Personality Characteristics of the Nentsy in the Russian Arctic

Draguns, Juris G.; Krylova, Anna V.; Oryol, Valery E.; Rukavishnikov, Alexey A.; Martin, Thomas A.

doi:10.1177/00027640021956026

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our own reaction to this research program is also critical. First, most of the data were collected from college students or students of secondary and technical schools (Draguns et al 2000). In the earlier section we pointed out that education is linked with idiocentrism.…”

Section: The Big Five Seven and Other Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Influences on Personality

Triandis

Suh

2002

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

897

636

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecologies shape cultures; cultures influence the development of personalities. There are both universal and culture-specific aspects of variation in personality. Some culture-specific aspects correspond to cultural syndromes such as complexity, tightness, individualism, and collectivism. A large body of literature suggests that the Big Five personality factors emerge in various cultures. However, caution is required in arguing for such universality, because most studies have not included emic (culture-specific) traits and have not studied samples that are extremely different in culture from Western samples.

show abstract

Section: The Big Five Seven and Other Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Influences on Personality

Triandis

Suh

2002

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

897

636

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But the reductionist idea that they are mere reflections of a national cultural singularity discernible to the expert analyst ignores the immense creativity of writers and the vast complexity of the social. But the idea that Russian (or any other) national character/psyche/culture (terms used interchangeably by Kets de Vries) can be discerned by selecting any one character (or aspects of one character) (Bakhtin 1984(Bakhtin [1929) from just one novel is consistent with, indeed a logical consequence of, defining national culture as nationally common (Draguns et al 2000). However, it is a shallow deduction.…”

Section: (C)(i) Making Unwarranted Generalizations From the Singular Or The Localmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries

McSweeney

2009

Organization Studies

160

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National models of social action over-privilege continuity and uniformity. They discount change -which they lack the capacity to explain (other than through exogenous shocks) -and neglect diversity within countries. This paper focuses on the national culture model which it argues requires commitment to illogical arguments and to suppositions which are theoretically and empirically untenable. An evaluation of each, it is argued, points to the existence of, and possibilities for, considerable national diversity and change -not pervasive and enduring national uniformity. Reflecting on the model's rise and fall in anthropology, the paper also provides an outline explanation of its retention within organization studies and speculates about its future within that discipline.In a range of literature each country is said to be characterized by distinctive, pervasive and enduring patterns of practices. The bedrock source of these patterns is either said to be national institutions (Hall and Soskice 2001, for instance) or national culture (Hofstede 2001, for example). This paper focuses on the claim that there is a national cultural imperative, that identifiable national culture is enduring, pervasive and constitutive -a view described here as the national culture model (hereafter 'the model'). It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the critiques of overly determining and unchanging versions of the institutional model and their limited ability to explain behaviour at the organizational level. For these, the reader is referred to the new wave of neoinstitutional literature (Djelic and Quack 2005;Crouch 2005; Streeck and Thelen 2005, for instance; see also Smith et al. 2008).Although once popular in a number of academic disciplines, the model is now employed almost exclusively within the discipline of organization studies and in a small sub-field of psychology -cross-cultural psychology. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the model is unable to explain organizational diversity and change within any one country. The model, it is argued, requires commitment to illogical arguments and to presuppositions that are theoretically and empirically untenable. Each of these is described and analysed. And the logical conclusion in each case, it is argued, points not to a pervasive uniformity, but to the existence of diversity within countries. An adequate theory of social action needs to be able to explain variations over time as well as continuity and variations article title Organization Studies 30(09): 933-957

show abstract

“…Extraverts lost in the lower levels of a hierarchy in a high Power Distance society may decide to try their luck elsewhere; individuals low in C may be forced out. Draguns, Krylova, Oryol, Rukavishnikov, and Martin (2000) speculated that the closedness and introversion of their reindeer-herding sample may have been due to self-selection, as more adventurous members of the group left for more interesting climates. It is known that extraverts are more susceptible to boredom and higher in excitement seeking than introverts, and thus perhaps more willing to take the risks of emigration.…”

Section: Cultural Correlatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Five-Factor Theory Perspective

Allïk

McCrae

2002

The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Five-Factor Theory (FFT) is a conceptualization of the personality system that identifies traits as abstract Basic Tendencies rooted in biology. In this chapter, FFT is examined in relation to recent findings in cross-cultural psychology reported in this volume. FFT correctly predicts the universality of personality structure, maturation, and gender differentiation. FFT suggests that differences in the mean levels of traits across cultures may be due to differences in the distribution of trait-related alleles, and that cultural differences may be the effect, rather than the cause, of trait level differences. Reports of substantial cohort and acculturation effects pose challenges to FFT and provide special opportunities for future research.

show abstract

Personality Characteristics of the Nentsy in the Russian Arctic

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Cultural Influences on Personality

Cultural Influences on Personality

Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries

A Five-Factor Theory Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About