438894

2012
IJB0010.1177/1367006912438894Veltkamp et al.International Journal of Bilingualism

Article

International Journal of Bilingualism

0(0) 1­–9
Is personality modulated © The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
by language? sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1367006912438894
Ijb.sagepub.com

G. Marina Veltkamp
Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany

Guillermo Recio
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Arthur M. Jacobs and Markus Conrad

Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

Abstract
We administered German and Spanish versions of the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness–
Five-Factor Inventory personality inventory to two groups of late bilinguals (second-language
learners) of these two languages. Regardless of individuals’ first language, both groups scored
higher on Extraversion and Neuroticism when Spanish was the test language. In turn, scores on
Agreeability were higher when German was used as the test language. The results are interpreted
as evidence for cultural frame shifts consistent with cultural norms associated with the presently
used language. Beyond the acquisition of linguistic skills, learning a second language seems to
provide individuals with a new range of perceiving and displaying their own personality.

Keywords
Bilingualism, cross-cultural differences, Five-Factor Model, German, Language Experience
and Proficiency Questionnaire, Neuroticism Extraversion Openness–Five-Factor Inventory,
personality, Spanish

Introduction
Cross-cultural research in psychology has highlighted differences in displays of emotion (Ekman,
1972; Friesen, 1972; Matsumoto, 1990). Beyond facial displays, language plays a key role in the
expression of culture and emotion. According to Sapir (1929/1949) and Whorf (1956) or Slobin
(1996), language plays an important role determining what we are able to think, and it might as

Corresponding author:
G. Marina Veltkamp, Psychology Department, School of Social Sciences, University of Kaiserslautern, 57 Erwin-Schrodinger
St., Kaiserslautern 67663, Germany.
Email: veltkamp@sowi.uni-kl.de

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

2 International Journal of Bilingualism 0(0)

well be crucial for what we feel or how we perceive ourselves and how we conceive our own
personality. It has long been observed that different languages carry different emotional tones,
and multilinguals behave and feel differently when speaking one language versus another (see
Pavlenko, 2008, for a recent overview). Language learning is fundamentally tied to internaliza-
tion of cultural norms and values that are inherent in the language (Chen, Benet-Martínez, &
Bond, 2008; Pavlenko, 2006). In the same way that we carry different personas, or social masks,
we might also adopt new selves through new languages. Along the same line, Koven (2006)
proposes that these transformations of self through language occur as a function of the affective
display enactments that are accessible in a given language. Essentially, culture provides formu-
laic ways, much like a script, to express thoughts and feelings (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006),
and this is a process that occurs particularly through language. In the case of multilingualism,
according to Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, and Morris (2002), individuals gain access to multiple
cultural meaning systems and can switch between different culturally appropriate behaviors
accordingly.
This leads to the question of whether dimensions of personality can change by speaking in
another language. Only a very limited set of studies have explored effects of multilingualism on
personality. To our knowledge, the only study that employed personality tests to assess changes
within subjects across (test) languages is from Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martinez, Potter,
and Pennebaker (2006). Employing the Big Five Inventory (BFI), they reported evidence that
Spanish–English bilinguals in the United States and Mexico were more extraverted, agreeable, and
conscientious in English than in Spanish.1 They concluded that high scores within the test sub-
scales for Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeability in English language were consistent
with individualistic traits such as assertiveness, achievement, and “superficial” friendliness that are
characteristic of English–American culture. Still, these results are somewhat surprising in that they
seem to contradict the common belief that Extraversion and Agreeability scores would be rela-
tively high in Spanish, consistent with a collectivistic orientation of Spanish culture and cultural
values such as simpatía (i.e. having a congenial and friendly disposition). Clearly, more research
comprising different languages and cultures is needed to investigate how language influences
dimensions of personality or personality display.
Additional evidence would be expected from the translation of instruments based on the Five-
Factor Model (FFM) of personality to different languages (Costa & McCrae, 1989, 1992; John &
Srivastava, 1999). Studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of the FFM conclude that the model is
universal, but the relative strength of each dimension varies in different cultures (McCrae,
Terracciano, & the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project, 2005). For example, cultural adapta-
tions of the FFM inventories such as the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness–Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) and the BFI, using bilingual populations to test instrument reliability generally report
good cross-linguistic reliability with strong item correlations (e.g. Benet-Martinez & John, 1998;
McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998), which seem to contradict the idea that personality
changes through language. Although these studies did find minor differences across language
groups, these were attributed to factors such as acculturation to the mainstream culture. Another
factor that impedes drawing any conclusions—concerning the potential modulation of personality
through language—based on these studies is that language differences were not explicitly addressed,
and between-item correlations across languages alone might not be the most adequate methodo-
logical tool to discover them. Employing analysis of variance (ANOVA), a more powerful statisti-
cal test, Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) did yield important differences due to test language within
the same individuals.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

Veltkamp et al. 3

One important question that was not addressed by Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) is the role of
first (L1), or native, versus second (L2), or nonnative, language use. There are a number of studies
that have investigated differences in the perception and expression of emotional words between first
and second languages. Generally, these studies parted on the assumption that L2 would be emotion-
ally more distant than L1, and this was supported by reports of bilinguals using swear and taboo
words (see Dewaele, 2004) or talking about potentially embarrassing topics more freely in L2 than
in L1 (Bond & Lai, 1986). Furthermore, skin conductance responses—as a physiological correlate
of emotional arousal—or word recall (Anooshian & Hertel, 1994, but see also Ayçiçeği & Harris,
2004) was found to be reduced for emotion-laden or taboo words when being presented in L2 as
compared to L1 (Gonzales-Reigosa, 1976; Harris, Ayçiçeği, & Gleason, 2003, see also Harris,
2004). More recently, yet, some studies report L2 emotionality as to be modulated by, for example,
age of L2 acquisition and proficiency, language immersion, and having life experiences in L2
(Harris, Gleason, & Ayçiçeği, 2006; see also Eilola, Havelka, & Sharma, 2007; Sutton, Altarriba,
Gianico, & Basnight-Brown, 2007) and providing a more differentiated picture regarding the gen-
eral emotionality of second-language use and processing. Note also that a recent electroencephalo-
gram (EEG) study using manipulations of word valence in L1 and L2 for German–Spanish late
bilinguals showed that both early and late event-related potentials during visual word recognition
were affected by emotional characteristics of the words in both L1 and L2, suggesting that even late
second-language learners’ L2 processing is characterized by an automatic sensitivity to emotional
content (Conrad, Recio, & Jacobs, 2011). Finally, multilinguals routinely switch between these con-
trasting emotional meaning systems (Altarriba, 2003; Heredia & Altarriba, 2001), and language in
use can also determine access to emotional memories (Ramos-Sanchez, 2007).
Hence, it becomes important to investigate whether an automatic cultural frame shift (Koven,
2006) that appears to occur with regard to personality for early bilinguals who have grown up
exposed to two different cultures (e.g. Luna, Ringberg, & Peracchio, 2008; Ramirez-Esparza
et al., 2006) can also be observed in late second-language learners who have learned this second
language—and thereby its corresponding cultural values—after adolescence. This might be a
fundamental factor, as personality is generally suggested to become stable at least after adoles-
cence. Therefore, unlike early bilinguals having experienced different cultural norms at early
childhood, late second learners might no longer have sufficient personality “plasticity” to benefit
from second-language learning as a means to provide them with a new culturally framed and
language-modulated persona. Furthermore, the results of Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) might to
some extent reflect early bilinguals’ need of adaptation to two different sets of cultural norms
when growing up within the context of an ethnic minority or cultural subgroup.2
In the present study, contrasting German and Spanish/Latin American culture, we compared
responses to a personality test (the NEO-FFI) in two groups of German–Spanish late bilinguals
order to examine if differences found by Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) also extend to late
bilinguals—adding, furthermore, a different cross-cultural contrast to their general approach.
Moreover, with the present study, we also test whether personality display can be modulated by test
language regardless of the native cultural background of individuals or what is their first or second
language comparing effect between different L1 groups. We would expect differences to be con-
sistent with cultural value systems associated with the test language. For example, following popu-
lar folklore, values of freedom, responsibility, and a strong work ethic might be especially reflected
in domain aggregate scores for all participants when tested in German language. Conversely, values
such as simpatía, present-time orientation, and strong familialism—highly emphasized within the
Spanish-speaking world—might be especially reflected in aggregate domain scores for the Spanish
version of the test.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

4 International Journal of Bilingualism 0(0)

Method
Participants
Sixty-eight participants (aged = 20–38 years; 26 males) were recruited for studies on multilingual-
ism at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. Prior to participation, all of them underwent a brief
interview to determine their bilingual skills. Written informed consent was obtained, and the study
was conducted in accordance with local guidelines and the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised
in 2000.
The sample comprised 40 native German speakers (mean age = 26.20 years, standard deviation
(SD) = 3.09 years) and 28 native Spanish speakers (mean age = 28.36 years, SD = 4.27 years). Mean
education in years was 17.77 (SD = 2.49 years) and 17.04 (SD = 6.79 years) for native German and
native Spanish speakers, respectively. The linguistic profile of each group was assessed via self-
report questionnaires (i.e. Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q); Marian,
Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007) administered in their native language. All participants had
acquired the second language (German or Spanish) after the age of 12 years (mean L2 acquisition
age = 20.24 years, SD = 4.68 years). The mean age of acquisition was 19.65 years (2.77 years) for
native German speakers learning Spanish and 22.50 years (5.84 years) for native Spanish speakers
learning German. All participants were multilingual; reporting knowledge of at least two other
(European) languages.

Measures
Personality assessments were made with paper and pencil versions of the NEO–Five-Factor
Personality Inventory (Paul T. Costa Jr. & Robert R. McCrae, 1989, 1992). The German version of
the NEO-FFI was translated by Peter Borkenau and Fritz Ostendorf (1993), and the Spanish ver-
sion was translated by Juan Carlos Espinoza-Mendez (2009). German and Spanish versions of the
NEO-FFI are not completely symmetrical, and this provided an opportunity to explore the similari-
ties and differences with regard to language and personality, that is, minimizing potential effects of
item repetition. Both tests consist of 60 items equally divided into the Big Five domains: Neuroticism
(N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), and Agreeability (A). According to
McCrae et al. (1998) if correlations across items of both versions of the test are high, then it is con-
ceptually legitimate to compare mean levels or aggregate domain scores. Hence, correlations were
used to assess the correspondence between the German and Spanish versions of the test. Looking at
symmetrically translated items, Cronbach’s alpha values of .791 and .760 were obtained each for
German and Spanish groups, respectively. Hence, both measures were closely matched.

Procedure
This study was conducted in conjunction with an EEG study where participants performed a
lexical decision task in German and Spanish (Conrad et al., 2011) consisting of two monolingual
(German vs. Spanish) blocks of words and nonwords presented on a PC terminal with an approx-
imate duration of 30 min for each block. Results from this task provided additional evidence for
the language proficiency level of participants. In a counterbalanced design, versions of the
NEO-FFI were administered before and then again after the EEG study. Test language was
consistent with the language of the preceding or ensuing task for the EEG study. All studies were
conducted in accordance with local guidelines and the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in
2000.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

Veltkamp et al. 5

Table 1. Differences in five-factor scores in German and Spanish language

German NEO test Spanish NEO test p

M (SD) M (SD)
Total score 144.16 146.44 .292
Neuroticism 18.60 (6.38) 20.34 (6.58) .028*
Extraversion 30.48 (5.82) 33.59 (5.86) .000**
Openness 34.34 (5.97) 34.59 (5.68) .714
Agreeability 31.63 (6.11) 28.65 (6.33) .000**
Conscientiousness 29.49 (7.20) 28.44 (7.50) .065
Comparison of test scores in German and Spanish were tested in a repeated-measures ANOVA with test language as a
within-subject factor. Mean raw scores are reported.
NEO: Neuroticism Extraversion Openness; M: mean raw score; SD: standard deviation; p: two-tailed significance of
ANOVA test; ANOVA: analysis of variance.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Results
In total, we collected 68 Spanish language tests and 63 German language tests. Participants’ response
rates varied; the mean number of omitted items were 4.78 (SD = 15.72) and 1.03 (SD = 3.00) on the
German and Spanish versions of the personality test, respectively. Incomplete scales were excluded
from analysis.
Repeated-measures ANOVAs were calculated over each of the five domain scales of the NEO-
FFI (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeability, Conscientiousness, and Openness), with test lan-
guage (German test and Spanish test) as within-subject factor. ANOVA revealed significant effects
for Neuroticism, F(1,49) = 5.15; p = .028; Extraversion, F(1,43) = 30.65; p < .0001; and Agreeability,
F(1,51) = 16.98; p < .0001. Differences between the Spanish and German versions of the NEO-FFI
were not significant for the scales of Conscientiousness and Openness. Aggregate mean scores for
each of the five domains tested in German and Spanish language are presented in Table 1. When
participants took the test in Spanish, aggregate mean scores were significantly higher for the
domains of Neuroticism and Extraversion, and significantly lower for Agreeability, relative to the
German test.
For the analyses described above, 40 of the subjects had German as native language; only
28 were of Spanish L1. Therefore, results might overrepresent a potential first- versus second-
language effect or a specific influence of German cultural origin with regard to the reported
effects of test language on personality dimensions. To rule out this possibility, we ran additional
analyses based on two subsets of participants of equal numerical size with either German or
Spanish L1 (21 from each L1 group) matched on the following parameters: age, education, sex,
and second-language proficiency in terms of years of L2 learning contact and performance in a
vocabulary test. Furthermore, proficiency was also matched in terms of a novel variable derived
from the lexical decision task that all participants had performed in the two test languages: To
obtain relative estimates of individual L1 and L2 performance—with the potential to most exactly
reflect the actual individual level of language proficiency—we divided correct mean Response
Time (RT) latencies and error rates for words in L1 by correct mean RT latencies and error rates for
words in L2 in the lexical decision task (for further details please refer to Conrad et al., 2011). For
all subsets, no significant differences on any of the control variables were present.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

6 International Journal of Bilingualism 0(0)

Table 2. Differences in five-factor scores for native German and Native Spanish participants with German
and Spanish as test language

Scale mean (SD)

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeability Conscientiousness

Native Germans
German NEO test 18.58 (7.54) 31.09 (5.06) 34.29 (6.03) 33.00 (4.24) 29.05 (5.29)
Spanish NEO test 21.14 (6.30) 33.81 (5.19) 33.62 (6.14) 28.67 (5.03) 27.19 (5.75)
Native Spanish
German NEO test 19.24 (5.38) 29.71 (6.31) 32.86 (6.22) 29.86 (4.83) 29.81 (7.03)
Spanish NEO test 20.33 (7.59) 33.48 (6.52) 34.95 (4.90) 28.38 (6.12) 29.91 (8.76)
Significance (p) factor .032* .0001*** .37 .0004*** .18
test language
Comparison of test scores in German and Spanish were tested in a repeated-measures ANOVA with test language as a
within-subject factor and “Native Language” as a between-subject factor. Mean raw scores are reported.
NEO: Neuroticism Extraversion Openness; SD: standard deviation, p: two-tailed significance of ANOVA; ANOVA: analysis
of variance.
*p < .05.**p < .001.

ANOVAs with test language as within-subjects factor and L1 group as between-subjects factor
showed that both groups responded in a very similar fashion, and, importantly, main effects of test
language were replicated: Significant differences across test language were found in the same
three NEO-FFI domains: Scores on Neuroticism were increased in the Spanish version, F(1,38) =
8.74, p = .006, as well as scores on Extraversion, F(1,40) = 31.01, p < .0001, whereas Agreeability
scores were higher in the German than in the Spanish test version, F(1,40) = 14.86, p = .0004 (see
Table 2). No significant effects for L1 group or interactions between effects of test language and
L1 group were observed on any domain. Therefore, effects on personality dimensions seem to be
due to test language only, and they do not seem to be modulated by the specific linguistic of cultural
background of participants.

Discussion
We tested late German–Spanish bilinguals (second-language learners) each with both German and
Spanish versions of the NEO-FFI. Our results provide clear evidence that individuals’ scores on
three of the five personality dimensions involved were modulated by test language: Participants
scored higher on Extraversion and Neuroticism when the language of the test was Spanish, but they
scored higher on Agreeability when they were filling out the test in German. These findings are
generally in line with previous research from Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) who had shown for the
first time that bilinguals’ personality test scores were affected by the language used for the test.
One might have expected that German and English—both being Germanic languages—would
have yielded very similar results when compared to Spanish. However, our results only partly sup-
port this. The same direction of differences (comparing our data to Ramirez-Esparza et al.’s, 2006)
was present for the dimensions of Agreeability (lower in Spanish than in German and English) and
Neuroticism (higher in Spanish than in German and English), but higher scores on Extraversion
were obtained in our data when participants filled out the test in Spanish, as compared to German.
The opposite effect was reported by Ramirez-Esparza and colleagues when comparing Spanish and
English.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

Veltkamp et al. 7

Although the German and English languages share common origin, there are also important cul-
tural differences between North America and Central Europe that might explain the discrepancies in
Extraversion between the two studies. Moreover, our Spanish speakers were almost exclusively
students, but the group was too heterogeneous in terms of background and origin, making it difficult
to draw comparisons with the samples in the Ramirez-Esparza et al.’s (2006) study. Our results sup-
port the assumption that language modulates personality; however, the complex interactions of lan-
guage with different cultural variables and the relationships between groups and social networks
that influence personality are still unclear and could be a topic for future research.
The conjoint outcome of these studies points to a cultural frame shift in bilinguals’ individual
personality display due to the language used. It also enlarges the contrastive cross-cultural picture
suggesting that the endorsement of Extraversion increases from German over Spanish to Anglo-
American cultural frames. Regarding Agreeability and Neuroticism in turn, both Germanic lan-
guages representing Anglo-American or Central European culture seem to consistently prime
individuals to endorse less neurotic and more agreeable attitudes. Interestingly, the cultural person-
ality profiles (McCrae et al., 2005) show that the results of the present study are consistent with
normative results for the specific culture groups under study. Hence, our results closely match
previous reports on personality profiles of culture (i.e. McCrae, del Pilar, & Parker, 1998; McCrae
et al., 2005) according the FFIs based on Costa’s and McCrae’s original research.
Importantly, our data make a clear point for the general importance of language use to induce a
shift in cultural frame: The direction of the present effects of test language on personality dimen-
sions was the same for two groups with different first language (native Spanish speakers and native
German speakers). Therefore, such effects are not limited to a specific population, for example,
early bilinguals having grown up with two languages but living in the same country where the need
for adaptation to different cultural frames might explain individuals’ differential personality patterns
related to a specific language and culture.
On the contrary, our data demonstrating consistent cultural frame shifts in personality display
for late second-languages learners—regardless of which is their first language or cultural back-
ground—suggest that learning a second language always implies the automatic representation of
new cultural frames associated with this language. These in turn provide the individual with a new
range of perceiving and displaying his or her own personality—an enrichment of personal space,
apparently most welcomed by second-language learners.

Funding
This research was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) via a grant (“Bilingualism and
Affectivity in Reading” Project 201) to Markus Conrad, Gisela Klann-Delius, Arthur Jacobs, and Michael Eid
from the Research Excellence Cluster “Languages of Emotion” at the Freie Universität Berlin. Markus
Conrad was supported by the DFG grant JA 823/3-2 to Arthur Jacobs and by an “acciones integradas
2009/2010” grant from Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst (DAAD).

Acknowledgements
We thank Ann-Kristin Beyer, Johannes Ecker, Christianne Schiller, and Nora Walsh for their assistance in data
collection and analyses for this project.

Notes
1. For detailed definition of the Five-Factor Model domains see Costa and McCrae (1992).
2. Although Ramirez-Esparza et al. (2006) had also tested Spanish–English bilinguals living in Mexico; they
were uncritically mixed with bilinguals living in the United States not allowing for a differential investiga-
tion of effects for groups of different linguistic or cultural background.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

8 International Journal of Bilingualism 0(0)

References
Altarriba, J. (2003). Does cariño equal “liking”? A theoretical approach to conceptual nonequivalence between
languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 305–322.
Anooshian, J. L., & Hertel, P. T. (1994). Emotionality in free recall: Language specificity in bilingual memory.
Cognition and Emotion, 8, 503–514.
Ayçiçeği, A., & Harris, C. (2004). Bilinguals’ recall and recognition of emotion words. Cognition and Emotion,
18, 977–987.
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait mul-
timethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(3), 729–750.
Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame-switching
in biculturals with “oppositional” vs. “compatible” cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
33, 492–516.
Bond, M. H., & Lai, T. (1986). Embarrassment and code-switching into a second language. Journal of Social
Psychology, 126, 179–186.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae
[The NEO five factor inventory from Costa and McCrae]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological
adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal
of Personality, 76, 803–838.
Conrad, M., Recio, G., & Jacobs, A. M. (2011). The time course of emotion effects in first and second language
processing: a cross cultural ERP study with German-Spanish Bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–16.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dewaele, J. M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals.
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 204–222.
Eilola, T. M., Havelka, J., & Sharma, D. (2007). Emotional activation in the first and second language.
Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1064–1076.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expression of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 207–283). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Espinoza-Mendez, J. C. (2009). Inventario NEO reducido de Cinco Factores de Costa and McCrae, Adaptación
[Adaptation of the NEO Five Factor Inventory from Costa and McCrae]. Colombia: Author.
Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences in facial expressions in a social situation: An experimental test of the
concept of display rules (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Gonzales-Reigosa, F. (1976). The anxiety-arousing effect of taboo words in bilinguals. In C. D. Spielberger &
R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (pp. 89–105). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Harris, C. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity.
Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 25, 223–247.
Harris, C., Gleason, J., & Ayçiçeği, A. (2006). When is a first language more emotional? Psychophysiological
evidence from bilingual speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expres-
sion, and representation (pp. 257–283). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Harris, C. L., Ayçiçeği, A., & Gleason, J. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic
reactivity in a first than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 561–578.
Heredia, R. R., & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 164–168.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016

Veltkamp et al. 9

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical per-
spectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Koven, M. (2006). Feeling in two languages: A comparative analysis of a bilingual’s affective displays in
French and Portuguese. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression and
representation (pp. 84–117). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Luna, D., Ringberg, T., & Peracchio, L. A. (2008). One individual, two identities: Frame switching among
biculturals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 279–293.
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency
Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion, 14,
195–214.
McCrae, R. R., del Pilar, G. H., & Parker, W. (1998). Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The
revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005).
Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89, 407–425.
McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personal-
ity profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1041–1055.
Pavlenko, A. (2006). Bilingual selves. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expres-
sion and representation (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2008). Emotion and emotion-laden words in the bilingual lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 11, 147–164.
Ramirez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martinez, V., Potter, P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals
have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Personality Research, 40,
99–120.
Ramos-Sanchez, L. (2007). Language switching and Mexican-American’s emotional expression. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35, 154–168.
Sapir, E. (1949). Male and female forms of speech in Yana. In D. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Selected writings in
language, culture and personality (pp. 206–212). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original
work published 1929)
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sutton, T. M., Altarriba, J., Gianico, J. L., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). The automatic access of emotion:
Emotional Stroop effects in Spanish-English bilingual speakers. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1077–1090.
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality. Boston, MA: MIT press.

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 15, 2016