The Role of Cognitive Discrepancy Between Perception of National Character and Personality in the Functioning and Adaptation of 46 Countries: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

The role of distorted cognitions in human functioning/adaptation is well-established at the individual level. We argue that the discrepancy between perceived national character and the actual national character (i.e., personality traits) is a form of distorted cognition at the group/country level and thus could have a negative impact on the functioning/adaptation of a given country. In this study, we computed this discrepancy score (the perceived national character minus the actual national character) and correlated it to indicators of functioning/adaptation in 46 countries. Results showed that the overestimation of national character (a higher score on the discrepancy measure) is associated with lower life satisfaction, lower autonomy, lower human development, and lower peacefulness at the country level. These results were maintained even after controlling for the effect of economic development, indexed as gross national income. Distorted cognitions related to national character shared by citizens are not only a scientific curiosity, but they might also have more practical implications for the country’s positioning on the global stage. These findings set the ground for a new topic of research investigating the role of such cognitive distortions.

Keywords

national character personality cognitive discrepancy country functioning/adaptation life satisfaction autonomy human development peacefulness

A decade ago, a study on 49 cultures (Terracciano et al., 2005) showed that projected national character (i.e., how we believe we are), as measured by the National Character Survey (NCS), does not reflect the actual national character (i.e., how we really are), as measured by psychological tests (i.e., Revised NEO Personality Inventory [NEO-PI-R]; Costa & McCrae, 1992). This pattern of results has been replicated in more recent studies (McCrae et al., 2013). However, the impact that this discrepancy might have on a country and its citizens was not further investigated. We think that further exploration of this discrepancy in a cognitive science paradigm can have fundamental theoretical and practical implications, potentially spurring a new research topic.

Indeed, at individual level, there is a rigorous body of research supporting the idea that distorted beliefs are key factors involved in human functioning/adaptation and disturbances. Distorted beliefs are defined as beliefs that are not logical, not empirically supported, and not functional, thus reflecting a discrepancy between what we believe about things and how things really are, typically as an exaggeration of reality (Beck & Haigh, 2014; Ellis, 1994). In psychological models of adaptive functioning (e.g., the stress–diathesis model), distorted/irrational beliefs are associated with unhealthy emotions and maladaptive behaviors, whereas functional/rational beliefs are associated with healthy emotions and adaptive behaviors; the distinction between healthy and unhealthy emotions is mainly related to the distinction between functional versus dysfunctional emotions, rather than to the distinction between positive versus negative emotions (David, Lynn, & Ellis, 2010). In the end, because of their disruptive emotional and behavioral consequences, distorted beliefs generate low levels of life satisfaction and individual autonomy (Beck, 1999; Ellis, 1994). Alternatively, research steaming from sociopsychological research focusing on individual functioning and mental health has argued that some specific type of distorted beliefs (i.e., that do not accurately reflect reality), namely, positive illusions about self, are in fact associated with good psychological adjustment and well-being (Taylor & Brown, 1988). This idea has been debated since its infancy and it is still debated today (Baumeister, 1989; Butler, 2011; Colvin & Block, 1994; Taylor & Brown, 1994; Van Leeuwen, 2009). Some studies found that even unrealistic positive illusions are associated with better psychological adjustment (e.g., Taylor et al., 1992), whereas others found that they are detrimental for social functioning and well-being, especially in the long term (Robins & Beer, 2001). Results related to the maladaptive consequences of distorted beliefs are far more consistent in the clinical cognitive science field. A synthesis of extensive research points out that distorted/irrational beliefs are generally associated with distress, feelings of anxiety and depression, and so on, in both clinical and nonclinical populations (Vîslă, Flückiger, Holtforth, & David, 2015). Both negative and positive distortions, especially in their extreme versions, can be regarded as a form of distorted/irrational beliefs (Kinney, 2000).

We think that the discrepancy between projected national character and actual national character can be conceptualized as a form of distorted belief at the country level. If the discrepancy scores are positive, it means that projection of reality is higher than reality (overestimation). If the discrepancy scores are negative, it means that the projection of reality is lower than reality (underestimation). For example, people of a certain nationality may perceive a typical individual of their country as being more extraverted than their own average level of extraversion, as measured with a classical psychological test (i.e., overestimation). In the opposite scenario, the members of a country perceive the typical individual as being less open to experience than their average level of openness (i.e., underestimation). If the discrepancy scores are close to zero, it means that projection of reality and reality are close (i.e., realism). In our perspective, both overestimation and underestimation of national character are forms of distorted beliefs and reflect the fact that a large part of the population of a given country do not have an accurate representation of a typical citizen of their country. In turn, this lack of realism might alter how the citizens respond to societal problems, what they learn from past mistakes, and how they approach future challenges. An inaccurate representation might lead to false conclusions (e.g., blaming historical context or bad governance, when the real source of the problem is related to the behavior of most of the citizens, or blaming common citizens for failure, when the real cause is related to other sources), and thus misguide actions and decisions. In large groups, such as a country, and on the long term, this lack of realism would likely lead to a poor functioning of that group. Although a discrepant positive perspective might be useful to maintain a positive representation of the self and that of one’s own group of reference, unsuccessful collective actions over longer periods of time would lead to lower group performance, which in turn might lead to frustration and low satisfaction with self and the group. This idea is also sustained by research on positive illusions, which points that at group level, positive illusions are associated with negative social exchanges and poor performance (Polzer, Kramer, & Neale, 1997; Robins & Beer, 2001). Moreover, cross-cultural research on educational achievement shows that country level of “monumentalism,” defined as a sense of pride and the perception of being superior to other countries, together with a sense of stability of a country’s characteristics, is associated with lower national performances and suggest that this effect emerges because such a sense of pride undermines the orientation toward improvement (Minkov, 2008).

Although in the cognitive science paradigm beliefs are often considered to play a causal role in explaining individual functioning and adaptation, such a causal role of distorted beliefs on disturbance at country level is only inferred in this research, based on the general theoretical framework. Indeed, it is also possible that the discrepancy between projected national character and actual national character is caused by some forms of societal and cultural-level dysfunctionalities or that bidirectional interactions exist between these constructs. For example, it is possible that harsh economic conditions alter the quality of life of the citizens, but to cope with these difficult conditions, the citizens maintain a positive representation about themselves and their country. Thus, in such a scenario, the discrepancy is a consequence and not a cause of the economic conditions. There are also other possible hypotheses, but our goal here is not to test a causal effect. Rather, we first want to test whether such a distortion (i.e., discrepancy between projected national character and actual national character) would be associated to human functioning and disturbances at a country level by mirroring the interrelations between distorted beliefs and human functioning/adaptation at the individual level. We are not aware of any study investigating such an association. Although Beck (1999) speculated, based on the established principles of the cognitive-behavior theory, that the relationships between distorted cognitions and emotions/behaviors are related to the “dark side of humanity,” such as country-level destructive behaviors and wars, to date, there is no specific theoretical model and/or empirical study approaching this idea. Indeed, much of the cross-cultural component in the cognitive-behavior theory is based on using countries as moderators, rather than involving country-level analyses. However, such an understanding has key theoretical and practical implications, taking into account world globalization and large-scale interactions among world’s countries/cultures/societies. For example, if a country sees itself in a discrepant way as compared with how it actually is (i.e., under- or overestimation of some personality traits), beyond the potential negative consequences of the discrepancy itself on the country’s social indicators (e.g., life satisfaction), if another country treats it according to how it is rather than to how it thinks it is, this could also rise serious international difficulties and animosities.

Overview of the Current Study

Our objective is to test if and how the discrepancy between perceived and actual national character is associated with human functioning and adaptation at the country level. Country-level functioning can be hard to quantify, and multiple dimensions can be used for this purpose (for a discussion, see Freudenberg, 2003). For this study, we used two kinds of indicators: subjective (i.e., how the citizens of a given country think and feel about their lives in that country) and objective (i.e., based on directly observable facts related to economic and social conditions).

The subjective indicators are based on research at the individual level (David et al., 2010) which has found that irrational beliefs are related to distress, often expressed as lower life satisfaction and autonomy. Therefore, we expect that a higher discrepancy at country level, meaning an exaggeration of reality, will be associated (a priori analyses) to various social indicators: (a) lower life satisfaction index (LSI), available from World Values Survey (2015) and (b) lower autonomy index (AI), also available from World Values Survey (2015).

Using exploratory post hoc analyses, we investigated the relationships between discrepancy at the country level and objective indicators reflecting the economic and social statuses of each country, as well as the degree to which they are involved in, or affected by, various type of conflicts. Namely, we quantified country-level functioning using (a) human development index (HDI), available from the United Nations Development Programme (2014) and (b) global peace index (GPI), available from The Institute for Economics and Peace (2014).

Following established procedures (Anton & David, 2013; David, Montgomery, Stan, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2004; Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Erblich, 2003), we computed the discrepancy score between projected national character and actual national character, based on the data from Terracciano et al. (2005). We also added Romania to the previous dataset, ending with 46 countries in our analysis. Basically, we computed a discrepancy score for each factor/dimension of personality—neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness (O), agreeableness (A), and conscientiousness (C)—by subtracting the actual national character from the perceived national character on each of these dimensions. We then computed a total discrepancy score by directly summing the discrepancy scores on each dimension and dividing the sum by the number of dimensions.

Typically, neuroticism is seen as a negative psychological trait, whereas extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are seen as positive psychological traits. However, depending on the cultural context, some traits that are generally regarded as “positive” might not be regarded as desirable by the majority in specific countries. For example, openness might be regarded as undesirable by large groups having conservatism as an important value, as these constructs are negatively correlated (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005a). Thus, it is hard at this point to actually determine whether a discrepancy reflects a positive (i.e., exagerating the positive or minimising the negative traits) or a negative (i.e., minimising the positive or exagerating the negative traits) change of actual national character. Moreover, it is possible that an underestimation or an overestimation of a trait could reflect either a positive or a negative change. Given these problematic issues, we decided as a first step to concentrate on the discrepancy itself, be it related to positive or negative personality traits, and thus we tested our hypotheses using the total discrepancy score, keeping both its value and sign. Such approach has been used in previous psychological research to compute a new score reflecting the difference between two related constructs (e.g., expectancies and hopes; David et al., 2004), a difference which later proved that it could have predictive value. We formulated our hypothesis that higher discrepancy would be related to lower country-level functioning, based on the idea derived from the clinical framework that distorted/irrational beliefs reflect an exaggeration of reality (perception is higher than reality) and are related to low human functioning and adaptation. Testing this hypothesis requires us to keep both the absolute values and the sign of the difference. Yet, this approach would allow us to observe also the opposite pattern (by testing all relationships using a two-tailed test of statistical significance). A “U” shaped correlation graph would suggest that only the absolute value of the difference matters. Moreover, to investigate how the discrepancy scores on different personality traits might be related to the country-level functioning indicators, we performed further post hoc–specific exploratory analyses on each discrepancy component.

Method

Measures

NEO-PI-R

The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a widely used questionnaire measuring personality traits from the Big Five model. It comprises 240 items assessing 30 facets, six facets for each of the five factors: neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness (O), agreeableness (A), and conscientiousness (C). Cross-cultural research (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005b) showed that the factorial structure and psychometric properties are preserved in different countries across the world. NEO-PI-R observer ratings for 45 countries were used in this study, coming from Terracciano et al.’s (2005) dataset. Additional data for Romania were added from the adaptation manual (Costa et al., 2009).

NCS

The NCS (Terracciano et al., 2005) consists of 30 items, each corresponding to one facet of the NEO-PI-R. Individual items can be added to obtain scores for the corresponding five factors from the same personality inventory. The NCS was developed to measure personality traits of a typical individual from a culture, as perceived by the members of that culture. The items are presented in a mixed order, and half of the items for each factor are presented in a reversed manner. Respondents are asked to place a typical individual of their country or culture on a scale with five gradations, spanning between two groups of adjectives describing the opposite poles of each personality facet (e.g., “friendly, warm, affectionate” vs. “cold, aloof, reserved”). The initial study presenting the development of the scale (Terracciano et al., 2005) reported that in a cross-cultural sample of 3,989 individuals, the internal consistency of the five factors ranged between .55 and .77. Factorial analysis on the same sample identified a five factor model with adequate correspondence to the NEO-PI-R model. Single rater reliability of the NCS was very low, as single rater intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients across all respondents for the 30 facets and the five factors varied between .09 and .30. However, reliability of the aggregated measure of all the raters in one country (average number of raters per country was 81) was very high, with ICC coefficients for all the 30 facets and the five factors ranging between .89 and .97. NCS data for Romania were collected for this study and added to the Terracciano et al.’s (2005) dataset (see below).

LSI

Data for life satisfaction (LSI) came from the sixth wave (2010-2014) of World Values Survey (2015). Life satisfaction is assessed through a single item asking participants to rate on a scale from 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied) the degree to which they are overall satisfied with their own lives. We averaged the weighted responses (controlling for sampling deviations) of all participants in each country for further analysis. LSI data were obtained for 26 countries of those for which NCS and NEO-PI-R data were available.

AI

AI was also extracted from the sixth wave (2010-2014) of World Values Survey (2015). This is a composite measure assessing the degree to which an individual endorses autonomy and independence as a personal value as opposed to obedience and religious faith. The four items that are included in this score ask respondents to indicate to what extent they consider that obedience, religious faith, independence, and determination/perseverance are important qualities that children should be encouraged to learn at home (scores for obedience and religious faith are reversed in the final index). A higher index score means higher endorsement of independence and determination. The weighted average score for all respondents in one country was included in our analysis. AI was obtained for 26 countries of those for which NCS and NEO-PI-R data were available.

HDI

HDI is a measure of country-level development proposed by the United Nations Development Programme (2014) as an alternative to other measures that include only economic indicators. This index includes three dimensions that are considered to be relevant for human development: health status and longevity (life expectancy), education (years of schooling for adults and expected years of schooling for children reaching school age), and living standard (the logarithm of gross national income [GNI] per capita). A higher value of HDI means a higher level of human development in a given country. HDI was obtained for all 46 countries for which NCS and NEO-PI-R data were available. HDI for Puerto Rico was based on the estimation of Fuentes-Ramírez (2014). We also used the row values of the GNI per capita, at purchasing power parity, included in HDI, to control for the impact of economic development on the observed relationships.

GPI

GPI is a measure of country-level peacefulness developed by The Institute for Economics and Peace (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). It includes 22 subindicators related to relationships with bordering countries, number of imprisoned individuals, access to weapons, deaths due to internal and external conflicts, perceived criminality, terrorist activity, and so on. Raw data come from other international and academic databases (e.g., United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, Uppsala Conflict Data Program at the University of Uppsala). A lower GPI for a country means higher peacefulness for that country. GPI was obtained for 43 countries of those for which NCS and NEO-PI-R data were available.

Discrepancy score

To compute this score, we used similarly already established procedures (Anton & David, 2013; David et al., 2004; Montgomery et al., 2003). To calculate discrepancy scores, we used NEO PI-R and NCS data collected by Terracciano et al. (2005). This dataset contained the NEO-PI-R observer rating scores for all 30 facets as well as the five factors measured by the questionnaire, from 51 cultures (49 countries) and NCS scores for all 30 facets and five factors from 49 cultures (47 countries). No adjustments based on the ratings of a typical American citizen were made for this study. Scores from different subcultures within a country were averaged resulting in one score for each of the countries. We kept in further analysis only those countries for which data were available for at least one of the other variables of interest (LSI, AI, HDI, GPI). Accordingly, data for 45 countries were extracted from Terracciano et al.’s (2005) dataset. For this study, we also added NCS and NEO-PI-R data for Romania (procedure described below). The total discrepancy score was calculated based on the following formula applied to the standardized values (T scores; keeping both the absolute value and the sign of the difference):

[\begin{array}{l} (N C S n e u r o t i c i s m - N E O - P I - R n e u r o t i c i s m) + (N C S e x t r a v e r s i o n - N E O - P I - R e x t r a v e r s i o n) \\ + (N C S o p e n n e s s - N E O - P I - R o p e n n e s s) + (N C S a g r e e a b l e n e s s - N E O - P I - R a g r e e a b l e n e s s) \\ + (N C S c o n s c i o u s n e s s - N E O - P I - R c o n s c i o u s n e s s) \end{array}] / 5 .

NCS and NEO-PI-R data for Romania

NCS data for Romania were collected based on a similar methodology as the original one (Terracciano et al., 2005). Independent translation and back-translation of the NCS items were performed. The questionnaire was filled out by 80 respondents (M_age = 26.5 years, SD = 6.3; 22.5% males), instructed to rate a typical Romanian on each of the items. Internal consistency of the five factors of national character ranged between .52 and .72 (similar to what was found in the original NCS study; Terracciano et al., 2005). The single rater reliability was very low (ICC = .17). However, the reliability for the entire sample of raters was very high (ICC = .94; these results are close to the median scores obtained in the original study; Terracciano et al., 2005). The respondents were also asked to rate a typical American but these data were not included in the present study. We also assessed the validity of the individual protocols filled by the Romanian raters, following the original methodology, which was based on the NEO-PI-R scoring instructions. Namely, a protocol was considered not valid if it (a) had more than five missing items, (b) contained repetitive responses as indicated by at least 11 consecutive responses placing a typical Romanian individual at the middle of the scale, and (c) contained repetitive responses as indicated by at least six consecutive responses placing a typical individual on the same gradation, other than the middle of the scale (Terracciano et al., 2005). The results with or without the three protocols that did not meet validity criteria were basically identical. NCS and NEO-PI-R factors scores for Romania were transformed in T scores using the means and standard deviations from the Terracciano et al.’s (2005) dataset. Other-rated NEO-PI-R raw scores for Romania were obtained from the available manual (Costa et al., 2009), containing the Romanian norms for the observer rating version of the questionnaire (N = 2,200).

Results

We performed correlational analysis using Pearson’s product–moment coefficient to test the associations of the total discrepancy score and the discrepancy scores for each individual facet of the Big Five model with measures of country-level functioning. We also performed partial correlations between the total discrepancy scores and indicators of functioning, controlling for economic development, quantified as GNI. Descriptive statistics for each variable in the analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for All the Variables Included in the Study.

Variable	M (SD)
Total discrepancy score: Projected vs. actual national character	0.32 (2.87)
Neuroticism discrepancy	0.97 (6.42)
Extraversion discrepancy	0.45 (5.94)
Openness discrepancy	−0.20 (5.88)
Agreeableness discrepancy	0.92 (5.13)
Conscientiousness discrepancy	−0.53 (5.80)
HDI 2014	0.79 (0.13)
LSI	6.90 (0.61)
AI	0.25 (0.53)
GPI 2014	1.81 (0.46)
GPI 2013	1.81 (0.46)
GPI 2012	1.78 (0.44)
GPI 2011	1.81 (0.44)
GPI 2010	1.81 (0.45)
GPI 2009	1.76 (0.43)
GPI 2008	1.86 (0.41)

Note. HDI = human development index; LSI = life satisfaction index; AI = autonomy index; GPI = global peace index.

Global Analyses

A priori analyses

Results confirmed our advanced hypotheses as seen in Table 2 and Figure 1. The total discrepancy score was negatively associated with measures of life satisfaction and autonomy (only marginally significant for AI); a higher discrepancy was associated with lower life satisfaction and lower autonomy.

Table 2.

Interrelations of Discrepancy Scores and Functioning/Adaptation at Country Level.

Discrepancy dimension	HDI 2014	LSI	AI	GPI 2014	GPI 2013	GPI 2012	GPI 2011	GPI 2010	GPI 2009	GPI 2008
Total discrepancy score: Projected vs. actual national character
r	−.48*	−.45*	−.39^†	.49*	.48*	.51*	.46*	.46*	.47*	.46*
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42
Post hoc analyses of the subcomponents
Neuroticism discrepancy
r	.01	.05	−.08	−.01	.01	.02	.04	.04	.04	.03
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42
Extraversion discrepancy
r	−.37*	−.23	−.45*	.47*	.46*	.49*	.48*	.48*	.47*	.49*
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42
Openness discrepancy
r	−.35*	−.29	−.58*	.49*	.48*	.48*	.46*	.48*	.49*	.48*
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42
Agreeableness discrepancy
r	−.43*	−.32	−.03	.26	.25	.28	.26	.22	.23	.21
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42
Conscientiousness discrepancy
r	.02	−.23	.43*	−.19	−.20	−.20	−.24	−.24	−.23	−.24
n	45	25	25	42	42	42	42	42	42	42

Note. Values presented here were obtained after removing one outlier; correlation coefficients including the outlier also supported our hypotheses; results including all countries are presented in Table 3. HDI = human development index; LSI = life satisfaction index; AI = autonomy index; GPI = global peace index.

†

Marginally significant, p = .058. *Pearson’s r values are significant at p < .05 two-tailed.

Figure 1.

Graphical representation of the association between total discrepancy score and various measures of human development after removing one outlier.

Post hoc analyses

In addition, our post hoc analyses showed that a higher discrepancy was associated with lower human development and lower peacefulness scores at the country level. The associations were significant for both HDI and GPI (across all 7 years that were included in our analysis).

The associations between total discrepancy and all the indexes of country-level functioning followed the same theoretical direction: Higher discrepancy score was associated with lower functioning/adaptation. One outlier was excluded from the initial analysis; however, results including the outlier also sustained our hypothesis (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Interrelations of Discrepancy Scores and Functioning/Adaptation at Country Level With All Countries Included.

Discrepancy dimension	HDI 2014	LSI	AI	GPI 2014	GPI 2013	GPI 2012	GPI 2011	GPI 2010	GPI 2009	GPI 2008
Total discrepancy score: Projected vs. actual national character
r	−.39*	−.39¥	−.34^§	.37*	.34*	.38*	.36*	.36*	.34*	.32*
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43
Post hoc analyses of the subcomponents
Neuroticism discrepancy
r	.08	-.01	−.10	−.02	−.03	−.01	.02	.02	.00	−.03
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43
Extraversion discrepancy
r	−.36*	−.24	−.45*	.45*	.43*	.46*	.46*	.46*	.44*	.45*
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43
Openness discrepancy
r	−.34*	−.30	−.58*	.48*	.46*	.47*	.45*	.47*	.47*	.46*
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43
Agreeableness discrepancy
r	−.42*	−.33	−.06	.24	.22	.25	.24	.20	.20	.17
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43
Conscientiousness discrepancy
r	.02	−.24	.39*	−.19	−.21	−.21	−.25	−.24	−.24	−.25
n	46	26	26	43	43	43	43	43	43	43

Note. Values presented here include all countries. HDI = Human development index; LSI = life satisfaction index; AI = autonomy index; GPI = global peace index.

¥p = .052. ^§p = .093. *Pearson’s r values are significant at p < .05 two-tailed.

Partial correlations controlling for the effect of economic development (GNI) suggested that the associations were generally maintained, whereas some even increased after controlling for this possible confounding variable. The partial correlation between the discrepancy and total HDI score was higher and significant, r(42) = −.51, p < .001. For LSI, the strength of the association was maintained, r(22) = −.45, p = .026. The correlation with AI was similar and still under the threshold for statistical significance, r(22) = −.38, p = .066, whereas for GPI 2014, the correlation was slightly smaller, but statistically significant, r(39) = −.46, p = .003. The results were similar as the original ones when correlating the discrepancy score with GPI from previous years, while controlling for GNI.

Specific Post Hoc Analyses

Neuroticism

Specific analyses for each dimension showed that none of the associations between the discrepancy score for neuroticism and investigated indicators of human functioning were statistically significant. The associations were very small, all falling below ±.10.

Extraversion

The discrepancy scores for extraversion were related to HDI, AI, and GPI. The higher the discrepancy score for extraversion, the lower the HDI and the AI. For GPI, the relationships were positive, but followed the direction we predicted, as higher GPI scores indicate lower levels of peacefulness. All associations were in the medium effect size interval, but they were somewhat stronger for AI and GPI.

Openness

The results for openness discrepancy were similar to those for extraversion. The discrepancy score for openness was negatively associated with HDI and AI. The relationships with GPI measures were also positive (but higher GPI scores indicate lower levels of peacefulness). Openness discrepancy score had a large association with AI, r = −.58.

Agreeableness

The higher the discrepancy score for agreeableness, the lower the HDI score (a medium effect size for this association). The discrepancy score for this trait did not significantly correlate with any other indicator of country functioning.

Conscientiousness

The discrepancy score for conscientiousness was positively related to AI, meaning that the higher the discrepancy score for conscientiousness, the higher the AI score (a medium strength for this association).

Discussion

In general, our findings revealed that the discrepancy between projected national character and actual national character is negatively related to human functioning/adaptation at the country level, thus mirroring the role of distorted cognitions at the individual level. It seems that at the country level, the overestimation of the total traits and/or of the specific positive traits is most of the times a negative predictor of social functioning/adaptation. Put another way, the underestimation of the total traits and/or of the specific positive traits is associated in the majority of cases with increased social functioning/adaptation. This psychological profile is in line with recent development in cross-cultural psychology (i.e., monumentalism at country level; Minkov, 2011) and positive psychology (e.g., modesty/humility at individual level; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), showing that a conservative self-presentation is better associated with self-improvement strategies in various social domains at country level. Future studies should develop these findings in the context of other individual and country-level theories. The role of realism in this process should be further explored, as here we could not analyze the fine distinctions among overestimation, underestimation, and realism, due to the low number of cases (countries). The link between total discrepancy and indicators of human functioning was present even after controlling for the effect of economic development (GNI).

More nuanced interpretations are needed at the specific level. For LSI, we obtained no specific effects of any discrepancy scores, suggesting that it might be a pattern of the five dimensions considered together that is related to life satisfaction. All dimensions, with the exception of neuroticism (the association was close to zero), had small and medium associations with LSI, but did not reach statistical significance.

For AI, the effect came from extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness. First, the more people project themselves to be conscientious, when they are not, the higher is the autonomy. However, the more people project themselves to be extravert and open, when they are not, autonomy is lower. The positive correlation between consciousness and perceived autonomy might be explained by the conceptual similarity between these constructs. If a group of people feel that they have self-efficacy, are working hard for their goals, and are self-disciplined (key characteristics of conscientiousness), then they are more likely to feel that they are self-driven and autonomous. However, the negative correlations of the discrepancy scores for extraversion and openness with perceived autonomy might be regarded as a general maladaptive function of distorted perceptions. If the group’s perceptions are not meeting reality (e.g., others do not respond the way in which the group would expect), then this might lead to a common feeling that the world is unpredictable and does not depend on individual or collective actions.

For HDI, the main contribution came from extraversion, openness, and agreeableness. Thus, the more people project themselves to be extravert, open, and agreeable, when they are not, the lower the HDI scores. This index of country functioning is an objective one and reflects economic prosperity, access to education, and longevity in relation to health. These results for traits that are generally regarded as positive follow our main hypothesis related to the impact of distorted beliefs. Such beliefs, although they do not have a strong impact on life satisfaction (perhaps they protect it), do alter the country’s capacity to solve objective societal problems. From a positive illusions perspective, these are illusions with dysfunctional consequences at the country level. Moreover, it seems that “modesty” in evaluating own country’s openness, agreeableness, and the sociability of the citizens is associated with better economic and societal outcomes.

Finally, for GPI, the effects appear to come mainly from extraversion and openness; the more people project themselves to be extravert and open, when they are not, the lower levels of peacefulness (although both correlations were positive). These results can also be easily integrated in our general framework. If the citizens of a country believe about themselves that they are more friendly, more willing to interact with others, and more open to others’ values than they actually are, then it might be likely that they will attribute differences of opinions or problems in interacting with others from different cultures, or those that have a different perspective, to the partner of interaction, rather than reflecting on own mistakes or limitations. This in turn could not only escalate external conflicts but also make the integration of individuals with different behaviors difficult.

Such explanations for the specific level are speculations, and further research is needed to test them. Moreover, although we suggest that these distorted beliefs might have a causal role, such role has yet to be proven.

Personality traits and perceived national character are thought as relatively stable (Terracciano et al., 2005), and therefore, the discrepancy between projected national character and actual national character could also be regarded as having stability over time. Thus, discrepancy can be analyzed in relation to functioning/adaptation indicators, be them closer or further in time. Indeed, we found a stable association between discrepancy and GPI measured over 7 consecutive years (2008-2014; see Tables 2 and 3).

These findings have important theoretical and practical implications. Indeed, following our results, a full range of studies could be planned to explore new interrelations between such a discrepancy and various international country-level indicators. From a practical point of view, a reduction in the overestimation of perceived national character might be a first step toward stimulating self-improvement strategies, and thus a better functioning/adaptation for a country in a global challenging world.

The limitations of this study are mainly related to our correlational design. Theoretically speaking, based on individual-level analyses, we think that such a discrepancy/congruence has a causal role in a country’s level of functioning/adaptation. However, as our study is correlational, the interrelations between such a discrepancy/congruence and various country-level functioning/adaptation indicators should be further explored to test and understand specific causal directions. Future studies should also explore the specific facets of the five dimensions investigated here. Moreover, although we controlled for the effect of GNI, future research should also take into account the contribution of other political, cultural, and economic variables that might account for the relationships identified in this study.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

D.D. designed the study. D.D. and S.A.M. conducted data analysis. A.T. provided the National Character Survey (NCS) and Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) data for 45 countries. D.D. and O.A.D. collected NCS data for Romania. All authors contributed to the academic writing of the article.

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

Daniel David, PhD, is an Aaron T. Beck professor of clinical cognitive sciences in the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. He is also an adjunct professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director for research at Albert Ellis Institute, both in New York, USA. He is a promoter of the evidence-based approach in mental health. He has conducted much of his research on the role cognitive factors in mental health and human functioning, often from a multilevel analysis (e.g., psychological, bio-neuro-genetic) and/or cross-cultural perspective.

Silviu Andrei Matu, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy at Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. His expertise is related to research methods, cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and the use of technological tools to enhance the efficacy and improve the dissemination of evidence-based psychological treatments.

Oana Alexandra David, PhD, is an associate professor at Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, in the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, and executive director of the International Coaching Institute, within the same university. She is a clinical psychologist and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapist, and her research expertise is in parenting, family, and child emotion regulation processes; cognitive-behavioral coaching; and evidence-based psychological interventions.

Antonio Terracciano, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Geriatrics, College of Medicine, Florida State University. He has a broad research interest that spans from genetics to cross-cultural studies, with a focus on the interaction between aging, psychosocial variables, and health.

References

Anton

David

(2013). Response expectancy versus response hope in predicting birth-related emotional distress and pain. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 954-963.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1989). The optimal margin of illusion. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 8, 176-189.

Beck

A. T.

(1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Beck

A. T.

Haigh

E. A. P.

(2014). Advances in cognitive theory and therapy: The generic cognitive model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 1-24.

Butler

(2011). Are positive illusions about academic competence always adaptive, under all circumstances: New results and future directions. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 251-256.

Colvin

C. R.

Block

(1994). Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 3-20.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

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

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

Iliescu

Minulescu

Nedelcea

Ispas

(2009). NEO PI-R. Manual tehnic și interpretativ [NEOPI-R. Technical and interpretative manual]. Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Sinapsis.

David

Lynn

S. J.

Ellis

(Eds.). (2010). Rational and irrational beliefs: Research, theory, and clinical practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

10.

David

Montgomery

G. H.

Stan

DiLorenzo

Erblich

(2004). Discrimination between hopes and expectancies for nonvolitional outcomes. Psychological phenomenon or artefact? Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1945-1952.

11.

Ellis

(1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Citadel.

12.

Freudenberg

(2003, November). Composite indicators of country. Performance: A critical assessment (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2003/16). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publishing.

13.

Kinney

(2000). Positive illusions of well-being and irrationality: Implications for rational-emotive behavior therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30, 401-415.

14.

McCrae

R. R.

Chan

Jussim

De Fruyt

Löckenhoff

C. E.

De Bolle

. . . Avdeyeva

T. V.

(2013). The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 831-842.

15.

McCrae

R. R.

Terracciano

(2005a). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425.

16.

McCrae

R. R.

Terracciano

(2005b). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.

17.

Minkov

(2008). Self-enhancement and self-stability predict school achievement at the national level. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 172-196.

18.

Minkov

(2011). Cultural differences in a globalized world. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

19.

Montgomery

G. H.

David

DiLorenzo

Erblich

(2003). Is hoping the same as expecting? Discrimination between hopes and response expectancies for nonvolitional outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 399-409.

20.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook of classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

21.

Polzer

J. T.

Kramer

R. M.

Neale

M. A.

(1997). Positive illusions about oneself and one’s group: Antecedents and consequences. Small Group Research, 28, 243-266.

22.

Fuentes-Ramírez

R. R.

(2014). An Approximation of Puerto Rico’s Human Development Index. Caribbean Studies, 42, 253-258.

23.

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.

24.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

25.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

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

26.

Taylor

S. E.

Kemeny

M. E.

Aspinwall

L. G.

Schneider

S. G.

Rodriguez

Herbert

(1992). Optimism, coping, psychological distress, and high-risk sexual behavior among men at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 460-473.

27.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2014). Global Peace Index 2014. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

28.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2013). Global Peace Index 2013. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

29.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2012). Global Peace Index 2012. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

30.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2011). 2011 Methodology results & findings. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

31.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2010). 2010 Methodology results & findings. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

32.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2009). 2009 Methodology results & findings. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

33.

The Institute for Economics and Peace. (2008). 2008 Methodology results & findings. Retrieved from http://economicsandpeace.org/reports/

34.

Terracciano

Abdel-Khalek

A. M.

Adam

Adamovova

Ahn

C. K.

Ahn

H. N.

. . . Meshcheriakov

(2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96-100.

35.

United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human Development Report 2014. New York, NY: Author.

36.

Van Leeuwen

D. N

. (2009). Self-deception won’t make you happy. Social Theory and Practice, 35, 107-132.

37.

Vîslă

Flückiger

grosse Holtforth

David

(2015). Irrational beliefs and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy and psychosomatic, 85, 8-15.

38.

World Values Survey. (2015). WVS wave 6 (2010-2014). Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp