Talk:Big Five personality traits and culture

Suggest merge with Big Five personality traits
This article is a subset of Big Five personality traits and should be merged with that article, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On the one hand, I can kind of see that argument (although a merge with Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five would be inappropriate IMO). However, there is a HUGE amount of research on the Big Five as it is the most prominent model in personality psychology, and I think it may be valuable to have multiple pages on Big Five research. The Big Five page could easily be ten times longer than it currently is, and I think having pages like the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Trait theory, Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five, etc. is valuable, given the breadth of existing research. Additionally, this is a huge field of research that is still developing, and cross-cultural research is extremely popular within the field of psychology.
 * However, I am working on this article as part of a graduate course in personality psychology, so I admit that I have some bias toward keeping this article separate, at least until early May. :) I am also very aware that although merging this article (and all the others in my class that are based on the Big Five) would seem to result in a really long Big Five article (to me), I am new to Wikipedia, so maybe that is perfectly reasonable within the culture of Wikipedia. Carps11 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable; at the very name the name of this article is rather bad. On a surface, at least, it makes as much sense as an article on "pizza with pineapple topping" being separate from that on "pizza". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 06:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide continued discussion and indicate Support / Oppose positions at Talk:Big Five personality traits. SBaker43 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some feedback
Just wanted to give you some feedback on your article! I checked for copy-edits and didn't find too many - well written! First a few things I liked about your article.

First, I really liked how you present both sides of the argument for whether or not the FFM is accepted across cultures. I feel like you clearly addressed both viewpoints from a NPOV - great job! I also thought you did a great job of adding wikilinks to pieces of info that might be confusing to a reader. One addition I think you could make is in regards to smallman's suggestions on the course talk page. He mentioned that since a wiki article isn't an essay, you don't always need to use things like "in addition" and "lastly", etc. I know this is totally counter intuitive to the way we've been taught to write as graduate students. But I think it might help out your article a bit if you skim through it and omit a few of these types of phrases and make the language sound a little more direct.

In the section on differences - I think it might be helpful to put "robust" in more simpler terms. Or maybe wikilink to a definition of this word? Just thought that might trip up a reader who isn't quite as familiar with that term.

I also really like the Controversy section because, again, it provides another side of the story. I realize that the controversy is implied, but I feel like it might be helpful to be a bit more explicit about why each of these things is a controversy and how that controversy relates to differences in cultures. Again - I realize all the info is already there, but just emphasizing it more explicitly might help the reader follow the logic.

Regardless of the debate on whether or not to merge, I think this article contains relevant and well-researched content on a very interesting issue. Majobc11 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think you've done a good job! I've made a couple copyedits I caught, plus few little edits that I think make the language a little more simple and clear and to make it flow a little better - you're welcome to change them back if you want. (One change in particular, in the "Similarities" section - I generalized the language a bit more, but that might be going against how you're trying to present the information.)

A couple of suggestions:
 * In the second sentence, are you trying to talk about personality as a widely studied subfield of psychology in general, or cross-cultural psychology in particular? Whichever way you want to present it, it's a little unclear at present.
 * Maybe remove the word "important" from the beginning of the second sentence? I know it seems kind of trivial, but I think saying that it's widely studied (which is a verifiable fact) automatically implies that it's important, without having to state it on the wiki page (which could come off as not NPOV). I'll leave that decision up to you though.
 * This is kind of what Brett was talking about, but in the "Differences" section, you probably don't need the "It's important to point out..." part of the first sentence - just go ahead and state that "Evidence does show that differences in Big Five standing do exist between cultures." Same with "Some research compares ..." in the second sentence, the "however" in the 4th sentence, etc. I know it seems weird to just jump from one statement to the next without transition sentences/words, but I think that's what they want here. Along the same lines, you can probably get rid of the very last sentence - there doesn't really need to be a conclusion sentence.
 * I'm a little unclear on the description of the "Modernization" trait in the CPAI section - does it reflect the continuum of attitudes towards traditional beliefs (ranging from agreeing to disagreeing with traditionalism), or is it a trait that is the contrast to/opposite of endorsing traditional Chinese beliefs?

Aside from those suggestions (very doable, I think), it's a good article! I think it's really interesting and really important for an understanding of the validity of the Big Five. Allexe11 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Need more recent sources

 * Per WP:MEDRS, articles cited should be no older than five to ten years. If this is such a hot topic, why aren't more recent sources available? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS specifically refers to "biomedical information in articles". Nowhere is there any reference to psychology. Insisting that psychology articles that contain no biomedical information comply with WP:MEDRS seems draconian and unjustified. Unless you can get an admin to back you up on this, it would seem that you are trying to promote a personal agenda contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. --Smcg8374 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is such a hot topic, why aren't more recent sources available? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you just repeat a question you added earlier? More pointedly, why do you claim that more recent sources are not available? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? I have just done a search of ScienceDirect using the keywords "Big five AND culture" and I found a number of recent articles, including one published as recently as 2012. E.g.
 * That was just one simple search of one database, so I have just scratched the surface of the topic. Before trying to discredit the topic, how about doing some basic research yourself? And what about my question about the applicability of WP:MEDRS to personality related topics? From reading the MEDRS guidelines, it seemed pretty clear that the guidelines are intended specifically to refer to information about treatment of medical conditions. This topic is unrelated to medical treatments, so why should MEDRS apply? Have you received advice from an admin in this regard? What authority do you have to tell editors what sources they are allowed to use? Unless you can cite a legitimate ruling by WP admins on this topic, you are just applying your own opinion on the matter. --Smcg8374 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this is a great article; however, I'm sure that there are more recently published sources that would be able to provide more information on this topic. Rachelchaban (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please find my two papers on Symbiotic Approaches to socio-cultural change
Please find both my papers on Culture and Personality

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sujay_Rao_Mandavilli/contributions

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

223.182.22.39 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hungarians?
In Big Five personality traits the statement about the big five in the hungarian culture seems to contradict the one made in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.29.43 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by LongCruiser (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips
— Assignment last updated by Malliegresh (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Enneagram

 * The Enneagram is similar to the Big Five Personality model in that it focuses on nine different personalities. There has been research done that mentions how the personalities on the Enneagram are similar to those within the Five Factor Model. Through several studies, it has been determined that the Five Factor model is similar to several of the Enneagram personality types. Several of the Enneagram types were each related to personality traits of the Five Factor Model which reveals that the Enneagram is accurate.

This is drivel. I would yank the whole Enneagram section as WP:UNDUE. —Tamfang (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PSYC 115 General Psychology
— Assignment last updated by TheShopDogs (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Contributing to criticism and intro section of Big Five personality traits and culture
We will add more detailed information to the intro and rearrange it so that it makes more sense. We will add sources for the information we write, but we do not need to add sources for the information already there. We need to define each Big 5 Personality trait. We need to add similarities and differences in the Big 5 across cultures and sources for that. We also need to add information about other models and how they compare/differentiate from the Big 5.

We will add references to our article and describe them in the bibliography. One is called “Looking beyond the Big Five: A Selective Review of Alternatives to the Big Five Model of Personality” and the other was called “Nothing to See Here”: NO structural brain differences as a function of the Big Five personality traits from a systematic review and meta-analysis.”Through the peer review, we will use information from these articles to add to the criticism section about the strengths and weaknesses of the Big 5 and how other personality inventories compare. --Kmblng (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)