Agreement in Personality Judgments within and between Nonoverlapping Social Groups in Collectivist Cultures

Abstract

The social context hypothesis states that people behave differently in different social groups because group norms and context-specific interpersonal relationships uniquely affect behavior. Consequently, a person who is a member of different, nonoverlapping social groups (i. e., the members of different groups are unacquainted) should be judged consensually on personality traits within each group; however, between groups there should be less agreement in judgments. This research focused on cultural moderation of the social context effect in two collective cultures (China and Mexico) with different norms for interpersonal relationships. Among Chinese, there was greater consensus in trait judgments within groups than between groups, whereas in Mexico, agreement within and between groups was equivalent. Culturally based relationship norms that affect cross-context consistency of behavior and, in turn, the consistency of trait judgments across groups were described.