Malaysia and Collectivism

Malaysia & the Collectivist Culture

Malaysian Studies

Name: Arfa Adlina Binti Ayob

ID: 7025

Intake: July 2012

Date of Submission: 4 September 2012

ABSTRACT

This paper first introduced the term culture, collectivism and individualism. Malaysia being a

collectivist country based on the Geert-Hofstede theory is then discussed and the extent to

which this is true. Examples of the contexts in which Malaysia depicts a collectivist country

are given, namely parenting style, self-esteem, organisational values, and communication

practices. Collectivism is later evaluated in terms of its pros and cons.

1

INTRODUCTION

In the 20th century, "culture" emerged as a concept central to anthropology, encompassing all

human phenomena that are not purely results of human genetics. Specifically, the term

"culture" in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to

classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and

(2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and

represented their experiences, and acted creatively.1

Culture is a powerful human tool for survival, but it is a fragile phenomenon. It is constantly

changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written languages,

governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture. They

are not culture in themselves. For this reason, archaeologists cannot dig up culture directly in

their excavations. The broken pots and other artifacts of ancient people that they uncover are

only material remains that reflect cultural patterns--they are things that were made and used

through cultural knowledge and skills.2

People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of

the interdependence of the two. These construals can influence, and in many cases determine,

the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation. Many

Asian cultures have distinct conceptions of individuality that insist on the fundamental

relatedness of individuals to each other. The emphasis is on attending to others, fitting in, and

harmonious interdependence with them. American culture neither assumes nor values such an

overt connectedness among individuals. In contrast, individuals seek to maintain their

independence from others by attending to the self and by discovering and expressing their

unique inner attributes. As proposed herein, these construals are even more powerful than

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture2 http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm

2

previously imagined. Theories of the self from both psychology and anthropology are

integrated to define in detail the difference between a construal of the self as independent and

a construal of the self as interdependent. Each of these divergent construals should have a set

of specific consequences for cognition, emotion, and motivation; these consequences are

proposed and relevant empirical literature is reviewed. Focusing on differences in self-

construals enables apparently inconsistent empirical findings to be reconciled, and raises

questions about what have been thought to be culture-free aspects of cognition, emotion, and

motivation.3

Malaysia reflects a multi-racial and multi-religious country with a population of 29.18

million. It includes three major ethnic groups namely Malay, Chinese, Indian and the

indigenous tribal cultures. The proportion of Malays, Chinese and Indian in Malaysia are

50.4%, 23.7%, and 7.1% respectively. The oldest inhabitants, the tribal peoples, constitute

about 5% of the total population and mainly live in East Malaysia/Borneo (Krishnan, 2004).

Malaysia is also a multi- religious nation and in accord with the Department of Statistic

Malaysia, (2001), Islam is the most extensively professed religion in Malaysia (60.4%)

followed by other religions such as Buddhism (19.2%), Christianity (9.1%), Hinduism (6.3%)

and Confucianism/ Taoism/other traditional Chinese religion (2.6%). 4It could be seen that in

Malaysia religion is highly correlated with ethnicity.

Although Malaysia is a multi-racial country, a large segment of the cultural dimensions of the

different races are similar. However, there are difference in terms of degree and priorities of

3 Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation http://www.iacmr.org/v2/Conferences/WS2011/Submission_XM/Participant/Readings/Lecture8A_JiaLin/Markus%20et%20al%20(1991)%20Culture%20and%20Self%20-%20Implications%20for%20Cognition%20Emotion%20and%20Motivation-8a.pdf4 http://www.indexmundi.com/malaysia/demographics_profile.html

3

values. For instance, the Malays ranked honesty as first in their list of values, the Chinese

place courtesy as number one, and the Indians family5.

Individualism/collectivism is thought to have widespread influence on how the relationship

between the self and others is conceptualized. Collectivists consider themselves as similar to

members of their ingroup (Iyengar, Lepper, & Ross, 1999), and make a strong boundary

between ingroup and outgroup. Individualists see themselves as more differentiated and

separate from other people, including family and friends. Individualists frequently think of

self-reliance as being able to pursue their own goals, while for collectivists, self-reliance

means not being a burden on one’s ingroup (Triandis, 2001).6

Collectivism, more precisely is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook,

that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the

importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to

give priority to group goals over individual goals. It supports the view that the whole is

greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Society as a whole can be seen as having more

meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal

collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively-equal individuals, and is

thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical

structures of power and on moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on

centralization. A cooperative enterprise would be an example of horizontal collectivism,

whereas monarchy would be an example of vertical collectivism.

5 Fontaine R, Richardson S, and Yeap P The tropical Fish Problem Revisited : A Malaysian Perspective Journal of Cross-Cultural Management 60-706 When Personality and Culture Clash: The Psychological Distress of Allocentrics in an Individualist Culture and Idiocentrics in a Collectivist Culture

4

In his book Culture's Consequences, Geert Hofstede proposed four dimensions on which the

differences among national cultures can be understood: Power Distance (PDI), Individualism

(IDV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI). If we explore the Malaysian

culture through the lens of the 4-D Model, we can get a good overview of the deep drivers of

Malaysian culture relative to other world cultures.

The fundamental issue addressed by dimension of individualism is the degree of

interdependence a society maintains among its members Malaysia, with a score of 26 is a

collectivistic society. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the “member”

group, be that a family, extended family or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist

culture is paramount and overrides most other societal rules and regulations. Such a society

fosters strong relationships, where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their

group. In collectivistic societies, offence leads to shame and loss of face. Employer/employee

relationships are perceived in moral terms (like a family link), hiring and promotion take

account of the employee’s in-group. Management is the management of groups.7

A research was done, comparing participants of British nationality and of Malaysian

nationality, all full-time students at the University of Wales, Cardiff. The results suggest that

Malaysian students are more collectivist than their British counterparts, specifically with

respect to the tendency to defer to the guidance or direction of relatives as well as in regard to

feelings of connectedness with parents. However, on the dimension of confiding in others,

Malaysians might actually be less collectivist. The inconsistency also suggests that whereas

Malaysians have been found to express clear collectivist leanings in a range of contexts

(Bochner, 1994; Burns & Brady, 1992; Furnham & Muhiudeen, 1984;

Shumacher&Barraclough, 1989), they might well appear as individualist in select others.8

7 8 http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/tafarodi/Papers/JCCP99.pdf

5

PARENTING STYLE

As Malaysia represents a collectivist culture (Burns & Brady, 1992; Bochner, 1994), values

such as cooperation, helpfulness, obedience, dependence and interpersonal relationships are

promoted in child socialization (Kling, 1995). Family socialization begins as a process

6

through which children practice and learn rituals, traditions, religion, and activities in their

daily life (Krishnan, 2004). This practice is consistent with Baumrind (1980) who indicated

that socialization is the process that prepares children to obtain habits and values that help

them to adapt to their culture. In addition, these values are achieved through insight, training,

and imitation. 9

In Malay culture, parents have very important roles in directing the children toward the right

behavior and attitude. Parents are also responsible for transmitting the teachings of religion

and culture to their children. Malay parents are regarded as clear authority figures and are

obeyed without question. They pay attention to the spiritual growth in the development of the

children. The exposure of worldwide culture by the media which introduces Western

behavior to the young, have challenged Malay traditional parents. For these parents who are

mostly trained by traditional norms, Western behaviors are unacceptable practice. Although a

majority of Malay parents tend to uphold this tradition, there are however, some who may not

totally reject the Western behaviour pattern (Kling, 1995). Nonetheless, Malays continue to

emphasize values such as unity, sharing, and caring for others.10

Among Chinese families, interactions between parent and child differ from one age period to

another. Parents tend to be more lenient toward infants and young children because they are

considered as tung-shih or too young to understand things. In contrast, parents treat older

children in a harsh and strict manner and also expect them to control their emotions and

impulses. Beginning around middle childhood and early adolescence children encounter

some difficulties and conflicts with their parent’s increasing expectations towards them.

Amazingly, the term “storm and stress” which is notable in the period of adolescence in

Western societies, has not been observed in Chinese adolescence (Ho, 1981). Carlson et al.

9 Parenting Style in a Collectivist Culture of Malaysia, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)10 Ibid

7

(2004) showed an agreement among Chinese-Malaysians that Chinese medium school

students are more disciplined, obtained higher academic scores and value their Chinese

cultural beliefs. For the Chinese, dependency has been sustained when reaching the age of

tung-shih. Parents have to approve the major decisions of their children such as career and

marriage. Shek (1998) found that there are some differences in parenting of the children

according to their gender. Parents seem to have an authoritarian relationship with their sons;

fathers also have firm rules as well as demand teaching for their sons than daughters.11

The structure of the Indian families has been described as patriarchal, patrilineal, and

patrilocal (Sheth, 1995). Indian parents tend to stress on respect, obedience and high

academic achievement in their children. Furthermore, they encourage their children to control

themselves, be patient and not yield to passion (Sala, 2002). Child’s independence is

considered as a threat to the parents. In Indian families, parents have different behaviors

towards their sons and daughters. Parents protect their female children more than males.

Additionally, children, particularly girls, are inhibited from showing assertive behaviour and

autonomy.12

Malaysian parents are from the collectivist group and accept the collectivist values.

Consequently, most of them tend to use authoritarian parenting as normative for rearing their

children and to promote optimal development. In this collectivist group, authoritarian

parenting does not necessarily reflect a negative style of parenting. In contrast, authoritarian

parenting in individualistic society represents a negative style of parenting since it is

inconsistent with its culture’s norms. Thus, the meaning of the parenting styles is more likely

to be based on the norm in one’s own culture.13

11 Parenting Style in a Collectivist Culture of Malaysia, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)12 Ibid13 Parenting Style in a Collectivist Culture of Malaysia, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

8

SELF-ESTEEM

Speculative explanations of substantively lower self-esteem in collectivists have pointed to

factors such as cultural tightness, less willingness to disregard failure and shortcomings,

9

attributional style, lack of choice in behavioral investment, greater tendency for guilt and

shame, and pessimism (Bond & Cheung, 1983; Chiu, 1993; Kitayama, Markus, &

Lieberman, 1995; Triandis,1995). In considering this issue, it is important to avoid the fallacy

of assuming that lower self-esteem, at either the cultural or individual level, is similarly

reflective of maladjustment across cultures. Cultural differences in self-understanding are the

result of extended social evolution. Therefore, their interpretation must take into account

culture-specific adaptive significance. Even so, it appears somewhat odd that collectivist

cultures, with their common emphasis on social integration and support—factors known to

promote self-esteem in Western cultures (Bettencourt & Dorr, 1997; Coopersmith, 1967;

Rosenberg, 1979)—should be uniformly associated with lower self-esteem. To make sense of

this, Tafarodi and Swann (1996) offered an alternative account, suggesting that collectivism

and individualism entail inverse costs and benefits for self-esteem. Accordingly, they

characterized the influence of I-C on self-valuation as a “cultural trade-off” whereby the

same cultural elements that promote the development of one dimension of self-esteem inhibit

the development of another. If so, then collectivism is not uniformly related to lower self-

esteem as has been assumed.

10

Collectivism and individualism entail inverse costs and benefits to self-esteem. Self-

competence insofar as it is reality bound, implies actual competence, a socially rewarded

quality. Hence, those high in social-competence tend to enjoy greater social acceptance and

approval. Although interpersonal feedback is primarily a determinant of self-liking, it also

may indirectly affect self-competence. This is because an accepting social milieu provides

opportunities for and otherwise supports the emergence of actual personal competence. A

loving parent, for example, often feeds both aspects of the child’s self-esteem. High

collectivism or individualism, therefore, should not be viewed as uniformly inhibitory for the

development of either dimension of self-esteem because pathways of indirect influence

moderate any loss attributable to cultural challenge.

The interdependent self, in contrast derives its identity essentially from relations with others.

The Self is not a separate identity but is embedded in a larger social group and can be

understood only in relation to that larger group. From the point of view of the interdependent

11

self, individual behaviour is derived from one’s role in different social contexts and from the

perception of others’ reaction to one’s behaviour as well as from the perceived effect of one’s

own actions on others. The independent self, in contrast derives its identity only from the

inner attributes of the individual. These attributes are considered to reflect the essence of the

individual, to be stable across time and context and the combination of these attributes is seen

as unique to the individual. These individual inner attributes are significant for defining,

regulating and thus predicting the behaviour of an individual.

Different concepts of the self lead to differences in the degree of self-consistency. The

independent self puts great emphasis on self-consistency and considers the latter important

for self-esteem, even if it comes at the cost of rigidity. Indeed, absence of self-consistency

would signal a flawed self which would be hurting self-esteem. In contrast, the

interdependent self emphasizes adjustment to contexts and flexibility at the cost of self-

consistency. It is this adaptability that is crucial for self-esteem, in line with the concept of

interdependent self.

12

ORGANISATIONAL VALUES

A research was done on Individualism-Collectivism and Organisational Value Types. Data

was collected by questionnaire from middle managers in a total of 18 organisations in

Selangor, Malaysia. The results showed that Malaysian managers have significantly high

levels of horizontal and vertical collectivism. Vertical collectivism has significant positive

relationships with collegial, meritocratic, and leadership organisational values. Horizontal

collectivism as a cultural pattern in which the individual sees the self as an aspect of an in-

group. That is, the self is merged with the members of the in-group, all of whom are

extremely similar to each other. Equality is the essence of this pattern. Vertical collectivism,

on the other hand, is a cultural pattern in which the individual sees the self as an aspect of an

in-group, but the members of the in-group are different from each other, some having more

status than others. Inequality is accepted in this pattern, and people do not see each other as

the same. Serving and sacrificing for the in-group is an important aspect of this pattern. The

results of this study support the contention that Malaysian society is a collectivistic society.14

There is no significant difference between Malaysian male and female managers in terms of

individualism-collectivism dimensions. Raja Rohana (1991) noted that the hardships of

World War II had led to a willingness to allow women in Malaysia to take external jobs. Prior

to that, women in Malaysia generally worked on the cultivation of crops and the tending of

domestic animals, except for a small number of women who worked in the market place and

in small businesses (Halinah, 1975). Malaysia‟s Independence from the British rule in 1957

had gradually but profoundly affected women‟s lives throughout Malaysia. The New

Economic Policy, implemented 13 years after Independence, resulted in more schools and

more jobs. There were scholarships for women to pursue education in local and foreign

14 Individualism-Collectivism And Organisational Value Types: A Case Of Malaysian Managers, International Business & Economics Research Journal – April 2009

13

universities. Today, women in Malaysia work in offices and have professional careers.

Education has given Malaysian women freedom and knowledge and skills necessary to have

a career outside the home. Malaysian women‟s participation in the labour force may lead

inevitably to lower commitment to marriage and the home environment, which

“individualises” women. This might explain the lack of difference between the Malaysian

males and females in relations to individualism-collectivism.15

Malaysian male managers appeared to perceive their organisation to have a higher level of

leadership organisational value type than their female counterparts. The leadership value

type, while unequal in its distribution of power, rewards and resources seeks to build

integration through the creation of a system of leadership and teamwork throughout the

organisation by having a loyal band of leaders below the apex, who are delegated some

power (Kabanoff, 1993). The male Malaysian managers‟ perception that their organisations

have the leadership organisational value type could be because superiors in their

organisations prefer to delegate powers to the male rather than to the female managers,

believing that male managers are more qualified, physically and mentally, to do the job. This

undermining of the female managers ability and capability to do their jobs is still prevalent in

organisations in Malaysia. Since the leader-focused value type places a heavy emphasis on

performance evaluation and reward systems, the favoured male managers would have a more

favourable performance evaluation results than their female counterparts and would receive

higher rewards. The occurrence of this type of situation may have influenced the male

managers in Malaysia to perceive their organisations to have a higher level of leadership

organisational value type than their female colleagues.16

15 Individualism-Collectivism And Organisational Value Types: A Case Of Malaysian Managers, International Business & Economics Research Journal – April 200916 Ibid

14

Being educated locally in one’s country means being constantly exposed to and exhibiting the

local culture, be it individualism or collectivism, in a person’s daily life. Those managers

who were educated in Asian countries perceived their organisation to have more collegial,

leadership, and meritocratic organisational value types than those who were educated in

western countries. One possible explanation for this could be the Malaysians strong affinity

for group affiliation (Abdullah & Singh, 1992). Malaysians derive their identity from being

part of a collectivity. Malaysians are motivated by their affiliations to groups, families,

friends, hometown and nation. They respect efforts to improve productivity if they can see

benefits accruing not only to the organisation but also to their family, community and nation.

Most Malaysians are interested with building and maintaining good relationships with those

they work with. They are often contented at work if they have the opportunity to show and

receive appropriate recognition and respect from their superiors, peers and subordinates.

Three of the four types of organisational values (collegial, meritocratic and leadership) have

affiliation as a value that is strongly espoused by the organisation. Since, Malaysians have a

strong affinity for group affiliation, this could perhaps explain why Malaysian managers,

educated locally and in other Asian countries, perceived their organisations to have higher

levels of collegial, meritocratic and leadership organisational value types.17

Malaysian managers who have Westerners as their top management officers appear to have a

higher level of horizontal individualism than those who have Asians as their top management

officers. Westerners are often cited in the literature as having individualistic characteristics

(see Hofstede, 1980, Triandis, 1995; Schwartz, 1994). The „secular spirituality‟ of the west

resulted in self-responsible individuals acting, not in terms of laws from the outside, but in

terms of a developing realisation of self-worth (Triandis, 1995).18

17 Individualism-Collectivism And Organisational Value Types: A Case Of Malaysian Managers, International Business & Economics Research Journal – April 200918 Individualism-Collectivism And Organisational Value Types: A Case Of Malaysian Managers, International Business & Economics Research Journal – April 2009

15

Furthermore, most of the people of the West are characterised by individualism in everyday

life, and these individualistic elements may have been introduced into the organisational

culture which, in turn, may influence the characteristics of the employees to a certain extent.

Collectivists tend to change themselves to fit into situations (Diaz-Guerrero, 1979, 1991;

Diaz-Guerrero and Diaz-Loving, 1990). Malaysian managers learn to change themselves to

fit into the environment created by their Western top management officers and, therefore,

embrace some of the individualist characteristics. Whether such an influence affects only the

work situations, or extends to social/family situations, will require further study.19

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

As an extension to the need to maintain harmonious relations, Malaysians rely on non-verbal

communication (i.e. facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc). Such a

19 Ibid

16

communication style tends to be subtle and indirect. In making a request, it would appear

outright to make it direct. Malays, particularly talk around what they intend to convey in the

hope that the message is understood. What appears to be important is to maintain the

relationship. Indirectness can also be observed in a social setting, like a marriage. In

traditional Malay custom, the proposal is conveyed in poetic verses and rhymes to express

their intention to have the girl’s hand in marriage for their son.

Malays may hint at a point rather than making a direct statement, since that might cause the

other person to lose face. Rather than say "no", they might say, "I will try", or "I’ll see what I

can do". This allows the person making the request and the person turning it down to save

face and maintains harmony in their relationship. If there is a strong need to correct a mistake

immediately, it would be done in a subtle way by adding, not criticising.

Silence is an important element of Malaysian communication. Pausing before responding to a

question indicates that they have given the question appropriate thought and considered their

response carefully. Silence is also a practice to show respect for the seniority, knowledge and

experience.

In negotiation, the Malays’ compromising and obliging conflict handling styles are probably

manifestations of their collective nature who prioritise group over personal interest. In

compromising and obliging styles, negotiators are more concerned with maintaining

relationship and safeguarding their partners feeling, hence in seemingly considered as “weak

style” in goal-orientated negotiation. To the Malays, even though achieving their negotiation

goal is important, their values in preserving harmony and respect for elders take precedence

in the negotiation process.

The art of communal dining is a great example of a collectivism culture such as Malaysia.

Eating in Malaysia is often marked as a communal affair–be it the Malay’s Kenduri, Chinese

17

New Year’s Eve reunion dinner, or Indian celebrations. During the feast friends and families

come together under the same roof–eating, socializing, and mingling. Never mind the

different ethnic origins or walks of life, when it comes to communal dining events, there is no

barrier as we speak the same language of food.

EVALUATION

To the point of living in collectivist society, it is good to know your own neighbour and

closer to your own colleagues and there is a strong sense of brotherhood. Yet, there are

negative elements that are inevitably still rooted like gossiping and backbiting that should not

18

be a common theme of an issue in everyday life. The society lacks environment where people

focus on improving their own lives and not worried about the judgement of society. The

senses of complex inferiority and the feeling of superiority are also among the causes that

became a stumbling block in realizing the first class mind. To the extent that collectivism is

important to maintain good relations between friends and fellows, but this unhealthy element

will be indirectly obliterated this process.

A collectivist society has more brain power and creative juices contributing to a task or

discussion. When a group is working as a whole they have many different perspectives and

experiences that they bring to each meeting. Each person is an individual which brings things

to the collective whole.

A flaw of a collectivist society is that people might not speak out because they're afraid of

other individuals reprimanding them. This is rather obvious in the Malaysian society, as

people tend not to speak out their minds, particularly in public talks. Malaysia students

arguably are passive learners due to the fact that speaking out might lead to shame and

negative feedback from others. Thus, people might not have their voices heard.

Collectivism allows people to benefit from all different points of views. Willingness to

compromise and pay attention to others opinion perhaps leads to a more rational decision

made in a more democratic manner. Individualism, however allows people to have more of

an independent state of mind. They can make decisions more easily than in a group. As for

collectivists, maintaining harmonious relations can reduce an individual’s independence of

viewpoint and excessively complicate decision-making.

The incidence of criminal and violent behaviour is lower in cultures with collectivist

traditions (Hwu, Yeh, Chang, & Yeh, 1989). However, the picture is mixed regarding major

psychiatric disorders (Tanaka-Matsumi & Draguns, 1997). Collectivist and traditional

19

cultures may create conditions which foster depression and anxiety. Collectivist socialization

practices increase dependency and decrease autonomy. Persons are encouraged to

subordinate personal goals to group agendas.20

Internalizing problems may arise when children are sensitive to parents’ high level of control.

Externalizing problems can be viewed as problems of under-control, as children are

insufficiently sensitive to social expectations. Lower reports of subjective wellbeing in some

collectivist cultures may reflect dissatisfaction with the burden of doing one’s duty and the

obstacles to achieving self-actualization. The negative consequence of collectivism is thus

that being controlled by shame and guilt leads to anxiety about whether one can meet social

obligations, and to depression, because shame and guilt interfere with pursuing one’s own

goals.21

In a collectivist culture, having a personality which is discrepant from societal values is a

stressor. Children who are competitive, self-reliant and aloof from others may find their

personalities tolerated or even rewarded in an individualist society, thus fostering healthy

development of an adult persona. In a collectivist society, the competitive, self-reliant, aloof

child may fail to develop culturally appropriate relations with others, leading to rejection by

peers and harsh treatment by adults. Peer rejection is well known as a risk factor for the

development of psychiatric problems.

Personal sacrifice brings a sense of satisfaction for individuals who live in collectivist

cultures (Triandis et al., 1988). Allocentric persons in collectivist cultures feel positive about

accepting ingroup norms. In contrast, idiocentric persons in collectivist cultures feel

ambivalent and even bitter about acceptance of ingroup norms. They wonder if this or that

norm is necessary, or if they should comply with it. Consequently, where allocentric persons

20 When Personality and Culture Clash: ThePsychological Distress of Allocentrics in an Individualist Culture and Idiocentrics in a Collectivist Culture21 Ibid

20

in collectivist cultures may experience consistency among the behavioral, affective, and

cognitive elements of their social behavior, idiocentrics may experience discrepancies. They

may comply with societal norms, while questioning their validity. This feeling of discrepancy

may be a stressor which detracts from psychological health.

There is some evidence that individualist vs. collectivist values influence life satisfaction by

influencing personality. Collectivist vs. individualist dispositions influenced the expression of

basic personality dispositions, and these influenced subjective wellbeing. Having

individualistic values correlated positively with openness and extraversion, and negatively

with neuroticism. These personality traits predicted self-esteem and satisfaction with friends,

which then influenced life satisfaction. In contrast, persons with collectivist dispositions had

high life satisfaction if they had family satisfaction.

Collectivism makes collective action easier because individuals internalize group interests to

a greater degree. However, it also encourages conformity and discourages individuals from

standing out. Because individualist culture gives social status rewards to people who stand

out, it may give a special, culturally motivated, incentive for innovation that is separate from

the standard monetary incentive. On the other hand, individualism can make collective action

more difficult because individuals pursue their own interest without internalizing collective

interests. This framework implies that individualism should encourage innovation more, but

collectivism should have an advantage in coordinating production processes and in various

forms of collective action.

21

CONCLUSION

Based on the Geert-Hofstede cultural dimensions, Malaysia scores 26, is considered as a

highly collectivistic society. However, there are limitations to this. The difference in terms of

priorities of values between different races in Malaysia perhaps requires them to be

deliberated separately. Being less collectivist in the dimension of confiding in others shows

that there are aspects that are pointing towards the individualist culture.

22

Looking at the current Malaysian society, the culture has changed particularly at urban areas.

Some individualistic elements are being incorporated into the culture, perhaps due to

globalisation and western education. This trend is very likely to continue growing in the

future. The argument as to whether this pattern leads to a more developed society or the

traditional collectivist culture should be preserved remains questionable.

Adaptation to the changes that are happening globally is very important to survive in this

competitive world. Perhaps these changes might need to include some individualistic values

in order to develop a society with a balance of self-reliance and community coordination.

However I think we should be proud of the collectivist society that has lasted for generations.

Emphasis on harmony and interdependence should be preserved.

REFERENCES

23