An attempt to validate national mean scores of Conscientiousness: No necessarily paradoxical findings

Abstract

Three large cross-cultural databases on personality were used to study the relationship between culture-level mean scores of Conscientiousness and 18 country-level criterion variables including health indicators, religiosity, democracy, corruption, economic wealth and freedom, and the presence of a favorable business environment. Mean Conscientiousness scores were significantly related to most of the criteria but different facets of Conscientiousness had very different relationships with external criteria. In several facets, the patterns of relationships to the external criteria were consistent with clearly formulated predictions. The pattern of relationships was moderated by the type of ratings (self-vs observer-ratings). More rigorous requirements for the study of the culture-level relationships between personality and criterion variables are discussed.Validity of Culture-Level Personality Scores

The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes

“…In contrast, these criteria were not associated with assessed Conscientiousness, and efforts to validate culture-level traits using collective behavioral indicators have had mixed success. Oishi and Roth (2008) found evidence for Agreeableness and Neuroticism, but not Conscientiousness; Mõttus, Allik, and Realo (2010) found some evidence for the criterion-related validity of Conscientiousness and its facets— although many predicted associations were not found.…”

“…However, the association between traits and outcomes is complex even at the individual level (e.g., Epstein, 1979), and likely to be much more so at the culture level (McCrae & Terracciano, 2008; Mõttus, Allik, & Realo, 2010), where group behaviors also reflect history, government policy, religion, climate, and so on. Judged by the synchronized watches, polished shoes, and disciplined marching on a military base, one might imagine that soldiers are especially high in Conscientiousness; this, however, is not the case (e.g., Jackson, Thoemmes, Jonkmann, Lüdke, & Trautwein, 2012).…”

Agreeableness, antagonism, and mental health across cultures

“…Heine et al (2008) found indicators of high national Conscientiousness (e.g., postal workers' speed, per capita GDP, life expectancy) to be positively correlated with perceptions of national character, but negatively with national mean Conscientiousness scores. Mõttus, Allik, and Realo (2010), on the other hand, show that such correlations become more intuitive when explored at the facet level and make a case for the future of national mean comparisons. The interplay between traits and sociocultural context, however, means that measurement issues are complex.…”

The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism in Europe

“…We are aware that, when two variables are strongly related at the cultural level, it does not automatically mean that the same mechanisms operate at the individual level (cf. Mõttus, Allik, & Realo, 2010), yet, due to the theoretical considerations noted above, we expect social capital (i.e., generalized social trust and informal social networks) to be positively related to individualism (i.e., Openness to Change) at the individual level in the same way the two constructs have repeatedly been shown to be associated at the cultural-level (Allik & Realo, 2004;Realo et al, 2008). In other words, we expect people who emphasize independence of thought, action, and feeling and readiness for change (in contrast to people who emphasize order, self-restriction, preservation of the past, and resistance to change) to be more willing to trust people beyond their nuclear family and kinship group, as well as to have more active and supportive informal social networks.…”