CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,986Personality Traits and PsychologyGender Roles and Identity StudiesCultural Differences and Values

Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.

Costa, Paul T., Terracciano, Antonio, McCrae, Robert R.·2001·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Secondary analyses of Revised NEO Personality Inventory data from 26 cultures (N = 23,031) suggest that gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas. Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Meta-analytic evidence suggests that women tend to score higher on warmth and nurturance, traits closely related to intimacy and generativity.

    “For example, meta-analytic evidence suggests that women tend to score higher on warmth and nurturance, two traits that are closely related to intimacy and generativity (Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001).”

    From Implications of identity resolution in emerging adulthood for intimacy, generativity, and integrity across the adult lifespan. (2021) · cites this paper as Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001

  • Neuroticism levels of men and women who had lost money did not differ significantly (t(224)=-.27, p=.79), despite sufficient power (93%) to detect a typical difference (d=.5).

    “Neuroticism levels of men and women who had lost money did not differ significantly ( t (224) = -.27, p = .79) despite the sample size being sufficiently large to have 93% power to detect a difference of the typical magnitude observed for populations similar to this one ( d = .5; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001).”

    From The online dating romance scam: causes and consequences of victimhood (2014) · cites this paper as Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001

  • There were reliable sex differences in Personality-general, with Mahalanobis distance = 0.89 to 1.97.

    “There were reliable sex differences in Personality-general: The magnitude of the difference was Mahalanobis distance = 0.89 to 1.97”

    From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Costa et al., 2001

  • In early studies that found larger personality differences in the West, authors found associations with individualism and data quality stronger than later GEP correlations.

    “In the early studies that found larger personality differences in the West, authors considered several such confounds across countries (8–10), finding associations with individualism (8, p. 329), and data quality (10, p. 554; r = 0.71 in both cases) stronger than later GEP correlations.”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

  • The results that Western countries had larger gender differences on the most employed measures were established before the introduction of the evolutionary interpretation for GEP and its focus on gender equality and development.

    “Indeed, the results that Western countries had larger gender differences on the most employed measures were established before the introduction of the evolutionary interpretation for the GEP and its focus on gender equality and development (8–10; see also ref. 29).”

    From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001-08
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
322-331
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
OpenAlex
W1995632010
Cited by
2,986
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 112 · 2024: 140 · 2023: 172 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 160 · 2020: 272 · 2019: 204 · 2018: 148 · 2017: 123 · 2016: 176 · 2015: 168 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 148 · 2012: 138
FWCI
41.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 AG999999)
  • National Institute on Aging (ZIAAG000180)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
gender differences, personality traits, cross-cultural comparison, NEO-PI-R, gender stereotypes, neuroticism, agreeableness, assertiveness, social role models, evolutionary theory, interindividual variability
MeSH terms
Adult, Africa, Asia, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Europe, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Male, Personality, Personality Inventory, Peru, Sex Factors, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review