10.1177/0022022102250247
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
Article
THE STRUCTURE AND PERSONALITY
CORRELATES OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
Evidence of Cross-Cultural Comparability Using the Spanish Language
CONRADO RODRÍGUEZ
A. TIMOTHY CHURCH
Washington State University
The structure and personality correlates of affect were studied in a sample of 351 predominantly Mexican
university students using a large and representative list of 271 Spanish affect terms and a Spanish translation
of the Big Five personality dimensions. Results were compared with those obtained previously in the United
States, the Philippines, and Estonia. We found (a) good support for the cross-cultural comparability of global
Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) dimensions and the hierarchical structure of affect; (b) crosscultural similarities, but also differences, in the configuration of more specific positive and negative affects;
and (c) fairly comparable patterns of relationships across cultures between the Big Five dimensions of personality and the Big Two dimensions of affect (PA, NA). Most of these results were more consistent with
evolutionary biological perspectives on personality and affect than strong social constructivist perspectives.
Keywords: affect; personality; cross-cultural differences; Mexico; Spanish
The extent to which affects or emotions are universal or culture specific is still much
debated (e.g., Ekman, 1992; Wierzbicka, 1992). In the present study, we investigated the
structure and personality correlates of affect in a predominantly Mexican sample using the
Spanish language, then compared our results with those obtained previously in the United
States (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1994), the Philippines (Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen,
1999), and Estonia (Allik & Realo, 1997).
THE STRUCTURE OF AFFECT
Three approaches have been used to represent the structure of affect. In the typological
approach, the affective domain is represented by a limited number of discrete emotions,
which are generally viewed as basic and universal (Ekman, 1992; Izard, 1977; Plutchik,
1980). For example, Izard (1977) listed 10 basic emotions: interest, surprise, joy, distress,
fear, shame, contempt, disgust, anger, and guilt. Recent dimensional or circumplex
AUTHORS’ NOTE: We would like to thank Patricia Catoira, María Angélica Hernández, Pedro Hernández, Tina Fernández,
Marcela Araya-Manieu, Jessica Suarez, Carlos Suarez, and one anonymous judge for their assistance in judging the prototypicality
of Spanish affect terms; Araceli Vázquez Garcia and Juan Alberto Díaz for assistance in data collection; Fernando Ortiz for assistance in reviewing literature on Mexican ethnopsychology; Brian McNeill, Jim Shoemaker, Eloy González, and Fernando Ortiz for
their helpful comments, and Anita Rodríguez for assistance in data entry and manuscript preparation. This study is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author, which was supervised by the second author. A version of the article was presented at the 107th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1999. Revision of the manuscript
was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R01-MH59941. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Conrado Rodríguez at e-mail address [email protected] or to A. Timothy Church, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology, Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164 (e-mail: church@
mail.wsu.edu).
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 34 No. 2, March 2003 211-230
DOI: 10.1177/0022022102250247
© 2003 Western Washington University
211
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
212
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
approaches have converged on an idealized or quasi-circumplex representation of affect
(e.g., Larsen & Diener, 1992; Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Yik, Russell, & Feldman Barrett,
1999). In these models, the affective experience associated with each affect is defined in
terms of some combination of two bipolar dimensions, often referred to as Positive Affect
(PA) and Negative Affect (NA). We adopt the PA and NA labels here as well, despite some
ambiguity and controversy regarding their use.1 Hierarchical representations of affect structure have most often involved a two-level structure with higher order PA and NA dimensions
encompassing more specific positive affects (e.g., happiness, attentiveness, self-assurance)
and negative affects (e.g., sadness, fear, hostility, guilt) (see Tellegen, Watson, & Clark,
1999, however, for a proposed three-level structure). In support of a hierarchical model,
researchers have used factor analysis and hierarchical multiple regression to demonstrate
that specific positive and negative affects show both convergent validity (i.e., nonspecific or
shared variance) and discriminant validity (i.e., unique or specific variance) (e.g., Diener,
Smith, & Fujita, 1995; Watson & Clark, 1992a, 1992b; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). There has
been little consensus, however, on the number and nature of specific affects encompassed by
PA and NA even within U.S. culture, much less across cultures.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AFFECT AND PERSONALITY
A relationship between affect and personality has been predicted from a number of theoretical perspectives, including emotion and temperament theories (e.g., Goldsmith & Campos, 1982; Izard, 1977; Malatesta, 1990; Plutchik, 1980) and personality disposition theories
(e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1980; Watson & Clark, 1984). In Western studies, two of the Big Five
dimensions of personality, Extraversion and Neuroticism, have been linked consistently to
the experience of PA and NA, respectively (Costa & McCrae, 1980; McCrae & Costa, 1991;
Watson & Clark, 1992b). The few researchers who have related the remaining Big Five
dimensions to affect have tended to find that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are correlated positively with PA and negatively with NA and that Openness to Experience is positively associated with PA but associated in a less consistent manner, if at all, with NA
(McCrae & Costa, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1992b). In multiple regression analyses, however,
some of these Big Five dimensions have not provided independent prediction of PA or NA
beyond that provided by Extraversion and Neuroticism. Additionally, very few studies have
related personality to more specific affects (Allik & Realo, 1997; Izard, Libero, Putnam, &
Haynes, 1993; Watson & Clark, 1992b).
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BASES FOR PREDICTING CROSS-CULTURAL
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
The largest gap in knowledge regarding the structure of self-reported affect may be the
unknown cross-cultural comparability of that structure. Similarly, researchers have only
recently begun to examine the relationship between personality and affect in different cultures (e.g., Allik & Realo, 1997; Yik, Russell, Ahn, Dols, & Suzuki, 2002). The cross-cultural study of affect has been dominated by two theoretical perspectives, with contrary views
about the comparability versus uniqueness of affects across cultures.
Evolutionary biological perspectives. Proponents of the evolutionary biological perspective propose that certain basic emotions (e.g., fear, anger, sadness, happiness) have adaptive
significance and will be universal across cultures (Ekman, 1992; Izard, 1994; Plutchik,
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
213
1980). Additionally, if recent physiological theories of independent PA and NA are correct
(e.g., Davidson, 1992; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999), we should also find higher
order PA and NA dimensions in all cultures. Finally, from theories that propose physiological links between personality and affect (e.g., Watson et al., 1999), and evidence of the crosscultural generalizability of personality dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 1997), we would
expect some cross-cultural comparability in the personality correlates of affect.
Social constructivist perspectives. Much less cross-cultural comparability of affects and
their structure is expected by proponents of social constructivist perspectives, who contend
that emotions are socially constructed categories determined by unique cultural and environmental factors (Harré, 1986; Lutz & White, 1986; Wierzbicka, 1992). Additionally, the view
that traits and emotions are socially constructed leads to the prediction of less universal links
between personality traits and affects. Cultural differences in personality-affect relationships might also be expected from the perspectives of individualism-collectivism theory
(Triandis, 1995) and cultural psychology (Markus & Kitayama, 1998). These theorists
hypothesize that behaviors, and thus perhaps affects as well, will be less determined by personality traits in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures.
Previous cross-cultural studies. Although the conceptual organization of emotions has
been studied in a number of cultures (e.g., Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen, 1998; Russell, Lewicka, & Niit, 1989; Shaver, Murdaya, & Fraley, 2001), only a few researchers have
investigated the self-report structure of affect or the personality correlates of affect in nonWestern or collectivistic cultures. Almost all have focused on broad PA and NA dimensions,
rather than on specific affects. Support for the cross-cultural comparability of PA and NA
dimensions has been reported in the Hebrew (Almagor & Ben-Porath, 1989), Russian
(Balatsky & Diener, 1993), Spanish (Joiner, Sandín, Chorot, Lostao, & Marquina, 1997),
Estonian (Allik & Realo, 1997), Japanese (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1984), and Filipino
(Church et al., 1999) languages. Yik et al. (2002) found support for comparable circumplex
representations using the Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages (see also Yik,
Russell, Oceja, & Dols, 2000). Only the studies by Watson et al. (1984), Allik and Realo
(1997), and Church et al. (1999), however, used fairly comprehensive sets of indigenous
affect terms. We identified only three published studies that have related personality to affect
in less Westernized samples (Allik & Realo, 1997; Almagor & Ben-Porath, 1995; Yik et al.,
2002) and only the study by Allik and Realo (1997) examined both global and specific
affects. Clearly, there is a need for additional cross-cultural studies in this area.
MEXICAN ETHNOPSYCHOLOGY
Mexican ethnopsychologists have investigated aspects of Mexican culture and personality that are potentially relevant to the structure and personality correlates of affect in Mexico.
Diaz-Loving and Draguns (1999) have noted the strong affective bonds within Mexican families, the affective foundation underlying long-term commitment and reciprocal obligations
with friends, and the affect-laden identification with God of predominantly Catholic Mexicans (see also Diaz-Guerrero & Szalay, 1991). Diaz-Loving (Diaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999)
has argued that these are all stronger features in Mexico than in the United States. Other
affect-relevant aspects of self-perception and behavior include simpatia (roughly, likableness or geniality), “expressive sociability, positive mood states, affectionate social
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
214
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
interaction, and reflective, serene, calm, and tranquil attitudes” (Diaz-Loving & Draguns,
1999, p. 121).
Diaz-Guerrero (1979) has described three coping style dimensions along which Mexicans and Americans tend to differ, with Mexicans favoring a passive, external coping style
(vs. active, internal control), affiliative obedience (vs. active self-assertion), and interdependence (vs. autonomy) in affective interactions (see also Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero, & Swartz,
1975). Diaz-Loving (1998) noted that “being serene, happy, calm, optimistic, and stable are
representative of a particular culturally preferred value system and coping style, necessary
for the subjective well-being of the Mexican population” (p. 115). Diaz-Loving and Andrade
Palos (1984) developed an indigenous measure to assess internal-affective control, used by
Mexicans for the indirect manipulation of the environment through affiliative and communication abilities. Diaz-Loving viewed this affective control dimension as consistent with the
affiliative obedience and self-modifying coping style of Mexicans.
Many of these portrayals of Mexican affect or coping styles may be consistent with historic sociocultural premises of Mexicans (e.g., affiliative obedience, fear of authority,
respect for parents; e.g., see Diaz-Guerrero, 1987, 1993). It is not clear, however, whether
these cultural emphases will lead to cultural differences in the structure and personality correlates of affect or differences primarily in the frequency, intensity, or context of various
affects. Mexican ethnopsychologists have developed indigenous measures to assess a number of constructs that are relevant to the experience or expression of affect, for example, jealousy, abnegation, empathy, intimacy, hope, and aggression (Reyes Lagunes, 1996). Additionally, an indigenous measure of Mexican self-concept developed by La Rosa and DiazLoving (1991) includes three dimensions—emotional states (e.g., happy, jovial),
interindividual feelings (e.g., tender, loving), and emotional health (e.g., calm, serene)—that
resemble affect dimensions identified in other cultures (i.e., happiness, love/affection, calm/
serene; e.g., Allik & Realo, 1997; Shaver et al., 2001; Watson & Clark, 1994). However,
these indigenous efforts have not yet resulted in a comprehensive map or taxonomy of affect
structure for Mexicans; nor have these indigenous dimensions been related systematically to
affect dimensions in other cultures or to hypothesized universal dimensions of personality.
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT STUDY
Our study involved a combination of etic (universal) and emic (indigenous) approaches.
Unlike most previous cross-cultural studies of affect structure, we derived an indigenous
Mexican structure based on a large and representative list of Spanish affect terms. To examine the personality correlates of affect, however, we applied an existing measure, in Spanish
translation, of the five-factor model, which some psychologists view as universal (e.g.,
McCrae & Costa, 1997). Although we are advocates of indigenous personality assessment,
application of the five-factor model, which was also used in the U.S. and Estonian studies,
facilitated direct cross-cultural comparisons of personality-affect relationships.
Consistent with the descriptions of Mexican ethnopsychologists, most researchers judge
the Mexican culture to be relatively collectivistic. Indeed, in Hofstede’s (1983) value-based
ranking of 50 cultures along the individualism-collectivism continuum, the United States
was ranked 1st in individualism, whereas Mexico and the Philippines were ranked 31st and
30th, respectively. Allik and Realo (1997) described Estonian culture as being in a “marginal
position” between Eastern and Western cultural streams. Thus, the study should provide a
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
215
fairly strong test of the cross-cultural comparability of the structure and personality correlates of affect.
Our expectations were most consistent with a hierarchical representation of affect structure and an evolutionary biological perspective; that is, we expected to find considerable
cross-cultural comparability in higher order and specific affect dimensions and in personality correlates of affect. Specifically, we expected to identify two broad affect dimensions,
interpretable as PA and NA, as well as specific affect dimensions corresponding to hypothesized universal basic emotions. As in other cultures studied thus far, we anticipated that (a)
PA would be strongly positively related to Big Five Extraversion, unrelated to Neuroticism,
and modestly positively related to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and (b) NA would
be positively related to Neuroticism but unrelated to the other Big Five dimensions. Finally,
we expected to find at least some differential relationships between specific affects and Big
Five dimensions.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
All participants were native speakers of Spanish and all rated their ability to understand a
questionnaire written in Spanish as good or very good. They consisted of 351 students (145
males, 206 females) from the University of Montemorelos in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, a private
institution with about 3,000 students. The participants were predominantly Mexican (n =
340, 97%; the remaining 11 participants were from Panama, Venezuela, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru). The mean age was 21.86 (SD = 2.75,
range = 18 to 47). Participants were sampled from a variety of major fields of study.
DERIVATION OF SPANISH AFFECT TERMS
Dictionary culling and selection criteria. Indigenous affects could be identified in a number of ways. Mexican ethnopsychologists have often used natural semantic network methods
to conceptualize and measure indigenous constructs (Reyes Lagunes, 1993). These methods
rely on content analysis of cultural informants’ semantic associations to salient concepts.
These methods are particularly valuable in explicating the most salient components of
selected concepts, but they may be less comprehensive for our purposes than the dictionarybased lexical approaches that are typically used by trait taxonomers (Saucier & Goldberg,
2001). Thus, we adopted the lexical rationale, which proposes that salient affects or emotions
will have become encoded as single terms in the language of the culture (Saucier &
Goldberg, 2001), and began our search for indigenous Mexican affects by drawing on a
Spanish language dictionary.
The first author, whose native language is Spanish, reviewed each of the approximately
30,000 main entries in the Spanish section of The Concise American Heritage English-Spanish, Spanish-English Dictionary (Dubois-Charlier, Pritchard, Senerth, & Sola, 1989). The
goal in selecting this dictionary was to obtain a reasonably large and representative set of
nonobscure affect terms that could be culled by a single Spanish speaker in a reasonable
amount of time. We viewed the procedure as a compromise between the page-sampling
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
216
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
procedures used by some lexical researchers and the daunting task of culling, with limited
resources, all affect terms, including more obscure ones, from an unabridged dictionary.
For most terms, a brief inspection of the term and its definition was sufficient to exclude it
because it clearly did not refer to an affect. For terms that might conceivably refer to an affect
or emotion, the first author applied the criteria proposed by Clore, Ortony, and Foss (1987).
These authors have provided the most explicit criteria and taxonomy for designating what is
an emotion term (see Church et al., 1998, for a successful application of this taxonomy in
identifying Filipino affect terms).
Clore et al. (1987) proposed that the affective lexicon (not all of which are emotions) can
be represented by eight categories of terms grouped into four general classes. The Affective
Conditions class is represented by three categories: Affective states (e.g., happy), AffectiveBehavioral states (e.g., cheerful), and Affective-Cognitive states (e.g., encouraged). The
Cognitive Conditions class also contains two categories: Cognitive Conditions (e.g., certain)
and Cognitive-Behavioral conditions (e.g., careful). The Physical and Bodily states class is
represented by a single category (e.g., aroused). Less relevant to emotions are terms in the
External Conditions class, which is represented by two categories: subjective evaluations
(e.g., sexy) and objective descriptions (e.g., abandoned). Clore et al. (1987) considered terms
in the Affective Conditions class, especially those in the Affective states category, to be the
most prototypical examples of emotion terms. We included Spanish terms judged to belong
in the three Affective Conditions categories, the two Cognitive Conditions categories, and
the Physical states category (if the physical state term could also refer to an emotion). Cognitive Condition terms were included because they have typically been included in the U.S.
studies with which our results would be compared.
Of the approximately 30,000 terms in the dictionary, 259 were tentatively selected as
affect or emotion terms. This number is similar to the number of emotion terms identified
and analyzed in several other languages, including Estonian (210; Allik & Realo, 1997),
Malay (230; Boucher, 1979), Indonesian (230; Heider, 1991), German (235; Gehm &
Scherer, 1988); and Filipino (256; Church et al., 1998), but smaller than the number identified in English (e.g., more than 500 by Storm & Storm, 1987) and Chinese (750; Boucher,
1979). We also included Spanish translations of 27 affect terms (plus 3 short phrases) used in
U.S. studies that were not already in our dictionary-based list of 259 terms. The result was a
list of 289 terms.2
Additional judges. As an additional check on the appropriateness of the 289 terms, eight
judges independently rated the familiarity (1 = not at all familiar, 2 = slightly familiar, 3 =
somewhat familiar, 4 = very familiar) and emotion prototypicality (1 = a poor example, 2 = a
fair example, 3 = a good example, 4 = an excellent example) of the terms. The judges were
native Spanish speakers from Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Venezuela, and Chile and all were
graduate students in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at Washington
State University.3 Composite interjudge reliability, computed using analysis of variance procedures (Tinsley & Weiss, 1975), was good (.80) for the familiarity ratings and fair (.69) for
the prototypicality ratings. The reliability of the prototypicality judgments was attenuated by
the limited variability in each judge’s ratings; each judge viewed the vast majority of the
terms as good to excellent examples of emotion terms, indicating that the procedures used to
identify affect terms from the dictionary were successful. Only 18 terms with mean familiarity or prototypicality ratings below 2.5 were excluded, leaving a list of 271 affect terms.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
217
INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURES
A three-part questionnaire was administered. In Part A, participants reported their gender,
age, nationality, class standing, major, and dominant language and rated their ability to
understand a questionnaire written in Spanish (poor, fair, good, or very good). In Part B, students rated their mood during the past week using each of the 271 terms, which were randomly ordered. The 5-point rating scale (in Spanish) was as follows: (1) very slightly or not
at all; (2) a little; (3) moderately; (4) quite a bit; and (5) extremely. Participants marked an
“X” for any affect term they did not know. In Part C, participants filled out, using a 5-point
scale, an existing translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) (John, Donahue, & Kentle,
1991). The 44 adjective phrases in the instrument (e.g., is talkative, tends to find fault with
others) represent prototypical markers of the Big Five dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Benet and Waller
(1995) translated the BFI into Spanish using the back-translation method. Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the Spanish BFI measures a cross-culturally
equivalent version of the Big Five dimensions (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998).
Understandably, some Mexican psychologists have questioned the universality and relevance for Mexico of the five-factor model (e.g., Diaz-Guerrero, 1992; Rodriquez de Diaz &
Diaz-Guerrero, 1997). Thus, it is important to provide evidence of the structural validity of
the BFI for our Mexican sample. We conducted a principal components analysis with
varimax rotations of the items in the Spanish BFI. The first five eigenvalues were 5.41, 3.38,
3.11, 2.29, and 1.10 and the proportion of variance accounted for was 36.6%. In the fivecomponent solution, the Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience dimensions were fairly well replicated, and the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness terms were
split among the remaining two factors. However, when we used the Procrustes method to
rotate the five-component solution toward a solution provided by Benet-Martínez and John
(1998, Table 3), all five dimensions were identifiable and the vast majority of the items
loaded highly on the appropriate dimension. Replication was weakest for the Agreeableness
scale, for which only five of nine items had factor loadings with an absolute value of .30 or
higher on the designated factor.
In the present sample, the α coefficients for the five scales were as follows: Extraversion
(.74), Agreeableness (.55), Conscientiousness (.66), Neuroticism (.68), and Openness to
Experience (.63). These values were lower than those reported by Benet-Martínez and John
(1998) in Spanish and American samples (mean αs of about .80). However, for short scales
we judged the reliabilities to be high enough for use in relating the Big Five dimensions to
Mexican affect dimensions.
RESULTS
GLOBAL AFFECT DIMENSIONS
We first eliminated 13 additional affect terms that were unfamiliar to 30% or more of our
student sample, plus the three translated U.S. phrases. Subsequent analyses were conducted
on the remaining 255 terms. We expected that two broad affect dimensions, interpretable as
PA and NA, would emerge in the self-report affect data. We investigated this using principalaxis factor analysis, with squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates and
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
218
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
oblique (oblimin) rotations. The pattern of eigenvalues suggested two dominant dimensions,
which accounted for 25.9% of the total variance (the first 10 eigenvalues were 38.17, 27.98,
8.87, 5.48, 4.44, 4.03, 3.63, 3.21, 3.00, and 2.98). The two dimensions were clearly interpretable as NA and PA; affect terms with negative valence had their highest loading on the first
factor (NA), whereas affect terms with positive valence had their highest loading on the second factor (PA). The correlation between the two factors was .01.
We computed coefficients of congruence between the factor loadings for the two-factor
solution and the two-factor solution for PA and NA reported by Zevon and Tellegen (1982,
Table 3) in a U.S. sample. The congruence coefficients were computed across 30 Spanish and
English terms that were judged to be closely matched translation equivalents (the Zevon &
Tellegen, 1982, factor solution was based on only 60 words). The congruence coefficients
were .95 and .98 for PA and NA, respectively. These results support the cross-cultural comparability of global PA and NA dimensions.
SPECIFIC AFFECT DIMENSIONS
We expected that specific affect dimensions corresponding to hypothesized universal
basic emotions would be identified. Given the dominance and independence of the global PA
and NA factors, we investigated this by factor analyzing the terms associated with the global
PA and NA factors separately and extracting as many interpretable factors as possible within
each set of terms. We examined principal-axis solutions, with squared multiple correlations
as initial communality estimates and oblique (oblimin) rotations.
Because previous studies have identified at least four specific positive affects (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1994), we examined solutions of four to seven factors for the PA terms. The
four-factor solution was the most interpretable and accounted for 34.2% of the total variance
(the eigenvalues were 25.53, 3.74, 3.46, and 2.87). Table 1 shows the (abbreviated) rotated
pattern matrix; to save space, only the eight terms with the highest loadings are shown for
each factor. We labeled the four factors Alerto (alert, vigilant), Alegre (cheerful), Sereno
(calm), and Amoroso (loving), although the first factor may be broader than its label suggests. The factor correlations ranged from .21 to .38 (mean r = .31). That is, all of the specific
positive affects are moderately related, supporting the hierarchical structure of the positive
affects under the more global PA dimension.
We examined solutions of five to eight factors for the NA terms, again guided by the number of factors identified in previous research (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1994). The seven-factor
solution was the most interpretable and accounted for 36.2% of the total variance (the
eigenvalues were 35.18, 6.95, 3.03, 2.91, 2.43, 2.24, and 1.84). Table 2 shows the (abbreviated) rotated pattern matrix for the NA terms; only the six terms with the highest loadings are
shown for each factor. Possible labels for the first factor are Desanimado (dispirited, discouraged) or Desilusionado (feeling hopeless and worthless). We labeled the remaining factors
Agresivo (aggressive), Afligido (distressed, sad), Vacilante (hesitant), Deseoso (desirous),
Pasivo (passive), and Cansado (tired). The factor correlations involving the Deseoso (desirous) factor, whose interpretation was the least certain, were generally modest in size (range =
.04 to .30; mean r = .14). The factor correlations among the remaining factors were more substantial (range = .13 to .42; mean r = .27). These correlations indicate that with the possible
exception of the Deseoso factor, the specific negative affects were moderately related, supporting the hierarchical structure of the negative affects under the more global NA
dimension.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
219
TABLE 1
Rotated Factor Matrix for Four-Factor Solution
With Positive Affect Words: Highest Loading Terms
a
Spanish
English Translation
Alerto
Alert
Alegre
a
Cheerful
Sereno
Calm
Amoroso
a
Loving
intenso(a)
entrañable
alerto(a)
sensitivo(a)
benévolo(a)
susceptible
valeroso(a)
devoto(a)
feliz
alegre
contento(a)
animado(a)
divertido(a)
seguro(a)
entusiasta
optimista
tranquilo(a)
sereno(a)
manso(a)
quieto(a)
pacífico(a)
paciente
calmado(a)
sumiso(a)
cariñoso(a)
amoroso(a)
tierno(a)
querendón(óna)
enamorado(a)
afectuoso(a)
apasionado(a)
juguetón(na)
intense
intimate
vigilant
sensitive
benevolent
susceptible
courageous
devoted
happy
cheerful
pleased
lively
funny
certain
enthusiastic
optimistic
at rest
calm
gentle
quiescent
peaceful
patient
calm
submissive
affectionate
loving
timid, bashful
loving
in love
affectionate
passionate
playful
.55
.53
.53
.53
.49
.48
.47
.46
–.16
–.22
.00
.12
.02
–.10
.25
.19
–.08
–.08
–.01
.07
–.02
.13
–.15
.14
–.12
–.07
–.18
–.00
–.04
.22
.22
.02
.15
–.03
.13
–.17
–.01
–.16
.28
–.18
.71
.69
.67
.63
.59
.56
.54
.52
.14
.08
.06
–.05
.18
.09
.14
–.12
.15
.05
.03
.05
–.01
.12
.02
.41
–.22
.04
–.04
–.09
.11
.03
.07
.13
.11
.05
.09
.21
.00
.14
.01
.11
.66
.65
.57
.51
.50
.49
.47
.43
.06
.02
.15
–.06
–.03
.09
–.10
–.03
.12
.06
–.11
.14
.11
.10
.08
.11
.20
.28
.14
.04
.29
.05
.14
.11
.01
.11
.05
–.11
–.04
.12
.02
.18
.78
.76
.69
.62
.54
.51
.50
.49
a
NOTE: Both masculine (o) and feminine (a) forms of relevant Spanish terms are shown and appeared in this manner
on the affect rating form. For each factor, the eight terms with the highest loadings (in bold) are shown (complete
factor matrices are available from the authors).
a. Signs of the factor loadings for these factors have been reversed so that the direction of each factor agrees with the
factor label (i.e., the factors have been reflected).
CONSTRUCTION OF AFFECT SCALES
Previous researchers who have examined personality-affect relations—and whose results
we would be comparing to our own—have correlated personality and affect scales rather
than factor scores. Therefore, we constructed scales to measure global PA and NA and the 11
specific PA and NA dimensions. For the global PA and NA scales, we selected terms with
factor loadings of .40 or greater on the designated global factor and a maximum of .25 in
absolute value on the other global factor (Watson & Clark, 1994, and Church et al., 1999,
used similar procedures). For the specific affect scales, we selected terms with factor
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
220
TABLE 2
Rotated Factor Matrix for Seven-Factor Solution With Negative Affect Words: Highest Loading Terms
Spanish
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
insignificante
tonto(a)
cobarde
frustrado(a)
inactivo(a)
infeliz
cruel
vengativo(a)
malicioso(a)
violento(a)
cínico(a)
gruñón(óna)
melancólico(a)
nostálgico(a)
triste
sensible
angustiado(a)
deprimido(a)
vacilante
abrumado(a)
intranquilo(a)
aturdido(a)
pesimista
lastimero(a)
deseoso(a)
fantasioso(a)
inquieto(a)
temerario(a)
excitado(a)
English Translation
insignificant
foolish
cowardly
frustrated
inactive
unhappy
cruel
vengeful
malicious
violent
cynical
grouchy
melancholy
nostalgic
sad, sorry
sentimental
anguished
depressed
hesitant
overwhelmed
uneasy
stunned
pessimistic
pitiful
desirous
vain
restless
daring
excited
Desanimado
Dispirited
.67
.58
.53
.53
.53
.50
.04
–.10
.17
–.03
.16
–.01
.06
.05
.30
–.06
.23
.41
.08
.14
.07
.16
.34
.17
.02
.13
–.00
–.05
.07
Agresivo
Aggressive
.03
.04
–.01
.09
.03
.07
.63
.60
.59
.58
.56
.55
–.06
–.05
–.03
–.07
–.02
.05
.02
–.10
–.00
.07
–.02
.00
.07
.14
.25
.02
.32
a
Afligido
a
Distressed
.03
–.03
.01
.14
–.04
.24
.04
.09
–.11
.07
–.13
.06
.59
.58
.51
.47
.44
.43
–.09
.13
.22
.02
–.04
.02
.21
.28
.08
.23
–.09
a
Vacilante
a
Hesitant
–.10
–.02
.03
–.05
.08
.05
–.16
.15
–.01
.18
.04
.35
.00
.00
.07
–.03
–.03
.01
.42
.38
.38
.37
.35
.34
–.01
–.04
.07
–.04
–.02
Deseoso
Desirous
–.08
.07
.18
–.06
.06
–.23
–.07
–.10
.04
–.06
.10
–.04
.08
.15
–.17
.13
.02
–.27
.05
–.02
–.01
–.12
–.07
–.05
.50
.44
.39
.35
.35
Pasivo
Passive
.05
.11
.10
–.00
–.02
.01
.06
.11
–.07
.04
–.08
–.03
.05
.00
–.08
.03
.01
–.03
.21
.07
–.01
.02
–.00
.14
–.03
–.09
–.06
.31
.11
Cansado
a
Tired
.06
.11
.05
.23
–.10
.13
.08
–.06
.04
.10
.00
.01
.03
.09
.23
.04
.26
.19
–.04
.24
.16
.22
.04
.08
.09
–.07
.14
.16
.12
a
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
impaciente
pasivo(a)
silencioso(a)
sombrio(a)
serio(a)
despavorido(a)
hostil
cansado(a)
agotado(a)
exhausto(a)
fatigado(a)
agitado(a)
mareado(a)
impatient
passive
still
gloomy
serious
terrified
hostile
tired
exhausted
exhausted
weary
agitated
dizzy
.07
.14
.09
–.06
.15
.05
.04
.03
–.14
.08
–.13
.04
.04
.27
–.21
–.10
–.01
–.04
.08
.36
–.01
–.02
–.08
–.02
.15
.15
.28
–.07
.04
.04
.09
.02
–.14
.01
–.06
–.02
–.03
.01
.06
.14
–.08
.03
.24
–.01
–.00
–.03
.10
.25
.12
.35
–.01
–.23
.33
.04
–.09
–.04
–.05
–.00
–.01
.05
.07
–.16
.03
.10
–.09
–.03
.44
.43
.39
.39
.38
.37
–.14
–.07
.03
–.07
.05
.04
–.03
.00
–.16
.02
–.07
.14
.17
.70
.63
.57
.53
.52
.46
NOTE: Both masculine (o) and feminine (a) forms of relevant Spanish terms are shown and appeared in this manner on the affect rating form. For each factor, the six terms with the highest
loadings (in bold) are shown (complete factor matrices are available from the authors).
a. Signs of the factor loadings for these factors have been reversed so that the direction of each factor agrees with the factor label (i.e., the factors have been reflected).
221
222
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 3
Correlations of Global Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) and
Specific Affect Scales With the Big Five Personality Dimensions
Big Five Personality Dimensions
Affect Scale
Extraversion
Global PA
Mexico
United States
Estonia
Global NA
Mexico
United States
Estonia
PA Scales
Alerto(a)/Alert
Alegre/Cheerful
Sereno(a)/Calm
Amoroso(a)/Loving
NA Scales
Desanimado(a)/Dispirited
Agresivo(a)/Aggressive
Afligido(a)/Distressed
Vacilante/Hesitant
Pasivo(a)/Passive
Cansado(a)/Tired
Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism
Openness
.31**
(.58)a
b
(.51)
.29**
a
(.21)
b
(.11)
.20**
a
(.37)
b
(.34)
–.25**
a
(–.29)
b
(–.31)
.36**
a
(.33)
b
(.14)
.00
(–.20)a
b
(–.20)
–.35**
(–.23)a
b
(–.23)
–.28**
(–.19)a
b
(–.39)
.46**
(.58)a
b
(.59)
–.04
(–.13)a
b
(.07)
.26**
.35**
–.06
.23**
.07
.23**
.37**
.19**
.08
.21**
.20**
.12
–.08
–.35*
–.31**
–.06
.36**
.37**
.23**
.19*
–.06
.14**
–.07
.00
–.22**
.02
–.29**
–.46**
–.14**
–.27**
–.04
–.14*
–.30**
–.21**
–.12*
–.24**
.02
–.14**
.39**
.28**
.45**
.30**
.09**
.32**
–.10
.11*
–.03
–.09
.00
.02
a. Correlations are weighted mean correlations for four samples reported in Table 1 of Watson & Clark (1992b). On
traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor
model. Used with permission.
b. Correlations are from Table 4 in Allik & Realo (1997). Used with permission.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
loadings of .30 or higher and maximum loadings of .25 in absolute value on the other factors.
For the specific NA factor Deseoso only two items met these criteria, so we did not construct
a specific affect scale for this factor.
The number of terms and α reliabilities for the scales were as follows: global PA (69
items, .97); global NA (103 items, .98); Alerto (20 items, .85); Alegre (14 items, .89); Sereno
(12 items, .84); Amoroso (9 items, .86); Desanimado (27 items, .94); Agresivo (11 items,
.89); Afligido (9 items, .84); Vacilante (7 items, .73); Pasivo (8 items, .66); and Cansado (13
items, .84). The correlation between the global PA and NA scales was –.08. The correlations
among the specific PA scales ranged from .42 to .63 (mean r = .50); the correlations among
the specific NA scales ranged from .28 to .66 (mean r = .47); and the correlations between
specific affect scales of opposite valence (i.e., positive vs. negative) ranged from –.33 to .34
(mean r = .01). This pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations among the specific
PA and NA affect scales is consistent with the expected hierarchical structure.
RELATING GLOBAL PA AND NA TO THE BIG FIVE DIMENSIONS
We anticipated that global PA would be strongly positively related to Extraversion, unrelated to Neuroticism, and modestly positively related to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Table 3 shows the relevant Pearson correlations. In our Mexican sample, global PA was
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
223
positively related to Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness as expected but
also positively associated with Openness to Experience and negatively associated with
Neuroticism. Because the Big Five dimensions are intercorrelated with each other to some
extent (range of rs = –.37 to .36 in the present sample), one or more of the dimensions
might not provide independent prediction of PA in the context of the other Big Five predictors. Indeed, when we conducted a multiple regression analysis with PA as the criterion variable and the Big Five dimensions as multiple predictors, Extraversion (β = .22, p < .05),
Agreeableness (β = .19, p < .05), and Openness to Experience (β = .27, p < .05) provided significant independent prediction of PA but Conscientiousness and Neuroticism did not (multiple R = .50, p < .05).
We also anticipated that NA would be positively related to Neuroticism but unrelated to
the other Big Five dimensions. In our Mexican sample, global NA was indeed most strongly
associated with Neuroticism, but NA was also negatively associated with Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness. When we regressed global NA scores onto all of the Big Five dimensions
simultaneously, we found that each of these three dimensions provided significant independent prediction of global NA, although Neuroticism was by far the best predictor
(Neuroticism β = .38, Agreeableness β = –.16, Conscientiousness β = –.17; multiple R = .53,
p < .05 in each case).
Table 3 also shows (in parentheses) the correlations found between the Big Five dimensions and global PA and NA in American samples (Watson & Clark, 1992b; a weighted mean
of four samples is shown) and in an Estonian sample (Allik & Realo, 1997). In general, the
pattern of correlations is quite similar across the three cultural groups. The main apparent
differences are the following: (a) For both global PA and NA, Extraversion was a somewhat
weaker predictor and Agreeableness a somewhat stronger predictor in our Mexican sample,
as compared to the American and Estonian samples; and (b) Openness to Experience was a
stronger predictor of PA in the Mexican and American samples than in the Estonian sample.
Allik and Realo (1997) reported alpha reliabilities only for their global PA and NA scales
and Watson and Clark (1994) primarily reported only alpha ranges for their Big Five and
affect scales (which were similar to those in our study). Because individual scale reliabilities
were not generally available for these two previous studies, we could not correct their personality-affect correlations for attenuation (and therefore we report uncorrected correlations
for all three samples in Table 3). The available reliability ranges suggest that the correlations
in Table 3 are not differentially attenuated across the three cultural samples. Nonetheless, it is
perhaps safest to emphasize the similar pattern of personality-affect relationships across cultures rather than the few apparent cultural differences in the size of the correlations.
RELATING SPECIFIC AFFECTS TO THE BIG FIVE DIMENSIONS
We expected to find at least some differential relationships between specific affects and
Big Five dimensions. Table 3 shows the relevant correlations. To evaluate whether specific
personality-affect correlations were significantly different from each other, we applied a
procedure and equation recommended by Steiger (1980; see equation 7, p. 246) for testing
the significance of the difference between two dependent correlations (i.e., correlations
based on the same sample). To control for experiment-wise error (i.e., chance differences
resulting from the number of pairwise comparisons), we applied the Bonferroni method, setting alpha conservatively at .001. Even using this conservative procedure, we found a number of significant differences among the correlations relating particular Big Five traits to specific positive or negative affects. In the following, we note some, but not all, of these.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
224
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Extraversion correlated about equally strongly with the positive affects Alerto, Alegre,
and Amoroso, whereas the correlation with Sereno was significantly lower. Extraversion
correlated very modestly, if at all, with most of the specific negative affects. However, the
negative correlation with the Pasivo scale, which makes conceptual sense, was significantly
lower than the correlations with the Agresivo, Vacilante, and Cansado scales.
Agreeableness was moderately associated with three of the four specific positive affects.
The correlation with Sereno was significantly higher than the correlations with Amoroso and
Alerto, whereas the correlation with Alerto was significantly lower than the correlations with
Alegre and Sereno. Agreeableness was significantly negatively correlated with all of the specific negative affects other than Pasivo, and the correlation with the Agresivo scale was significantly more negative than the correlations with the other negative affect scales.
Conscientiousness was not differentially related to the positive affects. However, the negative correlations between Conscientiousness and the Desanimado, Agresivo, and Vacilante
scales were significantly lower than the correlation with the Pasivo scale. Conscientiousness
was also more negatively associated with the Desanimado scale than the Cansado scale.
Neuroticism was primarily related (inversely) to Alegre and Sereno among the positive
affects, and these two correlations were significantly more negative than the negative correlations with Alerto and Amoroso. Neuroticism was modestly to moderately correlated with
all of the negative affects but the correlation with Pasivo was significantly lower than the correlations involving all but one of the other negative affects. Openness to Experience showed
moderate positive correlations with all of the positive affects but was significantly more correlated with the Alerto and Alegre scales than with the Amoroso scale. Openness to Experience showed only trivial correlations with the specific negative affects.
In summary, some differential relationships were found between various Big Five personality dimensions and the specific affects. Furthermore, these differential relationships seem
to be substantively meaningful. As examples, it makes sense that (a) those who are higher in
Extraversion reported feeling more cheerful, alert, and loving, but not more calm, during the
past week and also reported feeling less passive; (b) those who are higher in Agreeableness
were more likely to have experienced calm feelings and less likely to have experienced
aggressive or angry feelings during the past week, whereas the relationships with the other
affects were weaker; and (c) Neuroticism was most associated with the experience of less
cheerful and calm feelings and more distressed and dispirited feelings. Such specific personality-affect links also support a hierarchical model composed of global PA and NA and more
specific positive and negative affects because some personality-affect relationships cannot
be described merely in terms of global PA and NA. Rather, differential relationships with
more specific affects must be considered.
DISCUSSION
AFFECT STRUCTURE ACROSS CULTURES
Global PA and NA. The study provided support for the cross-cultural comparability of
higher order PA and NA dimensions and for the hierarchical structure of affect. Comparable
PA and NA dimensions have now been reported in several less Westernized cultural contexts
(Allik & Realo, 1997; Almagor & Ben-Porath, 1989; Balatsky & Diener, 1993; Church et al.,
1999; Watson et al., 1984). Some of these studies, including the present one, are even more
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
225
TABLE 4
Comparison of Specific Affect Dimensions Identified in Four Cultures
Mexico
a
Alert
Cheerful
Calm
Loving
Dispirited
Distressed
—
Aggressive
Hesitant
Desirous
—
—
Passive/quiet
Tired
—
United States
b
Attentiveness
Joviality
Serenity
—
—
Sadness
Fear
Hostility
—
—
Surprise
Guilt
Shyness
Fatigue
Self-assurance
Philippines
c
Active
Happy
Calm
—
Apathetic
Sad
Fearful
Angry
Restless
Aspiring
Surprised
Guilty
—
Fatigued
Unperturbed
Estonia
d
Pertinacity
Joviality
—
Affection
—
Sadness
—
Hostility
—
—
—
—
Shyness
Fatigue
Pertinacity
a. From the present study.
b. See Watson and Clark (1994).
c. See Church, Katigbak, Reyes, & Jensen (1999).
d. See Allik and Realo (1997).
persuasive, we believe, because they used large and representative sets of indigenous affect
terms (Allik & Realo, 1997; Church et al., 1999; Watson et al., 1984).
The global PA and NA dimensions identified here subsume terms associated with the full
range of pleasant and unpleasant affects, respectively, ranging from high to low in activation.
Thus, our PA and NA dimensions, which were both monopolar not bipolar, appear to correspond to the two “superclusters” identified by Watson et al. (1999, Figure 2); one
supercluster encompasses high activation, activated pleasant, pleasant, and unactivated
pleasant terms (to use the circumplex labels suggested by Larsen and Diener, 1992); the
other supercluster includes low activation, activated unpleasant, unpleasant, and unactivated
unpleasant terms. Comparable monopolar PA and NA dimensions were obtained by Allik
and Realo (1997) and Church et al. (1999) with Estonian and Filipino affect terms, respectively. Thus, we believe it is unlikely that our finding of monopolar PA and NA dimensions
reflects a significant cultural uniqueness in affect structure.
Specific affects. We can make some cautious inferences about the cross-cultural comparability of specific affect dimensions, at least among those cultures studied thus far. To obtain
an overall picture, albeit approximate, of the extent of cross-cultural overlap between specific affects, we attempted in Table 4 to match up those affects across studies that seemed
most similar based on (a) their labels and content; (b) similarities noted by previous authors;
and (c) a comparison of the correlations between the Big Five dimensions and the specific
affects, where available. For example, the matching of Estonian and Philippine affects with
the U.S. affects in Table 4 is based on conceptual similarities noted by Allik and Realo (1997)
and Church et al. (1999), respectively.
Based on content considerations, the Mexican affects that seem most comparable to those
in the other cultures include Alegre, Sereno, Amoroso, Agresivo, and Cansado. The matching
of some Mexican and Estonian affect dimensions is supported by the pattern of correlations
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
226
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
between the Big Five dimensions and specific affects found in the present study (Table 3) and
reported by Allik and Realo (1997). Specifically, the correlations relating the Big Five to
Mexican Alegre, Amoroso, Agresivo, Afligido, and Cansado and to the corresponding Estonian affects are fairly similar (Allik & Realo, 1997, Table 3). Other correlations, however,
suggest that a few of the “matched” Mexican and Estonian affects in Table 4 differ somewhat
in thrust or at least relate differently to the Big Five dimensions. For example, Mexican
Pasivo and Estonian Shyness are both moderately correlated (inversely) with Big Five
Extraversion (rs of –.22 vs. –.21, respectively); however, whereas Estonian Shyness is correlated fairly strongly with Neuroticism (r = .38), Mexican Pasivo is not (r = .09). The most
questionable “match” in Table 4 may involve Mexican Alerto with Estonian Pertinacity;
Mexican Alerto correlates primarily with Big Five Openness to Experience (r = .36) and
Extraversion (r = .26), whereas Estonian Pertinacity correlates most highly with Big Five
Conscientiousness (r = .54) and Neuroticism (r = –.44). Allik and Realo (1997) viewed Pertinacity as a blend of U.S. Attentiveness and Self-Assurance.
Some of the apparent “gaps” in Table 4 may reflect a limitation of the lexical approach: To
identify a distinct dimension in factor analysis, one needs a minimum number of quasi-synonyms referring to a particular affect. This might also account for the failure to identify lexically based affect dimensions corresponding to all hypothesized basic or universal emotions.
In our Mexican study, some of the specific PA and NA affects do resemble hypothesized
basic emotions as delineated, for example, in Differential Emotions Theory (Izard, 1977;
Izard et al., 1993). The Alegre dimension resembles Izard’s joy; Alerto shows some resemblance to interest; Afligido resembles a blend of sadness and fear; and Agresivo resembles
anger. However, no distinct Mexican factors corresponded closely to Izard’s basic emotions
of contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, and surprise. Although Spanish terms exist for each of
these emotions, there were not enough quasi-synonyms for these emotions in our list of
affect terms to identify distinct dimensions in the factor analyses. Similarly, in their Estonian
study, Allik and Realo (1997) attributed the failure to identify distinct factors corresponding
to the hypothesized basic emotions of disgust, fear, and surprise to “the limited number of
Estonian words used to describe these feelings and their narrow meaning” (p. 637).
Other gaps in Table 4 are probably the result of differences in the affect terms sampled in
these studies. For example, neither Watson and Clark (1994) nor Church et al. (1999) incorporated terms referring to affection or love. Also, Church et al. (1999) did not include terms
referring to shyness, because their Filipino respondents judged such terms to denote traits
rather than emotions. It is also conceivable that additional affect dimensions would have
been identified in the present study if an even more comprehensive dictionary had been used.
For example, by culling terms from a Spanish-English dictionary, we may have missed some
Spanish affect terms that are not easily translated into English.
Nonetheless, taking into account the limitations of factor analysis—including the
dependence of factors on the number of potential markers of each dimension and on the
extent of simple structure in the data—our results seem most consistent with the following
conclusions: There is a fair degree of similarity in the specific affects identified in different
cultures using the lexical approach; however, there are also some differences in focus or
thrust, and not all of the same affects are readily differentiated in all cultures. Greater confidence in these conclusions will result from (a) studies that replicate and perhaps expand the
specific affects identified in these and other cultures and (b) studies that relate the affect
dimensions identified in different cultures more systematically and empirically, for example,
using a combined emic-etic strategy in which indigenous and imported affect dimensions are
related.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
227
Our results relating the Big Five dimensions of personality to the Big Two of affect (i.e.,
PA and NA) were fairly similar to those reported by Watson and Clark (1992b) in U.S. samples and by Allik and Realo (1997) in an Estonian sample. In each cultural sample (a) PA was
positively associated with Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness
to Experience; and (b) NA was best predicted by Neuroticism but also inversely related to
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. In multiple regression analyses, however, only
Extraversion and Neuroticism were consistent independent predictors of PA and NA, respectively, in all three cultures; Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience
have provided independent prediction of PA in some, but not all, of these cultural samples.4
In all three cultures, Big Five dimensions other than Neuroticism provided only modest if
any additional independent prediction of NA. Overall, we believe it is reasonable to conclude
that the pattern of relationships between the Big Five dimensions of personality and the Big
Two dimensions of affect are quite similar across the cultures studied thus far, and this conclusion is consistent with dispositional and physiological theories regarding personalityaffect relations (e.g., Watson et al., 1999).
Finally, our results provided evidence for at least some specific, differential personalityaffect relationships. These results are consistent with theories of emotion and temperament
that imply some degree of specificity in the relationship between personality and emotions
(e.g., Goldsmith & Campos, 1982; Malatesta, 1990) and also provide some additional support for a hierarchical representation of affect structure: If specific affects show differential
relationships with various personality dimensions, it indicates that one must assess affect not
only at the level of global PA and NA but also at the level of more specific affects.
Two general limitations of this study should be considered. First, our Mexican sample
comprised college-educated Mexicans from northern Mexico, who might be more similar in
affective structure to North Americans than would less educated or Anglo-acculturated Mexicans or Mexicans from other regions of the country. Second, we used an imported measure
of the five-factor model. This facilitated direct cross-cultural comparisons of personalityaffect relationships and we found acceptable replication of the Big Five dimensions with the
translated BFI measure. Nonetheless, in future studies it will be important to examine personality-affect correlations using indigenous Mexican personality measures.
In sum, although further replication is needed using diverse samples, affect time frames,
methods, and response formats, our results provide evidence of the following: (a) good support for the cross-cultural comparability of global PA and NA dimensions and the hierarchical structure of affect; (b) a fair degree of cross-cultural similarity, but also some differences,
in the configuration or content of more specific positive and negative affects; and (c) fairly
comparable patterns of relationships across cultures between the Big Five dimensions of personality and the Big Two dimensions of affect (PA, NA). Most of these results are more consistent with evolutionary biological perspectives on personality and affect than strong social
constructivist perspectives.
NOTES
1. Ambiguity can arise because many authors have used Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) to
describe any affects of positive or negative valence, whereas Watson, Tellegen, and colleagues (e.g., Watson &
Clark, 1997; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) have used the terms to refer specifically to the positive and negative affects
with high arousal or activation levels (i.e., activated pleasant affects and activated unpleasant affects in the terms
used by Larsen and Diener, 1992). Several authors have suggested that Watson and Tellegen’s (1985) PA and NA
labels are therefore misleading and should be replaced with labels such as Larsen and Diener’s (1992). Recently,
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
228
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, and Tellegen (1999) suggested Positive Activation and Negative Activation as new labels
for their PA and NA dimensions.
A number of issues regarding the circumplex representation of affect structure remain unresolved. These
include the relative density of affects around the periphery of the circumplex, the extent to which the hypothesized
dimensions are truly bipolar, the role of measurement error and other factors in estimating the bipolarity versus
independence of positive and negative affect dimensions, and whether any particular dimensional orientation can be
considered more basic than the alternatives (e.g., PA and NA versus Pleasantness and Arousal) (see Feldman Barrett
& Russell, 1998; Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993; Russell & Carroll, 1999; Watson et al., 1999). These issues are
beyond the scope of the present study.
2. One might argue that the inclusion of a small number of Spanish translations of U.S. emotion terms introduces
an imposed-etic (imported) element into the set of affect terms. However, the added terms are, in fact, indigenous
Spanish affect terms. We chose to include such terms for the following reason: If a particular U.S. affect dimension
failed to emerge in our factor analyses, it would be less likely due to a failure to sample relevant Spanish affect terms.
3. It might have been preferable to include only Mexican judges, although our use of judges from several Latin
American countries might have the advantage of retaining terms that would be applicable for research and assessment in many Latin American countries. Also, our use of graduate student judges might have resulted in retention of
some terms that are unfamiliar to less educated Mexicans. As a final check, however, on the appropriateness and
familiarity of the selected terms, our Mexican respondents also indicated any affect terms with which they were
unfamiliar (see Results section).
4. In Watson and Clark’s (1992b) U.S. samples, Conscientiousness was a consistent independent predictor of
PA. In Allik and Realo’s (1997) Estonian sample, Conscientiousness and Openness were independent predictors of
PA. In the present study, Agreeableness and Openness were independent predictors of PA.
REFERENCES
Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Emotional experience and its relation to the five-factor model in Estonia. Journal of
Personality, 65, 625-647.
Almagor, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1989). The two-factor model of self-reported mood: A cross-cultural replication.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 10-21.
Almagor, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). Relations between mood and personality: Findings from the Israeli mood
studies. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 97-108).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Balatsky, G., & Diener, E. (1993). Subjective well-being among Russian students. Social Indicators Research, 28,
21-39.
Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The big seven factor model of personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 701-718.
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitraitmultimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
729-750.
Boucher, J. D. (1979). Culture and emotion. In A. J. Marsella, R. Tharp, & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on
cross-cultural psychology (pp. 159-178). New York: Academic Press.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. S., & Jensen, S. (1998). The language and organization of Filipino emotion concepts: Comparing emotion concepts and dimensions across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 63125.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. S., & Jensen, S. (1999). The structure of affect in a non-Western culture:
Evidence for cross-cultural comparability. Journal of Personality, 67, 505-534.
Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. (1987). The psychological foundations of the affective lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 751-766.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy
and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: Hemispheric substrates. Psychological Science, 3, 39-43.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1979). The development of coping style. Human Development, 22, 320-331.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1987). Historical sociocultural premises and ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney & M. J.
Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 239-250). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1992). La psicologia de la personalidad en el siglo XXI [Personality psychology in the 2lst century]. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 26, 37-52.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1993). Mexican ethnopsychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies:
Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 44-55). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
Rodríguez, Church / STRUCTURE OF AFFECT IN MEXICO
229
Diaz-Guerrero, R., & Szalay, L. B. (1991). Understanding Mexicans and Americans: Cultural perspectives in conflict. New York: Plenum.
Diaz-Loving, R. (1998). Contributions of Mexican ethnopsychology to the resolution of the etic-emic dilemma in
personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 104-118.
Diaz-Loving, R., & Andrade Palos, P. (1984). Una Escala de Locus de Control para niños Mexicanos [A Locus of
Control scale for Mexican children]. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 18, 21-33.
Diaz-Loving, R., & Draguns, J. G. (1999). Culture, meaning, and personality in Mexico and in the United States. In
Y.-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 103126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Diener, E., Smith, H., & Fujita, F. (1995). The personality structure of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 130-141.
Dubois-Charlier, F., Pritchard, D. R., Senerth, D. T., & Sola, J. M. (Eds.). (1989). The concise American heritage
English-Spanish, Spanish-English dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169-200.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967-984.
Gehm, T. L., & Scherer, K. R. (1988). Factors determining the dimensions of subjective emotional space. In K. R.
Scherer (Ed.), Facets of emotion: Recent research (pp. 99-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Campos, J. J. (1982). Toward a theory of infant temperament. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon
(Eds.), The development of attachment and affiliative systems (pp. 161-193). New York: Plenum.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041.
Harré, R. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of emotions. New York: Blackwell.
Heider, K. G. (1991). Landscapes of emotion: Mapping three cultures of emotion in Indonesia. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. B. Deregowski, S.
Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Holtzman, W. H., Diaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J. D. (1975). Personality development in two cultures: A cross-cultural longitudinal study of school children in Mexico and United States. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.
Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural
research. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 288-299.
Izard, C. E., Libero, D. Z., Putnam, P., & Haynes, O. M. (1993). Stability of emotion experiences and their relations
to traits of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 847-860.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five” Inventory—Versions 4a and 54 (Technical
report). Berkeley: University of California Press, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Sandín, B., Chorot, P., Lostao, L., & Marquina, G. (1997). Development and factor analytic validation of the SPANAS among women in Spain: (More) cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 600-615.
La Rosa, J., & Diaz-Loving, R. (1991). Evaluacion del autoconcepto: Una escala multidimensional [Evaluation of
the self-concept: A multidimensional inventory]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 23, 15-33.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clark
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion (Vol. 13, pp. 25-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lutz, C., & White, G. M. (1986). The anthropology of emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 405-436.
Malatesta, C. Z. (1990). The role of emotions in the development and organization of personality. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 36: Socioemotional development (pp. 1-56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63-87.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist,
52, 509-516.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary approach. New York: Harper & Row.
Reyes Lagunes, I. (1993). Las redes semanticas naturales, su conceptualizacion y su utilizacion en la construccion
de instrumentos [Natural semantic networks, its conceptualization and use in the construction of instruments].
Revista de Psicologia Social y Personalidad, 9, 83-99.
Reyes Lagunes, I. (1996). La medicion de la personalidad in Mexico [The measurement of personality in Mexico].
Revista de Psicologia Social y Personalidad, 12(1-2), 31-60.
Rodriquez de Diaz, M. L., & Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1997). ¿Son universales los rasgos de la personalidad? [Are personality traits universal?]. Revista Latinoamericana De Psicologia, 29, 35-48.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
3-30.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016
230
JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Russell, J. A., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and
prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847-879.
Shaver, P. R., Murdaya, U., & Fraley, R. C. (2001). Structure of the Indonesian emotion lexicon. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 4, 201-224.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
Storm, C., & Storm, T. (1987). A taxonomic study of the vocabulary of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 805-816.
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297-303.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992a). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992b). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 442-476.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X, manual for the positive and negative affect schedule (Expanded
form). Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). The measurement and mismeasurement of mood: Recurrent and emergent
issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 267-296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1984). Cross-cultural convergence in the structure of mood: A Japanese
replication and a comparison with U.S. findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 127-144.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural
findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820-838.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Talking about emotions: Semantics, culture, and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 285319.
Yik, M. S. M., Russell, J. A., Ahn, C.-K., Dols, J. M. F., & Suzuki, N. (2002). Relating the five-factor model of personality to a circumplex model of affect: A five-language study. In A. J. Marsella (Series Ed.) & R. R. McCrae &
J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model across cultures (pp. 79-104). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Yik, M. S. M., Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). Structure of self-reported current affect: Integration and
beyond. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 600-619.
Yik, M. S. M., Russell, J. A., Oceja, L. V., & Dols, J. M. F. (2000). Momentary affect in Spanish: Scales, structure,
and relationship to personality. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 160-176.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 111-122.
Conrado Rodríguez received his Ph.D. in counseling psychology from Washington State University in 1998.
He is currently working for Alliance for Psychological Services in Miami, Florida. His research interests
include cross-cultural/cross-language (Spanish) personality structure.
A. Timothy Church received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Minnesota and is currently a professor of counseling psychology at Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. His primary
research interests involve cross-cultural and indigenous personality structure and assessment and the integration of cultural and trait psychology perspectives. He is currently an associate editor for the Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016