Culture and the Self Individualist and collectivist ways of defining the self influence many aspects of life, including which personality traits we value, how and whether we express emotions, how much we value having relationships or maintaining freedom, and how freely we express angry or aggressive feelings (Forbes et al., 2009; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Yamawaki, Spackman, & Parrott, 2015). These influences are subtle but powerful. In one study, Chinese and American pairs had to play a communication game that required each partner to be able to take the other's perspective. Eye-gaze measures showed that the Chinese players were almost always able to look at the target from their partner's perspective, whereas the American players often completely failed at this task (Wu & Keysar, 2007). Of course, members of both cultures understand the difference between their own view of things and that of another person's, but the collectivist-oriented Chinese pay closer attention to other people's nonverbal expressions, the better to monitor and modify their own responses.

Because people from collectivist cultures are concerned with adjusting their own behavior depending on the social context, they tend to regard personality and the sense of self as being more flexible than people from individualist cultures do. In a study comparing Japanese and Americans, the Americans reported that their sense of self changes only 5 to 10 percent in different situations, whereas the Japanese said that 90 to 99 percent of their sense of self changes (de Rivera, 1989). The group-oriented Japanese believe it is important to enact tachiba, to perform your social roles correctly so that there will be harmony with others. Americans, in contrast, tend to value “being true to your self” and having a “core identity.” Americans often value “self”-enhancement even at the expense of others, but the Japanese way of being a “good self” is through constant self-criticism in the context of maintaining face with others (Hamamura & Heine, 2008).

To further separate universal from culture-specific aspects of personality, a group of cross-cultural psychologists conducted in-depth research with Chinese (in Hong Kong and mainland China) and South Africans, administering Western personality inventories but also developing indigenous measures to capture cultural variations (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). In China, they found evidence for a personality factor they call “interpersonal relatedness.” This trait occurs universally, just as the Big Five do, but Asians, and Asian Americans who are less acculturated to American society, score higher on it than do European Americans or highly acculturated Asian Americans. In South Africa, where a personality inventory has been developed in the nine official Bantu languages, Afrikaans, and English, the researchers found the familiar Big Five, but also a few other central factors, including “relationship harmony” (approachability vs. distance, conflict seeking vs. resolving, etc.), “soft-heartedness,” and “facilitating” (providing guidance to others).

Culture and Traits When people fail to understand the influence of culture on behavior, they often attribute another person's mysterious or annoying actions to individual personality traits when they are really due to cultural norms. Take cleanliness. How often do you bathe? Once a day, once a week? Do you regard baths as healthy and invigorating or as a disgusting wallow in dirty water? How often, and where, do you wash your hands—or feet? A person who would seem obsessively clean in one culture might seem an appalling slob in another (Fernea & Fernea, 1994).

Or consider helpfulness. Many years ago, in a classic cross-cultural study of children in Kenya, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Okinawa, the United States, and five other societies, researchers measured how often children behaved altruistically (offering help, support, or unselfish suggestions) or egoistically (seeking help and attention or wanting to dominate others) (Whiting & Edwards, 1988; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). American children were the least altruistic on all measures and the most egoistic. The most altruistic children came from societies in which children are assigned many tasks, such as caring for younger children and gathering and preparing food. These children knew that their work made a genuine contribution to the well-being or economic survival of the family. In cultures that value individual achievement and self-advancement, taking care of others has less importance, and altruism as a personality trait is not cultivated to the same extent (de Guzman, Do, & Kok, 2014).

Or consider tardiness. Individuals differ in whether they try to be places “on time” or are always late, but cultural norms affect how individuals regard time in the first place. In northern Europe, Canada, the United States, and most other individualistic cultures, time is organized into linear segments in which people do one thing “at a time” (Hall, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1990; Leonard, 2008). The day is divided into appointments, schedules, and routines, and because time is a precious commodity, people don't like to “waste” time or “spend” too much time on any one activity. In such cultures, being on time is taken as a sign of conscientiousness or thoughtfulness and being late as a sign of indifference or intentional disrespect. Therefore, it is considered the height of rudeness (or high status) to keep someone waiting. But in Mexico, southern Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Africa, time is organized along parallel lines. People do many things at once, and the needs of friends and family supersede mere appointments; they think nothing of waiting for hours or days to see someone. The idea of having to be somewhere “on time,” as if time mattered more than a person, is unthinkable.