The Role of Positive Self-Evaluation on Cross-Cultural Differences in Well-Being

Abstract

Past studies have shown that North Americans have higher well-being compared with East Asians. Objective living conditions (e.g., wealth, education, personal and political freedom) have been found to substantially contribute to North Americans’ higher well-being. One other possible explanation is that North American culture fosters positive evaluations of the self to enhance self-esteem and to feel positive emotions, which may lead North Americans to provide favorable ratings. These cultural differences in positive self-evaluations are, thus, expected to contribute to differences in well-being. To test this hypothesis, the current study compared well-being across two countries, the United States and China. Participants from the two countries (N = 271) reported on their life satisfaction and Big Five personality, which was used to indirectly measure their positive self-evaluation tendencies. We found cross-cultural differences with European Americans showing higher well-being and positively biased view of the self compared with Hong Kong Chinese. Importantly, cultural differences in positive evaluative bias mediated cross-cultural differences in well-being. The present study provides further support for the generalizability of cross-cultural differences in self-evaluation, and their influence on well-being.

Keywords

cross-cultural comparison evaluative bias well-being personality self-enhancement

Cross-cultural studies of well-being consistently find notable differences between North Americans of European descent and East Asians (Deaton, 2008). Individuals of European ancestry report higher satisfaction with life compared with individuals of East Asian ancestry. This robust finding has been replicated using a variety of well-being measures in different populations (Cheng et al., 2011; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Kim, Schimmack, & Oishi, 2012; Veenhoven, 1991). For example, using the Gallup World data, Deaton (2008) showed variability in the mean levels of self-reported well-being across 132 countries. This variation has been attributed to differences in objective factors, such as GDP per capita, suggesting that wealthier countries are happier compared with poorer countries. Cheng, Cheung, Montasem, and 44 Members of the International Network of Well-Being Studies’ (2014) recent multinational, multilevel analysis also found that GDP per capita was related to country-level negative affect and life satisfaction across 33 countries. Indeed, three decades of cross-cultural research on well-being have identified differences in objective living conditions, such as wealth, personal freedom, political freedom, and fulfillment of basic needs, to contribute to cultural differences in well-being. Furthermore, additional factors, such as personality (e.g., extraversion), are suggested to contribute to cultural differences in well-being (Cheng, Cheung, Chio, & Chan, 2013; Deaton, 2008; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999).

The importance of objective factors for well-being are well established; however, relatively little research has focused on the role of cultural factors on well-being (for exceptions, see Kim et al., 2012; Oishi & Sullivan, 2005; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). One recent study by Kim et al. (2012) showed how cultural values influenced the way in which individuals provide well-being ratings. Cultural differences in norms about self-perceptions were proposed to contribute to cultural differences in well-being.

Research by Kim et al. (2012) has drawn upon cognitive-experiential self-theory to explain biases that may influence cultural differences in well-being. The theory posits that there are two universal systems that guide perception of personality: the rational system, which is logical, and the experiential system, which is more emotionally driven. Each system has different underlying motives for social perceptions. The rational system entails a realistic perception of the world (realism) and the experiential system emphasizes maximizing hedonic balance (the balance between positive vs. negative feelings; Epstein, 1991). Building upon this theory, Kim et al. proposed that cultural norms concerning realism and hedonism in North America and Asia contribute to cultural differences in well-being. That is, North Americans are more likely to engage in self-enhancing processing of an experience (e.g., focus on the positives), whereas Asians are more likely to engage in thinking that is balanced and realistic.

Consistent with this argument, North American culture emphasizes hedonism more than Asian cultures, especially when an individual must choose between the two goals (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Suh et al., 1998). Prior research developed a novel measurement model to show that positive evaluative biases of the self and others—defined as the tendency to view the self and others positively—were positively related to well-being (Kim et al., 2012). Specifically, European Canadians showed higher positive general evaluative bias on the Big Five personality traits, and higher self-reported well-being than Asian Canadians. This overly positive general evaluative bias of European Canadians fully explained cultural differences in well-being of European Canadians reporting greater well-being. However, as the study was based on a within-cultural comparison, whether its findings can be extended cross-culturally remains an open empirical question.

The Present Study

Drawing on cognitive-experiential self-theory, we expect European Americans to focus on the positives by prioritizing the value of hedonistic motives over realistic motives, whereas we expect Asians to consider both the positives and negatives (as a result show realistic self-evaluation). Therefore, we expect these differences in cultural values to contribute to cross-cultural differences in well-being. Indeed, with regard to self-images, North American culture emphasizes high self-esteem and positive self-attributes to exert control over and pursue success and happiness (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1999; Triandis, 2009). In contrast, East Asian culture has been described as a culture that encourages realistic appraisals by taking discrete positions into consideration (Heine et al., 1999; Oishi & Sullivan, 2005). Taking these findings together, we expect European Americans to show a more positive evaluative bias in their assessments of their own personality and well-being than East Asians do. Importantly, we expect cross-cultural differences in evaluative bias to mediate differences in well-being between Hong Kong Chinese and European Americans. Our rationale for comparing university students from Hong Kong and the United States was twofold. First, Hong Kong represents a typical collectivistic culture, whereas the United States an individualistic culture (Hofstede, 1980). Second, the comparison of the two university student samples helps rule out some of the markers of well-being, given the similar socio-ecological profiles of the two university student samples (e.g., literacy rates, educational system).

The Halo Bias

To examine how individuals evaluate themselves, we used structural equation models of correlations among the Big Five personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The model builds on the halo-alpha-beta (HAB) model that was developed for ratings by a single rater of a single target. The model capitalizes on the evidence from multi-method studies to separate a halo factor from two higher-order personality factors: true variances in personality traits and other sources of measurement error (Anusic, Schimmack, Pinkus, & Lockwood, 2009). It is advantageous to use the Big Five for the measurement model, as the Big Five describes the five broad dimensions of personality and is the most widely used personality model. The Big Five model has been validated in extensive research (Biesanz & West, 2004; Riemann & Kandler, 2010). Therefore, it is feasible to use the model to distinguish valid trait variance from biases in perceptions of these personality traits rather than use other characteristics to examine individual and cultural differences in biases. This is important as multi-method studies have shown the presence of systematic biases in self- and informant ratings of the Big Five, suggesting that individuals show biases in self-evaluations of personality characteristics (see Anusic et al., 2009; Chang, Connelly, & Geeza, 2012; Davies, Connelly, Ones, & Birkland, 2015).

The halo bias represents the tendency to evaluate a person as more positive than the person actually is (Kim et al., 2012). It has been first identified by Thorndike (1920, as halo error), and observed in the fields of psychology and organizational behavior. Researchers repeatedly found marked tendency of individuals to provide favorable ratings of all positive attributes. In other words, some individuals, compared with others, were likely to attribute socially desirable characteristics to themselves or others. The validity of halo factor has been shown in two ways in Anusic et al.’s (2009) article. First, Anusic et al. demonstrated that the halo factors of one rater were unrelated with halo factors in ratings of other raters across four multi-method studies, which suggests that halo is a rater-specific factor (see also Chang et al., 2012). This is consistent with the assumption of halo as a bias factor. Second, the authors examined the convergent validity of the halo factor with a validated evaluative bias measure where participants rate themselves on four desirable attributes that are objectively unrelated (e.g., attractiveness and trivia knowledge). Although the objective attributes are unrelated, self-ratings of these attributes are moderately positively correlated. The shared variance among these ratings is used as a measure of evaluative biases and correlated highly with the halo factor in Big Five ratings in two university student samples (Anusic et al., 2009). Furthermore, halo bias was stable as other personality traits over a 4-year period in longitudinal study (Schimmack, Schupp, & Wagner, 2015) and perceiver effects (i.e., how an individual describes other people in a population) were stable over a 1-year period (Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010). These findings support the hypothesis that evaluative biases in self-perceptions reflect stable traits. In this way, evaluative bias can be influenced by cultural differences, and produce differences in well-being. Accordingly, we conceptualize the halo bias as a stable trait, which differs from conceptualizations of positive illusions as states (Taylor & Armor, 1996).

Method

Sample

The Hong Kong Chinese sample included 97 college students from the University of Hong Kong. They were participants who identified themselves as Hong Kong Chinese (23 men, 74 women; M age = 20.0 years, SD age = 1.3). The North American sample included 174 European American students who identified themselves as “White” (35 men, 139 women; M age = 18.7 years, SD age = 2.0) at University of Florida.

Procedure

In Hong Kong, we recruited participants through the psychology department’s mailing list. Participants completed a Chinese version of self-report questionnaires online, and received 200HKD (Hong Kong Dollar) for their participation. All Chinese versions of the questionnaires had either been validated in previous studies or were translated using standard back-translation procedures (Brislin, 2000) by the research team. In the United States, students at the University of Florida from introductory psychology courses took part in an online questionnaire study in return for course credit. Each participant completed demographic questions including their age, gender, and a set of questionnaires including the Satisfaction with Life Scale and Big Five Inventory.

Measures

Well-being

Life satisfaction was measured with the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The first three items were used because they have shown good psychometric properties in comparisons with North Americans and Asians (Oishi, 2006). We averaged the three items to form an index of well-being (American sample α = .87, Hong Kong Chinese sample α = .79).

Personality

Personality was measured with the 44-item version of the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999): extraversion (α = .88, α = .79); neuroticism (.79, .84); openness (.79, .79); agreeableness (.82, .71); and conscientiousness (.80, .84). We aggregated items to represent each of the five personality traits (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Scale	Hong Kong Chinese		European Americans
Scale	M	SD	M	SD
Neuroticism	4.63	1.05	3.86	0.96
Extraversion	4.44	1.02	4.86	1.18
Openness	4.43	0.91	4.90	0.77
Agreeableness	5.03	0.81	5.24	0.90
Conscientiousness	4.70	0.98	4.91	0.87
Life Satisfaction	4.48	1.08	5.33	1.30

Results

We conducted analyses using Mplus6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010) and used standard parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). CIs that do not include zero are statistically significant at the 5% level. We evaluated model fit using standard criteria, namely, comparative fit index (CFI) > .95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) < .08 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).

Life Satisfaction

First, we compared mean life satisfaction between the two cross-cultural groups, European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Means and standard deviations of life satisfaction between the two cultural groups are presented in Table 1. Consistent with previous findings, European Americans reported higher life satisfaction compared with Hong Kong Chinese, F(1, 269) = 30.22, p < .001.

Measurement Model of Halo Bias

To assess the evaluative bias, we first modeled the correlations among the Big Five with a higher-order model including a halo factor along with two higher-order factors of personality, alpha and beta. Initially, we included additional relations between alpha and beta in the model based on theoretical models of the higher-order structure and previous findings (Anusic et al., 2009). We constrained loadings on the halo factor and two higher-order factors to be equal across the Hong Kong Chinese and European American samples. Because only the halo factor was significant, we dropped the additional higher-order factors in subsequent analyses. Model fit was not adequate, χ²(9, N = 270) = 25.59, p < .05, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .082, SRMR = .085. After relaxing the loadings of the extraversion factor on the halo factor (as suggested by its modification index), model fit was acceptable, χ²(8, N = 270) = 10.43, p > .05, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .033, SRMR = .048. The loading of the extraversion on the halo factor was higher compared with other traits. Although we included this relation in subsequent analyses, we note that the loadings of extraversion did not differ much from others (extraversion vs. other traits: .69 vs. .48).

Halo Bias and Life Satisfaction

In the next model, we examined the effect of halo bias on life satisfaction. Residual variances of the Big Five dimensions were used to remove the halo bias from the valid personality factors. The measurement model allowed for examining additional relationships of self-rated personality traits on life satisfaction, and only emotional stability was significant, r = .32, 95% CI [0.22, 0.43]. This is consistent with earlier findings and the idea that neurotic individuals are prone to worry, and to experience more negative emotions such as helplessness and fearfulness (Costa & McCrae, 1987; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). Thus, we included only this relation in subsequent models. The model with the additional link between neuroticism and life satisfaction showed acceptable fit (see Figure 1): χ²(11, N = 270) = 11.14, p > .05, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .007, SRMR = .044. Importantly, consistent with previous findings (Kim et al., 2012), halo bias significantly predicted life satisfaction, r = .46, 95% CI [0.33, 0.57].

Figure 1.

Positive evaluative bias and life satisfaction model.

Culture, Halo Bias, and Life Satisfaction

Finally, we added culture to the halo bias and life satisfaction model. Culture was assumed to influence halo bias and the model fit was not fully acceptable: χ²(16, N = 270) = 44.30, p < .01 CFI = .90, RMSEA = .081, SRMR = .066. After examining post hoc modification indices, we permitted culture to influence the residual variance of emotional stability (reversed neuroticism). The modified model showed adequate fit, χ²(15, N = 270) = 30.90, p < .01 CFI = .94, RMSEA = .063, SRMR = .053. European Americans measured as being more emotionally stable than Hong Kong Chinese, r = .49, 95% CI [0.24, 0.74]. Figure 2 shows the standardized parameter estimates for halo bias and life satisfaction, and y-standardized parameter estimates for culture, as culture was coded with dummy variables (0 = Hong Kong Chinese, 1 = European American). The y-standardized coefficients can be interpreted as d values to measure effect sizes (Kim et al., 2012). As expected, European Americans showed significantly more halo bias than Hong Kong Chinese, d = 0.71, 95% CI [0.44, 0.98]. This effect size is similar to that for European Canadians and Asian Canadians in prior research (d = |−.0.65|; Kim et al., 2012), suggesting that culture remains an important factor that can be studied with immigrant populations.

Figure 2.

Mediation model.

In the next model, we tested our mediation hypothesis using the indirect function in Mplus (Figure 2). The results yielded a significant indirect effect of culture on self-rated life satisfaction: d = 0.48, 95% CI [0.33, 0.64]. Next, a model with a direct path of culture on self-rated life satisfaction was examined: χ²(14, N = 270) = 28.57, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .048. The indirect path through positive bias accounted for 3 6% of the total effect (d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.11, 0.40]). The indirect path through emotional stability was significant, d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.06, 0.23], suggesting personality effects on well-being. European Americans compared with Hong Kong Chinese were more emotionally stable which contributed to their higher self-rated life satisfaction. Importantly, we found support for moderate mediation effect of positive bias. The direct effect from culture to self-rated life satisfaction remained significant after the inclusion of positive bias (d = 0.32, 95% CI [0.09, 0.54]). These findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in self-reported life satisfaction are explained by European Americans’ positive evaluation tendencies, albeit not fully, as culture weakly predicted life satisfaction after accounting for the positivity bias.

Discussion

One of the consistent findings in well-being research is the robust cross-cultural difference in well-being: Individuals in North American countries appear to be happier than individuals in Asian countries. Differences in objective circumstances, such as wealth, literacy rates, and basic fulfillment of needs, have been found to explain cross-cultural differences in well-being (Deaton, 2008; Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener et al., 1999). North American and European countries compared with Asian countries are wealthier, and have better health care systems, which may allow them to focus on goals and values that enhance their subjective evaluations of well-being.

In the current study, we focused on cultural factors, whether differences in cultural norms on hedonism influence the way North American and East Asian people evaluate their well-being (Kim et al., 2012). North Americans were expected to show positively biased self-perception because of their cultural emphasis on positivity. Indeed, there is a greater emphasis on narcissism and self-esteem in North American culture, and the North American cultural environment allows individuals to display and encourage positivity (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Heine et al., 1999). Thus, we expected North Americans’ positive perception tendency to contribute to cross-cultural differences in well-being.

We used a validated measure of evaluative bias, halo bias, to examine the mediating hypothesis. Consistent with our predictions, European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese differed in their mean level of life satisfaction and evaluative tendencies. That is, European Americans had higher positive evaluative biases and reported higher well-being than Hong Kong Chinese. Furthermore, the higher positive evaluative bias of European Americans appeared to explain their higher mean level of self-reported well-being. European Americans seem motivated to show positively biased ratings (such as “I think I am great”) as they value positive feelings and positive consequences associated with the view (such as “I feel good about it”). Therefore, the current study provides supporting evidence that North Americans’ self-reported well-being may be (partially) positively biased. We argue that it is important to consider cross-cultural differences in self-evaluative bias in psychology research.

The current findings are consistent with the findings by Kim et al. (2012) with European and Asian Canadians. However, inconsistent with Kim et al., we found partial mediation providing further insight into the possible role of socio-ecological factors on well-being. Although Hong Kong and the United States are both high-income countries, the United States is wealthier than Hong Kong (GDP per capita in the United States vs. Hong Kong: 54,630 USD vs. 40,170 USD; The World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2015). The difference in wealth and other socio-ecological factors may allow North Americans to more pursue personal goals that are important for achieving high well-being (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995). Furthermore, in the current study sample, European Americans compared with Hong Kong Chinese tested as being more emotionally stable. These cross-cultural differences in neuroticism are consistent with findings by McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, and Paulhus (1998). As the current study relied only on self-report methods, further research is warranted to determine whether these differences in personality may reflect true cultural differences in personality or reporting biases.

We acknowledge some of the limitations. First, emotional stability was the only significant predictor of life satisfaction. The effect size for emotional stability (β = .32) was similar to Steel et al.’s (2008) meta-analytic results of a multiple regression analysis with the NEO Big Five personality traits as independent variables (β = −.30 between neuroticism and life satisfaction). However, in contrast to the meta-analysis of Steel et al., the relation between extraversion and life satisfaction was close to zero in the current study. Further studies should continue to examine true personality effects on well-being in cross-cultural contexts controlling for measurement errors to obtain accurate estimates. Second, the current study fitted the Halo-alpha-beta model to self-ratings of personality; however, the model did not identify the higher-order personality factors, alpha and beta. We think this could be a result of relatively low statistical power in the current study. As well, alpha and beta are relatively weak higher-order factors that caused problems of model identification in previous research (Anusic et al., 2009; Riemann & Kandler, 2010). Third, the present research design does not allow exploring the general evaluative bias to the self and others, or to distinguish among the three evaluative biases—the general evaluative bias, self-enhancement bias, and other-enhancement bias. As previous research has shown that they each have different relations with psychological outcomes such as well-being and mental health (Kim et al., 2012; Robins & Beer, 2001; Taylor & Brown, 1994; Wood et al., 2010), future studies should employ multi-method research designs (self- and informant reports) to address these concerns. We expect North Americans to evaluate both the self and close others more positively than Asians and cultural differences in self-enhancement to diminish once including informant ratings. This is because positive evaluative bias is confounded with self-enhancement and perceiver effects (i.e., people’s general tendency to describe others; Kwan, Kenny, Bond, & Robins, 2004). Last, the current study does not control for objective factors (e.g., GDP). Future studies should further investigate the impact of socio-ecological factors on well-being, and examine the relative influence of both objective and cultural factors.

Despite these limitations, the present study has important implications for our understanding of culture and well-being. People process information by two universal systems, the rational and experiential system (Epstein, 1991). However, depending on the culture, individuals may prefer one goal over the other because cultural norms shape perceptions of the self and others. The current study provides support for the argument that cultural differences in the relative emphasis on hedonism in North America, compared with East Asia, contribute to cross-cultural differences in well-being. The discrepancies in self-rated well-being ratings reported in the national and international literature and media may not only reflect actual differences in social-ecological environments, but also differences that may stem from differences in cross-cultural emphasis on hedonism and realism.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bonnie M. Le for sharing data for the North American sample and for providing comments on this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Hyunji Kim, PhD, is currently a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at York University, Canada. She received her master’s and doctoral degrees in psychology from the University of Toronto, Canada. Her research interests include culture, personality, and well-being.

Ulrich Schimmack, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada. He received his PhD from the Free University Berlin, Germany.

Cecilia Cheng, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University of Hong Kong, China. She received her PhD from the University of Hong Kong. She specializes in personality, social, health, and cross-cultural psychology. She received the ICP Early Career Research Award in 2000 and the Fulbright Senior Scholar Award in 2009. Her research team seeks to enhance both mental and physical health for quality living for Hong Kong people. To realize this aim, the team applies theoretical frameworks from personality and social psychology to the understanding of real-life problems such as stress and coping, psychosomatic disorders, emotional disorders, and health-risk behaviors.

Gregory D. Webster, PhD, is an associate professor of social psychology at the University of Florida, United States. He earned bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees from Colorado College, the College of William & Mary, and the University of Colorado Boulder, respectively. He was also a postdoctoral trainee in quantitative methods at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

Aleksandr Spectre, PhD, is currently an assistant professor (university lecturer) in psychology at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. He received his undergraduate training at the University of California, Berkeley, and his PhD from the University of Hong Kong. He then went onto a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Toronto before joining the Cambridge Department of Psychology in 2012. His research interests are broadly centered on the biological, contextual, cultural, and experiential forces that shape human kindness and well-being. His work has been featured in numerous media outlets, including BBC, Time, CNN, and Discovery Magazine.

References

Anusic

Schimmack

Pinkus

R. T.

Lockwood

(2009). The nature and structure of correlations among big five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model. Journal or Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1142-1156.

Baumeister

R. F.

Smart

Boden

J. M.

(1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5-33.

Baumeister

R. F.

Smart

Boden

J. M.

(1999). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Biesanz

J. C.

West

S. G.

(2004). Towards understanding assessments of the big five: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of convergent and discriminant validity across measurement occasion and type of observer. Journal of Personality, 72, 845-876.

Brislin

(2000). Back-translation. In Kazdin

A. E.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 359-360). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chang

Connelly

B. S.

Geeza

A. A.

(2012). Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408-426.

Cheng

Cheung

M. W. L.

Montasem

, & 44 Members of the International Network of Well-Being Studies. (2014). Explaining differences in subjective well-being across 33 nations using multilevel models: Universal personality, cultural relativity, and national income. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jopy.12136

Cheng

Cheung

Chio

J. H.

Chan

M. S.

(2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: A meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 152-188.

Cheng

Jose

P. E.

Sheldon

K. M.

Singelis

T. M.

Cheung

M. W. L.

Tiliouine

Sims

(2011). Sociocultural differences in self-construal and subjective well-being: A test of four cultural models. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 832-855.

10.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality, 55, 299-316.

11.

Davies

S. E.

Connelly

B. S.

Ones

D. S.

Birkland

A. S.

(2015). The general factor of personality: The “Big One,” a self-evaluative trait, or a methodological gnat that won’t go away? Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 13-22.

12.

Deaton

(2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 53-72.

13.

Diener

(1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.

14.

Diener

(1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864.

15.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

16.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.

17.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Smith

Shao

(1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur. Social Indicators Research, 34, 7-32.

18.

Epstein

(1991). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In Curtis

(Ed.), The relational self: Convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 111-137). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.

20.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: Understanding differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

21.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-139). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Kim

Schimmack

Oishi

(2012). Cultural differences in self- and other-evaluations and well-being: A study of European and Asian Canadians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 856-873.

23.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

John

O. P.

Kenny

D. A.

Bond

M. H.

Robins

R. W.

(2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94-110.

24.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

25.

McCrae

R. R.

Yik

M. S. M.

Trapnell

P. D.

Bond

M. H.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1041-1055.

26.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

27.

Oishi

(2006). The concept of life satisfaction across cultures: An IRT analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 411-423.

28.

Oishi

Sullivan

H. W.

(2005). The mediating role of parental expectations in culture and well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 1267-1294.

29.

Riemann

Kandler

(2010). Construct validation using multitrait-multimethod-twin data: The case of a general factor of personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 258-277.

30.

Robins

R. W.

Beer

J. S.

(2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340-352.

31.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.

32.

Schimmack

Schupp

Wagner

G. G.

(2015). Plaster cracks in old age: Stability and change of personality from age 20-80. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto.

33.

Steel

Schmidt

Shultz

(2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138-161.

34.

Suh

Diener

Oishi

Triandis

H. C.

(1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493.

35.

Taylor

S. E.

Armor

D. A.

(1996). Positive illusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873-898.

36.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21-27.

37.

Thorndike

E. L.

(1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.

38.

Triandis

H. C.

(2009). Fooling ourselves: Self-deception in politics, religion, and terrorism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

39.

Veenhoven

(1991). Is happiness relative. Social Indicators Research, 24, 1-34.

40.

Wood

Harms

Vazire

(2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174-190.

41.

The World Bank, World Development Indicators. (2015). GDP per capita (current US$) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD