Trait Psychology in the Philippines
Abstract
McCrae's proposal to designate a field of personality traits and culture, coupled with challenges to the trait concept by cultural psychologists, makes relevant a review of trait psychology in a collectivistic culture, the Philippines. Philippine evidence in support of the trait concept includes the following: (a) Filipinos have a rich lexicon of trait terms and use these terms to describe and understand others and their behavior, (b) traits may be an important part of Filipinos' self-concepts, (c) the structure of Filipino traits can be approximated by universal Big Five-like dimensions, (d) trait scores show criterion validity, and (e) some interjudge agreement in trait judgments can be demonstrated. There is some suggestion, however, that criterion validities and interjudge agreement values may be lower in the Philippines than in the United States, providing some support for the view that traits will be less predictive of behavior in collectivistic cultures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Predictive power can sometimes be enhanced by adding measures of culturally specific traits to measures of more general traits such as the NEO-PI-R.
“Predictive power can sometimes be enhanced by adding measures of culturally specific traits like these to measures of more general traits, such as the NEO-PI-R (Church & Katigbak, 2000; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapena, Car- lota, & del Pilar, 2002; Zhang & Bond, 1998).”
From Implications of an Emerging Integration of Universal and Culturally Specific Psychologies (2006) · cites this paper as Church & Katigbak, 2000
Cites
Cross-Cultural Assessment of the Five-Factor Model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J.-P., & Parker, W. D. (1998) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022198291009 · Cited by 406 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
NEO-PI-R Data from 36 Cultures
McCrae, R. R. (2002) · The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5_6 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Implications of an Emerging Integration of Universal and Culturally Specific Psychologies
Smith, G. T., Spillane, N. S., & Annus, A. M. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00013.x · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- CHURCH, A. T., & KATIGBAK, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Washington State University (US)
- ORCID
- CHURCH, A. TIMOTHY
- Venue
- American Behavioral Scientist
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-94
- ISSN
- 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3381
- OpenAlex
- W1969722680
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- trait psychology, personality traits, collectivist culture, Big Five personality traits, self-concept, criterion validity, interobserver agreement, cross-cultural personality, Philippines
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