10* .03 .10* .18** ⫺.03 .20**

.09* ⫺.18** .29** .37** .24** .29** .15** .59** .33** .15** .21** .23** .25** ⫺.19** .13** .07 .25** .15** .22**

.44** ⫺.31** .46** .12** .17** .06 ⫺.22** .20** .14** .59** .49** .41** .40** .38** .35** .27** .29** .39** .35**

.34** ⫺.32** .45** .41** .23** .13** ⫺.13** .36** .25** .44** .34** .28** .31** .11* .64** .50** .48** .45** .40**

.63 .58 .63 .59 .69 .65 .43 .67 .44 .59 .57 .51 .51 .45 .66 .53 .52 .54 .48

.40 .34 .40 .35 .48 .42 .18 .45 .19 .35 .33 .26 .26 .20 .44 .28 .27 .29 .23

.55** ⫺.52** ⫺.33** ⫺.30** ⫺.25** ⫺.04 .30** ⫺.15** ⫺.28**

⫺.09* .23** .13** .15** ⫺.08 .61** ⫺.09* ⫺.03 ⫺.14**

⫺.04 .18** .22** .14** ⫺.02 .18** ⫺.03 ⫺.09* ⫺.09*

⫺.34** .08 .03 .02 .17** ⫺.17** .55** .38** .35**

⫺.23** .43** .20** .25** .12** ⫺.18** .38** .22** .58**

.57 .60 .40 .37 .29 .69 .60 .41 .66

.33 .36 .16 .13 .09 .47 .36 .17 .43

Note. Sample sizes for PPP and PKP were 329 and 367, respectively. R and R2 represent the multiple correlations and squared multiple correlations, respectively, when individual Philippine scales were regressed onto all of the NEO domain scales. N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; O ⫽ Openness to Experience; A ⫽ Agreeableness; C ⫽ Conscientiousness, as measured by NEO–PI–R domain scales; PPP ⫽ Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino; PKP ⫽ Panukat ng Mga Katangian ng Personalidad; NEO–PI–R ⫽ Revised NEO Personality Inventory. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

cant prediction of each of the criteria ( p ⬍ .01); the amount of criterion variance accounted for ranged from 11% to 29% (see R2 values). Second, the best indigenous and imported predictors generally correlated with the criteria about equally well. There were two possible exceptions: Praying behavior was better predicted by the PKP Religiosity scale than by any of the imported scales. This is not surprising given the precise targeting of the PKP Religiosity scale and the fact that religiosity is not explicitly measured by the NEO–PI–R. Self-reported accident proneness tended to be slightly better predicted by individual NEO–PI–R facet scales than by the individual indigenous constructs. Third, the R2 change values indicate that for five of the eight criteria the indigenous constructs provided incremental (i.e., nonoverlapping or unique) contributions to prediction; the imported predictors provided incremental validity for all eight criteria. The additional (i.e., unique) variance explained by either the indigenous or imported constructs was generally modest, however (i.e., usually less than 6%). Larger incremental validity was exhibited by the indigenous constructs when predicting praying behavior (R2 change ⫽ .13) and by the imported constructs when predicting accident proneness (R2 change ⫽ .09).

It was possible that the Big Five domain scores would provide greater breadth or bandwidth than the facet scales in predicting these criteria. Therefore, as a final check on the incremental validity of the indigenous constructs, we repeated the above hierarchical regression analyses using the Big Five domain scores in place of the three imported facet-scale predictors for each criterion. For four of the eight criteria (drinking, gambling, praying, and attitudes toward premarital sexual relations), the three indigenous predictors provided significant incremental validity beyond the Big Five domain scores ( p ⬍ .01). The additional variance accounted for by the indigenous predictors was generally modest in size (range ⫽ 5% to 8%), except for praying behavior (16%), where the PKP Religiosity scale was again an important predictor. In contrast, the Big Five domain scores exhibited incremental validity beyond the three indigenous predictors for only the accident-proneness criterion, accounting for an additional 11% of the criterion variance. Thus, the best facet-scale predictors from the NEO–PI–R contributed more incremental validity than did the NEO–PI–R domain scores, presumably because the facet scales more precisely targeted the various criteria.

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

97

Table 4 Indigenous and Imported Predictors of Selected Attitudes and Self-Reported Behaviors Indigenous predictors Attitude/behavior Smoking Drinking Gambling Praying Accident proneness Tolerance of homosexuality Tolerance of extramarital sexual relations Tolerance of premarital sexual relations

All predictors

Imported predictors

Indigenous R2 change

Imported R2 change

Scale/construct

r

NEO–PI–R facet scale

r

R

R2

PPP Honesty PKP Conscientiousness PKP Concern for Others PKP Religiosity PKP Conscientiousness PPP Honesty PKP Religiosity PPP Thoughtfulness PKP Conscientiousness PKP Religiosity PPP Responsibility PPP Orderliness PPP Intelligence PPP Creativity PPP Sensitiveness PKP Religiosity PPP Orderliness PPP Obedience PPP Humility PPP Honesty PKP Concern for Others PPP Honesty PKP Religiosity PKP Conscientiousness

⫺.25 ⫺.17 ⫺.16 ⫺.30 ⫺.27 ⫺.25 ⫺.27 ⫺.26 ⫺.25 .46 .29 .28 ⫺.27 ⫺.25 .24 ⫺.22 ⫺.17 ⫺.15 ⫺.25 ⫺.25 ⫺.21 ⫺.31 ⫺.30 ⫺.27

Compliance Impulsiveness Dutifulness Excitement-Seeking Compliance Impulsiveness Impulsiveness Straightforwardness Self-Discipline Tendermindedness Self-Discipline Compliance Vulnerability Depression Angry Hostility Openness to Values Tendermindedness Order Self-Discipline Altruism Impulsiveness Impulsiveness Compliance Deliberation

⫺.25 .24 ⫺.22 .34 ⫺.24 .23 .28 ⫺.26 ⫺.23 .30 .30 .27 .37 .35 .33 .20 ⫺.19 ⫺.15 ⫺.29 ⫺.25 .24 .30 ⫺.27 ⫺.25

.34**

.11

.02

.04**

.45**

.20

.05**

.06**

.39**

.15

.04**

.03*

.53**

.29

.13**

.03**

.43**

.19

.01

.09**

.34**

.11

.02*

.04**

.36**

.13

.01

.05**

.43**

.19

.06**

.02*

Note. n ⫽ 308. r represents Pearson correlations of individual predictor scales with the criteria; R and R2 represent multiple correlations and squared multiple correlations, respectively, when all indigenous and imported predictors are in the regression equation; indigenous R2 change represents change in R2 when the three indigenous predictors are added into the prediction equation (Step 2) after the three imported predictors (Step 1); imported R2 change represents change in R2 when the three imported predictors are added into the prediction equation (Step 2) after the three indigenous predictors (Step 1). NEO–PI–R ⫽ Revised NEO Personality Inventory; PPP ⫽ Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino; PKP ⫽ Panukat ng Mga Katangian ng Personalidad. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

In summary, with the exception of the praying criterion, the indigenous constructs were not generally superior to the imported facet scales in predicting these criteria. However, in the majority of cases, the indigenous predictors did provide (generally modest) incremental validity beyond that provided by the imported NEO– PI–R facet scales or domain scales.

Discussion The questions we raised here are among the most fundamental for the study of personality across cultures: Are personality dimensions identified using indigenous approaches culture specific or unique? Do imported personality dimensions generalize well across cultures? Do indigenous dimensions improve on, or add anything to, imported dimensions in the prediction of relevant criteria? Our results were consistent with the following conclusions: (a) most of the dimensions measured by Philippine personality inventories overlap considerably with, and are adequately encompassed by, dimensions of the five-factor model; (b) a few substantive scales, notably PPP Social Curiosity, PPP Risk-Taking, and PKP Religiosity, were less well accounted for by the five-factor model; these constructs are not unknown in Western cultures, but they may be particularly salient or comprised somewhat differently in the Philippines; (c) the structure of the NEO–PI–R five-factor

model replicates well in the Philippines; and (d) Philippine inventories do not generally outperform an imported measure of the five-factor model in predicting scores on selected culture-relevant criteria, but they do add modest incremental validity.

Culture Specificity of Indigenous Dimensions The first conclusion—that most Philippine constructs are well encompassed by the five-factor model, and thus not very culture specific—is supported by (a) our factor analysis of the PPP scales alone; (b) the joint factor analysis of the indigenous and imported constructs, in which no clear indigenous factors beyond the Big Five emerged; and (c) the regression analyses relating the individual indigenous constructs to the five-factor model. PPP. In the factor analysis of the PPP scales alone, dimensions that resemble four of the Big Five accounted well for all of the scales. The PPP contains only two scales that are potentially in the neuroticism domain, Pagkamaramdamin (Sensitiveness) and Pagkamahinahon (Emotional Stability), which may contribute to the failure to identify a distinct neuroticism dimension when the PPP was analyzed alone. It is clear, however, from the joint factor analysis and the regression analyses that these two scales are good markers of Big Five neuroticism. Of the PPP scales, the Pagkamadaldal (Social Curiosity) and Pagkamapagsapalaran (Risk-Taking) dimensions may be the

98

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

most culture specific, although even these scales correlated to some extent with relevant scales from the NEO–PI–R. PPP Social Curiosity correlated highest with the Big Five Extraversion domain (r ⫽ .32) and with the NEO–PI–R Compliance (r ⫽ ⫺.31) and Positive Emotions (r ⫽ .30) facets, but assesses socially inquisitive behavior, including gossip, that is not emphasized in Western inventories.5 Such behavior is not unique to the Philippines, but it may be more salient there, perhaps as a means of social control or indirect expression of aggression (Church, 1987). The Pagkamapagsapalaran (Risk-Taking) scale correlated highest with the Big Five Openness to Experience domain (r ⫽ .33) and with the NEO–PI–R Vulnerability (r ⫽ ⫺.35) and Openness to Ideas (r ⫽ .31) facets. Although not highly correspondent to any one NEO–PI–R domain or facet scale, the Pagkamapagsapalaran (Risk-Taking) scale had sensible correlations of moderate size with several NEO–PI–R scales. The dimension apparently involves the openness and confidence to pursue new challenges and ideas, an aspect of personality that is not unfamiliar to Western psychology. Of course, these and many other correlations in this study would be higher were they not attenuated by the generally moderate reliabilities of both the indigenous and imported scales. PKP. As in previous studies with the PKP, the clearly substantive dimensions generally showed considerable overlap with dimensions of the five-factor model. Indeed, good one-to-one correspondences were found between PKP Concern for Others and Big Five Agreeableness, PKP Conscientiousness and Big Five Conscientiousness, PKP Gregariousness and Big Five Extraversion, and PKP Temperamentalness and Big Five Neuroticism. PKP Self-Assurance was most related to Neuroticism (inversely) and secondarily to Conscientiousness. The PKP Religiosity scale, although modestly correlated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, was less well accounted for by the five-factor model. Individual differences in religiosity are not specific to the Philippines, of course. Although the NEO–PI–R does not include religious content, other Western inventories do (e.g., the Religious Orientation scale in the Omnibus Personality Inventory). Religiosity is a central value in the Philippines and may be particularly important to assess there for that reason (Abad, 1995). However, one can debate whether religiosity is a personality characteristic or a worldview. Of the other PKP scales that were less well accounted for by the Big Five dimensions, the interpretation of the Negative Valence and Positive Valence dimensions is controversial (McCrae & Costa, 1995). We will not repeat this debate here. The most relevant point is that these two dimensions are not unique to the Philippines (Almagor et al., 1995; Benet & Waller, 1997; Saucier, 1997). Finally, the PKP Intellect dimension will need further study. It has been associated most strongly with Big Five Intellect/ Openness in past studies (Church et al., 1998). However, it has been difficult to differentiate Intellect and Positive Valence content, and the Intellect scale functioned like the Positive Valence scale in the present study. At least in a student population, the PKP Intellect dimension may function, in part, like a validity scale, identifying individuals who are willing to describe themselves in very positive terms. It should be noted, however, that this blending of intellect and positive valence terms is also not unique to the Philippines (Almagor et al., 1995; Saucier, 1997). PUP. It was unfortunate that the PUP scales were not sufficiently reliable to include in our analyses of the culture specificity

DEL

PILAR

and incremental validity of the indigenous constructs. If the reliabilities are subsequently improved, it will be worthwhile to relate the original PUP constructs to imported constructs in future studies. In the meantime, to obtain an initial indication of whether this indigenous item pool, which was developed to assess a broad range of indigenous traits, might define culture-specific dimensions, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the item pool (again using principal-components analyses with varimax rotations; 386 participants; 141 items). The dimensions identified through this analysis would probably not correspond to the indigenous constructs delineated by the original PUP scales. Nonetheless, the resulting dimensions can be viewed as indigenous dimensions of individual differences, derived using an inductive or bottom-up approach and defined by culture-relevant behavioral exemplars (items). The pattern of eigenvalues suggested that five or six factors were needed, and all six factors in the six-factor solution were interpretable (the first eight eigenvalues were 8.71, 7.76, 5.14, 4.32, 3.27, 2.74, 2.59, 2.44; the factor matrix is available from the first author). Of most relevance here was that the item content of four of the six factors closely resembled four of the Big Five dimensions: Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Extraversion. Indeed, when we correlated the factor scores for these four factors with the NEO–PI–R domain scales, the correlations with the corresponding domains ranged from .53 to .60. One of the remaining two factors was defined by items with extremely high respondent agreement (high positive loadings) or disagreement (high negative loadings). This dimension, which might be labeled Communality (after the Communality validity scale of the California Psychological Inventory), may function primarily as a validity scale, identifying individuals who most consistently exhibit modal patterns of agreement and disagreement with the items (its highest correlation with a Big Five domain scale was with Openness to Experience, r ⫽ .28). The final PUP factor, which might be labeled Self-Directedness, was defined by items that refer to autonomy and will. This factor had a moderate negative correlation with Big Five Agreeableness (r ⫽ ⫺.36, p ⬍ .01) and correlated most highly (inversely) with the Compliance facet (r ⫽ ⫺.40). This suggests that high scores on this dimension are characterized by a degree of stubborn independence or reluctance to conform. Although these item-level PUP dimensions should probably be replicated in additional Filipino samples, the clear correspondences between at least four of these dimensions and the Big Five dimensions suggest that the dimensions are robust. In any case, this initial analysis suggests that dimensions that are highly culture specific are unlikely to emerge from this indigenous item pool. Our confidence in these conclusions about the limited culture specificity of indigenous Philippine dimensions will depend, of course, on the extent to which the Philippine dimensions investigated are fairly comprehensive in their coverage of the Filipino personality domain. The authors of the PPP and PUP sought fairly comprehensive sets of salient Filipino personality concepts; the concepts selected were based on reviews of Philippine literature and personality descriptions of cultural informants. Our decision to 5 The correlations between the indigenous scales and the NEO–PI–R facet scales were not tabulated here but are available from us.

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS

exclude the original PUP constructs because of low ␣ values probably detracts from this comprehensiveness. However, the PUP item pool that we factor analyzed should also reflect fairly broad content coverage, having been written to assess a broad range of indigenous traits. In addition, the comprehensive lexical procedures used in the development of the PKP should ensure a fair degree of comprehensiveness, at least to the extent that Filipino personality characteristics are represented in Filipino trait adjectives (Saucier & Goldberg, in press). We cannot guarantee that the indigenous constructs assessed here encompass the entire Filipino personality domain or that more culture-specific dimensions might not yet be identified. However, given our use of multiple, and fairly comprehensive, measures, we believe the following conclusion is reasonable: Indigenous constructs in the Philippines (and perhaps other cultures) are unlikely to reflect clearly unique traits or dimensions, but rather modest (or at most moderate) variations in the configuration or composition of otherwise comparable traits.

Generalizability of the NEO–PI–R Five-Factor Model The generalizability of the five-factor model to the Philippine setting is now well established (Katigbak et al., 1996; McCrae et al., 1998; the present study). Improvement of a few facet scales is needed, however, to make them more reliable. There may be some remaining uncertainty about whether the differences in factor alignment of the Extraversion and Agreeableness facets in varimax factor solutions reveal replicable, though minor, cultural variations in personality structure. McCrae et al. and Katigbak et al. offered plausible cultural explanations for these structural differences. However, the need for such explanations is now less certain, given that the realignment of Extraversion and Agreeableness facets did not occur when we factor analyzed the indigenous and imported instruments together. Overall, our findings add to the growing evidence for the cross-cultural replicability of the five-factor structure assessed by the NEO–PI–R (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al., 1998). Furthermore, from our joint factor analysis we can conclude that the five-factor model provides one acceptable representation of the relationships among the indigenous (and imported) scales and that most, if not all, of the indigenous scales can be described or accounted for fairly well in terms of the five-factor model. This is not the same as concluding that the Big Five or five-factor structure provides the only or optimal representation of the relationships among the indigenous scales. Indeed, researchers should remain open to the possibility that comprehensive sets of indigenous personality scales in various cultures will carve up the personality space somewhat differently than does the NEO–PI–R five-factor model (e.g., see Yang & Bond, 1990; Yik & Bond, 1993). Indeed, because imported scales may impose their structure to some extent, structural studies with indigenous instruments are all the more important.6 If Big Five–like dimensions are found with indigenous instruments, as was the case with the three indigenous instruments here, it will provide evidence of universality that is more persuasive, one can argue, than the many recent replications of the NEO–PI–R structure across cultures.

Incremental Validity of the Indigenous Constructs We found little evidence that the indigenous scales could outperform the imported scales in the prediction of culturally relevant

99

criteria. We find it important, however, that the indigenous constructs often did provide incremental validity beyond the imported constructs. Although the amount of additional criterion variance accounted for by the indigenous measures was generally modest, these results suggest that the indigenous and imported constructs are not completely redundant. These analyses had some limitations. For one, the criterion behaviors and attitudes were assessed using self-report and single items. These assessments may be less reliable or objective than behavioral observations, performance indices (e.g., academic grades), or the judgments of multiple others. On the other hand (a) respondents should be able to provide relatively accurate reports of the particular behaviors and attitudes assessed, (b) the criteria were judged to be culturally relevant by Filipino psychologists (i.e., the authors of the PUP), and (c) the indigenous and imported predictors of the criteria make sense. Nonetheless, we recommend that further studies of the incremental validity of indigenous measures be conducted in the Philippines and elsewhere using a broader range of criteria, because this is such an essential issue in evaluating the importance of indigenous constructs and measures (Zhang & Bond, 1998).

Final Comments For advocates of indigenous approaches, such as the authors of the present study, the limited evidence of culture-specific dimensions may be disappointing. Note, however, that our sample was limited to college students, perhaps minimizing cultural and structural differences. Furthermore, even if most or all personality dimensions turn out to be fairly comparable across cultures, there are numerous other ways in which cultures can differ in regard to traits, including the salience or centrality of various traits, mean trait levels, the behavioral exemplars of traits (e.g., see the Appendix), trait-relevant behavioral consistency, the contexts in which universal traits are manifested, the predictive validity of traits, and the role of traits in self-concepts, person descriptions, and causal inferences about behavior (Church, 2000). Cultural psychologists have begun to generate theoretical hypotheses about some of these differences (Church, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1998; Triandis, 1995). Note also that attempts to identify and measure indigenous constructs have been rare (e.g., Cheung & Leung, 1998; Cheung et al., 1996; Guanzon-Lapen˜a et al., 1998) and that most researchers have relied solely on analyses of trait lexicons (De Raad et al., 1998; Saucier & Goldberg, in press). Thus, although the results of the present study tend to decrease optimism about the ease with which clearly culture-specific dimensions will be identified—as opposed to more modest variations in the configuration or composition of traits—additional studies in diverse samples and cul6

In using the term impose we do not intend to imply ethnocentric or other motives in the application of imposed-etic (imported) models across cultures. We simply mean that any particular manner of carving up the personality space into dimensions is probably facilitated to some extent by the inclusion of sufficient numbers of markers of those dimensions. This contention is supported by the finding that several different Western models of personality structure, each of which divides up the personality domain somewhat differently, all replicate well across cultures (Church & Lonner, 1998).

100

˜ A, CARLOTA, KATIGBAK, CHURCH, GUANZON-LAPEN

tures are needed. We continue to advocate the use of indigenous measures and constructs and believe that a more universal psychology will result from their use. Indeed, even if efforts to identify culture-specific dimensions prove to have limited success, a stronger case for universal personality structure will result from such studies than from studies that rely solely on imported measures.

References Abad, R. G. (1995). Filipino religiosity: Some international comparisons. Philippine Studies, 43, 195–212. Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven model: A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 300 –307. Arrindell, W. A., & van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-variable ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 165–178. Becker, P. (1999). Beyond the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 511–530. Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Further evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the Big Seven factor model: Indigenous and imported Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65, 567–598. Carlota, A. J. (1985). The development of the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP). Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 55– 68. Carlota, A. J. (1987). The development of the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP). In A. J. Carlota & L. S. Lazo (Eds.), Psychological measurement in the Philippines: A book of readings (pp. 50 – 65). Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines. Cheung, F. M., & Leung, K. (1998). Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 233–248. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., et al., (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality construct: Is the Five-Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407– 433. Church, A. T. (1987). Personality research in a non-Western culture: The Philippines. 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. (in press). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality. 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. 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. Church, A. T., & Lonner, W. J. (Eds.). (1998). Personality and its measurement in cross-cultural perspective [Special issue]. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 29(1). Church, A. T., Reyes, J. A. S., Katigbak, M. S., & Grimm, S. D. (1997). Filipino personality structure and the Big Five model: A lexical approach. Journal of Personality, 65, 477–528. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Das, R. C. (1991). Standardization of the Gita inventory of personality. Journal of Indian Psychology, 9, 47–55.

DEL

PILAR

del Pilar, G. H. (1998). L’extraversion en psychologie differentielle et l’extratension au Test De Rorschach [Extraversion in differential psychology and Rorschach extratension]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris, X-Nanterre. De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebı´ckova´, M., & Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the lexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212–232. Enriquez, V. G. (1979). Towards cross-cultural knowledge through crossindigenous methods and perspective. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 12, 9 –15. Enriquez, V. G., & Guanzon, M. A. (1985). Toward the assessment of personality and culture: The Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4, 15–54. Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (1989). Das Freiburger Perso¨nlichkeitsinventar FPI [The Freiburg Personality Inventory]. Go¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265–275. Guanzon-Lapen˜a, 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. Hofstede, C. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120 –138. 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. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63– 87. McCrae, R. R. (2000). Trait psychology and the revival of personalityand-culture studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 10 –31. McCrae, R. R. (in press). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1995). Positive and negative valence within the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 443– 460. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509 –516. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., del Pilar, G. Y., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188. Mohan, V., & Sandhu, S. (1986). Development of a scale to measure Satvic, Rajasic and Tamasic Guna. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 12, 46 –52. Pande, N., & Naidu, R. K. (1992). Anasakti and health: A study of nonattachment. Psychology and Developing Societies, 4, 91–104. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (1998). The structured assessment of personality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 150 –170. Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567. Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296 –1312. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (in press). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality. Silva, F., Martinez-Arias, R., Rapaport, E., Ertle, A., & Ortet, G. (1997). Dimensions of interpersonal orientation: Cross-cultural studies regard-

INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS ing the structure of the “DOI Kit.” Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 973–985. Taylor, T. R., & Boeyens, J. C. (1991). The comparability of the scores of Blacks and Whites on the South African Personality Questionnaire: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 21, 1–11. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analytic studies (Personnel Research Section Rep. No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army. van Leest, P. F. (1997). Bias and equivalence research in the Netherlands. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47, 319 –329.

101

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic–interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88 –162). New York: Guilford Press. Yanai, Y. H., Kashiwagi, S., & Kokusho, R. (1987). Construction of a new personality inventory by means of factor analysis based on Promax rotation. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 58, 158 –165. Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs. The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087–1095. Yik, M. S. M., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced scale. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 75–95. Zhang, J., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Personality and filial piety among college students in two Chinese societies: The added value of indigenous constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 402– 417.

Appendix Sample Items From the PPP and the PUP PPP 1. I am fond of telling stories about the lives of other people. (Social Curiosity) 2. I often give alms to the poor. (Helpfulness) 3. Sometimes, to avoid long discussions, I agree with another’s opinion even if it is against my real feelings. (Obedience) 4. When I return from a trip, I bring even just a small gift or souvenir for my housemates and friends. (Thoughtfulness) 5. I would feel embarrassed if seen mingling with people of different status. (Humility) 6. When I owe a friend who is better-off than me, I am in no hurry to repay him/her because she/he does not need the money. (Responsibleness) 7. I just keep quiet even when someone is exasperating me. (Emotional Stability) 8. I often cover up or make excuses for my friends’ faults or mistakes. (Honesty) PUP 1. Even if I’m very angry at an older person, I won’t fight or answer back, out of respect. (Respectfulness) 2. Squatters should not habitually be helped because they are violators of the law. (Helpfulness) 3. Although I may want to help others I sometimes don’t get involved because I might be misinterpreted in the end. (Helpfulness) 4. I easily get hurt when a friend does not bother to greet me. (Sensitiveness) 5. I cannot stand being different from most people and so oftentimes I simply conform. (Excessive Conformity) 6. One must be asked several times before accepting an invitation. (Coyness/Unapproachability) 7. One call to dinner by a host of a party is enough for me to go ahead to the dinner table. (Shyness/Timidity) 8. I consider the kindness and help extended by people to me as a personal debt. (Cultural Norms) Note. Names of the original scales containing each item are shown in parentheses. PPP ⫽ Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino; PUP ⫽ Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao.

Received November 16, 2000 Revision received August 3, 2001 Accepted August 6, 2001 䡲