PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Personality Dimensions: Relating Indigenous and Imported Dimensions in Two Cultures Marcia S. Katigbak, A. Timothy Church, and Toshio X. Akamine Washington State University The cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions was investigated by (a) identifying in- digenous Philippine dimensions, (b) testing the cross-cultural replicability of the NEO 5-factor model (P. T. Costa& R. R. McCrae, 1992), and (c) relating Philippine and Western dimensions in Philippine and U.S. samples of college students. Filipino self-ratings (N = 536) on indigenous items were factor analyzed, and 6 Philippine dimensions were obtained. Conclusions about the replicabil- ity of the 5-factor model in the Philippines (N = 432) depended on whether exploratory, Procrustes, or confirmatory factor methods were used. In regression and joint factor analyses, moderate to strong associations were found between the Philippine dimensions and (a) dimensions from the 5-factor model in both Philippine (TV = 387) and U.S. {N = 610) samples, and (b) the Tellegen model (A. Tellegen, 1985; A. Tellegen & N. G. Waller, in press) in a U.S. sample (N = 603). Our goal in this study was to identify self-report dimensions of personality in a non-Western culture, the Philippines, and to determine their comparability to Western dimensions, particu- larly those from the Big Five orfive-factormodel of personality (e.g., Goldberg, 1990,1992; John, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Norman, 1963). Western studies in the lexical tradition, in which self- or peer ratings have been obtained on representative lists of trait terms, have consistently identified five dimensions that sub- sume most, if not all, trait adjectives (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Fiske, 1949; Goldberg, 1981,1990; John, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Norman, 1963; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989; Saucier & Goldberg, in press; Tupes & Christal, 1992; see Digman, 1990; John, 1990 for reviews). These Big Five dimensions are Surgency or Extroversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness or Will; Emo- tional Stability versus Neuroticism; and Culture, Intellect, or Openness to Experience. The Big Five dimensions have shown less robustness when self-report questionnaires have been used (e.g., Noller, Law, & Comrey, 1987; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, Marcia S. Katigbak, A. Timothy Church, and Toshio X. Akamine, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Washington State University. Analysis ofthe U.S. data and preparation ofthis article was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R29-MH47343. Portions of the Philippine data were part of Marcia S. Katigbak's doctoral disser- tation, submitted to Washington State University, and were presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associa- tion, Los Angeles, August 1994. We appreciate the comments of Robert McCrae on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mar- cia S. Katigbak, Department of Educational Leadership and Counsel- ing Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164-2136. 1988), and alternative higher order models have been proposed (e.g., Eysenck, 1986; Tellegen & Waller, in press; Zuckerman et al., 1988). Howevei; the Big Five dimensions do clearly emerge in inventories specifically developed to assess thesefivedomains (e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Perugmi, 1993; Costa & McCrae, l992;Hogan, 1986). An important test of a personality taxonomy or structure is its generalizability to other cultures (John, Goldberg, & An- gleitner, 1984). Studies of cross-cultural generalizability ad- dress the universality of personality structure, whether individ- ual differences are encoded in universal ways, whether a taxon- omy can be usefully applied in a different culture (e.g., for assessment purposes), and the extent to which higher order di- mensions, even if universal, are made up of comparable lower order traits across cultures (A. T. Church & Katigbak, 1989; John, 1990). Cultural universality is consistent with, but does not guarantee, art evolutionary basis for the personality dimen- sions (Buss, l99l;Hogan, 1983). Cross-cultural studies can be done in various ways. Research- ers have usually resorted to an imposed-etic strategy (Berry, 1969) for convenience, efficiency, economy, and for testing known models of interest to investigators. In the imposed-etic approach, researchers apply personality structures from an originating culture in target cultures where they have uncertain relevance (Berry, 1969). Instruments may be imported in their original form or translated into the local language with varying degrees of local adaptation. Although the imposed-etic ap- proach facilitates cross-cultural comparisons, particularly for known personality models, imposed-etic instruments may be predisposed to show cultural similarities and may miss impor- tant emic, or culture-specific, aspects of personality (Berry, 1969; A. T. Church & Katigbak, 1988). Consistent with an imposed-etic approach, several investiga- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, Vol. 70, No. 1, 99- [ 14 Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/96/S3.00 99 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.