Tilburg University Personality and culture in South Africa Valchev, V.H. Publication date: 2012 Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Valchev, V. H. (2012). Personality and culture in South Africa. Ridderprint. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 24. sep. 2021 PERSONALITY AND CULTURE IN SOUTH AFRICA Velichko H. Valchev Personality and Culture in South Africa © Velichko H. Valchev, 2012 Cover photo by Hes van Huizen Printed by Ridderprint BV, Ridderkerk ISBN/EAN: 978-90-5335-565-7 Personality and Culture in South Africa Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in zaal DZ1 van de Universiteit op donderdag 28 juni 2012 om 14.15 uur door Velichko Hristov Valchev, geboren op 7 september 1979 te Sofia, Bulgarije Promotiecommissie Promotor Prof. dr. A. J. R. van de Vijver Overige promotiecommissieleden Prof. dr. Y. H. Poortinga Prof. dr. A. T. Church Prof. dr. J. R. J. Fontaine Prof. dr. F. de Fruyt Dr. A. Chasiotis CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 7 Chapter 2: Implicit Personality Conceptions of the Nguni Cultural- Linguistic Groups of South Africa 15 Chapter 3: Exploring the Personality Structure in the 11 Languages of South Africa 39 Chapter 4: Similarities and Differences in Implicit Personality Concepts across Ethnocultural Groups in South Africa 65 Chapter 5: The Use of Traits and Contextual Information in Free Personality Descriptions across Ethnocultural Groups in South Africa 91 Chapter 6: Beyond Agreeableness: Indigenous Social-Relational Personality Concepts in South Africa 119 Chapter 7: Discussion and Conclusions 141 References 149 Summary 161 Acknowledgements 165 Chapter 1 Introduction Personality and culture are related. This is a statement with which most contemporary personality, cultural, and cross-cultural psychologists of different directions and persuasions would agree (Church, 2008). Although the statement may seem obvious, it has important implications. Given that personality is commonly understood as an overall structure, bearer of central and essential information about an individual (Barenbaum & Winter, 2008), the investigation of personality and culture has the potential to elucidate some of the basic ways in which people are similar and different across cultures. Knowledge on these basic similarities and differences is sought by addressing issues like the universality or culture-specificity of personality concepts, the relevance of personality traits across cultures, and the validity of cross-cultural comparisons (Church, 2008; Van de Vijver & Van Hemert, 2008). Do people’s personalities in different cultures differ only in their standing on otherwise identical personality dimensions, or are there culture-specific personality dimensions? When and if culture-specific trait dimensions are identified, are these “basic” (McCrae, 2000, p. 15) or merely local manifestations of universal, biologically based dispositions? Does it make equally good sense to study trait structures in all cultures, or are traits mostly relevant in Western cultures, whereas roles, identities, and situational context are relevant in non-Western cultures? The answers given in different schools of cross- cultural personality research and theory differ so markedly that a unified account of the relations between personality and culture may seem at times impossible (Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011; F. M. Cheung, Van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011; Church, 2008; Heine & Buchtel, 2009; Yang, 2006). The present dissertation proposes an integrated approach aiming at a balanced representation of cultural similarities and differences. This research, conducted in the highly multicultural and multilingual context of South Africa (introduced further in this chapter), addresses four major questions. First, what are the most important personality concepts in the heterogeneous, non-Western, multicultural context of South Africa? Second, how do the main cultural groups in South Africa differ in the perceived salience of these concepts? Third, what is the role of trait and context for personality in these groups? Fourth, what are the implications of the proposed personality model in South Africa for current universal models of personality? These 7 8 CHAPTER 1 four questions refer to central issues in contemporary perspectives on personality and culture, presented in the following section. The integrated approach proposed in this dissertation aims to focus attention on the most relevant areas of personality where cultural similarities and differences can be expected. Brief History and Current Perspectives An overview of culture and personality studies should pay tribute to the early 20 th century anthropological school of culture and personality. Even though its premises and methods have been discredited, this school represents the first modern scientific approach to culture and personality and has inspired later research (Bock, 1999; LeVine, 2001). Early anthropological studies typically explored overall personality types, or characters, and their association with culture. Researchers in this tradition focused on one configuration of personality that is characteristic for a given culture (e.g., Benedict, 1934; Mead, 1928) or the most prevalent within a given culture (e.g., DuBois, 1944). Later studies deemphasized the search for a direct relationship between culture and overall personality. Some researchers (e.g., Whiting & Child, 1953) focused on the associations between environmental features, childrearing practices, and behavioral patterns. Others (e.g., Wallace, 1961) turned attention to the intracultural variability of personality types and the role of social-structural factors. An in-depth approach, employing a range of ethnographic methods, is shared by a great part of this tradition. In the decades after 1950, cultural anthropology to a large extent shifted to topics of mind and cognition (Bock, 1999). Cross-cultural personality research was reinvigorated in the late 20 th century, thanks to the increasing influence of cross-cultural and trait psychology (Barenbaum & Winter, 2008). The main difference between the old culture-andpersonality school and the recent psychological studies is in the latter’s stronger engagement with the measurement of individual differences. The contemporary study of personality and culture is often presented in terms of three relatively distinct approaches: indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychology (Berry et al., 2011; Church, 2008, 2010; Poortinga & Van Hemert, 2001). The first two are more relativistic or emic, so the term cultural psychology sometimes encompasses indigenous studies; cross-cultural psychology is more universalistic or etic (Berry et al., 2011; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2001). The three approaches are summarized here and discussed in more detail in the following chapters. In indigenous psychology, the focus is on personality concepts relevant in particular cultural contexts (Kim, Yang, & Hwang, 2006). Research is normally initiated using qualitative methods in a single culture, perusing sources like literature, mythology, and ethnographic observations, but is sometimes later transferred to a INTRODUCTION 9 quantitative framework and other cultures. Examples can be found in the studies of different teams in China (Yang, 2006), Mexico, and the Philippines (summarized in Church, 2010). In cultural psychology, the focus is on the social construction of the self (Heine & Buchtel, 2009; Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Self, rather than personality, is the central object of inquiry, and the relevance of personality traits is questioned (e.g., Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007). Research may be inspired by ethnographic sources, but employs mostly experimental methods, typically in dyadic comparisons of cultural groups. Examples can be found in the research on self-enhancement and consistency of traits and behaviors across contexts (see Church, 2010; Heine & Buchtel, 2009). Finally, in the cross-cultural approach, the emphasis is on the generalizability and replicability of structural personality models across cultures. This approach is premised on the importance of personality dispositions and employs standardized quantitative measures for comparisons that often span a large number of cultures and languages. The primary example is the research program exploring the cross-cultural replicability of the Five-Factor Model (McCrae & Allik, 2002; for a more recent overview of this and other large cross-cultural projects, see Van de Vijver & Van Hemert, 2008). In line with recent