Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The issue of whether personality changes as a function of language is controversial. The present research tested the cultural
accommodation hypothesis by examining the impact of language use on personality as perceived by the self and by others.
In Study 1, Hong Kong Chinese-English bilinguals responded to personality inventories in Chinese or English on perceived
traits for themselves, typical native speakers of Chinese, and typical native speakers of English. Study 2 adopted a repeated
measures design and collected data at three time points from written measures and actual conversations to examine whether
bilinguals exhibited different patterns of personality, each associated with one of their two languages and the ethnicity of their
interlocutors. Self-reports and behavioral observations confirmed the effects of perceived cultural norms, language priming,
and interlocutor ethnicity on various personality dimensions. It is suggested that use of a second language accesses the perceived cultural norms of the group most associated with that language, especially its prototypic trait profiles, thus activating
behavioral expressions of personality that are appropriate in the corresponding linguistic-social context.
Keywords
bilingual personality, language prime, cultural accommodation, cultural priming, Chinese-English bilinguals
Received April 19, 2009; revision accepted June 9, 2010
findings, the author inferred that bilinguals had two personalities, at least in terms of their verbal productions.
Hull (1996) tested three groups of immigrants, namely,
Chinese, Korean, and Mexican Americans, who had learned
English after they had immigrated to the United States. Using
the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) as a measure of
personality, the author adopted a within-subjects, repeated
measures design by administering the CPI twice over intervals
of 5 to 15 days, in English and in the bilinguals native languages of Chinese, Korean, or Spanish, respectively. Significant differences were found on most scales across the three
cultural groups to the same English-language version. This
result could be considered as showing cultural differences in
traits. Between-language, within-group differences were also
detected and could be considered as demonstrating crosslanguage differences in traits within the same respondent.
1
Corresponding Author:
Sylvia Xiaohua Chen, Department of Applied Social Sciences, Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Email: ssxhchen@polyu.edu.hk
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1515
Bilingual Personality
Butcher and colleagues (e.g., Butcher, 1996, 2004) have extensively investigated language effects on personality assessment,
particularly on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and MMPI-2, and have emphasized the importance of understanding cultural influences on personality. For
effective cross-cultural applications and adaptations of personality tests, they suggested using bilingual test-retest studies,
in which the English version and the target-language version
are administered to a group of bilinguals within an interval of
1 to 2 weeks (Butcher, Mosch, Tsai, & Nezami, 2006). The
bilingual test-retest design can remove the variance stemming
from individual differences and estimate the variance due to
language and all interactions involving language.
As bilinguals differ in the contexts where they acquire their
two languages, what linguistic and social features they respond
to in language manipulations may well differ (Ervin, 1961;
Weinrich, 1953). Coordinate bilinguals acquire and use their
first and second languages in separate and distinct cultural
environments. For instance, some immigrants learn their
English after arriving in the United States. In contrast, compound bilinguals acquire their two languages in the same
cultural environment. A widespread example is individuals
who learn a second language in local schools while residing
in their mother-tongue culture. Previous studies have sampled
coordinate bilinguals to investigate personality differences
across linguistic contexts (e.g., Ervin, 1964; Hull, 1996). The
two languages of these bilinguals activate corresponding cultural scripts, and behavioral expressions associated with those
cultural systems are thus more readily elicited from coordinate
bilinguals (Ervin & Osgood, 1954).
Conceivably, these observable differences in bilingual personality could also be attributed to an acculturation effect
(McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998). First, physically relocating from one culture to another may bring about
changes in immigrants personality or behavioral expressions
associated with different social roles and developmental stages
assumed in the second-language culture. Second, language
may influence the social judgment of respondents, a term
coined by McCrae et al. (1998), referring to processes of
person perception, social comparison, and self-presentation
in ways that affect responses to personality questionnaires
(p. 1050). That is, the implicit standards set by the norms of
their host culture and their own ethnic communities may lead
immigrants to rate themselves accordingly in their host and
native languages, thereby choosing response options to
describe themselves in culturally appropriate yet distinguishable ways. Hence, their cross-language differences in reported
traits might reflect different expression of personality associated with the social roles attached to a given language.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1516
Study 1
Contextualized personality has usually been studied in rolerelated contexts, suggesting that personality shift is a function
of changes in social roles (e.g., Heller, Watson, Komar, Min,
& Perunovic, 2007). In the bilingual context, personality differences could arise from varying social roles typically enacted
across languages. Often, bilinguals adjust their behaviors and
are perceived differently because they undertake one role in
their first language and another role in their second language,
such as immigrants who speak their native language with
family members at home and English with colleagues at work.
So, if they report more communal traits in their native language
than in English but more agentic traits in English than in their
native language, it is difficult to tease apart the effects of
language, culture, and social role. The present research sampled university students in Hong Kong who had not experienced a physical relocation from one culture to another. These
bilinguals had spent most of their time on campus as students
using both Chinese and English, thus reducing switch-over in
roles associated with language use.
In McCrae et al.s (1998) study, Hong Kong Chinese (who
responded in Chinese and English) or Canadian-born Chinese
(who responded in English) scored lower on Extraversion
and Openness to Experience but higher on Agreeableness and
three facets of Neuroticism, such as Anxiety, when compared
to North Americans (who responded in English); the findings
were mixed for the Conscientiousness factor. Yik, Bond, and
Paulhus (1998) found that Hong Kong Chinese (who responded
in Chinese) perceived themselves to be lower on the personality dimensions of Emotional Stability, Sociability, Helpfulness, Application, and Restraint (Yik & Bond, 1993) than
their peers perceived them to be on those same dimensions.
These findings provided a basis for us to predict the direction
of effects in the present study.
Perception effects. We anticipated that Hong Kong bilinguals
would perceive native speakers of English as higher on Extraversion and Openness to Experience than native speakers of
Chinese, and native speakers of Chinese as higher on Agreeableness and Neuroticism than native speakers of English.
Given the consistently higher academic achievement of
Chinese students (Stevenson & Lee, 1996), we expected that
native speakers of Chinese would be perceived as higher on
Conscientiousness than native speakers of English.
Language effects. Accordingly, when responding in Chinese,
bilinguals would exhibit traits consistent with their own perceptions of typical Chinese speakers; in English, they would
exhibit traits consistent with their perceptions of typical
English speakers.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1517
Chinese
Chinese
English
English
English
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
2.82
3.29
3.08
3.20
3.05
0.72
0.53
0.65
0.82
0.56
.80
.61
.78
.86
.69
2.92
3.49
3.23
3.15
3.17
0.64
0.49
0.53
0.73
0.61
.77
.64
.69
.81
.75
3.07
2.70
3.30
3.22
2.74
0.62
0.50
0.55
0.54
0.56
.74
.62
.73
.71
.72
3.15
2.68
3.42
3.38
2.75
0.54
0.60
0.52
0.50
0.50
.68
.78
.72
.62
.65
3.96
3.27
3.11
2.47
3.77
0.48
0.49
0.57
0.43
0.41
.69
.66
.82
.66
.67
3.93
3.23
2.99
2.68
3.79
0.42
0.50
0.51
0.38
0.42
.60
.69
.73
.48
.65
Method
Participants. The sample consisted of 213 (104 males and
109 females) university students, with a mean age of 20.58
(SD = 1.51). Participants were Chinese and English bilinguals
(all of Chinese descent) recruited from the Chinese University
of Hong Kong and invited to take part in the study on a voluntary basis. Born and brought up in Chinese culture, participants were all compound bilinguals.
Measures. The original English version of the instruments
was translated into Chinese by bilinguals using the backtranslation method (Brislin, 1986) and verified by another
bilingual. The equivalence of meaning on all items was ensured
through consultations with native Chinese and English
speakers.
Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999).
Three versions of the BFI were employed to measure the perceived personality of the self, typical native speakers of
Chinese, and typical native speakers of English (primarily
British and Americans). Responses to each target were
anchored on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As a well-established measure
of personality, the BFI uses 44 short phrases to assess the most
prototypical traits associated with the Big Five factors (see
John, 1990), namely, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. The
reliability coefficients of the five factors for each language
and each target are presented in Table 1.
Language proficiency and usage (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos,
2005). Participants were asked to report on both their first and
second languages in the following domains: (a) language
ability (e.g., Rate your overall Chinese language ability),
(b) past and present language usage (e.g., How much do you
use/have used Chinese to speak with your parents?), and
(c) media exposure (e.g., How often do you watch TV shows/
movies in Chinese?). The two scales consist of 14 items rated
on 6-point Likert-type scales, with those items tapping language ability ranging from 1 (very little ability) to 6 (very high
ability) and the rest from 1 (almost never) to 6 (very often).
In this study, Cronbachs alphas for Chinese and English proficiency and usage were .68 and .74, respectively, for the
Chinese group and were both .78 for the English group.
Procedure. The questionnaire sets were administered in quiet
classrooms to participants in small groups. We randomly
assigned about half of the participants (n = 105) to complete
the English version (52 males and 53 females) and the other
half (n = 108) to complete the Chinese version (52 males and
56 females). They also reported demographic information,
including age and gender. We assured participants of their
confidentiality and collected anonymous self-reports on the
previously described instruments.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1518
df
2
1
2
204.68
1.46
0.76
< .001
> .05
> .05
.66
.01
.01
2
1
2
114.05
1.15
4.82
< .001
> .05
< .01
.52
.01
.04
2
1
2
17.49
1.31
3.41
< .001
> .05
< .05
.14
.01
.03
2
1
2
133.54
5.26
0.98
< .001
< .05
> .05
.56
.02
.02
2
1
2
231.70
1.67
0.60
< .001
> .05
> .05
.69
.01
.01
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1519
Method
Study 2
Study 1 used self-report inventories to examine personality
differences in the bilingual context. However, such inventories
are limited to assessing self-perceived personality rather than
personality as perceived by others. In a social context, personality also presents itself to the eyes of the beholder. Using
the matched-guise technique (Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, &
Fillenbaum, 1960) as an unobtrusive method for examining
person perception, Bond (1985) presented audiotaped English
or Cantonese (the spoken language of Chinese in Hong Kong)
passages to Chinese bilinguals, with associated photos of either
Chinese or British male speakers. Speakers of Cantonese,
regardless of ethnicity, were viewed as humble, honest, and
friendly; British speakers, regardless of language, as competent. Thus, both language and ethnicity effects were observed
for person perception when these two variables, normally
confounded, were disentangled.
Bilingual competence may reduce cross-language differences, as it makes shifts between languages easier. Bilinguals
who are not fluent in their second language may feel inhibited
because of their limited ability to express themselves and
perhaps thereby distort the expression of their personality.
Fluent bilinguals switch languages and communicative behaviors with ease. In Study 2, we recruited fluent bilinguals and
used behavioral observation in addition to self-reports to
assess self-perceived personality and personality as perceived
by others.
Based on the findings of Study 1, Chinese-English bilinguals
perceived Extraversion and Openness to Experience as distinctively Western traits. Additionally, since McCrae et al.
(1998) found that North Americans scored higher on Assertiveness than did Hong Kong Chinese and Canadian-born Chinese,
we focused our investigation on these three Western traits that
could demonstrate the direction of accommodation.
Perception effects. We hypothesized that Hong Kong bilinguals would perceive native speakers of English as higher on
Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Assertiveness than
native speakers of Chinese.
Language effects. Accordingly, when responding in English,
bilinguals would present traits consistent with their own perceptions of typical English speakers, that is, higher on Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Assertiveness, than
when responding in Chinese.
Ethnicity effects. The cultural accommodation hypothesis
led us to predict the effects of interlocutor ethnicity derived
Participants. To control for possible gender effects, all interviewers were males, and all interviewees were females. The
sample consisted of 76 female Chinese-English bilinguals
(all of Chinese descent) from the Chinese University of Hong
Kong, with a mean age of 20.34 (SD = 1.49). Participants
were recruited on the basis of their English and Chinese proficiency so that they were competent in both languages. We
selected those whose grades were C or above both in the
Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination and in
the Use of English examination of the Advanced Level
Examination, a selection criterion used in Hui and Chengs
(1987) study. Only those scoring above average on both language tests were selected.
Interviewers. Four male interviewers were recruited, two
Caucasians and two Hong Kong Chinese, all fluent in both
English and Cantonese. We screened and interviewed Chinese
and Caucasian candidates not only to evaluate their bilingual
competence but also to ensure that their facial features resemble prototypic Chinese and Anglo-Saxons. Those with Asian
ancestry were excluded as Caucasian interviewers, even if
they were born in the United States with English as their first
language, because their mixed appearance would undercut the
priming of ethnicity.
All interviewers were between 20 and 30 years old, comparable in height and physical attractiveness. The reason for
selecting young interviewers was that Chinese traditions
socialize young people to listen more and speak less in front
of seniors, but participants would feel a lesser need to restrain
their talking in front of young interviewers. The interviewers
and all research assistants were blind to the hypotheses of
this study.
The interviewers were trained to standardize their nonverbal
behaviors, such as their paralinguistics, kinesics, and gazing,
during the interviews. Meetings were held to clarify the interview procedure, and four sets of interview scripts in both
English and Chinese, for a total of eight versions, were developed, so that the interviewers could practice beforehand. We
then conducted practice sessions to allow interviewers to
rehearse with student helpers and to test the equipment used
and the flow of the interview process. Comments and suggestions were given on interviewers pronunciation, intonation,
expressions, and gestures, and so on. They were instructed to
wear white shirts and minimize their verbal and nonverbal
reactions to control for possible experimenter effects across
interviewers.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1520
Procedure
Measures
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1521
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients () of Participant Ratings for the Sino-American Person Perception
Scale in Study 2
Perception of native Chinese
speakers
Self-perception
Chinese
Factor
Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Application
Openness
Assertiveness
Restraint
Helpfulness
Intellect
English
Chinese
English
Chinese
English
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
3.88
4.34
4.54
4.26
4.03
4.43
3.96
4.81
1.00
1.09
1.00
1.11
0.98
1.06
0.93
0.79
.71
.81
.74
.83
.74
.76
.63
.71
3.84
4.34
4.75
4.35
4.15
4.52
4.78
4.60
0.96
1.04
0.87
1.02
1.04
0.87
0.74
0.73
.67
.77
.65
.80
.62
.66
.60
.69
3.95
3.60
5.11
2.84
3.92
4.70
3.70
4.54
0.82
0.81
0.90
0.78
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.81
.61
.66
.68
.75
.68
.69
.64
.67
3.84
3.60
5.11
2.84
3.92
4.70
3.70
4.54
0.94
0.81
0.90
0.78
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.81
.62
.60
.72
.75
.67
.65
.62
.66
5.28
5.73
3.51
5.53
5.22
3.53
4.44
4.51
0.61
0.59
0.71
0.69
0.63
0.71
0.76
0.69
.55
.75
.68
.75
.72
.64
.61
.76
4.58
5.51
3.52
5.50
5.10
3.71
4.71
4.68
0.66
0.72
0.84
0.64
0.72
0.91
0.64
0.79
.40
.74
.70
.78
.52
.52
.55
.72
df
p2
2
1
2
41.23
45.16
23.83
< .001
< .001
< .001
.55
.40
.41
2
1
2
138.16
3.89
4.47
< .001
.053
< .001
.80
.05
.12
2
1
2
65.57
3.81
4.01
< .001
.055
< .05
.66
.05
.11
2
1
2
185.85
0.33
0.56
< .001
> .05
> .05
.85
.01
.02
2
1
2
55.78
0.00
2.03
< .001
> .05
> .05
.62
.00
.06
2
1
2
43.39
4.02
2.10
< .001
< .05
> .05
.56
.06
.06
2
1
2
23.94
69.49
39.06
< .001
< .001
< .001
.41
.50
.54
2
1
2
1.11
0.15
5.62
> .05
> .05
< .001
.03
.00
.54
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1522
Chinese speakers but much lower than those of English speakers, ps < .001. This effect was slightly stronger when measured
in Chinese than in English.
For Openness to Experience, only the target main effect
was significant, F(2, 68) = 185.85, p < .001; neither the
Language Target interaction effect nor the language main
effect was significant, F(2, 68) = .56, p > .05, and F(1, 69) =
.33, p > .05, respectively. Simple main effect analyses indicated that across languages, participants perceived native
speakers of English as significantly more open than native
speakers of Chinese, p < .001, with the difference between
languages nonsignificant, p > .05; self-ratings were significantly higher than those perceived for Chinese speakers but
lower than those perceived for English speakers, ps < .001.
For Assertiveness, only the target main effect was significant, F(2, 68) = 55.78, p < .001; neither the Language Target
interaction effect nor the language main effect was significant,
F(2, 68) = 2.03, p > .05, and F(1, 69) = .00, p > .05, respectively. Simple main effect analyses indicated that across languages, participants perceived native speakers of English as
significantly more assertive than native speakers of Chinese,
p < .001, with the difference between languages nonsignificant,
p > .05; self-ratings were significantly lower than those for perceived English speakers, p < .001, but not different from those
for perceived Chinese speakers, p > .05.
To summarize participants ratings, target of perception
effects were significant for seven out of eight personality
factors (except for Intellect), ps < .001, whereas language
effects were present only on Emotional Stability, Restraint,
and Helpfulness, ps < .05. Native speakers of English were
perceived to be more emotionally stable, extraverted, open,
assertive, and helpful, but less restrained and lower on
application than were native speakers of Chinese. Participants rated themselves in between English speakers and
Chinese speakers on these personality dimensions, except
for Helpfulness, but closer to Chinese speakers than English
speakers. In Chinese, they scored higher on Emotional Stability and lower on Restraint than in English. Their selfratings of Helpfulness were differentiated by language; that
is, participants perceived themselves as not significantly
different from English speakers when responding in English
but closer to Chinese speakers when responding in Chinese.
Native speakers of English and Chinese were not perceived
to be different in Intellect, whereas participants viewed
themselves to be higher on Intellect than both groups when
responding in Chinese, but not different when responding
in English.
Ratings by observers. Likewise, to test language effects and
ethnicity effects on the personality factors rated by observers
for each condition, we conducted eight sets of 2 2 repeated
measures ANOVAs. For the purpose of our hypotheses, we
explicate the results for three factors (Extraversion, Openness
to Experience, and Assertiveness) in the text and Figure 1,
and then summarize those of all eight factors (see Table 5 for
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1523
4.08
4.12
4
3.87
3.67
3.65
3.60
3.58
3.54
3.47
3.41
3.21
3.08
3
Extraversion
Openness
Assertiveness
Figure 1. Observer ratings of bilinguals Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Assertiveness when conversing with Chinese and
Caucasian interviewers in Cantonese and English
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations (in Parentheses) of Observer Ratings Under the Four Conditions in Study 2
Factor
Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Application
Openness
Assertiveness
Restraint
Helpfulness
Intellect
With Caucasian
interviewers
in English
2.65
3.54
4.06
3.60
4.08
3.03
4.10
3.85
(0.59)
(0.63)
(0.51)
(0.60)
(0.69)
(0.66)
(0.46)
(0.55)
With Caucasian
interviewers
in Cantonese
2.63
3.65
4.09
3.67
4.12
3.04
4.01
3.96
(0.63)
(0.77)
(0.48)
(0.59)
(0.54)
(0.90)
(0.42)
(0.49)
With Chinese
interviewers
in English
2.74
3.41
4.05
3.58
3.87
3.29
4.06
3.72
(0.61)
(0.70)
(0.42)
(0.64)
(0.74)
(0.70)
(0.42)
(0.57)
With Chinese
interviewers
in Cantonese
2.60
3.08
3.59
3.21
3.47
2.94
3.42
3.28
(0.69)
(0.91)
(0.53)
(0.72)
(0.82)
(0.83)
(0.61)
(0.68)
p < .01 (see Table 7). None of the demographic variables was
significant, ps > .05. Nor were the effects of language proficiency and usage significant, ps > .05, perhaps because this
sample of participants perceived themselves as high on English
proficiency and hence showed less variability on this factor.
Among the predictors, only cross-language difference in
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1524
df
p2
1
1
1
2.42
0.45
2.40
> .05
> .05
> .05
.03
.01
.03
1
1
1
2.79
34.53
20.61
> .05
< .001
< .001
.04
.33
.23
1
1
1
19.38
36.75
33.82
< .001
< .001
< .001
.21
.34
.32
1
1
1
6.34
18.57
19.20
< .05
< .05
< .05
.08
.21
.21
1
1
1
7.03
40.23
13.14
< .05
< .05
< .05
.09
.36
.16
1
1
1
4.52
1.56
9.58
< .05
> .05
< .05
.06
.02
.12
1
1
1
44.22
55.18
30.99
< .001
< .001
< .001
.38
.44
.30
1
1
1
9.33
88.30
38.39
< .01
< .01
< .01
.12
.55
.35
General Discussion
The present research attempted to address the question of
whether personality changes as a function of language use,
an issue that has both theoretical importance (e.g., what is
being evoked by language priming?) and applied significance
(e.g., do bilinguals have two personalities?). Language effects
have been studied more frequently on values and self-concept
(e.g., Earl, 1969; Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002; Trafimow,
Silverman, Fan, & Law, 1997) but relatively infrequently with
personality inventories. Findings from those few studies that
examined language effects on bilinguals personality and from
cultural priming studies that used language as a prime have
been equivocal. To fill in this gap, we adopted different methods to test the cultural accommodation hypothesis.
Variable
Language version (Time 1)
Language version (Time 2)
Age
Major
Overseas experience
Length of overseas stay
English proficiency and usage
Chinese proficiency and usage
Cross-language differences in
feeling
Cross-language differences in
thinking
Cross-language differences in
behavior
Perceived influence of overseas
experience on language use
Perceived influence of overseas
experience on personality
R2
R2
F change
df
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
.36
.29
.07
-.10
.09
.26
.35
.26
.07
-.11
.08
.27
-.12
-.03
.14
.10
-.00
-.03
-.06
.02
-.04
-.01
.00
.32*
.22
-.29
.36
.11
.11
1.46
6/72
.13
.02
0.66
2/70
.39
.27
5.65***
5/65
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1525
Language Effects
Compared to perception effects, language exerted less influence on self-ratings, and cross-language differences were
rather small in magnitude but greater for observer ratings
than for self-ratings in Study 2. Self-reports tap into targets
intrapersonal evaluation of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors,
but some personality traits only present themselves under
certain circumstances (Funder, 2003). Behavioral observations take into account interpersonal dispositions and situational factors, probably magnifying the expression of
personality. Furthermore, observers did not have to perform
and respond to interactive situations, so that they had more
mental resources to attend to characteristic patterns of their
targets behaviors.
Based on observer ratings, language effects were qualified
by the significant interactions between spoken language and
interlocutor ethnicity. When conversing with Chinese
Ethnicity Effects
Observer ratings confirmed ethnicity effects, except for intellect. These patterns were similar to their response propensities
in English, be it self-reports or observer ratings, with both
effects demonstrating cultural accommodation. Using English
and interacting with native speakers of English engage consistent cultural norms as perceived by bilinguals, and accordingly they responded in similar ways. These findings reveal
the underlying mechanism of bilingual personality, that is, the
expectations and goals of making culturally congruent
responses, elicited by the language or the interaction partner,
motivate bilinguals to realize their perception of cultural
norms. As pointed out by Holmes (2002), the influences of social
situations and interpersonal expectations determine interaction
behaviors.
The interaction between ethnicity and language on restraint
reflects a comfort effect. When communicating with native
speakers of Chinese, bilinguals were perceived as more
restrained in English than in Chinese but showed no significant
difference between languages with native speakers of English.
Perhaps speaking a second language with an interlocutor from
ones own culture is an unnatural situation, prompting bilinguals to act with restraint. Because of social comparison,
participants might feel inadequate and less competent in front
of the Chinese interviewers with better perceived English
proficiency, thereby impeding the spontaneous expression of
their interpersonal dispositions. Thus, they appeared more
restrained compared to their communications in their first
language.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1526
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research and/or authorship of this article: the Direct Grant
(#2020905) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the General
Research Fund (PolyU 5412/08H) by the Research Grants Council,
Hong Kong.
Note
1. Mean interobserver agreements were .16 and .14 for conversing with Chinese native speakers in Cantonese and English,
respectively, and .13 and .09 for conversing with English native
speakers in Cantonese and English, respectively. These correlations were lower than the mean interobserver agreement of
.22-.25 found in previous studies on trait ratings (John & Robins,
1993), perhaps because some traits measured in the present
study were less observable. Unlike coding specific acts and
behaviors, levels of observer agreement are usually lower for
judgments of general personality traits, as internal experiences
and processes are less available to observers (Gosling, John,
Craik, & Robins, 1998). Using two observers is another limitation of our study; more judges could provide useful information
on the person perception process.
References
Benet-Martnez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychological antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015-1050.
Bond, M. H. (1983). How language variation affects inter-cultural
differentiation of values by Hong Kong bilinguals. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 2, 57-66.
Bond, M. H. (1985). Language as a carrier of ethnic stereotypes in
Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 53-62.
Bond, M. H. (1986). Mutual stereotypes and the facilitation of interaction across cultural lines. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 259-276.
Bond, M. H., & Yang, K. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus crosscultural accommodation: The variable impact of questionnaire
language on Chinese bilinguals from Hong Kong. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 169-185.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research
instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Butcher, J. N. (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI-2:
Research and clinical applications. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N. (2004). Personality assessment without borders:
Adaptation of the MMPI-2 across cultures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 90-104.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1527
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015
1528
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at Kings College London - ISS on January 30, 2015