Are indigenous Chinese personality dimensions culture -specific? An investigation of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory in Chinese American and European American samples.

摘要

Many personality inventories were developed from Western perspectives. With the increasing diversity within the United States, it is important to develop measures that draw on non-Western perspectives. In this study I investigated the indigenous Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) with the goals of (a) investigating the cross-cultural comparability versus uniqueness of personality dimensions across cultures, and (b) validating an imported psychological measure that may be of use with Chinese Americans. The Chinese personality structure was compared to the structures for two U.S. samples. Specifically, the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension was examined to see if it is culture-specific. Hypotheses were: (1) The Interpersonal Relatedness dimension will appear as a distinct and comparable factor for Chinese Americans and European Americans; more generally, the four-factor structure of the CPAI will be replicated in both samples; (2) Chinese Americans highly acculturated to the U.S. culture will endorse the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension less than will Chinese Americans with low acculturation to the U.S. culture; (3) the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension will be endorsed less by European Americans than by Chinese Americans; and (4) there will be a moderate size correlation between the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension and the Collective dimension of the RIC scale.;Two hundred and one Chinese Americans and 236 European American volunteers completed the questionnaire packets, which included the CPAI, the RIC scales of self identity, and a demographic questionnaire. The Chinese American sample also completed the SL-ASIA acculturation instrument.;Data analyses supported all hypotheses to some degree. Findings were consistent with the literature---personality structures or dimensions do not change significantly as a function of culture, but trait levels do. The Interpersonal Relatedness dimension, rather than being culture-specific, seems to be a distinct and generalizable dimension across cultures with slight sample variations in the scale loadings. There were significant mean level differences found between different ethnic/acculturation groups for the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension. A modest correlation was found between the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension and the RIC Collective dimension. Therefore, the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension cannot be strongly interpreted in terms of a collective orientation. Limitations of the study and implications for future research were discussed.