Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Niche diversity can explain cross-cultural differences in personality structure

Nature Human Behaviour volume 3, pages 1276–1283 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The covariance structure of personality traits derived from statistical models (for example, Big Five) is often assumed to be a human universal. Cross-cultural studies have challenged this view, finding that less-complex societies exhibit stronger covariation among behavioural characteristics, resulting in fewer derived personality factors. To explain these results, we propose the niche diversity hypothesis, in which a greater diversity of social and ecological niches elicits a broader range of multivariate behavioural profiles and, hence, lower trait covariance in a population. We formalize this as a computational model, which reproduces empirical results from recent cross-cultural studies and also yields an additional prediction for which we find empirical support. This work provides a general explanation for population differences in personality structure in both humans and other animals and suggests a substantial reimagining of personality research: instead of reifying statistical descriptions of manifest personality structures, research should focus more on modelling their underlying causes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Illustration of the model dynamics.
Fig. 2: Lower inter-trait correlations with more niches.
Fig. 3: Mean trait variance as a function of niche diversity and plasticity.
Fig. 4: Trait variance increases with socioecological complexity.
Fig. 5: More niches, more factors.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Our empirical analysis was performed on data previously published, which can be retrieved from Table 5 in Schmitt et al.15 and Supplement S2 in Lukaszewski et al.35.

Code availability

The Java code for the agent-based model, the SAS scripts used to perform the EFA and the R scripts used to generate our plots are all available on the Open Science Framework repository (https://osf.io/pyhq7/).

References

  1. Ashton, M. C. & Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 150–166 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. The act frequency approach to personality. Psychol. Rev. 90, 105–126 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fleeson, W. Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 1011–1027 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. A cognitive–affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102, 246–268 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wood, D. & Denissen, J. J. in Psychology of Change: Life Contexts, Experiences, and Identities (eds Branscrombe, N. R. & Reynold, K.) 97–115 (Psychology Press, 2015).

  6. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P. & Soto, C. J. in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 3rd edn (eds John, O. P. et al.) 114–158 (Guilford Press, 2008).

  7. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T.Jr. Personality trait structure as a human universal. Am. Psychol. 52, 509–516 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. in The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment (eds Boyle, G. et al.) 273–294 (Sage, 2008).

  9. Goldberg, L. R. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4, 26–42 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bouchard, T. J. & Loehlin, J. C. Genes, evolution, and personality. Behav. Genet. 31, 243–273 (2001).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nettle, D. Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  12. Alvergne, A., Jokela, M. & Lummaa, V. Personality and reproductive success in a high-fertility human population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11745–11750 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bailey, D. H. et al. Heritability and fitness correlates of personality in the Ache, a natural-fertility population in paraguay. PLoS One 8, e59325 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H. & Lero Vie, M. How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 354–370 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., Benet-Martinez, V. & Ault, L. The geographic distribution of the Big Five personality traits: patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 38, 173–212 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Saucier, G. et al. A basic bivariate structure of personality attributes evident across nine languages. J. Pers. 82, 1–14 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schaller, M. & Murray, D. R. Pathogens, personality, and culture: disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 212–221 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M. & Allik, J. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 168–182 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baumert, A. et al. Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. Eur. J. Pers. 31, 503–528 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cramer, A. O. et al. Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: you can’t like parties if you don’t like people. Eur. J. Pers. 26, 414–431 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lukaszewski, A. W. Testing an adaptationist theory of trait covariation: relative bargaining power as a common calibrator of an interpersonal syndrome. Eur. J. Pers. 27, 328–345 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Uher, J. Personality psychology: lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story? Why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 47, 1–55 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Buss, D. M. Selection, evocation, and manipulation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 1214–1221 (1987).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Vries, R. E., Tybur, J. M., Pollet, T. V. & van Vugt, M. Evolution, situational affordances, and the HEXACO model of personality. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 407–421 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Denissen, J. J. & Penke, L. Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the five-factor model of personality: first steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. J. Res. Pers. 42, 1285–1302 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Montiglio, P.-O., Ferrari, C. & Réale, D. Social niche specialization under constraints: personality, social interactions and environmental heterogeneity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120343 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kagan, J. in Social Anxiety 3rd edn (eds Hofman, S. G. & DiBartolo, P. M.) 377–418 (Elsevier, 2014).

  28. von Rueden, C. R., Lukaszewski, A. W. & Gurven, M. Adaptive personality calibration in a human society: effects of embodied capital on prosocial traits. Behav. Ecol. 26, 1071–1082 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jokela, M., Pekkarinen, T., Sarvimäki, M., Terviö, M. & Uusitalo, R. Secular rise in economically valuable personality traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6527–6532 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Quinlan, R. J., Dira, S. J., Caudell, M. & Quinlan, M. Culture and psychological responses to environmental shocks. Curr. Anthropol. 57, 632–652 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sng, O., Neuberg, S. L., Varnum, M. E. & Kenrick, D. T. The behavioral ecology of cultural psychological variation. Psychol. Rev. 125, 714–743 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nettle, D. in The Evolution of Personality and Individual Differences (eds Buss, D. M. & Hawley, P. H.) 5–28 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  33. Schoener, T. in The Princeton Guide to Ecology (eds Levin, S. A. et al.) 3–13 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

  34. Pocheville, A. in Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences (eds Heams, T. et al.) 547–586 (Springer, 2015).

  35. Lukaszewski, A. W., Gurven, M., von Rueden, C. R. & Schmitt, D. P. What explains personality covariation? A test of the socioecological complexity hypothesis. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8, 943–952 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smaldino, P. E. Social identity and cooperation in cultural evolution. Behav. Process. 161, 108–116 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Halverson, C. F. et al. Personality structure as derived from parental ratings of free descriptions of children: the inventory of child individual differences. J. Pers. 71, 995–1026 (2003).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L. & Lucas, C. G. When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 87–92 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sih, A. et al. Animal personality and state–behaviour feedbacks: a review and guide for empiricists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 50–60 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bergmüller, R. & Taborsky, M. Animal personality due to social niche specialisation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 504–511 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Araújo, M. S., Bolnick, D. I. & Layman, C. A. The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecol. Lett. 14, 948–958 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Webster, M. M. & Ward, A. J. Personality and social context. Biol. Rev. 86, 759–773 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stamps, J. & Groothuis, T. G. The development of animal personality: relevance, concepts and perspectives. Biol. Rev. 85, 301–325 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Michelangeli, M., Chapple, D. G., Goulet, C. T., Bertram, M. G. & Wong, B. Behavioral syndromes vary among geographically distinct populations in a reptile. Behav. Ecol. 30, 393–401 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Denissen, J. J. et al. Uncovering the power of personality to shape income. Psychol. Sci. 29, 3–13 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bleidorn, W. et al. Personality maturation around the world: a cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2530–2540 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hudson, N. W., Roberts, B. W. & Lodi-Smith, J. Personality trait development and social investment in work. J. Res. Pers. 46, 334–344 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Roberts, B. W., Wood, D. & Smith, J. L. Evaluating five factor theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. J. Res. Pers. 39, 166–184 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R. & Zochowski, M. The emergence of personality: dynamic foundations of individual variation. Dev. Rev. 25, 351–385 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  50. McElreath, R. & Strimling, P. How noisy information and individual asymmetries can make ‘personality’ an adaptation: a simple model. Anim. Behav. 72, 1135–1139 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dubois, F., Giraldeau, L.-A. & Réale, D. Frequency-dependent payoffs and sequential decision-making favour consistent tactic use. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 1977–1985 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lake, M. W. & Crema, E. R. The cultural evolution of adaptive-trait diversity when resources are uncertain and finite. Adv. Complex Syst. 15, 1150013 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vásárhelyi, Z., Meszéna, G. & Scheuring, I. Evolution of heritable behavioural differences in a model of social division of labour. PeerJ 3, e977 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Wolf, M., Van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O. & Weissing, F. J. Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities. Nature 447, 581–584 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wolf, M. & McNamara, J. M. On the evolution of personalities via frequency-dependent selection. Am. Nat. 179, 679–692 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gurven, M. D. Broadening horizons: sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11420–11427 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (McGraw-Hill, 1991).

  59. House, R. J, Hanges, P. J, Javidan, M, Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies (Sage, 2004).

  60. Bartram, D. Scalar equivalence of OPQ32: Big Five profiles of 31 countries. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 44, 61–83 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W. & Shiner, R. L. Personality development: stability and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56, 453–484 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. MacLean, K. A., Johnson, M. W. & Griffiths, R. R. Mystical experiences occasioned by the hallucinogen psilocybin lead to increases in the personality domain of openness. J. Psychopharmacol. 25, 1453–1461 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Contreras Kallens, P. A., Dale, R. & Smaldino, P. E. Cultural evolution of categorization. Cogn. Syst. Res. 52, 765–774 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Buss, D. M. in The Evolution of Personality and Individual Differences (eds Buss, D. M. & Hawley, P. H.) 29–57 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  65. Wood, D. Testing the lexical hypothesis: are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 317–335 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Van Valen, L. Morphological variation and width of ecological niche. Am. Nat. 99, 377–390 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hill, K. & Hurtado, A. M. Aché Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People (Routledge, 2017).

  68. Haldane, J. B. S. A defense of beanbag genetics. Perspect. Biol. Med. 7, 343–360 (1964).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Smaldino, P. E. in Computational Social Psychology (eds Vallacher, R. R. et al.) 311–331 (Routledge, 2017).

  70. Healy, K. Fuck nuance. Sociol. Theory 35, 118–127 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. A problem in theory. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 221–229 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Brewer, M. B. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17, 475–482 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Berger, J. & Heath, C. Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 593–607 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Krause, J., James, R. & Croft, D. Personality in the context of social networks. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 4099–4106 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Frankenhuis, W. E. & Panchanathan, K. Balancing sampling and specialization: an adaptationist model of incremental development. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3558–3565 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Panchanathan, K. & Frankenhuis, W. E. The evolution of sensitive periods in a model of incremental development. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152439 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K. & Belsky, J. A mathematical model of the evolution of individual differences in developmental plasticity arising through parental bet-hedging. Dev. Sci. 19, 251–274 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Smaldino, P. E. & Richerson, P. J. The origins of options. Front. Neurosci. 6, 50 (2012).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Heyes, C. Cognitive Gadgets: The Cultural Evolution of Thinking (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).

  81. Flache, A. & Macy, M. W. Small worlds and cultural polarization. J. Math. Sociol. 35, 146–176 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Turner, M. A. & Smaldino, P. E. Paths to polarization: how extreme views, miscommunication, and random chance drive opinion dynamics. Complexity 2018, 2740959 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. R. in Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory (eds Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F.) 64–99 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972).

  84. Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement Learning (MIT Press, 1998).

  85. Epstein, J. M Agent_Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science (Princeton Univ. Press, 2014).

  86. Smaldino, P. E. & Epstein, J. M. Social conformity despite individual preferences for distinctiveness. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140437 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank audiences at UC Merced and MPI-EVA for discussion of these ideas, and B. Beheim, J. Bunce, J. Chung, E. Fried, A. Kandler, D. Lukas, J. Rohrer, B. Roberts and M. Turner for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA, USA

    Paul E. Smaldino

  2. Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA

    Aaron Lukaszewski

  3. Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA

    Christopher von Rueden

  4. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Michael Gurven

Authors
  1. Paul E. Smaldino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aaron Lukaszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher von Rueden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Gurven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.E.S., A.L., C.v.R. and M.G. designed the research plan. P.E.S. built and analysed the computational model. M.G. analysed the empirical data and performed the EFA on the simulated data. P.E.S., A.L., C.v.R. and M.G. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Paul E. Smaldino or Michael Gurven.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Stavroula Kousta.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Results, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figs. 1–5 and Supplementary Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smaldino, P.E., Lukaszewski, A., von Rueden, C. et al. Niche diversity can explain cross-cultural differences in personality structure. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1276–1283 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0730-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0730-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene