Personality Assessment in the Workplace

Abstract

Evidence for an indigenous Interpersonal Relatedness (IR) personality trait that is distinct from the Big Five personality taxonomy has been demonstrated in Chinese culture; however, research has not yet established whether this construct is specific to the Chinese culture or whether it is more universal. The current research extended this personality construct to a workplace context and examined the relevance of the Workplace IR trait within Taiwanese (n = 573) and U.S. (n = 155) employees. Results indicated that in both cultural groups the Workplace IR construct emerged and was not subsumed within the workplace Big Five domains; however, the content of the Workplace IR construct varied slightly between Taiwanese and U.S. employees. These findings suggest that this purported indigenous Chinese personality trait has potential relevance for working adults in Western as well as Eastern cultures.

Keywords

personality assessment cross-cultural differences Interpersonal Relatedness workplace personality

The use of personality inventories for personnel selection (Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001) is prevalent across many cultures as research has demonstrated the validity and utility of personality measures for job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). The most frequently used personality inventories in the workplace (e.g., Hogan Personality Inventory, Hogan & Hogan, 1992; NEO Personality Inventory–Revised [NEO PI-R], Costa & McCrae, 1992; Workplace Big Five Profile [WB5P], Howard & Howard, 2001) have been developed in Western cultures and were primarily derived from “Norman’s (1963) Big Five” (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Culture), with some variations in the dimensions and the number of factors. The reliability and validity of personality constructs measured by these inventories have been evidenced.

However, recent research suggests that these Western personality inventories may omit relevant indigenous personality constructs when they are exported to other cultures. Omission of such culturally relevant constructs raises concern for the validity of assessment. Specifically, with incomplete sets of personality traits, utility and predictability of personality measures may be sacrificed (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In particular, the absence of the Interpersonal Relatedness (IR) construct in Western instruments has been identified in indigenous Chinese research on personality (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). IR, which has been considered a potentially unique dimension that is independent of the well-known Big Five (Church, 2010), refers to instrumental and interdependent considerations in interpersonal relationships (Bond & Hwang, 1986; F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). This indigenous construct was originally derived from the Confucian philosophy and the concept of Chinese Tradition, which refers to adherence to Chinese cultural norms of interpersonal interaction.

With its roots in Chinese philosophy and tradition, IR has been examined almost solely within Asian cultures. Because IR taps into the interpersonal relationship concerns that are central to Chinese culture, its significance in understanding Chinese personality has been emphasized in past work (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). At this point, there has been little exploration of IR in Western cultures. Therefore, it is not yet clear whether IR is unique to Chinese culture or whether such relational concerns may be relevant to non-Chinese cultures, as well. If IR also taps into interpersonal aspects of personality in Western cultures that are distinct from the Big Five personality domains, this would demonstrate a crucial shortcoming in Western personality assessment (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). Specifically, it would indicate that current assessment based on the five-factor model (FFM) does not sufficiently capture the interpersonal aspects of personality in Western cultures. Therefore, we suggest that there is a need for better understanding of the cross-cultural relevance of this personality construct.

Furthermore, although a global measure of the IR construct was developed by F. M. Cheung et al. (2001), this construct has not been studied in the context of workplace personality assessment, in which a need for such constructs has been identified (Howard & Howard, 2001). In particular, the use of personality inventories that are workplace-specific has been suggested to increase face validity of the selection measure and to reduce potential discrimination during the personnel selection process (Howard & Howard, 2001). The need for workplace-specific personality assessment is also supported by recent research (Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, & Perunovic, 2007; Slatcher & Vazire, 2009) underscoring the importance of using contextualized as opposed to global measures for predicting context-specific behavior.

The current research advances understanding of the Chinese indigenous IR construct and contributes more broadly to the literature on culture and personality in the following ways. First, we extend the IR construct to a workplace context, addressing the need for personality measures that are workplace-specific for personnel selection in organizations (Howard & Howard, 2001). As mentioned above, this goal is grounded in recent research (Heller et al., 2007; Slatcher & Vazire, 2009) that emphasizes the advantages of contextualized over global personality measures to predict behavior within a specific context (e.g., the workplace). Instead of using the traditional assessment approach to contextualized personality in which only the instructions rather than items are modified in the personality measures (Heller et al., 2007), this study uses personality items that were developed specifically to assess workplace personality. Second, we aim to address the need for cross-cultural examination of this indigenous construct by examining the relevance of this construct within two cultural groups comprised of employees from both Eastern and Western cultures. Information gained regarding the degree of cultural specificity versus generalizability of the IR construct will inform both theory and practice in the domain of personality assessment. Finally, we aim to provide further evidence of whether the IR construct is distinct from the Big Five personality taxonomy; in contrast to previous research, we examine this across cultures, within a workplace-specific context. To achieve these objectives, we conduct two studies that examine the distinctiveness of the IR construct from the Big Five personality dimensions across cultures using work-specific personality measures within a work context. Specifically, we administer the Workplace IR scale to working adults in Taiwan (Study 1) and in the United States (Study 2), along with the WB5P (Howard & Howard, 2001), a personality assessment designed to measure workplace personality traits of the Big Five.

Measuring Personality Across Cultures

In studying personality in cultural contexts, there has been a trade-off between importing universal measurement tools from outside of the culture (etic approach) and developing indigenous instruments within the culture (emic approach). The etic approach focuses on cultural universals of personality constructs or culture-comparable personality constructs (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Wada, & Zhang, 2003; F. M. Cheung et al., 1996; Church, 2001). Under the assumption of universality, a personality inventory is developed in one culture and imported to another cultural context. This strategy is commonly used in non-Western countries (Sue & Chang, 2003). The adaptation of the Big Five of personality to other cultures (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997) is an example of this strategy. The advantages of adopting this strategy include the efficiency in satisfying practitioners’ needs, the abundant evidence to support the inventories’ qualities, and the supply of common instruments for cross-cultural comparisons (F. M. Cheung, 1985; Church, 2001).

Despite these benefits, the use of the etic approach in cross-cultural personality measurement has been questioned (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Wada et al., 2003; F. M. Cheung et al., 2001), with some researchers advising caution in assuming cross-cultural generalization of personality constructs (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Researchers acknowledged the potential for omitting important culture-specific personality constructs when using the etic approach (e.g., F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Church, 2001). As a result, the emic (indigenous) approach, emphasizing culture-specific personality constructs, has become more widely used in non-Western countries (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Wada et al., 2003; K. Yang & Bond, 1990). In this approach, personality assessments are developed within the target culture, allowing for the inclusion of indigenous personality constructs that might not be present in the culturally universal models, such as Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big Five.

In research using a culture-specific or emic approach to personality, the indigenous Chinese personality construct, IR, was first identified by F. M. Cheung et al. (1996) and F. M. Cheung et al. (2001) as an independent, sixth factor, which was distinct from Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big Five model. The IR construct captures the importance of interpersonal orientations in the Chinese culture and reflects an emphasis on engaging in appropriate social behaviors to enhance one’s image and to avoid losing face (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). The distinctiveness of the IR construct from the Big Five structure has been evidenced in previous research. F. M. Cheung et al. (2001), F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Wada et al. (2003), and S. F. Cheung, Cheung, Howard, and Lim (2006) found that the IR dimension cannot be subsumed under the Big Five structure when administering the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI, F. M. Cheung et al., 1996), originally developed as an indigenous, global measure of Chinese personality, along with Costa and McCrae’s (1992) Big Five measure to different samples. However, the question of whether this indigenously derived Chinese construct is also relevant to non-Chinese cultures has not been well researched. Preliminary evidence for the relevance of the construct to non-Chinese cultures was found in administering the CPAI along with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to a Hawaiian student sample (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). However, one major limitation of this finding, as F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Leung et al. (2003) pointed out, was that the Hawaiian sample was a multiethnic sample, including ethnic Asian Americans. The relevance of the IR construct in Western cultures needs to be further examined by jointly administering the IR scale and the Big Five in other non-Chinese samples (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Leung, et al., 2003). Another limitation was that F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) study in a multiethnic student sample used a global measure of the IR construct, rather than a contextualized measure that would be more predictive of what people are like in a particular context (Heller et al., 2007; Slatcher & Vazire, 2009).

To respond to this gap in the literature and to extend the IR construct into a workplace context, the present study examined the distinctiveness and cross-cultural relevance of the IR construct by adopting a combined etic−emic approach to personality (F. M. Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011), which integrates “the methodological rigor of the etic approach and the cultural sensitivity of the emic approach” (p. 594) in making personality theory truly universal. We administered a Workplace IR measure, assessing a purported culturally specific personality trait, along with a workplace-specific assessment of the Big Five trait taxonomy (i.e., the WB5P; Howard & Howard, 2001) in Taiwanese and U.S. samples. This is analogous to Van de Vijver and Leung’s (1997a) convergence approach, in which the universality of a construct is well supported if the construct is found in Chinese and non-Chinese cultures irrespective of whether an indigenous or an imported instrument is used.

Workplace IR Construct

To examine and define the IR construct within a workplace context, the Workplace IR trait herein was defined as the propensity to promote and manage interdependent and harmonious social connections with others to obtain social resources in workplace settings; to meet social expectations of others at work; and to seek to establish one’s own favorable image in the workplace as well as that of others close to oneself. This definition is derived from the view of the Chinese self or relational self (D. Y. F. Ho, 1995; D. Y. F. Ho, Peng, Lai, & Chan, 2001). Consistent with the subtraits extracted from the global IR domain in F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) study, the Workplace IR is defined by four subtraits: Ren Qing, Flexibility, Harmony, and Face.

Ren Qing, which means “relationship” in Chinese, refers to the propensity to adhere to cultural norms of reciprocity and exchange of social favors and affection in interactions (F. M. Cheung et al., 1996; F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Zhang & Yang, 2001). In the Chinese dictionary, Ren Qing is the expression of human affection. “Doing Ren Qing” is a common phrase in Chinese, meaning doing a favor for others (National Languages Committee in Ministry of Education, 2000). Hwang (1987) stated that the Ren Qing concept was more highly related to social, reciprocal rules in the Chinese culture than in other cultures. Ren Qing specifies normative rules for social exchange and serves as a social mechanism for receiving resources, including tangible materials (e.g., money and goods) and intangible components (e.g., information and affection). Because of the nature of intangible resources in reciprocal relationships, Ren Qing is also characterized as an entity, which is difficult to calculate and impossible to pay off to others (Hwang, 1987). Within a workplace context, we propose that an individual high in Ren Qing is one who strives to build relationships with associates based on principles of reciprocity and seeks to offer or repay favors (e.g., gifts, emotional support, reputation defense) as a way of maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with associates.

Flexibility reflects the importance of social adaptability in the Chinese culture (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). In Confucianism, social expectations have a higher priority than one’s own volition in determining social behavior (D. Y. F. Ho et al., 2001). Social expectations formulated by rules and norms represent what the majority of people in a society expect of one another. As F. M. Cheung et al. (2001) found, people high in IR tend to adhere to norms and traditions, characterized as lack of flexibility. In this study, Flexibility is defined, within a workplace context, to describe an individual who tends to meet social expectations to maintain good interpersonal relationships at work.

The pursuit of harmonious relationships is one of central ideas in Confucianism (Zhang & Yang, 2001). In the Chinese dictionary, Harmony means concord, amicability, compliance with others, elimination of conflict, and cooperation (National Languages Committee in Ministry of Education, 2000). In F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) study, the Harmony trait was defined as both the peace within one’s mind and conflict avoidance in interpersonal relationships. However, in the current study, we focused only on its social-oriented aspect: conflict avoidance and resolution in interpersonal relations. In the current research, Harmony is defined within a workplace context to describe an individual who seeks to avoid conflict with associates and strives to maintain or achieve positive social interactions when conflict arises in the workplace.

Face refers to defense mechanisms (such as rationalization or use of external attributions) that are used for self-enhancement or to avoid losing face (F. M. Cheung et al., 1996; F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). According to the Chinese dictionary, Face is defined as reputation and dignity. A common term, “keeping one’s face,” means not destroying one’s positive reputation and dignity (National Languages Committee in Ministry of Education, 2000). In Hwang’s (1987) study, Face was described as “projection of self-image and impression management” (p. 960). The concept of Face exists only in social contexts and its importance increases with the emphasis a society places on interpersonal relationships. In the Chinese culture, the relational self is defined by interpersonal relations, which involve considerable personal evaluation from others. Thus, people in this culture attempt to create and manage their own impressions in their relationships with others (D. Y. F. Ho, 1976). This goal can be achieved through several ways. Individuals may make external attributions to others or things when potential negative outcomes may occur (Hwang, 2005). Or a positive impression/reputation can be promoted by doing favors to others. Besides these strategies, an individual’s impression can also be enhanced through creating positive impressions of his or her friends, family, or any group he or she belongs to, and vice versa (C. F. Yang, 2001). In the current study, the concept of Face within a workplace context describes a person who attempts to manage and enhance his or her impression in the workplace by engaging in behaviors such as attributing faults to associates; offering favors to associates; and using the favorable images of significant others to enhance his or her own image.

Definitions and items of the four Workplace IR subtraits and their respective scholarly literature are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Definitions and Items of the Workplace IR Subtraits and Their Respective Scholarly Literature.

Subscale	Definition	Literature	Item
Ren Qing	To build relationships with associates based on principles of reciprocity and seeks to offer or repay favors (e.g., gifts, emotional support, reputation defense) as a way of maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with associates	F. M. Cheung et al. (1996); F. M. Cheung et al. (2001); Hwang (1987); Zhang and Yang (2001)	Helps those who have helped oneself, before helping those who have not helped oneself. Is more difficult to reject requests from close associates, than from unfamiliar ones. Do favors for those closer to me. When I do a job, I take my relationship with others into consideration.
Flexibility	To meet social expectations to maintain good interpersonal relationships at work	F. M. Cheung et al. (2001); Ho, Peng, Lai, and Chan (2001)	Being an individual is more important than following the rules. Would rather do things my way than just follow the rules. Follows instincts and hunches even if it means breaking a rule or tradition. Inspiration is more important than rules. Is always testing the limits.
Harmony	To avoid conflict with associates and strives to maintain or achieve positive social interactions when conflict arises in the workplace	F. M. Cheung et al. (2001); Zhang and Yang (2001)	When has conflict with associates, doesn’t talk about it with others. If conflict occurs near by, is probably my fault. When in or around conflict, tries to avoid. Conflict at work will have negative effect on results.
Face	To manage and enhance his or her impression in the workplace by engaging in behaviors such as attributing faults to associates; offering favors to associates; and using the favorable images of significant others to enhance his or her own image	F. M. Cheung et al. (1996); F. M. Cheung et al. (2001); D. Y. F. Ho (1976); Hwang (1987); Hwang (2005); C. F. Yang (2001)	Loses face when he or she cannot help others, even when he or she is very busy. Loses face when his or her ideas are rejected. Tries to find a cause outside oneself when his or her task turns out badly. Tries to find a reason outside oneself when performing poorly. Often attributes it to luck when associates perform better than him or her on a similar task. Often attributes the cause to others when his or her performance is bad.

Note. IR = Interpersonal Relatedness.

Aims of the Present Studies and Hypotheses

We conducted a set of two studies to examine the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct from the Workplace Big Five and to examine the cultural specificity of the Workplace IR construct. According to the evidence for the distinctiveness of the global IR construct (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Wada et al., 2003; S. F. Cheung et al., 2006) and the preliminary research findings on the relevance of the global IR construct to non-Chinese cultural groups (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001), we expected that the Workplace IR construct would be distinct from the Workplace Big Five in both cultural groups of interest and this personality trait would be relevant to both cultures.

In Study 1, we administered the Workplace IR and the WB5P to a sample of Taiwanese employees. The main goal of Study 1 was to extend the indigenous Chinese IR construct to a workplace context. We predicted that the Workplace IR measure would be characterized by a four-factor structure (corresponding to the four dimensions of Ren Qing, Flexibility, Harmony, and Face). We also hypothesized that the Workplace IR dimension would load on a separate factor distinct from the workplace Big Five dimensions. In Study 2, we administered the Workplace IR and WB5P to a sample of U.S. employees to investigate the cultural relevance of the IR construct within a Western cultural sample. We predicted that the four-factor structure of the Workplace IR would be replicated in this Western sample. In addition, we hypothesized that the Workplace IR would emerge as a distinct factor from the WB5P among the U.S. employees.

Overview of Analysis

With the study goals of investigating the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct from the Workplace Big Five and the degree of cultural specificity of this construct, within each cultural group we first examined the replicability of the Workplace IR structure and the Big Five trait dimensions of the WB5P. Our analytic strategies adhered to recommended guidelines for the use of factor analysis in personality research (Lee & Ashton, 2007; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996). To examine factor structures of the scales, principal-component analyses with varimax rotation were conducted to approximate simple structure (Lee & Ashton, 2007; McCrae et al., 1996). Although the goal here was to identify the underlying dimensions that account for the common variance in the scales, principal-component analysis and principal-axis analysis generally produced similar results (Lee & Ashton, 2007). To evaluate the replicability of factor structures, an orthogonal Procrustes rotation (i.e., a targeted rotation), rather than confirmatory factor analysis, was performed when the extracted factors between two comparing sets of data showed reasonable matches (Katigbak, Church, & Akamine, 1996; Lee & Ashton, 2007; McCrae et al., 1996).

Next, to examine the relationships of the Workplace IR subscales to the WB5P dimensions, we conducted joint factor analyses at the subtrait level and regression analyses. Specifically, these analyses were used to investigate whether the workplace-specific IR was a distinct construct, independent of the WB5P dimensions. Joint factor analysis of the indigenously derived scales and the purported universal scales is a recommended analytic strategy within the cross-cultural personality literature for examining whether culture-specific personality dimensions emerge (e.g., F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; F. M. Cheung et al., 2008; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lapeña, Carlota, & del Pilar, 2002; Ortiz et al., 2007). Although joint factor analysis has merit in the investigation of cultural specificity of personality dimensions, its potential to over-determine a factor structure to be encompassed by the well-defined Big Five structure has increased the supplemental use of multiple regression analysis in determining the extent to which an indigenous construct is distinct from the Big Five dimensions (Katigbak et al., 1996; Katigbak et al., 2002). In multiple regression modeling, as an improvement from the past research (e.g., F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Katigbak et al., 1996), gender and age were controlled statistically, according to Van de Vijver and Leung’s (1997b) recommendations on measuring demographic differences and assessing their impact in cross-cultural research. Evidence for the uniqueness of a psychological construct is established when the proposed indigenous traits emerge as a distinct factor in joint factor analyses of indigenous and imported dimensions, or when a combination of the FFM factors does not predict a large amount of the variance in the scales of the indigenous factor (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Ortiz et al., 2007). The criterion of a multiple R² below .20 has been used to indicate that the target scales are not subsumed by the Big Five scales (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Katigbak et al., 2002). In addition, evidence for the uniqueness of a construct is strengthened when no purported indigenous scales show one-to-one convergence with individual Big Five dimensions (Katigbak et al., 2002).

Study 1

Method

Participants

A sample of Taiwanese participants was recruited from Taiwan via email using a snowballing strategy, in which existing study participants recruited future participants among their acquaintances. Qualified participants were those who were currently or previously employed full-time and at least 18 years old. A total of 573 qualified participants (39% male and 61% female) were included in this study, ranging in age from 19 to 58 (M = 29.45, SD = 6.07). At the time the project was conducted, 88.5% of participants were employed and responded to questionnaires in reference to their current job; the remainder of participants responded based on their most recent job experience.

Measures

WB5P

The WB5P is a commercial personality inventory in the United States designed to assess personality traits in the workplace (Howard & Howard, 2001). The 88-item inventory assesses five supertraits and 20 subtraits that are based on the Big Five. The five supertraits, corresponding to the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), are labeled Need for Stability (17 items), Extraversion (14 items), Originality (13 items), Accommodation (23 items), and Consolidation (21 items). Need for Stability (corresponding to Neuroticism) involves the reaction pattern to stress. Extraversion refers to sociability, activity, and trusting. Originality (corresponding to Openness to Experiences) signifies openness to new environment and stimuli. Accommodation (corresponding to Agreeableness) refers to deference, or the degree to which one complies with others. Consolidation (corresponding to Conscientiousness) refers to the degree to which one focuses on goal achievement (Howard & Howard, 2001). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) by indicating how true the description of each item was of himself or herself at work.

The reliability and convergent and predictive validity of the WB5P have been evidenced in U.S. samples (The Center of Applied Cognitive Studies, 2005; Howard & Howard, 2001), and the comparability between the WB5P and the NEO-PI-R factors has been demonstrated. Howard and Howard (2001) found moderate correlations between parallel supertraits (.61 for Need for Stability, .73 for Extraversion, .55 for Originality, and .60 for Consolidation), except for Accommodation (r = .27). Overall, this finding provided convergence validity evidence of the WB5P while also supporting that one’s personality at work and away from work were not identical. The low correlation of .27 between the NEO-PI-R’s Agreeableness dimension and the WB5P’s Accommodation dimension suggested that power and hierarchy characteristics at work had a great impact on adaptive behavior (Howard & Howard, 2001).

In this study, the translated WB5P was used. The Traditional Chinese translation of the WB5P included translation and back-translation procedures, following recommended guidelines for adapting a foreign psychological assessment (Brislin, 1970; F. M. Cheung & Cheung, 2003). All steps were taken to ensure the adequacy of the translation. Items were revised slightly based on the back-translation. All items were presented in a third-person format with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Coefficient alphas for the scale and subscales are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and the Number of Items in the WB5P and the Workplace Interpersonal Relatedness Scales for the Taiwanese and U.S. Sample.

Trait	Number of items	Taiwanese sample^a			U.S. sample^b
Trait	Number of items	M	SD	α	M	SD	α
Need for Stability (N)	17	52.87	8.10	.83	44.91	9.24	.85
N1: Sensitiveness	5	18.68	3.11	.70	15.72	3.53	.69
N2: Intensity	3	7.67	2.13	.72	6.79	2.37	.75
N3: Interpretation	5	15.65	2.76	.53	14.29	3.52	.67
N4: Rebound Time	4	10.86	2.57	.68	8.10	2.38	.63
Extraversion (E)	14	46.39	5.95	.67	51.46	7.53	.79
E1: Enthusiasm	5	16.93	2.96	.54	18.31	3.65	.71
E2: Sociability	7	22.78	4.01	.66	25.36	4.90	.79
E3: Trust of Others	2	6.69	1.31	.34	7.78	1.44	.65
Originality (O)	13	41.51	6.21	.77	47.27	7.05	.82
O1: Imagination	4	12.98	2.69	.67	13.72	3.06	.74
O2: Complexity	3	9.96	2.20	.64	11.21	2.25	.65
O3: Change	6	18.57	2.88	.53	22.33	3.22	.61
Accommodation (A)	23	67.28	10.67	.86	59.53	12.11	.87
A1: Service	4	12.16	2.56	.51	12.94	3.04	.69
A2: Agreement	7	20.34	3.86	.66	16.51	4.40	.72
A3: Deference	4	11.83	2.50	.63	10.09	3.11	.79
A4: Reserve	4	10.12	2.71	.70	9.14	3.30	.79
A5: Reticence	4	12.83	2.79	.75	10.85	2.68	.65
Consolidation (C)	21	73.36	9.06	.83	77.29	10.93	.86
C1: Perfectionism	5	18.08	2.65	.51	18.58	3.28	.63
C2: Organization	4	14.69	2.57	.68	15.35	3.29	.85
C3: Drive	5	17.09	3.32	.72	19.58	3.26	.67
C4: Concentration	3	10.08	1.95	.55	9.97	2.24	.57
C5: Methodicalness	4	13.43	2.22	.59	13.80	3.03	.69
IR	19	56.12	6.89	.67	41.85^c	5.87^c	.61^c
IR1: Ren Qing	4	14.15	2.49	.55	9.50	2.60	.50
IR2: Flexibility	5	14.43	3.56	.77	15.81	3.73	.79
IR3: Harmony	4	12.03	2.53	.55	13.40	2.03	.08
IR4: Face	6	15.52	3.66	.75	23.07	4.20	.81

Note. WB5P = Workplace Big Five Profile; IR = Interpersonal Relatedness.

n = 573.

n = 155.

The Harmony scale was excluded from the final IR scale in the U.S. sample due to its low reliability.

Workplace IR Scale

The Workplace IR items assess an individual’s personality with a focus on the workplace context. The scale was developed as part of the first author’s Master’s thesis study (C. Ho, 2005), and the items were reviewed by a personality scholar. Items were originally developed in Traditional Chinese to correspond to each of the four subtraits identified by F. M. Cheung and her colleagues (2001), with some refinements based on the Chinese culture literature. Based on the refined definitions of the subtraits described above, the original scale consisted of 10 items each for the Ren Qing and Flexibility scales and 11 items each for the Harmony and Face scales. The items were presented in a third-person format. For example, an item was written as “Does favors for those closer to oneself,” not the traditional ways, such as “I do favors for those closer to myself” or “You do favors for those closer to yourself.” Hofstee’s research (1990) suggested that the use of a third-person format led to more objective self-ratings than other formats. Also, the third-person format was consistent with the response format of the workplace Big Five scale used in the WB5P (Howard & Howard, 2001). For the purpose of selecting items, a pilot study was conducted by the first author with a sample of 99 full-time working adults in Taiwan. Items on which more than 80% of the respondents had the same response were eliminated first. Coefficient alphas were used to ensure internal consistency of items in each of the subscales. The resulting Workplace IR scale consisted of 19 items: 4 items for Ren Qing, 5 items for Flexibility, 4 items for Harmony, and 6 items for Face. See Table 1 for items.

In the current study, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which each item was descriptive of them at work. All items were presented in Traditional Chinese for this sample and in a third-person format with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Coefficient alphas for the scale and subscales are shown in Table 2.

Procedure

Each participant completed both the Traditional Chinese version of the WB5P items and the Workplace IR items anonymously through an on-line survey system. The WB5P and Workplace IR items were intermixed and presented in a pre-set order that was the same for every participant. At the end of the survey, demographic information was collected. All individuals who volunteered for the study had an option to receive an individualized personality report via email in return for their participation.

Results

Factor analysis of the Workplace IR Scale

Because the 19-item Workplace IR scale was used in a large sample of participants for the first time, a principal-component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted at the item level to examine the factor structure of the scale. The expected four-factor structure of the scale was well replicated. The total variance explained by the four factors was 48.2% (Table 3).¹

Table 3.

Factor Solutions of the Workplace Interpersonal Relatedness Scale for the Taiwanese and U.S. Sample.

	Taiwanese sample^a					U.S. sample^b
	Component					Component
Item	1	2	3	4	h²	1	2	3	h²
Ren Qing scale
Helps those who have helped oneself, before helping those who have not helped oneself.	.73	−.01	.11	.06	.55	.69	−.12	.22	.53
Is more difficult to reject requests from close associates, than from unfamiliar ones.	.60	.10	.10	−.11	.39	.75	.00	.10	.57
Do favors for those closer to me.	.69	−.06	.03	.25	.55	.74	−.12	−.04	.56
When I do a job, I take my relationship with others into consideration.	.50	−.11	.07	.11	.27	.11	−.29	−.24	.15
Flexibility scale
Being an individual is more important than following the rules.	.11	.66	−.10	−.08	.47	−.18	.73	−.05	.57
Would rather do things my way than just follow the rules.	−.07	.71	−.04	−.19	.54	−.06	.77	−.02	.59
Follows instincts and hunches even if it means breaking a rule or tradition.	−.14	.74	.08	−.02	.57	−.10	.82	.05	.68
Inspiration is more important than rules.	−.11	.80	−.01	.01	.64	.12	.74	−.13	.58
Is always testing the limits.	.10	.70	.18	.07	.54	−.04	.58	−.09	.35
Harmony scale
When has conflict with associates, doesn’t talk about it with others.	.05	.02	.65	.04	.43	—	—	—	—
If conflict occurs nearby, is probably my fault.	−.02	.00	.58	−.08	.34	—	—	—	—
When in or around conflict, tries to avoid.	.04	.10	.65	.27	.51	—	—	—	—
Conflict at work will have negative effect on results.	.28	.01	.56	−.01	.40	—	—	—	—
Face scale
Loses face when he or she cannot help others, even when he or she is very busy.	.12	−.04	.39	.31	.27	.09	.09	.51	.28
Loses face when his or her ideas are rejected.	.18	−.06	.24	.50	.34	.27	−.04	.63	.47
Tries to find a cause outside oneself when his or her task turns out badly.	.12	−.01	−.04	.75	.57	.04	−.02	.80	.65
Tries to find a reason outside oneself when performing poorly.	.04	−.02	−.03	.80	.64	−.03	−.08	.75	.57
Often attributes it to luck when associates perform better than him or her on a similar task.	−.04	−.06	.23	.64	.47	.04	−.11	.76	.59
Often attributes the cause to others when his or her performance is bad.	.03	−.06	−.03	.81	.66	.05	−.08	.85	.73
Eigenvalue	1.83	2.66	1.85	2.82		1.74	2.82	3.31
Variance explained (%)	9.62	14.00	9.75	14.85		11.59	18.83	22.08

Note. Values in bold indicate factor loadings ≥ .40. h² represents variable communalities.

n = 573. The total variance explained by the four factors is 48.2%.

n = 155. Due to the psychometric property, the Harmony subtrait was excluded in the analysis of the U.S. sample. The total variance explained by the three factors is 52.5%.

Factor analysis of the WB5P

We conducted principal-component analyses with varimax rotation specifying four to six factors to examine whether the factor structure of the Big Five was replicated in the Chinese WB5P at the subscale level. The analysis failed to produce the expected five-factor structure. Based on multiple criteria for retaining factors (i.e., the Kaiser rule, interpretability, communality, and the pattern of factor loadings, Thompson, 2004), the four-factor solution was determined superior to the five-factor solution. The solution met the Kaiser rule and provided the clearest interpretation of the factors in the Taiwanese sample. All of the subscales had substantial communalities and high loadings on at least one factor in this solution. The four factors aligned well with Need for Stability, Extraversion, Accommodation, and Consolidation in the WB5P, and some cross-loadings found in the U.S. Norm group for the WB5P were replicated here. However, the Originality subscales did not load on a separate factor, but instead negatively loaded on the Accommodation and Need for Stability factors, consistent with the finding that the Openness to Experience domain (corresponding to Originality in the WB5P) has not been consistently recoverable in cross-cultural personality research (Bond, 1994). The total variance explained by the four factors was 58.0% (Table 4).¹ Because of the difference in factor structure, the fit indices of this factor structure to the target WB5P structure of the U.S. Norm group, factor congruence coefficients, and variable congruence coefficients, cannot be calculated for the Taiwanese sample (McCrae et al., 1996).

Table 4.

Four-Factor Solution of the WB5P for the Taiwanese Sample.

	Component
Subscale	1	2	3	4	h²
N1: Sensitiveness	.75	.19	.03	.22	.64
N2: Intensity	.67	−.10	−.19	−.25	.55
N3: Interpretation	.75	.10	.10	−.12	.60
N4: Rebound Time	.69	−.19	.36	−.15	.65
E1: Enthusiasm	.25	.67	−.26	−.05	.58
E2: Sociability	−.31	.47	−.44	−.01	.51
E3: Trust of Others	−.02	.75	.17	.01	.59
O1: Imagination	−.34	−.03	−.52	.16	.42
O2: Complexity	−.54	−.01	−.46	.25	.56
O3: Change	−.63	.01	−.26	.13	.48
A1: Service	−.27	.02	.66	−.07	.52
A2: Agreement	.40	−.03	.70	−.13	.68
A3: Deference	−.10	.02	.61	−.01	.38
A4: Reserve	.18	−.37	.73	−.11	.72
A5: Reticence	.24	−.01	.77	.03	.64
C1: Perfectionism	.20	.02	−.12	.73	.59
C2: Organization	−.09	.01	−.08	.81	.67
C3: Drive	−.30	.08	−.65	.40	.67
C4: Concentration	−.36	−.04	.06	.62	.52
C5: Methodicalness	−.30	−.04	−.26	.69	.64
Eigenvalue	3.69	1.47	3.95	2.49
Variance explained (%)	18.45	7.36	19.76	12.46

Note. n = 573. Values in bold indicate factor loadings ≥ .40. h² represents variable communalities. The total variance explained by the four factors is 58.0%. WB5P = Workplace Big Five Profile.

Joint factor analysis: Relating the Workplace IR Scale and WB5P

Joint factor analyses were conducted to test whether the Workplace IR construct was independent of the Big Five. Based on multiple criteria for retaining factors (i.e., the Kaiser rule, interpretability, communality, and the pattern of factor loadings; Thompson, 2004), a FFM was superior to a four- or six-factor model in explaining workplace personality for the Taiwanese sample. In the FFM, the Need for Stability, Extraversion, Accommodation, and Consolidation factors were well replicated. A loading pattern of the Originality subscales similar to the factor analytic results of the WB5P was found. Of greatest relevance to the current study’s questions, the Ren Qing, Harmony, and Face subscales from the IR supertrait were highly loaded on the fifth factor, separate from the WB5P domains, and did not cross-load on the WB5P factors. Although one IR subscale, Flexibility, did not load on the IR factor and emerged as part of the factor that corresponds to the Accommodation domain of the WB5P, its relation with the other IR subscales was moderate in strength and in the expected direction. In addition, one Need for Stability subtrait, Sensitiveness, cross-loaded on the IR factor; however, it had a highest loading on its corresponding factor. The total variance explained by the six factors was 58.1% (Table 5).^1,2

Table 5.

Factor Solutions of the Joint Factor Analysis of the WB5P and Workplace Interpersonal Relatedness for the Taiwanese and U.S. Sample.

	Taiwanese sample^a						U.S. sample^b
	Component						Component
Subscale	1	2	3	4	5	h²	1	2	3	4	5	h²
N1: Sensitiveness	.57	.18	.02	.21	.51	.67	.71	−.03	.07	−.04	.12	.52
N2: Intensity	.72	−.10	−.21	−.18	.02	.61	.69	−.14	−.13	.10	−.10	.54
N3: Interpretation	.66	.09	.09	−.10	.35	.58	.78	−.19	.22	−.12	.03	.71
N4: Rebound Time	.72	−.18	.33	−.10	.07	.67	.71	−.22	.19	−.10	−.20	.64
E1: Enthusiasm	.28	.64	−.29	−.03	.03	.57	.34	−.08	−.58	−.19	.42	.67
E2: Sociability	−.22	.55	−.42	.04	−.21	.58	−.16	.01	−.66	.02	.26	.52
E3: Trust of Others	−.13	.62	.15	−.07	.22	.48	−.42	−.33	−.09	−.01	.44	.50
O1: Imagination	−.43	−.07	−.51	.10	.02	.46	−.07	.81	−.09	−.08	.05	.68
O2: Complexity	−.63	−.04	−.43	.18	.02	.62	−.20	.81	−.14	.00	.08	.72
O3: Change	−.54	.08	−.23	.14	−.36	.50	−.40	.62	.03	−.06	.30	.63
A1: Service	−.10	.10	.67	−.02	−.31	.57	−.15	−.10	.69	.09	.22	.56
A2: Agreement	.37	−.06	.69	−.14	.23	.69	.34	−.40	.60	−.16	.10	.67
A3: Deference	−.13	−.05	.58	−.07	.03	.36	−.12	.29	.57	−.01	.37	.57
A4: Reserve	.22	−.36	.73	−.10	−.02	.72	.11	−.05	.86	.04	.03	.76
A5: Reticence	.15	−.07	.75	−.02	.28	.67	.20	−.09	.67	.00	.15	.52
C1: Perfectionism	.15	.00	−.12	.75	.05	.60	.07	−.02	−.06	.79	−.01	.64
C2: Organization	−.13	.00	−.08	.80	.01	.66	.02	−.13	.01	.87	.00	.77
C3: Drive	−.35	.09	−.62	.39	.00	.67	−.34	.17	−.55	.37	.06	.59
C4: Concentration	−.31	−.01	.07	.63	−.24	.55	−.20	.02	.37	.63	.07	.58
C5: Methodicalness	−.40	−.08	−.26	.64	.07	.65	−.07	.03	−.09	.84	−.05	.73
IR1: Ren Qing	.04	.26	−.04	−.01	.66	.51	.04	.20	.06	.09	.54	.34
IR2: Flexibility	.37	.26	.43	.20	−.35	.55	−.01	.02	−.12	−.03	−.53	.30
IR3: Harmony	.11	.00	.35	.05	.63	.53	—	—	—	—	—	—
IR4: Face	.27	−.26	−.21	−.14	.54	.50	−.11	.11	−.03	−.13	.60	.41
Eigenvalue	3.67	1.56	4.15	2.42	2.15		3.00	2.28	3.73	2.78	1.77
Variance explained (%)	15.31	6.52	17.28	10.07	8.96		13.04	9.89	16.22	12.09	7.69

Note. Values in bold indicate factor loadings ≥ .40. h² represents variable communalities. WB5P = Workplace Big Five Profile; IR = Interpersonal Relatedness.

n = 573. The total variance explained by the five factors is 58.1%.

n = 155. Due to the psychometric property, the Harmony subtrait was excluded in the analysis of the U.S. data. The total variance explained by the five factors is 58.9%.

Multiple regression analysis

As a frequently used strategy in cross-cultural personality studies (e.g., F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Katigbak et al., 2002; Ortiz et al., 2007), multiple regression analyses were also used to examine the independence of the IR subscales from the WB5P domains. Controlling for differences in gender and age, multiple regression analyses were conducted by using the five WB5P supertraits to predict the four Workplace IR subscales. If the Workplace IR subscales are relatively independent of the WB5P factors, we should expect the WB5P factors to account for only a small amount of the variance in these subscales. Conversely, if the Workplace IR construct can be subsumed within the Big Five, we should expect the WB5P factors to account for large amounts of the variance in the Workplace IR subscales. Evidence of the independence of the Workplace IR construct through these regression analyses would strengthen the findings from the joint factor analyses (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001; Katigbak et al., 2002).

Results of multiple regression analyses are shown in Table 6.¹ Although combinations of some WB5P supertraits significantly predicted the Workplace IR subtraits controlling for the gender and age effects, they showed only modest overlap and explained only a small proportion of the variance (R² from .11 to .18) for the four subtraits, using .20 as a cut-off (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). Overall, the regression results suggest that the Workplace IR construct was not subsumed within the WB5P factors in the Taiwanese sample, consistent with the results of joint factor analyses.

Table 6.

Workplace Interpersonal Relatedness Subscales as Predicted by the Five Factors of the WB5P for the Taiwanese and U.S. Sample, Controlling for the Gender and Age Effects.

	Standardized beta of controlled variable			Standardized beta of the WB5P factor					ΔR²
Subscale	Age	Gender	R²	N	E	O	A	C	ΔR²
				Taiwanese sample (n = 573)
IR1: Ren Qing	.21**	.02	.03**	.31**	.14**	−.07	−.02	.06	.11**
IR2: Flexibility	−.19**	.12**	.04**	−.02	.13**	−.28**	.30**	.14**	.16**
IR3: Harmony	−.02	−.08	<.01	.25**	−.02	−.08	.29**	.13**	.18**
IR4: Face	.06	−.04	<.01	.31**	−.16**	−.16**	−.27**	−.04	.17**
				U.S. sample (n = 143)
IR1: Ren Qing	−.05	.09	.01	−.12	.14	.13	.25**	.03	.07
IR2: Flexibility	−.04	−.02	<.01	.13	−.20*	.05	−.31**	−.03	.08
IR4: Face	−.08	.23	.06*	−.07	.18	.10	.18	−.10	.06

Note. Age and gender were entered as the first step in multiple regression modeling, followed by the five factors of the WB5P. The Harmony (IR3) subscale was excluded in the U.S. sample due to its psychometric properties. WB5P = Workplace Big Five Profile; IR = Interpersonal Relatedness.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In Study 1, evidence for the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct from the workplace Big Five was consistently shown in different factor solutions in the joint factor analyses and multiple regression analyses. The Workplace IR factor underscores people-oriented concerns and interdependent relationships. The WB5P subscales did not load on the IR factor, with one exception. The cross-loading of the Sensitiveness subscale on the IR domain may indicate that the degree to which we experience concern was related to this relation-oriented construct. Although Sensitiveness may fit into the IR factor, the results of joint factor analyses and multiple regression showed that Ren Qing, Flexibility, Harmony, and Face cannot be encompassed by the Big Five domains of the WB5P. Overall, the results suggest that the IR scale measured a construct distinct from the hypothesized universal Big Five.

To address whether the Workplace IR construct, a purported indigenous Chinese construct, is also relevant to non-Chinese cultures, it is necessary to administer the Workplace IR measure along with a workplace Big Five measure in a Western culture (F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Leung, et al., 2003). If the Workplace IR dimension emerges as an independent factor in relation to the workplace Big Five in non-Chinese samples, it would suggest that the Workplace IR construct may not be unique to the Chinese culture and may also be relevant to non-Chinese cultures. Therefore, in Study 2, the Workplace IR scale and the WB5P were administered to a sample of U.S. employees.

Study 2

Method

Participants and procedure

Study participants were 155 working adults (45% male and 47% female) comprised of employees enrolled in a certification program and working adult students from multiple universities. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 68 (M = 29.21, SD = 16.19). The majority of respondents were White (80%; 7% were African American). Respondents were employed primarily in human resources, business, and public service fields.

Each participant completed the WB5P and the English version of the Workplace IR items anonymously through a paper-and-pencil survey. The WB5P and Workplace IR items were intermixed and presented in a pre-set order that was the same for every participant. At the end of the survey, demographic information was collected.

Measures

WB5P

The original 88-item WB5P assesses five supertraits and 20 subtraits that are based on the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

All items were presented in a third-person format with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Coefficient alphas for all scales and subscales are shown in Table 2.

Workplace IR Scale

An English version of the 19-item Workplace IR scale, translated from Traditional Chinese, was administered to U.S. employees in Study 2. The translation procedure and guidelines of the English version of the Workplace IR scale were the same as those used for the Traditional Chinese version of the WB5P in Study 1.

Results

The Workplace IR structure

Similar to Study 1, a principal-component analysis with varimax rotation was conducted at the item level to examine the factor structure of the English version of the scale. Prior to factor analysis, examination of the unidimensionality assumption and coefficient alpha for each of the Workplace IR subscales revealed an unusual pattern of item relations within the Harmony subscale. In the Harmony subscale, unexpectedly one item was negatively loaded on the factor, and in turn, resulted in an extremely low reliability coefficient (α = .08). Even after dropping this item from the scale, reliability for the Harmony subscale (α = .31) was substantially lower than accepted standards for reliability. Therefore, the Harmony subscale was excluded from all subsequent analyses.

A principal-component analysis with varimax rotation specifying three factors was conducted at the item level to examine whether the factor structure of the Workplace IR scale (excluding the Harmony subscale) was replicated in the U.S. sample. Overall, the expected three-factor structure of the scale was well replicated. The total variance explained by the three factors was 52.5% (Table 3).³

The WB5P structure

A five-factor principal-component analysis with varimax rotation replicated the expected factor structure at the subscale level. The five factors aligned well with Need for Stability, Extraversion, Accommodation, Originality, and Consolidation. Some cross-loaders found in the original U.S. Norm group for the WB5P were replicated here as well. The total variance explained by the five factors was 65.2% (Table 7).³ When the orthogonal Procrustes rotation was employed to seek maximum fit with the U.S. normative solution for the WB5P, structure replication was further improved (Table 7). The factor congruence coefficients computed between this U.S. sample and the U.S. Norm group ranged from .90 to .98. These high congruence values show that the Big Five factor structure is a viable one for this sample. Some of the secondary loadings were also well replicated in this U.S. sample. In general, the Big Five was replicated in this U.S. sample.

Table 7.

Five-Factor Solutions of the WB5P for the U.S. Sample.

	Initial orthogonal rotation^a						Orthogonal procrustes rotation to the 2008 American normative target^b
Subscale	1	2	3	4	5	h²	N	E	O	A	C	VC
N1: Sensitiveness	.82	−.01	−.02	.11	−.01	.68	.73	.33	−.07	.21	.02	.98
N2: Intensity	.55	−.38	−.26	−.15	.10	.55	.68	−.13	−.22	−.12	.10	.96
N3: Interpretation	.81	−.13	−.22	.25	−.10	.79	.75	.21	−.30	.30	−.08	.97
N4: Rebound Time	.52	−.47	−.36	.15	−.11	.66	.65	−.22	−.39	.14	−.12	.97
E1: Enthusiasm	.48	.31	.00	−.50	−.21	.62	.37	.51	.09	−.43	−.17	.92
E2: Sociability	.02	.43	.13	−.59	.02	.56	−.08	.41	.26	−.55	.05	.94
E3: Trust of Others	−.12	.76	−.11	.01	.01	.60	−.43	.63	−.13	−.07	.05	.72
O1: Imagination	−.03	−.13	.81	−.09	−.07	.69	.03	−.09	.81	.11	−.08	.94
O2: Complexity	−.16	−.09	.82	−.14	.00	.72	−.10	−.11	.84	.05	−.02	.97
O3: Change	−.21	.31	.74	.08	−.05	.69	−.34	.22	.69	.22	−.05	.95
A1: Service	−.05	.25	−.03	.73	.09	.60	−.25	.18	−.21	.68	.10	.88
A2: Agreement	.30	−.04	−.41	.62	−.16	.67	.21	.07	−.56	.53	−.15	.98
A3: Deference	.00	.19	.39	.62	.00	.57	−.17	.17	.22	.68	.00	.93
A4: Reserve	.04	−.14	−.07	.85	.04	.75	−.02	−.13	−.27	.81	.03	.99
A5: Reticence	.22	−.01	−.06	.69	.00	.53	.11	.06	−.23	.68	.00	.95
C1: Perfectionism	.10	.02	−.02	−.05	.80	.65	.08	.01	.00	−.03	.80	.97
C2: Organization	.00	.00	−.13	.01	.87	.78	−.01	−.06	−.12	−.02	.87	.95
C3: Drive	−.19	.31	.25	−.53	.38	.61	−.23	.20	.37	−.48	.39	.97
C4: Concentration	−.17	.09	.04	.38	.62	.57	−.25	−.04	−.05	.35	.61	.90
C5: Methodicalness	−.12	−.08	.02	−.11	.84	.74	−.07	−.17	.06	−.11	.83	.96
Eigenvalue	2.44	1.58	2.55	3.70	2.76		—	—	—	—	—
Variance explained (%)	12.21	7.92	12.77	18.49	13.79		—	—	—	—	—

Note. n = 155. Values in bold indicate factor loadings ≥ .40. WB5P = Workplace Big Five Profile.

h² represents variable communalities. The total variance explained by the five factors is 65.2%.

VC represents variable congruence coefficients. Factor Congruence is .90 for N, .90 for E, .95 for O, .97 for A, .98 for C, and .94 for total congruence.

Joint factor structure of the WB5P and Workplace IR measures

In joint factor analyses, a five-factor solution was superior to a six-factor solution, based on multiple criteria for retaining factors (i.e., the Kaiser rule, interpretability, communality, and the pattern of factor loadings). The Need for Stability, Originality, Accommodation, and Consolidation factors were well replicated. Unexpectedly, the Extraversion subscales in the WB5P did not load on a distinct factor. Instead, two Extraversion subscales, Enthusiasm and Sociability, had highest loadings on the Accommodation factor.

Of greatest relevance to the current study’s questions, the Ren Qing, Flexibility, and Face subscales from the Workplace IR measure were highly loaded on the fifth factor, separate from the WB5P domains, and did not cross-load on the WB5P factors.⁴ Two Extraversion subtraits, Enthusiasm and Trust of Others, also cross-loaded on this factor; however, these cross-loaders may simply suggest a need for the refinement of the WB5P as two of the three Extraversion subscales had high, negative loadings on the Accommodation factor in the factor solution of the WB5P in the current U.S. sample (Table 7) as well as the U.S. Normative sample. Overall, this fifth factor was fairly consistent with the definition of the IR construct, which reflects one’s relational and interdependent concerns in interpersonal relations. The total variance explained by the five factors was 58.9% (Table 5).³

Multiple regression analysis

Similar to the analyses in Study 1, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the independence of the IR subtraits from the WB5P supertraits among U.S. employees. Results showed that after controlling for the gender and age effects, combinations of some WB5P supertraits explained only a small proportion of the variance for Ren Qing (R² = .07), for Flexibility (R² = .08), and for Face (R² = .06; Table 6).³ Overall, the regression results suggest that the IR construct was not subsumed within the WB5P factors, consistent with the results of joint factor analysis.

In sum, the results of the joint factor analyses suggest that the Workplace IR construct, defined by Ren Qing, Flexibility, and Face, was distinct from the hypothesized universal Big Five domains. The multiple regression results provided further evidence that IR was a separate personality construct. Taken together, these findings suggest that Workplace IR emerged as a distinct construct in U.S. employees.

General Discussion

Past research has identified a need for relating indigenous personality constructs to the hypothesized universal Big Five dimensions (Church, 2010). In particular, F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Leung, et al. (2003) suggested that more research on the IR construct in Western cultures was needed to provide a more complete picture of personality assessment. The current research was conducted to respond to the need for research that examines the indigenous IR construct in a Western culture, and to extend the IR construct to a workplace context. Specifically, we examined evidence for the IR personality construct among Taiwanese and U.S. employees using workplace-specific scales: the Workplace IR scale and the WB5P. Results showed that in both cultural groups, the Workplace IR construct emerged; however, the content of the Workplace IR construct varied slightly between Taiwanese and U.S. employees, with only three of the four subfactors replicated in the U.S. sample. However, the Big Five dimensions of the WB5P were replicated only in the U.S. sample. Furthermore, the joint factor analysis and multiple regression results indicated that the workplace IR construct, at least defined by Ren Qing and Face, was a distinct construct from and not subsumed under the workplace Big Five in both the Western and non-Western samples.

Does the Workplace IR Emerge Within a Western as Well as an Eastern Culture?

In an emic approach to personality, the IR construct was first identified as a culture-specific personality domain (F. M. Cheung et al., 1996). The IR construct highlights a strong orientation toward instrumental and interdependent relationships (F. M. Cheung et al., 2001). To further examine and define this construct within a workplace context, the Workplace IR scale was developed to measure four subtraits of the IR domain: Ren Qing, Flexibility, Harmony, and Face. Mixed evidence was found for the cross-cultural relevance of the Workplace IR construct in the two samples examined here. In Study 1, the Workplace IR domain was defined by four subtraits (Ren Qing, Flexibility, Harmony, and Face) among Taiwanese employees. The finding suggests that in a Chinese culture people high in IR tend to manage harmonious and interdependent social connections, to adhere to social expectations, and to enhance their image through a variety of strategies in the workplace. However, in Study 2, due to the psychometric properties of the Harmony subscale, the Workplace IR construct consisted of only three subscales (Ren Qing, Flexibility, and Face) among U.S. employees. Although not all four subscales of the Workplace IR replicated in this Western culture, we note that the factor structure of the remaining three subscales was similar across cultures. Furthermore, the extraction of the IR factor in joint factor analysis evidenced that the Workplace IR construct emerged in a Western as well as an Eastern culture.

In the U.S. sample, the problematic reliability coefficient of Harmony indicated that the translated Harmony items may be interpreted differently within a Western culture, such that the pattern of item relations in the U.S. sample differed from the Taiwanese sample. In the Workplace IR measure, the Harmony items were developed to assess conflict avoidance and resolution in interpersonal relations, diverging from the broader definition in F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) study that included both the peace within one’s mind and conflict avoidance in interpersonal relationships. The extremely low reliability coefficient (α = .08) of the English version of Harmony items suggests that some of these items may have different meanings or may be less relevant for working adults in the United States. Further refinement of the English version of the Harmony subscale may therefore be needed. Because of its poor reliability in our sample, we did not include the Harmony subscale in our further analysis of the Workplace IR construct for the U.S. sample. Nevertheless, the expected three-factor structure of the Workplace IR scale, including the Ren Qing, Flexibility, and Face subtraits, was replicated in the U.S. sample. In sum, the finding that the Workplace IR construct emerged in a Western as well as an Eastern culture suggests that IR may not be unique to the Chinese culture, contrary to F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) original assumption that the indigenous IR was a culturally unique personality construct.

Is the Workplace IR Construct Independent of the Workplace Big Five?

The current studies also allowed further examination of the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct from the workplace Big Five. Results of joint factor analyses and multiple regression analyses suggest that workplace IR was independent of the workplace Big Five domains in both cultural groups. In the Taiwanese sample, evidence of the IR factor as a distinct domain was consistently shown in different factor solutions. The Ren Qing, Harmony, and Face subscales in the workplace IR domain were highly loaded on a separate factor and did not load on any of the WB5P factors, suggesting the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct. The Flexibility subscale was moderately related to the other IR subscales in the expected direction even though Flexibility did not have a loading above .40 on the Workplace IR factor and related more strongly to one’s tendency to adapt to the environment and to be conservative to new experiences (lack of Originality) in the WB5P. Further examination of the overlap between Flexibility and the WB5P dimensions through multiple regression analysis suggested that Flexibility was not subsumed within the WB5P dimensions. However, the observed relation between Flexibility and the Big Five in Study 1 was consistent with F. M. Cheung, Cheung, Leung, et al.’s (2003) study where Flexibility negatively cross-loaded on the Conscientiousness domain, and may indicate that among the four IR subscales Flexibility had a relatively stronger relation to the workplace Big Five. Indeed, Flexibility describes one’s tendency to adhere to social expectations to maintain good interpersonal relationships at work (characterized as lack of Flexibility), which may be conceptually similar to the Accommodation and (lack of) Originality traits in the WB5P. In addition, it should be noted that Sensitiveness, a subscale of Need for Stability, cross-loaded on the IR factor even though it had a highest loading on Need for Stability. The Sensitiveness subscale assesses one’s tendency to easily get nervous when facing uncertainty, to take criticism personally, and to be sensitive to what others think about oneself (Howard & Howard, 2001). The tendency toward concern for being evaluated by others implied in the definition of this subtrait is closely related to the concept of Face in the IR construct. The overlap in definition may explain the high loading of Sensitiveness on the IR factor.

In the U.S. sample, the Ren Qing, Flexibility, and Face subscales defining the Workplace IR construct clearly loaded on a separate factor in different factor solutions, suggesting the independence of the Workplace IR construct. However, Enthusiasm and Trust of Others, two of the Extraversion subscales, also cross-loaded on the IR factor. The Enthusiasm and Trust of Others subscale assesses one’s tendency to show positive feelings and to believe others, respectively. These definitions are closely associated with Ren Qing representing reciprocal considerations in interpersonal relations.

In addition, results of multiple regression analyses indicated that in both cultural groups only a small amount of the variance in the Workplace IR construct could be explained by combinations of some workplace Big Five domains. In sum, the findings from Studies 1 and 2 provided support that across cultural groups the Workplace IR construct appeared to be a distinct factor that was not subsumed within the workplace Big Five domains.

Although the workplace IR construct was not subsumed within the WB5P dimensions, it is noteworthy to further examine relationships between the IR subscales and the workplace Big Five domains empirically and theoretically because some Big Five domains also assess socially oriented content. Ren Qing describes one’s tendency to build relationships with associates based on principles of reciprocity and to seek to offer or repay favors. Across both cultural groups, results of multiple regression analysis indicated that Ren Qing was consistently related to Extraversion and not related to Consolidation. The propensity to express positive feelings to others (Enthusiasm), to enjoy being with others (Sociability), and to believe others (Trust of Others) measured by the Extraversion scale (Howard & Howard, 2001) are associated with the definition of Ren Qing, but the critical aspect of Ren Qing, adherence to cultural norms of reciprocity and social exchange, is lacking in the Extraversion construct.

Flexibility emphasizes the need of meeting social expectations in maintaining positive interpersonal relationships at work. In both the Taiwanese and the U.S. groups, multiple regression analysis showed that Flexibility was related to Accommodation and Extraversion. Deference to others (Accommodation) and tolerance of sensory stimulation from others (Extraversion) are closely associated with the definition of Flexibility. However, the finding that Flexibility was not subsumed within the workplace Big Five domains may suggest its stronger emphasis on relations than on individuals themselves.

Harmony refers to a tendency to avoid and resolve conflict in the workplace. In the Taiwanese sample, this subscale was associated with the tendency to deference (Accommodation) and reactive responses to stress (Need for Stability). Although the concept of conflict avoidance was shared by this IR subscale and the WB5P domains, one’s tendency to achieve positive relations with others in resolving and attributing conflicts was not captured within the WB5P dimensions.

Face describes a tendency to enhance one’s own reputation. Across both cultural groups, results of multiple regression analysis indicated that Face was consistently related to Extraversion and Originality, but not to Consolidation. However, the critical aspect of impression management is absent in the WB5P dimensions.

Results of multiple regression analysis indicated that different combinations of the workplace Big Five domains predicted the Workplace IR subscales in the Taiwanese and the U.S. samples, suggesting that the Workplace IR construct was related to the WB5P traits differently across cultures. However, the joint results of different analyses evidenced that in both the Taiwanese and the U.S. groups the Workplace IR construct can be considered as a distinct trait from the workplace Big Five domains.

Replicability of the WB5P Across Cultures

The factor structure of the WB5P was well replicated in the U.S. sample. In contrast, in the Taiwanese data the FFM of the WB5P was not replicated. Instead, the workplace Big Five domains fit better to the four-factor model. Need for Stability, Extraversion, Accommodation, and Consolidation were replicated, and the pattern of their factor loadings was similar to those in the U.S. Normative sample. However, among Taiwanese employees the Originality (corresponding to Openness to Experiences) domain was not extracted as a distinct factor. This finding echoes the conclusion from lexical personality researchers that Extraversion, Agreeableness (Accommodation), and Conscientiousness (Consolidation) replicated fully across cultures (De Raad et al., 2010), while the NEO-PI-R Openness to Experiences domain has not been consistently recoverable in cross-cultural studies (Bond, 1994). F. M. Cheung et al. (2008) also failed to find that the Openness items developed from a Chinese culturally relevant perspective loaded together to form a separate factor in the sample consisting of individuals from China and Hong Kong. They further concluded that “Openness is not commonly used as a distinct dimension in the taxonomy of personality traits in Chinese culture” (p. 103). These studies support our finding that the Originality domain functioned differently in the Western and non-Western culture.

Limitations

Despite general support for the generalizability of the workplace IR domain across two cultural groups, the psychometric properties of the Workplace IR subscales suggest a need for further refinement of the scale. In particular, the English translation of the Harmony scale may deserve more investigation due to its poor psychometric property.

Of the workplace Big Five domains measured by the WB5P, acceptable reliability levels were indicated in both samples, as a range of .7 or higher in the supertrait level (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Howard & Howard, 2001; Katigbak et al., 1996; Kwong & Cheung, 2003) and a range between .5 and .8 in the subtrait level (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Howard & Howard, 2001; Katigbak et al., 1996). However, overall the reliabilities were stronger in the U.S. sample than in the Taiwanese sample. This finding may be due to the fact that the WB5P was originally designed for use in the U.S. population. In the U.S. sample, even though the replicability of the Big Five model was evidenced, several subscales were cross-loaders, as was found in the U.S. Normative sample of the scale. This seems to suggest a need for the refinement of the WB5P, which has become available recently (Howard & Howard, 2009).

Although the Workplace IR and WB5P may not be exact approximations of the global constructions of the IR and Big Five, they were valuable for their focus on the workplace context. Further research may examine the relationships between the global and workplace-specific personality measures.

In addition, the results in the U.S. sample should be interpreted with caution given a relatively less than preferred sample size, compared with the Taiwanese sample size of 573. A larger non-Western sample should be used in the future. Furthermore, the recruitment strategy for participants may have an impact on the results. In our study, participants were recruited through personal contacts and the snowballing technique. Although it was an efficient method to collect a large sample of participants, it may have restricted the availability of a representative sample with regard to demographic variables. Thus, different recruitment strategies need to be considered in future research.

Given that full factorial invariance across culture was not a focus in this study, scale or subscale mean scores should not be compared until there is further investigation on factorial invariance of the WB5P and the Workplace IR scale. This study was an exploratory attempt to study the Workplace IR scale and aimed to answer research questions regarding the distinctiveness of the Workplace IR construct from the Workplace Big Five and the cultural specificity of this construct. Thus, only configural invariance of the scale was examined. For a meaningful comparison of mean scores or correlations obtained from cultures, future research should provide evidence for full factorial invariance, including configural invariance, metric invariance (invariant factor loadings), and the other five forms of invariance (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998; Vandenberg, 2002). When the factorial invariance is established, scholars can be confident that the possible mean differences in the subscales are not due to the factorial instability of the scales.

The need to disentangle the variables from the individual level, organizational level, and national level via hierarchical linear modeling was identified as a gap in cross-cultural research (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). As our variables were all collected at the individual level and we had data from only two countries, future research may consider inclusion of more cultural/national groups in a single study to allow for this examination. This type of research will also allow for testing whether the Workplace IR Scale items represent latent variables of both culture and personality. Researchers may measure the degree to which an individual is influenced by the culture(s) of interest. Then, modeling cultural influence as a covariate in MIMIC (Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes; Joreskog & Goldberger, 1975) modeling to partition the variance of the latent factors emerged from the Workplace IR Scale into a predicted (i.e., covariate determined) and an unexplained (i.e., non-covariate determined) component.

Implications and Future Directions

Personality assessments continue to receive attention in the workplace. Their prediction of various work-related outcomes has been widely evidenced (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1993; Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Rynes, Brown, & Colbert, 2002). However, only a few personality inventories are specifically designed for use in work settings. As Howard and Howard (2001) pointed out, the application of global rather than workplace-specific personality instruments to the workplace has raised significant problems, such as long administration processes, language that is not adapted to the workplace, and non-sensitivity to protected groups. These may result in less utilization in human management, lower face validity of the inventory, and potential discrimination in a selection process. These issues underscore a need for the development of workplace-specific personality assessments.

In the present studies, workplace-specific personality measures were used to measure the Big Five and IR domains. While the present studies are limited to the preliminary examination of validity of the Workplace IR scale in terms of its factor structure and its convergent validity with the WB5P measure across cultures, future research may seek to establish more validity evidence for the Workplace IR scale, including its convergent validity with F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) global IR measure and its criterion-related validity in predicting work-related behaviors and attitudes. In this study, the comparability between the Workplace IR and global measure of IR in F. M. Cheung et al.’s (2001) study was established on the theoretical convergence of these two constructs. Future research may administer the Workplace IR along with the global measure of IR to Chinese as well as non-Chinese groups to provide empirical evidence for convergence validity. For criterion-related validity evidence, research has provided some preliminary support for the global IR measure in countries with strong Chinese cultural influences (e.g., China, Taiwan). For example, Liu, Friedman, and Chi (2005) found that Ren Qing was predictive of negotiation behaviors and outcomes for the Chinese. Tsai, Chi, and Hu (2009) concluded that salespeople’s Ren Qing orientation compensated the negative effect of low self-esteem on their selling behaviors (e.g., adaptive selling, hard work). These findings highlighted the role of Ren Qing in work behavior. Therefore, more studies on the relations between the IR subtraits and behavioral correlates in Chinese as well as non-Chinese groups will enlighten our understanding of this workplace-specific IR construct. Particularly, demonstration of criterion-related validity of the IR subtraits in non-Chinese samples would strengthen the evidence found in this study that the IR construct was also relevant to the Western culture and help recognize the importance of IR in the Western workplace. In addition, an important research question remaining would be whether the Workplace IR construct has incremental validity beyond the workplace Big Five in predicting work attitudes, behaviors, and different dimensions of work performance (e.g., job performance, contextual performance).

For further cross-cultural research on the Workplace IR construct, full factorial invariance testing should be conducted for meaningful cross-cultural comparisons. Two common statistical procedures for measurement invariance testing are confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Both are a latent variable measurement model that links manifest indicators to latent constructs (Ployhart, 2008) and tests whether items in a scale evoke the same conceptual frame of reference in each comparison group.

In conclusion, the current research extended the IR construct to a workplace context and examined evidence for the workplace IR personality construct among Taiwanese and U.S. employees. Our findings suggest that the IR personality construct is distinct from Five Factor personality constructs within a work context using workplace-specific personality items. Furthermore, although there was slight variation in the replication of the specific dimensions of Workplace IR across cultures, our findings suggest that this purported indigenous Chinese personality trait may have relevance to employees in Western as well as Eastern cultures. Future research that relates this workplace-specific IR construct to work outcomes would help to establish a nomological network of the construct and have implications for practitioners, as well.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The Taiwanese data this manuscript is based on were used in the master’s thesis of the first author and were also presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in 2006.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 60-71.

Bond

M. H.

(1994). Trait theory and cross-cultural studies of person perception. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 114-117. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0502_2

Bond

M. H.

Hwang

K. K.

(1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213-266). Hong Kong, China: Oxford University Press.

Briggs

S. R.

Cheek

J. M.

(1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301

The Center of Applied Cognitive Studies. (2005). The WorkPlace Big Five ProFile 3.0 TM [Brochure]. Charlotte, NC: Author.

Cheung

F. M.

(1985). Cross-cultural considerations for the translation and adaptation of the Chinese MMPI in Hong Kong. In Butcher

J. N.

Spielberger

C. D.

(Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

(2003). Measuring personality and values across cultures: Imported versus indigenous measures. In Lonner

W. J.

Dinnel

D. L.

Hayes

S. A.

Sattler

D. N.

(Eds.), Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 6, Chapter 5). Bellingham, WA: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University. Retrieved from http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture/index-cc.htm

10.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

Leung

Ward

Leong

(2003). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 433-452. doi:10.1177/0022022103034004004

11.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

Wada

Zhang

(2003). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment, 15, 280-289. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.280

12.

Cheung

F. M.

Cheung

S. F.

Zhang

Leung

Leong

Huiyeh

(2008). Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture: Aspects of its cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 81-108. doi:10.1177/0022022107311968

13.

Cheung

F. M.

Leung

Fan

R. M.

Song

Zhang

(1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181-199. doi:10.1177/0022022196272003

14.

Cheung

F. M.

Leung

Zhang

Sun

Gan

Song

Xie

(2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the Five-Factor Model Complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407-433. doi:10.1177/0022022101032004003

15.

Cheung

F. M.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Leong

F. T. L.

(2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593-603. doi:10.1037/a0022389

16.

Cheung

S. F.

Cheung

F. M.

Howard

Lim

Y. H.

(2006). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: Are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 467-477. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.023

17.

Church

A. T.

(2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality, 69, 979-1006.

18.

Church

A. T.

(2010). Current perspectives in the study of personality across cultures. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 441-449. doi:10.1177/1745691610375559

19.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-RTM) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

20.

De Raad

Barelds

Levert

Ostendorf

Mlačić

Blas

L. D.

. . . Katigbak

M. S.

(2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across languages: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 160-173. doi:10.1037/a0017184

21.

Heller

Watson

Komar

Min

J.-A.

Perunovic

W. Q. E.

(2007). Contextualized personality: Traditional and new assessment procedures. Journal of Personality, 75, 1229-1253.

22.

(2005). A Taiwanese workplace personality study: The Workplace Big Five Profile© and the interpersonal relatedness construct (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

23.

D. Y. F.

(1976). On the concept of face. The American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.

24.

D. Y. F.

(1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: Contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25, 115-139. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1995.tb00269.x

25.

D. Y. F.

Peng

S. Q.

Lai

A. C.

Chan

S. F.

(2001). Personality across cultural traditions. Journal of Personality, 69, 925-954.

26.

Hofstee

W. K. B.

(1990). The use of everyday personality language for scientific purposes. European Journal of Personality, 4, 77-88. doi:10.1002/per.2410040203

27.

Hogan

(1992). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

28.

Howard

P. J.

Howard

J. M.

(2001). The WorkPlace Big Five ProFile professional manual. Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.

29.

Howard

P. J.

Howard

J. M.

(2009). The WorkPlace Big Five ProFileTM Version 4.0 Professional Manual. Charlotte, NC: Center for Applied Cognitive Studies.

30.

Hwang

(1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 944-974.

31.

Hwang

(2005). 華人社會中的臉面觀 [Face in Chinese societies]. In Yang

Hwang

Yang

C. F.

(Eds.), 華人本土心理學上 [Indigenous psychology in Chinese societies Part I] (pp. 365-405). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou.

32.

Joreskog

K. G.

Goldberger

A. S.

(1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 631-639.

33.

Judge

T. A.

Heller

Mount

M. K.

(2002). Five-Factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.873.3.530

34.

Judge

T. A.

Higgins

C. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Barrick

M. R.

(1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652.

35.

Judge

T. A.

Ilies

(2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

36.

Katigbak

M. S.

Church

A. T.

Akamine

T. X.

(1996). Cross-cultural generality of personality dimensions: Relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 99-114.

37.

Katigbak

M. S.

Church

A. T.

Guanzon-Lapeña

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 and Social Psychology, 82, 89-101. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.89

38.

Kwong

J. Y.

Cheung

F. M.

(2003). Prediction of performance facets using specific personality traits in the Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 99-110. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00021-0

39.

Lee

Ashton

(2007). Factor analysis in personality research. In Robins

R. W.

Fraley

R. C.

Kruegers

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 424-443). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

40.

Liu

L. A.

Friedman

R. A.

Chi

S.-C.

(2005). “Ren Qing” versus the “Big Five”: The role of culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations. Management and Organization Review, 1, 225-247. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00010.x

41.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

42.

McCrae

R. R.

Zonderman

A. B.

Costa

P. T.

Bond

M. H.

Paunonen

S. V.

(1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.

43.

National Languages Committee in Ministry of Education. (2000). 國語辭典簡編本網路版 [online Chinese dictionary]. Retrieved from http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/main/cover/main.htm

44.

Norman

W. T.

(1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. doi:10.1037/h0040291

45.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Validity. In Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(Eds.), Psychometric theory (pp. 83-113, 3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

46.

Ortiz

F. A.

Church

A. T.

Varggas-Flores

Ibanez-Reyes

Flores-Galaz

Iuit-Briceno

J. I.

Escamilla

J. M.

(2007). Are indigenous personality dimensions culture-specific? Mexican inventories and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 618-649. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.07.002

47.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2008). The measurement and analysis of motivation. In Kanfer

Chen

Pritchard

(Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 17-61). New York, NY: Taylor Francis.

48.

Rynes

S. L.

Brown

K. G.

Colbert

A. E.

(2002). Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 92-103.

49.

Salgado

J. F.

Viswesvaran

Ones

D. S.

(2001). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods and techniques. In Anderson

Ones

D. S.

Sinangil

H. K.

Viswesvaran

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 165-199). London, England: SAGE.

50.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hunter

J. E.

(1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

51.

Slatcher

R. B.

Vazire

(2009). Effects of global and contextualized personality on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 624-633. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.012

52.

Steenkamp

J.-B. E. M.

Baumgartner

(1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90. doi:10.1086/209528

53.

Sue

Chang

(2003). The state of psychological assessment in Asia. Psychological Assessment, 15, 306-310. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.306

54.

Thompson

(2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

55.

Triandis

H. C.

Suh

E. M.

(2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Reviews, 53, 133-160. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200

56.

Tsai

M.-H.

Chi

S.-C.

H.-H.

(2009). Salespeople’s renqing orientation, self-esteem, and selling behaviors: An empirical study in Taiwan. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 193-200. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9099-z

57.

Tsui

A. S.

Nifadkar

S. S.

A. Y.

(2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426-478. doi:10.1177/0149206307300818

58.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2002). Toward a future understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 139-158. doi:10.1177/1094428102005002001

59.

Van de Vijver

Leung

(1997a). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Berry

J. W.

Poortinga

Y. H.

Pandey

(Eds.), Theory and method: Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 257-300). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

60.

Van de Vijver

Leung

(1997b). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

61.

Yang

C. F.

(2001). 有關關係與人情構念化之綜述 [The conceptualization of quanxi and renqing]. In Yang

C. F.

(Ed.), 中國人的人際關係、情感與信任 [Interpersonal relations, affect, and trust in Chinese societies] (pp. 3-25). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou.

62.

Yang

Bond

M. H.

(1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1087

63.

Zhang

Yang

C. F.

(2001). 關於人情概念的一項研究 [A study of the ren qing concept]. In Yang

C. F.

(Ed.),中國人的人際關係、情感與信任 [Interpersonal relations, affect, and trust in Chinese societies] (pp. 223-246). Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan-Liou.