The Well-Being Benefits of Person-Culture Match Are Contingent on Basic Personality Traits

Self Cite

The Big Five predict numerous preferences, decisions, and behaviors—but why? To help answer this key question, the present research develops the sociocultural norm perspective (SNP) on Big Five prediction—a critical revision and extension of the sociocultural motives perspective. The SNP states: Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness predict outcomes positively if those outcomes are socioculturally normative. Openness, by contrast, predicts outcomes negatively if they are socioculturally normative. Moreover, the SNP specifies unique mechanisms that underlie those predictions. Two mechanisms are social (social trust for Agreeableness, social attention for Extraversion) and two are cognitive (rational thought for Conscientiousness, independent thought for Openness). The present research develops the SNP by means of three large-scale experiments (Ntotal = 7,404), which used a new, tailor-made experimental paradigm—the minimal norm paradigm. Overall, the SNP provides norm-based, culture-focused, and mechanism-attentive explanations for why the Big Five predict their outcomes. The SNP also has broader relevance: It helps explain why Big Five effects vary across cultures and, thus, dispels the view that such variation threatens the validity of the Big Five. It suggests that the psychology of norms would benefit from attention to the Big Five. Finally, it helps bridge personality, social, and cross-cultural psychology by integrating their key concepts—the Big Five, conformity, and sociocultural norms.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A sociocultural norm perspective on Big Five prediction.

Eck¹,

Gebauer²

2022

Self Cite

“…A fifth limitation of the present work is the reliance on the TIPI, as the measure is suboptimal for studies with a primary focus on personality. Although the TIPI has been used often in previous cross-cultural research (Gebauer et al, 2017; 2020), future research on music and personality would benefit from using longer and more thorough instruments, such as the BFI-2 (Soto & John, 2017) or the NEO-PI-3 (McCrae et al, 2005), which measures the Big Five domains and facets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universals and variations in musical preferences: A study of preferential reactions to Western music in 53 countries.

Greenberg¹,

Wride²,

Snowden³

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Are there universal patterns in musical preferences? To address this question, we built on theory and research in personality, cultural, and music psychology to map the terrain of preferences for Western music using data from 356,649 people across six continents. In Study 1 (N = 284,935), participants in 53 countries completed a genre favorability measure, and in Study 2 (N = 71,714), participants in 36 countries completed an audio-based measure of preferential reactions to music. Both studies included selfreport measures of the Big Five personality traits and demographics. Results converged to show that individual differences in preferences for Western music can be organized in terms of five latent factors that are invariant (i.e., universal) across countries and that generalize across assessment methods. Furthermore, the patterns of correlations between personality traits and musical preferences were largely consistent across countries and assessment methods. For example, trait Extraversion was correlated with stronger reactions to Contemporary musical styles (which feature rhythmic, upbeat, and electronic attributes), whereas trait Openness was correlated with stronger reactions to Sophisticated musical styles (which feature complex and cerebral attributes often heard in improvisational and instrumental music). The patterns of correlations between musical preferences and gender differences, ethnicity, and other sociodemographic metrics were also largely invariant across countries. Together, these findings strongly suggest that there are universal patterns in preferences for Western music, providing a foundation on which to develop and test hypotheses about the interactions between music, psychology, biology, and culture.

“…Second, we included only countries with at least 300 participants in the dataset. This inclusion criterion assures sufficiently precise estimation of associations within each country (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013) and it has also become standard for GPIPP research, albeit more recently (Gebauer, Sedikides, Schönbrodt, et al, 2017, Gebauer et al, in press). 8 The two selection criteria led to a final sample of 2,277,240 participants across 96 countries (60.9% female, M age = 25.9 years, SD age = 11.2) 9 Table 2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Big Five facets and religiosity: Three large-scale, cross-cultural, theory-driven, and process-attentive tests.

Entringer¹,

Gebauer²,

Eck³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

How relevant are the Big Five in predicting religiosity? Existing evidence suggests that the Big Five domains account for only a small amount of variance in religiosity. Some researchers have claimed that the Big Five domains are too broad and not sufficiently specific to explain much religiosity variance. Accordingly, they speculated that the more specific Big Five facets should predict religiosity better. Yet, such research has generally been sparse, monocultural, descriptive, process-inattentive, and somewhat contradictory in its results. Therefore, we conducted three large-scale, cross-cultural, theory-driven, and process-attentive studies. Study 1 (N ϭ 2,277,240) used self-reports across 96 countries, Study 2 (N ϭ 555,235) used informant-reports across 57 countries, and Study 3 (N ϭ 1,413,982) used self-reports across 2,176 cities, 279 states, and 29 countries. Our results were highly consistent across studies. Contrary to widespread assumptions, the Big Five facets did not explain substantially more variance in religiosity than the Big Five domains. Moreover, culture was much more important than previously assumed. More specifically, the Big Five facets collectively explained little variance in religiosity in the least religious cultural contexts (4.2%) but explained substantial variance in religiosity in the most religious cultural contexts (19.5%). In conclusion, the Big Five facets are major predictors of religiosity, but only in religious cultural contexts.