CAJ | 학술논문

本文在回顾华人社会人格研究与评估发展以及“跨文化（中国人）个性测量表（CPAI）”的研究与应用历程基础上，比较了CPAI一2（FormB）不同语言版本（包括中文版、英文版、韩文版、日文版）的跨文化应用结果。多种文化中的研究结果支持了CPAI的跨文化信度和效度。同时，CPAI在本土和跨文化应用研究中，还从理论与实践的双重视角，强调与支持了“兼顾文化共通性与特殊性的（etic．emic）人格研究方法”在人格评估领域的重要性。这也促使国内外相关领域研究者开始思考，如何使用兼顾文化共通性与特殊性的人格研究方法以进一步推动人格心理学的研究。
본문재회고화인사회인격연구여평고발전이급“과문화（중국인）개성측량표（CPAI）”적연구여응용역정기출상，비교료CPAI일2（FormB）불동어언판본（포괄중문판、영문판、한문판、일문판）적과문화응용결과。다충문화중적연구결과지지료CPAI적과문화신도화효도。동시，CPAI재본토화과문화응용연구중，환종이론여실천적쌍중시각，강조여지지료“겸고문화공통성여특수성적（etic．emic）인격연구방법”재인격평고영역적중요성。저야촉사국내외상관영역연구자개시사고，여하사용겸고문화공통성여특수성적인격연구방법이진일보추동인격심이학적연구。
Since 1970s, major Western personality assessment were translated and applied in different Chinese societies. Although the reliabilities and validities of these imposed-etic measures were largely demonstrated, cultural differences were found at the item, scale and factor levels. These cultural differences have led to attempts to construct indigenous measures to assess personality constructs that are particularly relevant to the Chinese societies. The CPAI was developed with a combined etic-emic approach in the late 1980s. The CPAI includes multidimensional personality scales for normal personality and diagnostic assessment of the Chinese people. To derive emic dimensions, the research team used a bottom-up approach based on multiple inputs from a wide range of daily life experiences, research review, and clinical experiences of local professionals. Reference was made to research results on imported Western instruments in Chinese settings. The CPAI. its revised version, CPAI-2, and the adolescent version, CPAI-A, were developed using vigorousprocedures of scale construction, and were standardized on large representative samples across different Chinese regions. Extensive research to validate the CPAI, CPAI-2, and CPAI-A has been undertaken by the CPAI research team and other psychologists in Chinese and cross-cultural settings in Asia, Europe and North America. The personality traits measured by the CPAI inventories have demonstrated validity in predicting external variables such as life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, leadership, work performance, and vocational development, as well in differentiating among psychiatric diagnostic groups. Findings from the CPAI research program highlight the value of a combined emic-etic approach in personality assessment. The Interpersonal Relatedness （IR） factor, as an indigenous Chinese personality dimension, contributed additional variance beyond the universal dimensions of mainstream personality measures in explaining behaviour in both Asian and Western cultures. The added value of the IR factor illustrates the importance of relational personality constructs which fill the gap in Western personality models. On the other hand, the lack of a distinct Chinese openness factor as that found in the Five Factor Model suggested differences in the taxonomy of personality structure across cultures. The CPAI research program aimed not only to establish the reliability and validity of an indigenously derived assessment measure, but also to promote understanding of personality beyond that of a Western-based personality structure in a truly universal model. The CPAI-2 has been translated into six other languages, including Dutch, English, Korean, Japanese, Romanian and Vietnamese. Reliability analysis supported the internal consistence of the subscales of CPAI-2 in cross-cultural settings. Proscrutes rotation of the factor structures of a cross-cultural sample of college students confirmed the congruence and relevance of the emic CPAI-2 personality factor beyond Chinese culture. These results have encouraged us to further examine the cross-cultural validity of the CPAI inventories and the contribution of the combined etic-emic approach to the study of personality in cultural contexts.