Role of Nation in Personal Characteristics

This article describes different test that was conducted to determine what countries thoughts about other cultures and themselves, and those results were compared based on what people said. A national character is the shared perception of personality characteristic typical of citizens of a particular nation. A national stereotype is narrower than national character because it excludes abilities, physical characteristics, and other features that people may associate with a particular nationality. The purpose of a standard set is that it allows comparisons across many different groups and interrater reliabilities document that these are really shared perceptions of groups.

In 1985, Peabody found that people do hold shared beliefs about national character and there is consensus across culture. An example would be the country view of another is the same view that that country has of itself.

The five factor of personality are neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In 2005, Terracciano found that NCS scores are important. The 30 items that were interrelated in much the same way as the FFM traits are similar in ratings of individuals.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Personal Characteristics

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Evidence supporting stereotype accuracy would be Williams and Best in 1990. The demonstrated that gender stereotypes were widely shared across cultures. Other people that showed that there was evidence was Costa, Terracciano and McCrae in 2011 when found that cross-culturally that many of these stereotypes corresponded to measured gender differences in personality trait, albeit rather small ones. Some problems with comparing national difference have a lot of questions and issues. For example, just because the countries have to same scores does not mean that they are similar.

Some threats that methodologists found in regards to scalar equivalence are that translations may introduce mean level shifts, acceptance response styles may be different based on the culture, and norms for self-enhancement may also be different.

McCrae argued in 2005 that scalar equivalence across cultures could be assessed by evaluating the construct validity or accuracy of aggregate scores, and culture-level correlates can provide evidence. In 2002, McCrae conducted secondary analyses on self-report data generously provided by researchers from multiple cultures. In 2005, McCrae did a second project and this time he asked over fifty cultures to collect college students’ observer ratings of adults or college-age individuals from their culture whom the raters knew well. In both studies McCrae found that it showed meaningful correlations with culture-level variables like individualism/correlations. McCrae was able to calculate this because aggregate personality scores were generalizable across age and gender groups.

The NEO-PI-R traits and NCS scales are both compared profiles, the discrepancies that were found in Canada was that they thought that were lower in Neuroticism and higher in Agreeableness than they actually are and the same was for Americans but in opposite directions. Stereotype accuracy can be measured by calculating an intraclass correlation across the 30 facets. In table 1, the results are between aggregate personality traits and NCS scales, in which, 12 of them are significant, but 6 of them are negative, telling one that there is as much evidence against accuracy of stereotypes as there is for it. Some might say that the approach to scalar equivalence adopted here does not guarantee that the NEO-PI-R scores showed scalar equivalence in every culture. The conclusions are unchanged and the median for the ICC based on the observer ratings. Each NCS scale was co rrelated with the corresponding self-reported and