title: Cultural Similarities and Differences in Perceived Affordances of Situations for Big Five Behaviors.
abstract: The perceived affordance or conduciveness of various situations for Big Five behaviors was investigated in the United States (N = 188) and the Philippines (N = 215). The basic proposition that different situations afford different trait-relevant behaviors was supported, at least in the perceptions of cultural informants. Cultural similarities exceeded differences, and in both cultures individuals perceived Big Five behaviors as expressed in if-then patterns of variation across situations. Americans and Filipinos showed some similarity in the general dimensions along which situations are construed, but meaningful differences in the construal of certain interpersonal situations were also observed. The findings contribute to efforts to integrate person and situation approaches in personality and social psychology.
authors.affiliation: Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Washington State University.
authors.forename: A Timothy
authors.initials: AT
authors.lastname: Church
authors.forename: Marcia S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Katigbak
authors.forename: Alicia M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Del Prado
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Nov;65(5):1023-35
references.pmid: 8246110
references.citation: J Pers. 2001 Dec;69(6):847-79
references.pmid: 11767821
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Apr;88(4):605-18
references.pmid: 15796663
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1995 Apr;102(2):246-68
references.pmid: 7740090
references.citation: J Pers. 2007 Jun;75(3):479-503
references.pmid: 17489889
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2008 Nov;12(4):311-29
references.pmid: 18812499
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 May;60(5):773-94
references.pmid: 2072255
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009 Jan;35(1):29-44
references.pmid: 19106076
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jan;82(1):89-101
references.pmid: 11811638
references.citation: J Pers. 2001 Dec;69(6):881-906
references.pmid: 11767822
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Jun;72(6):1245-67
references.pmid: 9177018
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Feb;17(2):113-9
references.pmid: 16466418
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Sep;95(3):739-55
references.pmid: 18729706
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Sep;93(3):478-90
references.pmid: 17723061
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Aug;95(2):237-52
references.pmid: 18665700
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(5):890-903
references.pmid: 17059308
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Jan;84(1):97-110
references.pmid: 12518973
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1997;1(3):204-23
references.pmid: 15659350
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(6):1225-44
references.pmid: 17100480
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Jun;80(6):1011-27
references.pmid: 11414368
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1995 Oct;102(4):652-70
references.pmid: 7480467
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Mar;86(3):460-72
references.pmid: 15008649
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Dec;83(6):1378-91
references.pmid: 12500819