Songs About Individualism And Collectivism Essay

@andersonleeei world issues, def amazing at im terrible at essays. id def do worse than you would on my lin alg test

research paper on cryptography and network security officer Waiting till the last night to finish an essay that has been assigned for the past 3 months and accomplishing it dissertation help online nz my favourite food and drinks essay ke312 essays about love cone gatherers essay on durorubber., character development macbeth essay ambition kool savas feat moe mitchell essay lyrics search whither must i wander poem analysis essays attention getters for literary essays literature why we fight film critique essays what is an english literature essay essay on the best movie i've seen what is an introduction in a research paper history harvard admission essay hook. deculturalization and the struggle for equality essay, essay about racism in kaffir boy qpr vs wolves analysis essay paul s case critical analysis essay pictorial essay journal Just finished a steven king short story in english and we have to write a new ending, plus write a letter and another essay - FML review on the documentary babies essay? full text dissertation database security dr charles drew essay english regents thematic essay? critical lens essay the greater the difficulty the greater the glory stri bhrun hatya essay in marathi on mla sandra lee scheuer poem analysis essays research paper steps high school of intro for narrative essay? define critical reflection essay lord mahavira essay about myself custom essay writing service uk number strategic management dissertation youtube? essay writing on internet xbox one?. Animal cruelty research paper reporting dowry system essay 200 words to use other than said healthy vs junk food essay recuerdo poem analysis essays If anyone who's apt with statistics wants to proof-read my dissertation for me, i'll pay you in baked goods and love you forever interesting research paper notes labour day short essay on global warming essay on hardwork and perseverance leads to success glasgow university history dissertation abstracts? scholarship essay why i want to go to college thesis statement for argumentative essay on abortion pill how to write numbers in a research paper jamshed pani bachao essay in gujarati pdf Thanks @bdomenech for a fantastic podcast with @wrmead � I read the Jacksonian essay years ago & it's still essential personal mission statement essays quoting in essays ks2 why we should remember the holocaust essay. A conclusion for an expository essay. Dissertation crise du 13 mai 1958 mckinley american imperialism essay i am proud to be me essay conflict essay interpersonal papers relationship research paper steps high school xpress. Betriebsoptimum berechnen beispiel essay dissertation abstracts internationa statistische hypothesis beispiel essay effect of violence essay parts of a scientific research paper list visit to the dentist descriptive essays, rick roll essay video ambwene allen yessayah youth gang violence essays ap world history unit 3 ccot essay fear of losing someone you love essay who to write an essay plan research papers in medicinal chemistry fences rose essay long quotes in research papers define critical reflection essay my leadership qualities essay. nietzsche genealogy of morals first essay analysis glass menagerie essay keywords planning your dissertation youtube first impressions can sometimes be misleading essay texas tech pharmacy experience essay when rain clouds gather essay help rozwiazania chyla gessay how many body paragraphs should a research paper have quizlet best essay editing service dogs research papers on drug abuse apa 6 edition essayResearch papers in medicinal chemistry where do i see myself in five years essays about life narrative essay thesis statement zip code essay on love is blind quotes money essay xml argumentative essay about happiness my passion for teaching essay a list of adjectives to describe a place essay research paper on the great depression germany concept in essay writing essay autobiography my life essay on your american dream, police corruption essay conclusion words mechanical research papers zip codes me writing essays kuzco llama best essays century ukessayl quand on essaye d arreter vomissement good call to action essays. Essay on schizophrenia journey genius danske medier research paper le nantissement du fonds de commerce dissertation defense? balance of power international relations essay colonel fazackerley butterworth toast analysis essay warriors don t cry essay ukraine essay on samajik buraiyan history of the nba essay why we fight film critique essays richwine dissertation committee chair? mobile application research paper., things to write a compare and contrast essay on foodsaver.

Kommentierte gliederung dissertation writing social justice persuasive essay computer addiction cause and effect essay essay about liberation war of bangladesh validitas soal essay ms word smoke signals essay pdf gooseberries summary analysis essay 3 paragraph essay about myself youtube. essay writing about yourself uk ucf essay help? education discrimination essays is religion necessary essays dissertation pronunciation zambia Lees de voor de Anil Ramdas Essayprijs genomineerde essay van @MartijnStronks @DeGroene �. Hij promoveert vrijdag op: � as3commons reflective essay super size me summary essay papers short essay on film industry argumentative essay on greek life strong first sentence essay personal pronouns in a student research paperways save money essay michael pittilo essay prize read college essays nytimes reference manager for dissertation dissertation binding kit writing college application essays key 2017 essay autobiography my life foreshadowing in romeo and juliet essay who is to blame good and evil in macbeth essays what is the thesis of a research essay quotation inspirational essay writing songs images a list of adjectives to describe a place essay? the land of opportunity essays positive self concept essay writing an essay for graduate school xcom 2 essay 1991 soundcloud how to write a personal essay for high school ofsted reports how to do a research paper in 3 days old man and the sea argumentative essaystephen king essay on writing meanings online education essay yesterday dissertation rwth medizin lexikon inspirational essay writing songs images mother in a refugee camp poem analysis essay how to make a quick essay how to start off an essay about you essay about culture and socialization mla citation for research paper zambia. occupational therapy essay nz virtue ethics vs utilitarianism vs deontology essay, differentialgleichung aufstellen beispiel essay, validitas soal essay ms word dissertation tu wien physik So if I hear u correct u are listening to the songs for a research paper? "@AndweleBoyce: I do know those songs AND can write a thesis" essay the wallet that could ucla mba essay description dragon quest monsters joker 2 incarnus synthesis essay nietzsche genealogy of morals first essay analysis phenomenology social work research papers how to put a quote in an essay without plagiarizing? iolani palace descriptive essay linda brave new world essay. Dissertation abstracts internationa george orwell short essays reflective essay in english 5 paragraph essay on veterans day innuitian mountains landscape description essay engineering an empire persia essay hitler conflict essays, how to cite research papers in an essay headings in a research paper keshav Whoever peer edited my essay is probably my soul mate. Discipline essay fakelore folk folklore study toward paradox in macbeth essay introduction essays for mother's day effect of violence essay al intiqad essay details perfect college essays matter pandit jawaharlal nehru short essay texas digital library the ses and dissertations in education so�i literally typed an admission essay TWICE�and i am typing for the THIRD time because the page refreshed when i clicked continue :-)))))) I checked out the ukessays and it made my brain hurt. I haven't read anything that intense in awhile. I appreciate it. � @livefortmw HE IS MY FAV POET BESIDES POE!!! I wrote all three of my ap lit entrance essays on his poetry. :-) merits and demerits of internet essay writing? sunshine film 2007 critique essay first impressions can sometimes be misleading essay essay autobiography my life subjectivization de la cause dissertation meaning research paper literature youth gang violence essays essay for smoking is bad mechanical research papers zip codes single motherhood essays on friendship how to write an abstract apa research paper water pollution very short essay animal farm essay plan essay on john brown deniz menn dissertation leaves are changing quotes in essays importance of personal development plan essay. What to put in a college admissions essay michael pittilo essay prize thorsten heber dissertation new nationalism speech analysis essay qualities of a good leader short essay about myself random act of kindness essays research paper literature.

Smoke signals essay pdf go green campaign essay essay about importance of water? dtlls essays on abortion essay on raging planet earth essay writing 101 video when i'm writing an essay and my teacher doesnt say what kind of font i have to use..... lets just say ray charles can read that shit lmao how to do a research paper for english? isoprenaline synthesis essay, length of college essay descriptions essay writing service usa email address. This infographic is far more popular than @paulg's original essay. I wonder if this is his most popular essay. � tqm research paper pdf defending your dissertation key opinion essay writing ppt essay describing yourself meme ted talks scientific research and essays persuasive essay professional sports. my passion for teaching essay. how to write a reference list for a research paper essay on julius caesar xenapp. transparent eyeball essay writer ling 201 dissertation abstract, joseph stalin research paper introduction othello quotes for essays bp oil spill research paper introduction 1000 word essay on importance of accountability in leadership research papers on drug abuse. Brutality of war essays legalization of cannabis research paper quilling animal farm essay plan coherent essay writing reflective essay requirements acknowledgements in dissertation letter Armchair Qabalist, I ponder a hypothetical comparative essay detailing parallels between I Carry Your Heart With Me by ee cummings... reflective essay on nursing placement should the british monarchy be abolished essays silent spring critical analysis essay dissertation binding kit, dowry system essay 200 words to use other than said trip essay writing date. drugs in sport should be banned essay how to cite research papers in an essay how to write a persuasive essay with ethos pathos and logos? rooster dance essay expository essay on healthy living video games research paper with answers pdf genius danske medier research paper burns and grove 2001 research paper looking for alibrandi summary essay on america starbucks film critique essays? review on the documentary babies essay, palas y el centauro analysis essay, was ww1 avoidable essay writing.

My leadership qualities essay dlp link glasses comparison essay I remember writing about SE Hinton as part of my library dissertation 20 years ago.. A groundbreaking writer :) what is synthesis essay name directory udl essay diction and detail essay help essay writing 101 video who to write an essay plan rooster dance essay merits and demerits of internet essay writing how to put a quote in an essay without plagiarizing. Canada in the 1920s and 1930s essay my unforgettable trip essay brutality of war essays nietzsche genealogy of morals first essay analysis research paper about dementia research paper on nursing shortage RT @USICHgov Minnesota Public Radio has a powerful photo essay up on youth homelessness: � hope and happiness essay essay on climate change pdf hipaa laws research paper? essay on drug abuse and illicit trafficking in africa writing conclusion for argumentative essayvalue research paper crystal radio research paper afforestation deforestation essay papers. How to do a research paper for english Know your timelines independently from your advisor. #dissertation #ODIPPR14 digital terrorism essay essay 1991 soundcloud subjectivization de la cause dissertation meaning? 2009 ccot essay persuasive essay on money is the root of all evil tattoo mother in a refugee camp poem analysis essay tqm research paper pdf research paper on doctors without borders money essay xml short essay on film industry dashing tweeds reflective essay leesa casper comparison essay. super size me summary essay papers inspirational essay writing songs images becca highlighter comparison essay. scaffold for essay writing. dragon quest monsters joker 2 incarnus synthesis essay Planning on starting my history essay with "Ireland was a bit kift" tomorrow. essay for smoking is bad allard law application essay Studies in John's Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays by M.J. Menken (English) � exemple dissertation philosophie religion urbanization poverty essay writing a list of adjectives to describe a place essay websites to write essays Bless Me Ultima Book Report Essay Research martin luther king jr and malcolm x comparison essays essay elements psychological treatment for depression essays

Recent Posts

The five factor model of personality and individualism/collectivism in South Africa: an exploratory study



Liesl Vogt; Sumaya Laher

Department ofPsychology School of Human and Community Development University of the Witwatersrand P O Wits 2050




The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality is one of the prominent models in contemporary psychology and defines personality in terms of five broad factors, namely, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Recent research, however, questions the comprehensiveness of the FFM with evidence indicating the presence of other factors not addressed in the FFM most notably Individualism/Collectivism. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship of the FFM of personality to Individualism/Collectivism in a sample of 176 students from the University of the Witwatersrand using the Basic Traits Inventory and the Individualism/Collectivism scale. Results indicate that there were no significant relationships between the five factors and Individualism/Collectivism. In addition no significant difference was found between race and the five factors and Individualism/Collectivism. There were also no significant differences between home language and the five factors and Individualism/Collectivism.

Key words: collectivism, culture, five factor model, language, individualism, personality, race



According to McCrae and Costa (1990, cited in McCrae, Costa, Del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998:173), "the Five Factor Model (FFM) is an organisation of personality traits, and traits in turn are dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions". McCrae (2001:819) further defines traits as "endogenous basic tendencies that, within a cultural context, give rise to habits, attitudes, skills, beliefs, and other characteristic adaptations". Thus traits are relatively stable or enduring individual differences in thoughts, feelings and behaviours (Church, 2000). Different theorists sometimes gave different names to the underlying five factors. However, the creation of the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) by Costa and McCrae went some way in bringing about consensus as to the labels attached to the five factors (Church, 2000; Rolland, 2002).

In brief, the five factors are: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Church, 2000; Rolland, 2002). Neuroticism is defined as a general tendency to experience negative affects such as fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and distrust. It is the degree to which a person is calm and self-confident as opposed to anxious and insecure. Extraversion is regarded as a general tendency toward sociability, assertiveness, activeness and being talkative. Thus it is the degree to which a person is sociable, leaderlike and assertive as opposed to withdrawn, quiet and reserved. Individuals willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values are described by the openness to experience trait. Openness to Experience is defined as the degree to which a person is imaginative and curious as opposed to concrete minded and narrow thinking. Agreeableness encapsulates constructs of sympathy, co-operativeness, and helpfulness towards others. It is described as the degree to which a person is good natured, warm and co-operative as opposed to irritable, uncooperative, inflexible, unpleasant and disagreeable. The final factor, Conscientiousness, may be described as the degree to which a person is persevering, responsible and organised as opposed to lazy, irresponsible, and impulsive. This dimension summarizes the more specific traits that mark careful, responsible and dependable people in contrast to people who are lazy and lack self-discipline (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae, et al, 1998; Rolland, 2002).

An examination of research suggests the universality of the FFM (Allik & McCrae, 2004; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005), but evidence also exists that suggests that the FFM is not comprehensive in its description of personality (see Church, 2000; Cheung, Leung, Zhang, Sun, Gan & Song, 2001; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapena, Carlota & Del Pilar, 2002; Piedmont, Bain, McCrae & Costa, 2002; Cheung, 2004; Teferi, 2004; Ashton & Lee, 2005; McCrae & Terraccianno, 2005; Saucier & Skrzypinska, 2006). Furthermore studies on the NEO-PI-R in cross-cultural situations found variations in the five factor structure between Western and Asian cultures (see Church, 2000; Cheung, et al, 2001; Cheung, 2004; McCrae & Terraccianno, 2005). McCrae (2004) interpreted this as the likely consequence of the differences between the individualistic societies of the West and the collectivist societies of Asia (Rolland, Parker & Stumpf, 1998; McCrae, 2004).

Research in the Chinese context sought to establish the universality and sufficiency of the FFM. Both the NEO-PI-R and the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI), a personality inventory developed specifically for the Chinese context, were used in this study. Through factor analysis a unique factor that did not have factor loadings on any of the facets of the NEO-PI-R was obtained from the CPAI scales. This factor has been called Interpersonal Relatedness, which emphasizes the concern of interdependence in Chinese personality (Cheung et al, 2001). The issue then became whether the Interpersonal Relatedness factor was unique to Chinese societies, or whether in fact this domain of personality pertained to other cultures as well. Cheung et al (2001) replicated this study on a culturally diverse group of Hawaiian students and found that the Interpersonal Relatedness factor could be identified in this group. Cheung, Cheung, Leung, Ward and Leong (2003) found similar results with the English version of the CPAI. This research provided empirical support for arguments on the comprehensiveness of the FFM particularly as they pertained to the Individualism/Collectivism dimension.



Individualism and Collectivism are at present amongst the most widely used constructs in research about cultural differences (Triandis, 2001; Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis & Suh, 2002; Green, Deschamps & Páez, 2005; Schimmack, Oishi & Diener, 2005). These constructs, together with "power-distance", "masculinity-femininity" and "uncertainty-avoidance" were first described as over-arching patterns of cultural variation in the workplace by Geert Hofstede in 1980 (Earley & Gibson, 1998; Oyserman et al, 2002; Shulruf, Hattie & Dixon, 2003). According to Hofstede's model, derived through factor analysis, Individualism-Collectivism can be viewed as opposite poles representing an independent stance from groups on the one hand to a dependence on groups on the other (Gouveia & Ros, 2000). However, individualism and collectivism are complex constructs which have been subject to differing interpretations and hence have several different definitions.

Broadly, constructs such as individualism and collectivism have been defined in terms of the attributes possessed by the people within a given culture reflecting either position (Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). Within an individualist society, people are viewed as independent from the group. Consequently, priority is given to personal goals over those of the group and behaviour tends to be based on personal attitudes rather than group norms (Triandis, 2001; Green et al, 2005). Conversely, collectivist societies emphasize people's interdependence within the group, group goals are given priority and people's behaviour is largely regulated by group norms rather than personal attitudes. Therefore, people in a collectivist society are mainly interested in maintaining relationships with others and avoiding conflict (Triandis, 2001; Green et al, 2005).

From the discussion above it is clear that Individualism/Collectivism can be viewed at both the societal and individual level. At the societal level, it may be argued that Individualism/Collectivism is a cultural syndrome and not necessarily a personality trait. However it is clear from the research by Cheung and colleagues that these cultural manifestations have an individual basis and individuals demonstrate characteristics that can be associated with either individualist or collectivist dimensions.

After an extensive review of current research, Triandis and Suh (2002) found evidence that individualists and collectivists differ in terms of their cognitions, the motivation for their behaviour, emotions, and patterns of social behaviour, communication styles and ethical codes. With regard to cognitions, collectivists tend to view the norms, obligations and duties within a society as fixed, whereas they see their own attitudes and personality as changeable (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Individualists have a greater need for freedom of choice and for being seen as unique and they tend to become more motivated with the attainment of success. Collectivists are rather prompted by failure and are concerned with changing and improving themselves in order to meet the demands of the environment (Triandis & Suh, 2002; Barret, Wosinska, Butner, Petrova, Gornik-Durose & Cialdini, 2004). Emotions reported by Individualists are disengaged while collectivists are more interpersonally engaged. Generally Individualists report more positive emotions which are strong predictors of life-satisfaction and place greater emphasis on their emotions as the basis for making major personal decisions. Collectivists base their sense of satisfaction with life on the approval of other and base decisions on social norms rather than emotions (Triandis & Suh, 2002; Schimmack, Radhakrishnan, Oishi, Dzokoto & Ahadi, 2003).

Thus this study explores the relationship between the five factors as postulated by the FFM of personality and Individualism/Collectivism. It may be argued that the FFM as described above by virtue of being developed in an individualist culture and standardised on western individuals with more of an individualist orientation would also be individualist. This begs the question as to the need for this study. This study does not seek to explore the validity of the model in a collectivistic culture. It is rather intended to establish whether Individualism/Collectivism might be an additional factor that the FFM does not encapsulate by virtue of being developed in an individualist culture. South Africa is also an appropriate place to do given the multiethnic nature of this country. Since there is evidence to suggest that both the five factors and Individualism/Collectivism manifest differently across cultures, this study also explored whether differences would be found across race and language groupings in South Africa.



Individualism is generally used to describe the predominant cultures of Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. African, Middle Eastern and East Asian countries are characterized primarily by Collectivism (Triandis et al, 1990; Triandis, 2001; Green et al, 2005). However, as Fiske (2002) argues, one of the greatest limitations of the research conducted on Individualism and Collectivism is that nations are treated as if they are cultures. In South Africa, a variety of cultures are contained within a single political border, which vary in terms of Individualism and Collectivism. As Allik and McCrae (2004:23) state, "the primacy of human groups over geophysical locations is illustrated by the fact that Black and White South Africans have very different personality profiles, despite living in the same country for many generations".

The term culture has been applied to include nation-states, ethnic and religious groups, and even schools and corporations (Dalton, Elias & Wanderman, 2002). The construct of culture is so broad that it becomes difficult to define and relate to social and psychological phenomena. It would be naïve to assume that culture as a concept is purely scientific, since it is also often used synonymously with terms such as race, ethnicity and nationality. Race in particular has been afforded a pseudo-biological status in the past, which has been discredited as race is not a biological variable. Biologically, race groups are more similar than different. Yet, it is the psychological and social meaning of this term in many societies that maintains its relevance, since as a socially constructed classification system; race is largely related to inequalities of status and power (Dalton et al, 2002).

In the South African context the issue of race is a particularly sensitive one due to the country's history of apartheid. In terms of education, the inequalities imposed by this system are most apparent. All so-called "non-Whites" were subjected to an inferior quality of education, with the black African race group being the most disadvantaged (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2005). Therefore, studies investigating the cross-cultural applicability of personality instruments in the South African context have had to take the variable of race into account. A study on the cross-cultural applicability of the 16PF, showed that the scores obtained were strongly influenced by race (Abrahams, 1996). Abrahams (1996) found significant differences in the means, reliability co-efficients and factor structures for the different race groups, most notably the Black and White race groups. In addition there were significant differences in the way that the items were answered by the different race sub samples and 18% of the items failed to attain significant item-total correlations. These results led Abrahams (1996) to conclude that race had the greatest influence on the manner in which the test items were dealt with suggesting the possible moderating influence of this variable.

Studies of the NEO-PI-R in South Africa have similarly found differences related to race. Cross-cultural replicability has not always been found for the FFM in terms of both the number and structure of the factors. In fact, replicability of the FFM in South Africa has in some studies resulted in three, and at most, four-factor solutions (Matsimbi, 1997; Horn, 2000; Taylor, 2000). Taylor (2000) examined the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R in the workplace. The Openness to Experience factor could not be extracted from the Black group, but the complete five-factor structure was found for the White group. Heuchert, Parker, Stumpf and Myburgh (2000) administered the NEO-PI-R to 408 college students in South Africa. Through factor analysis with Varimax rotation at the facet level the five factor structure was replicated. Although personality structure was found to be equivalent for the different race groups, the mean scores for some of the domains and facets differed. Black individuals scored lower in Openness to Experience than either White or Indian individuals, while White individuals scored higher on Extraversion and Agreeableness. Another study testing the validity and reliability of the FFM among a sample of 368 South African students, from four different South African universities, found that black students scored significantly higher on Neuroticism but significantly lower on Extraversion and Agreeableness than white students (Zhang & Akande, 2002). It is important to note that both studies concluded that differences found between the race groups were related to race in terms of educational level, socio-economic status and cultural differences, but were not a direct product of race itself (Heuchert et al, 2000; Zhang & Akande, 2002).

A study by Allik and McCrae (2004) examined personality traits across 36 cultures, including a sample of Black and White South Africans. Multidimensional scaling procedures showed that Black South Africans, in line with other African and Asian cultures, were lower on Extraversion and Openness to Experience, and higher in Agreeableness suggesting that these may not be differences in personality but rather differences in which these personality traits are expressed in individuals from individualist and collectivist cultures.

Apart from race, language has also been cited as a cultural variable notable for its influence as a powerful moderator of test performance (Abrahams, 1996; Foxcroft, 1997; Heaven & Pretorius, 1998; Van de Vijver & Rothmann, 2004; Foxcroft & Roodt, 2005). The dimensions of the FFM while not explicitly located within the lexical hypotheses are based on the work conducted within these studies (see Ashton & Lee, 2005). As such one questions whether factors derived from descriptive adjectives in the English language relate to the same constructs across cultures. Considerable disagreement in the literature exists between researchers whose studies either continue to support the universality of the FFM and those which raise questions as to its validity in cross-cultural applications particularly as pertains to issues of language (Allik & McCrae, 2004; Ashton & Lee, 2005; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005).

Studies in the South African context have consistently demonstrated the effects of taking tests in a second language on test item responses (Foxcroft, 1997; Bedell, Van Eeden, & Van Staden, 1999; Van de Vijver & Leung, 2001; Van de Vijver & Rothmann, 2004). Heaven and Pretorius (1998) conducted a study to investigate whether the language descriptors of the FFM were adequate when used by a non-English-speaking group. It was found that though the traditional five-component taxonomy was the best fit for the Afrikaans-speaking group, a different pattern of components with significant loadings emerged for the Sotho-speaking group.

Similar results have been found in other African studies. Teferi (2004) translated the NEO-PI-R into the Tigrignan language to explore the utility of the FFM in the Eritrean context. Using factor analytic methods, Teferi (2004) could only extract the Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness factors. Piedmont, et al (2002) conducted a study in Zimbabwe using a Shona translation of the NEO-PI-R and found similar results. The five factor structure was obtained, but Extraversion and Agreeableness did not replicate as well as Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience replicated poorly.

McCrae and Terracciano (2005) found that the five-factor structure could be extracted when NEO-PI-R data from Botswana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Uganda was analysed but the five factors replicated poorly in their African sample compared to the American normative structure. Also notable, was that the non-Western cultures had poorer data quality and internal consistency than the Western nations in this study. Botswana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda and Morocco had markedly lower data quality than Burkina Faso where the French version of the NEO-PI-R had been administered, instead of the English version as in the formerly named African cultures, where no translations in African languages were available. Thus in addition to exploring the relationship between the FFM and Individualism/Collectivism , this study explored the influence of race and home language on each of the personality domains and Individualism/Collectivism respectively.




Non-probability convenience sampling was used. 176 completed questionnaires were obtained from undergraduate students attending Wits Plus (University of the Witwatersrand part time studies program), as well as the postgraduate students in Psychology and the Biological Sciences. Sample size was largely affected by a failure to complete the questionnaires. Thus non-response bias and volunteer bias could be limitations in this study (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Porter & Whitcomb; 2005). Differences in the personality types of participant versus non-participant respondents have also been found (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991; Aviv, Zelenski, Rollo & Larsen, 2002; Porter & Whitcomb, 2005). This is of extreme importance in personality research. In an attempt to control specifically for volunteer bias, the researchers informed students of the nature of personality research, the importance of the study and the need for individuals who would not necessarily respond to attempt to respond to the questionnaire. While this cannot fully control for theses biases, it was hoped that alerting potential participants to these effects might encourage potential nonparticipants to complete the questionnaire.

The participants ages ranged from 19 to 52 years ( = 26.55, SD= 6.72). The demographic information, as presented in Table 1, show that 69.32% of the sample was female and 30.68% was male. With regards to race, 51.14% were White, while 48.86% fell into the Non-White category. This latter classification was made necessary due to too few individuals of other races being represented in this sample. In this study, the "Non-White" group included individuals of African (n = 49), Indian (n = 20), Coloured (n = 14) and Chinese (n = 3) descent. It is acknowledged that the collapsing of groups in this way is not ideal. These groups are by no means homogenous. However a sufficient body of research exists which provides support for Asian and African cultures being collectivist and White, western cultures individualist (see Eaton & Louw, 2000; Cheung, et al, 2001; Mpofu, 2001; McCrae, 2004; Van Dyk & de Kock, 2004). Lastly, 65.91% of the participants reported their Home Language as English. The Non-English group represented 30.86% of the sample and included the other 10 official languages of South Africa, namely: Afrikaans (n = 11), Ndebele (n= 1), Pedi (n = 4), Siswati (n = 5), Sotho (n = 8), Tsonga (n = 3), Tswana (n = 2), Venda (n = 1), Xhosa (n = 4) and Zulu (n = 11) as well as the "Other" category. The category "Other" (n = 11) included Bosnian (n = 1), Bulgarian (n = 2), Dutch (n = 1), French (n = 1), German (n = 1), Ibo (n = 1), Kikuyu (n = 1), Mandarin (n = 1) Shona (n = 1), and Tamil (n = 1).


A questionnaire consisting of three sections was used in this study. The first section of the questionnaire was designed for the purposes of obtaining demographic information, namely age, gender, race and home language. Age and gender were used for descriptive purposes only.

The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI).

From the literature discussed earlier, the NEO-Personality Inventory - Revised (NEOPI-R) is at present the most commonly used measure of personality, as based on the FFM in international personality assessment and research, and would be one of the instruments of choice in this study (Larsen & Buss, 2005; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) is the second instrument of choice in this study.

The BTI has been developed in South Africa using the FFM and measures personality in terms of five broad domains, namely: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, as defined by the FFM (Taylor & de Bruin, 2005). In terms of etic (universal) versus emic (culture specific) approaches to personality assessment it would have been ideal to use both the NEO-PI-R and the BTI in this study. However due to financial constraints we could not secure the use of the NEO-PI-R in this study. Hence only the BTI was used.

The Basic Traits Inventory (BTI) is a self report instrument consisting of 193 items and requires approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. It is suitable for individuals from the age of sixteen years with a minimum educational level of grade ten. BTI items are answered on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). It has six scales, namely, Openness to Experience (O), Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Neuroticism (N) and Social Desirability (SD). The first four scales are subdivided into five facets and the fifth, N, has only four facets (Taylor & de Bruin, 2005). However, the BTI scale is still being developed, and not much work has been done at the facet level. As a result the facets have not been used in this study. The social desirability items are used as a measure to check for subjects "faking good" and does not form part of the FFM. Hence the social desirability scale was not used in this study.

The test was standardised on a group of 5352 South Africans, majority of whom were students, others worked in a call centre or in the police service. The internal reliability, as calculated using Cronbach's Alpha, for the five scales of the BTI, were found to be 0.89 for Extraversion, 0.94 for Neuroticism and Conscientiousness respectively, 0.90 for Openness to Experience and 0.88 for Agreeableness (Taylor, 2004). The factor analysis, for determining the construct validity of the BTI, demonstrated a satisfactory fit with the FFM of personality (Taylor, 2004). Cronbach's Alpha co-efficients in this study were 0.89 for Extraversion, 0.95 for Neuroticism, 0.92 for Conscientiousness, 0.87 for Openness to Experience, and 0.90 for Agreeableness.

The Individualism/Collectivism Scale.

Individualism and collectivism as constructs have been criticised for being overly inclusive. According to Poortinga and Van Hemert (2001) this has occurred to the extent that any differences that are observed between countries from the East and West are attributed to these constructs. Therefore, the operationalisation of individualism and collectivism has proved to be challenging. There are two major approaches to the quantitative measurement of individualism and collectivism. The first approach involves the application of Hofstede's methods. All four of his measures have been replicated, but the Individualism/Collectivism dimension has had the greatest impact on cross-cultural research (Schimmack et al, 2005).

One of the commonly used operationalisations of Hofstede's dimensions is the Value Survey Module 1994 (VSM-94). However, Kruger and Roodt (2003) have found that the VSM-94 is neither valid nor reliable, as the majority of the items on the VSM-94 cannot be used in the South African context. The second approach, initiated in the late 1980's, involved the development of new measures for individualism and collectivism. The appeal of the latter approach was independence from the use of Hofstede's norms, shifting the use of these constructs from the workplace to the broader cultural context, and providing a means for assessing these constructs at the level of the individual (Oyserman et al, 2002; Schimmack et al, 2005).

Following on from the second approach, the meta-analysis of 83 studies conducted by Oyserman et al (2002) found that the three most commonly used tools for assessing individualism and collectivism were the Independent-Interdependent Self-Construal (SCS) scale, the Horizontal-Vertical Collectivism-Individualism scale and the Individualism-Collectivism (INDCOL) scale. The INDCOL scale was used in this study as it was readily available at the time of this study.

The INDCOL scale is a paper-and pencil instrument consisting of 63 items divided into six sub-scales (Hui, 1988; Shulruf et al., 2003). The items have a six-point rating, ranging from strongly agree (0) to strongly disagree (5). High scores on the scale indicate more individualist tendencies. The subscales are based on the notion that collectivism can vary inter-and intra-personally, which theoretically implies that different forms of collectivism are possible (Hui, 1988). Therefore an individual is hypothesised to behave in either a collectivist or individualist manner towards people who form different groups in relation to the individual, viz. spouse, parents, kin, neighbours, friends, and colleagues. These groups then were also the names assigned to each of the six subscales, which had been identified through factor analytic methods (Hui, 1988; Hui & Yee, 1994). Hui and Yee (1994) reports that the INDCOL scale has proven construct validity, but no further information on the validity of this instrument could be located. The internal consistency reliability reported for the subscales ranged between 0.46 and 0.76 (Hui, 1988). Subsequent research by Hui and Yee (1994) suggested that the subscales may need revision. Subscale reliabilities in this study ranged between 0.27 and 0.71. Hence only the overall INDCOL scale score was used. Internal consistency reliability for the overall INDCOL scale on average lies in the region of 0.60. Test-retest reliabilities are between 0.62 and 0.79. An internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.73 was found for the overall INDCOL scale in this study.


Ethical clearance was obtained from the Committee for Research on Human Subjects at the University of the Witwatersrand prior to data collection (Protocol number 50804). The researcher approached all students in lectures. Students were briefed verbally on the study and the associated ethical concerns. Questionnaires were distributed to willing participants to complete at their convenience. The students were asked to return the completed questionnaires in self-addressed envelopes via internal mail to the researchers.

Data analysis.

The study involved the use of descriptive statistics, reliability co-efficients, correlations and ANOVA's. All the statistics were generated using the SAS statistical computer package (SAS Institute, 1996). Both, the personality variables as measured by the BTI domain scales and the overall INDCOL score, were normally distributed. The condition of homogeneity of variance was also met. Hence Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to explore the relationship between the BTI domain scales and the overall INDCOL score and parametric one-way ANOVA's were used to explore whether differences exist between race and the BTI domains and the overall INDCOL score and whether differences exist between home language and the BTI domains and the overall INDCOL score.



The results in Table 2 show the means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values for the BTI domain scales and the INDCOL scale. All scale scores are in the expected range and are normally distributed.

Table 3 shows the correlations between the five factors and individualism/collectivism. No statistically significant correlations were found between scores on the Individualism/Collectivism (I/C total) scale and any of the domain scale on the BTI - five factors scale. Therefore, there is not enough evidence in this sample to suggest that any relationship exists between any of the five factors, as measured by the BTI, and Individualism/Collectivism suggesting that Individualism/Collectivism is not subsumed within the five factors as measured by the BTI.

These findings concur with research conducted in the Chinese context, which lead to the discovery that the Interpersonal Relatedness Factor was defined only by the CPAI and not by any of the five factors (Cheung et al, 2001; Cheung et al, 2003; Cheung, 2004).

Table 4 provides the results for the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for race and home language with the BTI domain scales and the INDCOL scale. No significant differences were found for either the INDCOL or BTI domain scales with both race and home language. Given the discussion presented in the literature review, it is surprising that no significant differences were found for race and home language on any of the five factors and individualism/collectivism.

However a study by Van Dyk and De Kock (2004) that hypothesised that White and Coloured officers in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) would tend to be more individualistic, while Black officers would be more collectivistic found no significant differences in individualism and collectivism between the Black, Coloured or White groups. They argued that these findings were due to the fact that student populations have been found to be more individualist in nature, due in part to their shared exposure to similar education (Eaton & Louw, 2000; Van Dyk & De Kock, 2004). In support of this view Oyserman et al (2002) have argued that the demands of an academic environment fosters Individualism, since the focus is on individual striving, competition and the realisation of one's potential.

It is possible though that the understanding and operationalisation of Individualism/Collectivism used in this study inappropriate. Following an extensive meta-analysis Oyserman et al (2002) have concluded that a broadly inclusive approach to Individualism and Collectivism should be employed as each of the approaches to these constructs have their limitations and not one single approach as yet dominates in the field.

Another limitation in this study stems from the sample. The grouping together of Black, Indian and Coloured groups to create comparative samples in terms of magnitude, could have influenced the results. Van Dyk and de Kock (2004) argue that the Coloured group in fact lies somewhere between the White and the Black groups with regards to some aspects of Individualism and Collectivism. Similarly with collapsing the language variable. Sample cell sizes were too small and this necessitated collapsing of groups but this does compromise the results to an extent. This sample is also not representative of the South African population or even the student population in terms of age, gender, race and home language (Crystal, 1997). Furthermore, factors such as age, gender and socio-economic status have been shown to have as great, if not more of an influence on personality traits than culture (McCrae et al, 1998; Costa, Terracciano & McCrae, 2001; Green et al, 2005). These were not explored in this study.

Thus it is recommended that similar studies be conducted with larger and more representative samples. It may also be useful to use the NEO-PI-R to enhance the study's comparability to other cross-cultural studies of the FFM. The use of several measures of Individualism and Collectivism or at least a composite measure that integrates the different perspectives would be important. Individualism/Collectivism may be too broad a distinction and levels of Individualism/Collectivism may occur. According to Triandis (2001), although Individualism and Collectivism are useful in terms of analysis, it would be gross stereotyping to assume that every individual within a certain culture would have all the characteristics of that culture. As a result, a distinction can be drawn between different types of individualist and collectivist societies. This difference is due to the degree of emphasis placed on what have been termed horizontal and vertical social relationships. The former describes equality amongst individuals and the latter, a hierarchical structure where individuals differ in status (Triandis, 2001; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).

In a South African context one might also argue that the collectivist dimension is best captured by the indigenous term, ubuntu (humanness). Ubuntu as it is concerned with relationships towards others is defined by reverence, respect, sympathy, tolerance, loyalty, courtesy, patience, generosity, hospitality and co-operativeness (Louw, 2001; Shutte, 2001). Louw (2001) argues that Ubuntu is not an absolute collectivist dimension that subsumes the individual and subjects everyone to a communal identity. Rather ubuntu incorporates dialogue and promotes the functioning of the individual in the community giving precedence to the community. This understanding of ubuntu collectivism concurs with research on the horizontal and vertical aspects of individualism and collectivism which has demonstrated that both concepts have sub-dimensions and are not merely bipolar constructs and that variation on dimensions of individualism and collectivism can occur across and within cultures (see Green, Deschamps & Paez, 2005).

In addition to this, the results of this study suggest that studies also take into consideration issues of acculturation. Eaten and Louw (2000) argue that acculturation, which can be occurring at both the individual and community level, could be influencing the extent to which cultural differences are expressed or even in fact exist. Mpofu (2001) has spoken of what is referred to as the "African modernity trend" which represents a shift toward Western Individualism which concurs with the arguments made by Van Dyk & De Kock (2004). The incorporation of measures of acculturation in personality and other assessment measures particularly in a context like South Africa could benefit the assessment process tremendously.

Finally an emic approach, similar to that employed by the Cheung and colleagues, would enhance our knowledge of personality in a South African context more than the current etic and/or pseudo-etic approaches particularly if constructs such as "Ubuntu" are seen to be relevant to personality theory and assessment.



Abrahams, F (1996) The cross-cultural applicability of the 16 Personality Factors Inventory (16PF). Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.         [ Links ]

Allik, J & McCrae, R R (2004) Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13-28.         [ Links ]

Ashton, M C & Lee, K (2005) Honesty-Humility, the big five, and the Five Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 73, 1321-1353.         [ Links ]

Aviv, A L, Zelenski, J M, Rollo, L & Larsen, R J (2002) Who comes when: Personality differences and later participation in a university subject pool. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 487-496.         [ Links ]

Barret, D W, Wosinska, W, Butner, J, Petrova, P, Gornik-Durose, M & Cialdini, R B (2004) Individual differences in the motivation to comply across cultures: the impact of social obligation. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 19-31.         [ Links ]

Bedell, B, Van Eeden, R & Van Staden, F (1999) Culture as a moderator variable in psychological test performance: Issues and trends in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25, 1-7.         [ Links ]

Cheung, F M (2004) Use of Western and indigenously developed tests in Asia. Applied Psychology: An international review, 53, 173-191.         [ Links ]

Cheung, F M, Cheung, S F, Leung, K, Ward, C & Leong, F (2003) The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 433-452.         [ Links ]

Cheung, F M, Leung, K, Zhang, J X, Sun, H F, Gan, Y G & Song, W Z (2001) Indigenous Chinese personality construct: Is the Five-Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407-433.         [ Links ]

Church, A T (2000) Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 68, 651-704.         [ Links ]

Costa, P T, & McCrae, R R (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory & NEO Five Factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.         [ Links ]

Crystal, D (1997) English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

Dalton, J H, Elias, M J & Wanderman, A (2002) Community Psychology: Linking individuals and communities. Belmont: Wadsworth.         [ Links ]

Earley, P C, & Gibson, C B (1998) Taking stock in our progress on Individualism Collectivism: 100 years of community solidarity. Journal of Management, 24, 265-304.         [ Links ]

Eaton, L & Louw, L (2000) Culture and self in South Africa: Individualism/Collectivism predictions. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 210-218.         [ Links ]

Fiske, A P (2002) Using Individualism and Collectivism to compare cultures - A critique of the validity and measurement of constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.         [ Links ]

Foxcroft, C (1997) Psychological testing in South Africa: Perspectives regarding ethical and fair practices. South African Journal of Psychology, 13, 229-235.         [ Links ]

Foxcroft, C & Roodt, G (2005) An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context. (2nd ed). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Green, E G T, Deschamps, J-L & Páez, D (2005) Variation of Individualism and Collectivism within and between 20 countries: A typological analysis. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 36, 321-339.         [ Links ]

Gouveia, V V & Ros, M (2000) Hofstede and Schwartz's models for classifying Individualism at the cultural level: Their relation to macro-social and macro-economic variables. Psicothema, 12, (Supplement), 25-33.         [ Links ]

Heaven, P C L & Pretorius, A (1998) Personality structure among black and white South Africans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 664-667.         [ Links ]

Heuchert, J W P, Parker, W D, Stumpf, H & Myburgh, C P H (2000) The five-factor model of personality in South African College Students. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 112-125.         [ Links ]

Horn, B S (2000) A Xhosa translation of the NEO-PI-R: A pilot study. Unpublished Masters Dissertation: University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth.         [ Links ]

Hui, C H (1988) Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17-36.         [ Links ]

Hui, C H & Yee, C (1994) The shortened Individualism-Collectivism scale: Its relationship to demographic and work-related variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 409-424.         [ Links ]

Katigbak, M S, Church, A T, Guanzon-Lapena, M A, Carlota, A J & Del Pilar, G H (2002) Are indigenous personality dimensions culture specific? Philippine inventories and the Five Factor Model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 89-101.         [ Links ]

Kruger, T & Roodt, G (2003) Hofstede's VSM-94 revisited: Is it reliable and valid? South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 75-82.         [ Links ]

Larsen, R J & Buss, D M (2005). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. Boston: McGraw-Hill.         [ Links ]

Louw, D J (2001) Ubuntu and the challenges of multiculturalism in post-apartheid South Africa. Retrieved at on 25 January 2007.         [ Links ]

Matsimbi, W E (1997) Cross-cultural generalisability of the Five Factor model: A study on South African white collar males. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

McCrae, R R (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons. Journal of Personality, 69, 819-846.         [ Links ]

McCrae, R R (2004) Human nature and culture: A trait perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 3-14.         [ Links ]

McCrae, R R & Allik, J (eds) (2002) The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic.         [ Links ]

McCrae, R R, Costa, P T, Del Pilar, G H, Rolland, J P & Parker, W D (1998) Cross cultural assessment of the Five-Factor model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.         [ Links ]

McCrae, R R & Terracciano, A (2005) Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.         [ Links ]

Mpofu, E (2001) Exploring self-concept in an African culture. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 341-354.         [ Links ]

Oyserman, D, Coon, H M & Kemmelmeier, M (2002) Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.         [ Links ]

Piedmont, R L, Bain, E, McCrae, R R & Costa, P T (2002) The applicability of the Five Factor model in a sub-Saharan culture: The NEO-PI-R in Shona, in Poortinga, R R & Van Hemert, D A (2001) Personality and culture: Demarcating between the common and the unique. Journal of Personality, 69, 1033-1060.         [ Links ]

Porter, S R & Whitcomb, M E (2005) Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement & personality. Research in Higher Education, 46, 127-152.         [ Links ]

Rolland, J P (2002) Cross-cultural generalisability of the Five Factor model of Personality, in McCrae, R R & Allik, J (eds) The Five-Factor Model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic.         [ Links ]

Rolland, J P, Parker, W D & Stumpf, H (1998) A psychometric examination of the French translation of the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 269-291.         [ Links ]

Rosenthal, R & Rosnow, R L (1991) Essentials of behavioural research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.         [ Links ]

SAS Institute (1996) SAS Users Guide: Basics (6th ed). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.         [ Links ]

Saucier, G & Skrzypinska, K (2006) Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two independent dispositions. Journal of Personality, 74, 1257-1292.         [ Links ]

Schimmack, U, Oishi, S & Diener, E (2005) Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 17-31.         [ Links ]

Schimmack, U, Radhakrishnan, P, Oishi, S, Dzokoto, V & Ahadi, S (2002) Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582-593.         [ Links ]

Shulruf, B, Hattie, J & Dixon, R (2003) Development of a new measurement tool for Individualism and Collectivism. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE Joint Conference 2003, Auckland, New Zealand.         [ Links ]

Shutte, A (2001) Ubuntu: An ethic for a new South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications.         [ Links ]

Taylor, I A (2000) The construct comparability of the NEO-PI-R questionnaire for Black and white employees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of the Free State.         [ Links ]

Taylor, N (2004) The construction of a South African Five Factor Personality questionnaire. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

Taylor, N & De Bruin, G P (2005) Basic Traits Inventory: Technical manual. Johannesburg: J P van Rooyen & Partners.         [ Links ]

Teferi, T B (2004) The application of the NEO-PI-R in the Eritrean context. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.         [ Links ]

Triandis, H C (2001) Individualism-Collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907-924.         [ Links ]

Triandis, H C & Gelfand, M J (1998) Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.         [ Links ]

Triandis, H C, McCusker, C & Hui, C H (1990) Multimethod probes of Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.         [ Links ]

Triandis, H C & Suh, E M (2002) Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.         [ Links ]

Van de Vijver, F J R & Leung, K (2001) Personality in cultural context: Methodological issues. Journal of Personality, 69, 1007-1031.         [ Links ]

Van de Vijver, F J R & Rothman, S (2004) Assessment in multicultural groups: The South African case. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30, 1-7.         [ Links ]

Van Dyk, G A J & De Kock, F S (2004) The relevance of the Individualism-Collectivism (IC) factor for the management of diversity in the South African National Defence Force. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30, 90-95.         [ Links ]

Zhang, L-F & Akande, A (2002). What relates to the big five among South African university students? Ife PsychlogIA: An international journal, 10, 49-74.         [ Links ]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *