Four traditions in research on personality and culture are distinguished: (
i) the culture-and-personality school and recent relativistic perspectives,
(ii) the trait approach, (iii) interactionistic orientations, and (iv) sit
uationist approaches. Next, the first two of these traditions are evaluated
to ascertain how much variance is explained by culture. Thereafter, it is
argued that the (questionable) focus on explanations with a high level of i
nclusiveness or generality is a major reason for the near absence of situat
ionist interpretation of crosscultural differences. Finally, three possible
strategies are discussed to bridge the gap between relativism (emphasizing
differences) and universalism (assuming basic similarities). A suggestion
is made as to how both approaches can be valuable when unexplainable, as we
ll as explainable variances, in cross-cultural personality research are tak
en seriously.