The cross-cultural generalizability of Chinese personality dimensions-in particular, the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI)-was investigated in samples of Chinese Americans (n = 201) and European Americans (n = 236). Four CPAI factors, including Interpersonal Relatedness, replicated very well in a Chinese American sample and fairly well in a European American sample, indicating that these dimensions are not unique to Chinese populations. Lowacculturation Chinese Americans, but not high-acculturation Chinese Americans, averaged higher than European Americans on the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension. This suggested that the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension, although not culture-unique, is more salient in or characteristic of individuals who retain or identify with traditional Chinese culture. Contrary to previous interpretations of the Interpersonal Relatedness dimension in terms of interdependent self-construals, the dimension was only modestly correlated with relational and collective aspects of self, two aspects of interdependent self-construals.A central question for psychologists interested in personality and culture is whether personality dimensions are universal or culture-specific. The answer to this question has implications for theory-for example, regarding the biological and sociocultural determinants of personality and practice and whether personality inventories developed in one culture can be validly applied for assessment or prediction purposes in another culture. The cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions has most often been investigated using an imposed-etic approach (Berry, 1969) in which inventories developed in one (usually Western) culture are administered in translated versions in new cultural contexts. A prominent example is the growing number of studies supporting the cross-cultural replicability of the dimensions of the "Big Five" or five-factor model (FFM)-composed of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism versus Emotional Stability, and Intellect or Openness to Experience (McCrae & Allik, 2002). However, the imposed-etic approach may be biased toward the discovery of universals and may miss personality dimensions that are specific to particular cultures (Church, 2001).