Book contents
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Culture and Psychology
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Additional material
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction to Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Part 1 Acculturation and Identity
- Part 2 Individual Differences across Cultures
- 6 Broadening the Bases of Methodological Rigor in Cross-Cultural Educational Assessment
- 7 Individuals, Groups, and Classrooms: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations on Studying Approaches to Cultural Diversity in Schools
- 8 Emotion between Universalism and Relativism: Finding a Standard for Comparison in Cross-Cultural Emotion Research
- 9 Culture Is More Than Self-Reported Motives, Beliefs, and Values: Methodological Advancements of Measuring Implicit Motives across Cultural Contexts
- 10 Development of the South African Personality Inventory: A Cross-Cultural Design in a Non-Western Society ‒ Lessons Learned and Generalizability to Other Parts of the World
- 11 Combining Global and Local Approaches in Psycholexical Studies: Glocal Illustrations from Studies on Arabic
- Part 3 Culture and Assessment
- Index
- References
11 - Combining Global and Local Approaches in Psycholexical Studies: Glocal Illustrations from Studies on Arabic
from Part 2 - Individual Differences across Cultures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Book contents
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Culture and Psychology
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Additional material
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction to Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology
- Part 1 Acculturation and Identity
- Part 2 Individual Differences across Cultures
- 6 Broadening the Bases of Methodological Rigor in Cross-Cultural Educational Assessment
- 7 Individuals, Groups, and Classrooms: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations on Studying Approaches to Cultural Diversity in Schools
- 8 Emotion between Universalism and Relativism: Finding a Standard for Comparison in Cross-Cultural Emotion Research
- 9 Culture Is More Than Self-Reported Motives, Beliefs, and Values: Methodological Advancements of Measuring Implicit Motives across Cultural Contexts
- 10 Development of the South African Personality Inventory: A Cross-Cultural Design in a Non-Western Society ‒ Lessons Learned and Generalizability to Other Parts of the World
- 11 Combining Global and Local Approaches in Psycholexical Studies: Glocal Illustrations from Studies on Arabic
- Part 3 Culture and Assessment
- Index
- References
Summary
There have been similarities and differences in results of psycholexical research across cultures, and it is difficult to understand whether these are due to real cross-cultural differences and similarities, or to methodological influences. Two approaches have been typically used: a global approach that follows a variation of the original lexical paradigm, and a local approach that is indigenous in methods and assumptions. We provide examples of how a combination of sources, a GloCal approach, is more likely to yield a comprehensive picture of personality in any language by combining global and local approaches, informed by a thorough understanding of the language and culture studied. The GloCal approach allows the researcher to a) identify shared and unique components of the personality conceptions and structure across methods in a culture, b) ensure that the lexicon used is relevant to the culture, and comprehensive, and c) increase the ecological validity of stimulus materials in personality inventories.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Methods and Assessment in Culture and Psychology , pp. 228 - 252Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, i–171.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., & John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycho-lexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4, 89–118.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1216–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.Google Scholar
Barakat, H. (1993). The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (2000). Toward the development of quasiindigenous personality constructs: Measuring Los Cinco Grandes in Spain with indigenous Castilian markers. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 141–157.Google Scholar
Boies, K., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pascal, S., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2001). The structure of the French personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 15, 277–295.Google Scholar
Brokken, F. B. (1978). The language of personality (Doctoral dissertation, Groningen).Google Scholar
Buckwalter, T., & Parkinson, D. B. (2011). A Frequency Dictionary of Arabic: Core Vocabulary for Learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., & Perugini, M. (1994). Personality described by adjectives: The generalizability of the Big Five to the Italian lexical context. European Journal of Personality, 8, 357–369.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J.-X., Sun, H.-F., Gan, Y.-Q., Song, W.-Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs is the five-factor model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.Google Scholar
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, 3–24.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daouk-Öyry, L., Zeinoun, P., Choueiri, L., van de Vijver, A.J.R., (2016). Integrating Global and Local Perspectives in Psycholexical Studies: A GloCal Approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 19–28.Google Scholar
De Raad, B. (1992). The replicability of the Big Five personality dimensions in three word-classes of the Dutch language. European Journal of Personality, 6, 15–29.Google Scholar
De Raad, B. (1994). An expedition in search of a fifth universal factor: Key issues in the lexical approach. European Journal of Personality, 8, 229–250.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 347–364.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F., Mlacic´, B., Blas, L. D., & Katigbak, M. S. (2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across languages: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 160–173.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., Di Blas, L., & Perugini, M. (1998). Two independently constructed Italian trait taxonomies: Comparisons among Italian and between Italian and Germanic languages. European Journal of Personality, 12, 19–41.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., Hendriks, A. J., & Hofstee, W. K. (1992). Towards a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 6, 301–319.Google Scholar
De Raad, B., & Peabody, D. (2005). Cross-culturally recurrent personality factors: analyses of three factors. European Journal of Personality, 19, 451–474.Google Scholar
Di Blas, L., & Forzi, M. (1998). An alternative taxonomic study of personality-descriptive adjectives in the Italian language. European Journal of Personality, 12, 75–101.Google Scholar
Fetvadjiev, V. H., Meiring, D., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Nel, J. A., & Hill, C. (2015). The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups. Psychological Assessment, 27, 827–837.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1990). The use of everyday personality language for scientific purposes. European Journal of Personality, 4, 77–88.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Z.. (2011). Lexical Variation: Modern Standard Arabic. In L. Edzard & R. D. Jong (eds), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. Consulted online on 03 December 2020. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1570-6699_eall_EALL_COM_vol3_0189.Google Scholar
Kaye, A. S. (2001). Diglossia: The state of the art. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 152, 117–130.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fenn, C. D. (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Retrieved from www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
Massoud, J. (ed.) (2005). The Official Dictionary (الرّائد المورد) (3rd ed.). Beirut: Malayin.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: How well is Openness represented in natural languages? European Journal of Personality, 4, 119–129.Google Scholar
Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., van de Vijver, F., Meiring, D., & de Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80, 915–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piedmont, R. L., & Aycock, W. (2007). An historical analysis of the lexical emergence of the Big Five personality adjective descriptors. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1059–1068.Google Scholar
Quevedo-Aguado, M. P., Iraegui, A., Anivarro, E. M., & Ross, P. (1996). Linguistic descriptors of personality in the Spanish language: A first taxonomic study. European Journal of Personality, 10, 25–34.Google Scholar
Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Featherstone, M., Lash, S., & Robertson, R. (eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 25–44). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296–1312.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousis, I., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The factor structure of Greek personality adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 856–875.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., Thalmayer, A. G., & Bel-Bahar, T. S. (2014). Human Attribute concepts: Relative ubiquity across twelve mutually isolated languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 199–216.Google Scholar
Somer, O., & Goldberg, L. R. (1999). The structure of Turkish trait-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szarota, P., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Taxonomy and structure of the Polish personality lexicon. European Journal of Personality, 21, 823–852.Google Scholar
Szirmák, Z., & De Raad, B. (1994). Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 8, 95–117.Google Scholar
Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2020). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 1–36.Google Scholar
Wasti, S. A., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Somer, O. (2008). Six Turkish personality factors and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 665–684.Google Scholar
Zeinoun, P., Daouk-Öyry, L., Choueiri, L., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017a). A mixed-methods study of personality conceptions in the Levant: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 453–465.Google Scholar
Zeinoun, P., Daouk-Öyry, L., Choueiri, L., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2017b). Arab-Levantine personality structure: A psycholexical study of Modern Standard Arabic in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the West Bank. Journal of Personality, 85, 453–465.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., Saucier, G., Gao, D., & Liu, J. (2009). The factor structure of Chinese personality terms. Journal of Personality, 77, 363–400.Google Scholar