Convergence and divergence of individual-level values: A study of Malaysian managers

Convergence and divergence of individual-level values:A study of Malaysian managers

Jane L. Y. Terpstra-Tong, Robert H. Terpstra and Ding Ding TeeMonash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country with Malay, Chinese and Indian being the dominant ethnic groups. This paperinvestigates the three ethnic cultures in Malaysia by examining the individual-level values of managers andprofessionals. Based on 528 responses to a Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) questionnaire, the paper identifiespartial convergence of the value systems of Malay, Chinese and Indian people. It was found that the three ethnicgroups do not differ significantly in the individualistic value dimensions of Self-enhancement and Openness-to-change. However, Malays are found to be more conservative and less self-transcendent than Chinese orIndians, while Chinese and Indians attribute the same importance to these two sets of values.

Key words: convergence, divergence, ethnic cultures, Malaysia, Schwartz value survey, within-countryvariation.

Cultural homogeneity is an assumption embedded inseveral well-known cross-national value studies (e.g.Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992, 1994). This assumptionprovides a shortcut to understand the cultural context of theworld. However, it has been criticized as an over-simplification of national cultures that neglects diversitywithin each nation (Fischer, Ferreira, Assmar, Redford &Harb, 2005). Hence, some researchers have called for moreinvestigation of intra-national cultural variations (Tung &Verbeke, 2010). In response to this call, this paper aims touncover the sub-national cultures of an ethnically diversecountry – Malaysia – and examine the extent of valueconvergence and divergence between its major ethnicgroups.

The Malaysian context

Malaysia’s population comprises three major ethnicgroups: Malay (54%), Chinese (25%) and Indian (7.5%).The ethnic identity held by each of these groups remainsvery strong even after 50 years of national independence(Verkuyten & Khan, 2012). While Malays, Indians andChinese continue to follow their traditions and speak theirown languages, their value systems seem to show someconvergence (Westwood & Everett, 1995). In the latestnational elections, voters, regardless of their ethnicity,showed a common desire for change and transparency in

the government. This evidence is consistent with the theoryof modernization that says modernization leads to massiveshifts towards values of self-expression and liberal institu-tions that facilitate survival in an increasingly competitiveand globalized world (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).

A review of the literature on Malaysian values revealsthat little research has been done on this topic, and thatthe findings are inconsistent. Lim’s (2001) study on seniorexecutives (using Hofstede’s instrument), suggests thatthere are no cultural differences between the Malay andthe Chinese, while Fontaine and Richardson (2005) (usingthe Schwartz Value Survey, or SVS) conclude that thethree ethnic groups show no difference in the values ofConformity and Tradition, and that only five of the 57value items show significant differences across the threegroups. These findings are obviously opposed to the pres-ence of distinct ethnic artefacts and cultural practices inMalaysia, and to the findings reported in the studies ofAbdullah and associates (1996, 2000, 2001, 2003). Giventhese inconsistencies, this paper examines the currentindividual-level values held by Malaysian business man-agers and professionals using a cross-culturally validatedvalue instrument developed by Schwartz (1992, 1994),and attempts to answer two research questions: To whatextent do the values of the Malays, Chinese and Indians inMalaysia converge? To what extent do their values remaindistinct?

Schwartz’s value framework, valuechange theories and hypotheses

Schwartz (1992, 1994) defines values as the motivationalgoals that drive individual behaviour, and derive ten

Correspondence: Jane L.Y. Terpstra-Tong, Monash UniversityMalaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, 46150 Selangor,Malaysia. Email: [email protected] 9 November 2012; revision 13 November 2013;accepted 25 November 2013.

bs_bs_bannerAsian Journal of Social Psychology

© 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2014), 17, 236–243 DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12062

mailto:[email protected]

universal value types with their data from over 40 coun-tries. Those ten value types, based on their clusteringrelationships, are further conceptualized to form fourhigher-order value dimensions along two intersecting con-tinua: Self-enhancement (Achievement and Power valuetypes) versus Self-transcendence (Universalism andBenevolence), and Openness-to-change (Stimulation andSelf-direction) versus Conservation (Security, Conformityand Tradition). Hedonism is theorized as belonging toeither Openness-to-change or Self-enhancement. In a50-country study by Ralston et al. (2011), the higher-order individual-level value dimensions received accept-able stability and reliability across most of the nations,whereas the ten value types did not. For this reason andbrevity, this study focuses on the higher-order individual-level value dimensions, and uses them to formulate ourhypotheses.

Although values are stable personal attributes, they aredynamic and subject to changes that suit the existentialconditions. This ecological perspective underpins the mod-ernization theories that propose socioeconomic develop-ment is a key driving force for value change (Inglehart &Welzel, 2005). Accordingly, socioeconomic development,along with technological advancement, brings aboutimprovement in the existential conditions and a more edu-cated workforce. Rising education and income levels allowpeople to develop cognitive autonomy, resulting in higheracceptance towards self-expression values, more specifi-cally ‘rational, tolerant, trusting and participatory’ values(Inglehart & Baker, 2000, p. 19). However, modernizationtheories do not predict a complete convergence of peoples’value systems and state that the influence of a society’scultural heritage continues to be strong and persistent. Tra-ditional values, influenced heavily by a society’s culturalforces, such as religion, are proved to be resilient and theyhave shown persistence in the face of the globalization andcompetitive forces (Inglehart & Baker, 2000). Similarly,Ralston (2008) postulates that in emerging or transitionalsocieties, individualistic values that support capitalisticbehaviours are easier to change while collectivistic valuesinfluenced primarily by socio-cultural forces are slowerto change. This postulation is supported by the SVSstudies conducted by Ralston and his associates (e.g.Ralston et al., 2011). In Schwartz’s value framework, theSelf-enhancement and Openness-to-change value dimen-sions comprise individualistic values whereas the Conser-vation and Self-transcendence value dimensions consist oftraditional and collectivistic values. Following this differ-entiation, we hypothesize that after five decades ofincreased interaction, the three ethnic groups only differ onthe collectivistic value dimensions. Thus:H1: On the collectivistic value dimensions of Self-

transcendence and Conservation, there will be differ-ences between Malays, Chinese and Indians.

The Conservation dimension, comprising the valuetypes of Security, Conformity and Tradition, measuresthe extent to which an individual is motivated to preservetraditions, conform to social norms, and prefer stabilityand the status quo. The Chinese in Malaysia are known aspragmatic, flexible towards uncertainty and willing toadapt for long-term perseverance (Abdullah & Pedersen,2003). They are essentially Confucian and are not reli-gious. Buddhism and Taoism are probably the religionsthat most Malaysian Chinese claim to follow (Storz,1999). The Malays, who are Muslim by law, are consid-ered to be more traditional. They demonstrate higherconcern for conformity, and place higher emphasis onceremony. Furthermore, Malays are subject to theIslamic Sharia laws that regulate various forms ofsocial and family behaviour. Most of the Indians areHindus and they appear to be more religious than theChinese, but we are unaware of any studies that comparethe religiosity of Malays and Indians. As religiosity ispositively associated with Tradition, Conformity andSecurity (Roccas, 2005), and as Malays are subject to theconstraints of an encompassing religion, we hypothesizethat:H2a: Malays will score higher on the dimension of Conser-

vation than Chinese or Indians.H2b: Indians will score higher on the dimension of

Conservation than Chinese.The Self-transcendence dimension comprises two valuetypes: Benevolence (caring for personally related others)and Universalism (caring for all people in general and fornature). Conceptually, Benevolence has some similaritywith collectivism – or the ethic of taking care of othermembers of the in-group. Abdullah and Pedersen (2003)find that all three ethnic groups demonstrate that theyvalue social ties and care for closely related others. Inaddition, Lim’s (2001) study found no significant differ-ence between Malays and Chinese on the individualism–collectivism scale. Thus, we do not expect to find anydifferences in Benevolence values between these threegroups.

For Universalism, prior research has demonstrated that ithas a moderately negative correlation with religiosityamong followers of monotheist religions, including TurkishMuslims (Roccas, 2005). Among the major religions inMalaysia, Islam is monotheist while Hinduism, Taoism andBuddhism are multi-theist. Furthermore, some studies iden-tify that out-group bias and intergroup conflict are exacer-bated by strong ethnic identification (Tajfel & Turner,1986). Malays hold stronger ethnic identification thanIndians or Chinese (Liu, Lawrence, Ward & Abraham,2002), and their faith is monotheist by nature. Takentogether, we hypothesize:H3: On the Self-transcendence dimension, Malays will

score lower than Chinese or Indians.

Convergence and divergence of individual-level values 237


Method

Sample and procedures

We received 590 responses to our mail-in survey from themembers of the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers(FMM), and the legal professionals listed in a databasecompiled by the authors. The aggregate response rate was14.8%. We extracted a usable set of 528 responses. Allrespondents were Malaysians, and considered themselvesas belonging to one of the three ethnicities. They wereassured of anonymity and participated on a voluntary basis.

We performed t-tests and chi-square tests of independ-ence to compare the demographics of the respondents fromthe FMM directory and the legal professionals’ database.There were no significant differences between these twogroups in ethnicity, gender, religiosity, education attain-ment or household income. The significant differencesappeared in the industries represented, ages, marital statusand firm sizes. All respondents in the legal professionalsgroup were from legal fields, but the respondents from theFMM directory group represented a variety of sectors [χ2

(10, N = 528) = 528.0, p < 0.001]. In age, respondents fromthe legal professionals group were slightly younger[t(523) = 1.84, p < 0.05]. There were also more unmarriedrespondents in the legal professionals group [χ2 (1,N = 528) = 4.30, p < 0.05], and the legal professionalrespondents also worked for slightly larger firms[t(524) = 1.79, p < 0.05].

As shown in Table 1, the major demographic differencesare present in religion and religiosity, reflecting the typicalprofiles of Malay, Indian and Chinese ethnic groups.

ANOVA results also indicate that there is significant differ-ence in religiosity across the groups [F(2, 521) = 22.76,p < 0.001] and a post-hoc Tukey HSD test shows that bothMalays and Indians are significantly more religious thanChinese (p < 0.05) while there is no significant differencein the religiosity between Malays and Indians.

Instrument

The English 57-item SVS was used to measure individualvalues. Respondents were asked to rate the importance ofeach value item as their guiding principle in life with a9-point scale, ranging from −1 (opposed to being guidedby this principle) to 7 (supreme importance as a guidingprinciple). Several demographic variables were includedin the questionnaire: age (in years), gender (1 = male;2 = female), marital status (1 = married; 2 = unmarried),education (in years), religiosity (1 = not religious to4 = very religious), household income (1 = below RM2000or US$650 to 5 = RM9000 or above), and firm size(1 = below 150 employees to 3 = above 1000 employees).

The 12 Cronbach’s alpha scores for each dimension byethnic group ranged from 0.782 to 0.886, indicating allsub-scales met the threshold reliability value of 0.70. TheInter-rater agreement (IRA) index scores were all above0.80, with a range between 0.85 and 0.90, which also metthe threshold requirement of 0.70 (Table 2).

The correlation coefficient of Hedonism and the mean ofSelf-direction and Stimulation values (r = 0.166, p < 0.05)were slightly higher than that of Hedonism and the meanof Power and Achievement values (r = 0.148, p < 0.05).

Table 1 Selected demographics

Malay (n = 177) Indian (n = 129) Chinese (n = 222)

Mean age 40.6 41.4 44.9(S.D.) (10.6) (11.2) (9.77)Gender (% male) 59% 55% 72%Marital status (% married) 84% 72% 81%Education (>15 years) 81% 80% 70%Religion 99% (Islam) 72% (Hinduism) 63% (Buddhism)

14% (Protestant)Religiosity

Mildly religious 67% 60% 63%Very religious 25% 25% 7%

Company size<150 employees 61% 69% 52%151–1000 employees 27% 21% 39%>1000 employees 12% 10% 9%

Income bracketsMiddle 61% 48% 44%Middle high 32% 37% 36%Highest 3% 9% 13%

238 Jane L. Y. Terpstra-Tong et al.


Therefore, Hedonism was grouped as a composite valuetype in the Openness-to-change dimension.

The dimensional scores given to each individual in thesamples were the means of the composite value items. Thecentred scores (subtracting the raw scores by the individualmean for all value items) were used in computing thedimensional means. Despite the concern that centringcreates ipsative scores that are not suitable for some statis-tical analyses (Fischer, 2004), the centring procedure wasdeemed necessary to eliminate any individual responsebiases in using the SVS instrument, and suitable forANCOVA and regression analysis (Schwartz, 2009).

Results

To test our hypotheses, we ran MANCOVA and ANCOVAswith STATA. The MANCOVA results indicate significantWilks’ Lambda effects of age [λ = 0.94, F(4, 437) = 7.36,p < 0.001], gender [λ = 0.95, F(4, 437) = 5.95, p < 0.001]

and religiosity [λ = 0.88, F(12, 1156) = 4.78, p < 0.001] onat least one of the value dimensions in the model. Education,income and firm size had no significant effect on the valuedimensions and were excluded in the subsequent analyses.

Using the value dimensions as dependent variables,ethnicity as the factor and age, gender and religiosityas covariates, we conducted four separate ANCOVAs.There were significant differences between the ethnicgroups on the Conservation and the Self-transcendencedimensions but not on the Openness-to-change and theSelf-enhancement dimensions. Thus Hypothesis 1 (a diver-gence on the Self-transcendence and the Conservationdimensions) was supported.

The post-hoc Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons showthat Malays scored significantly higher in Conservationvalues but lower in Self-transcendence values than Indiansor Chinese (Tables 2, 3). Therefore, Hypotheses 2a and 3were both supported. However, Hypothesis 2b, whichstated that Indians would score higher than Chinese inConservation, was not supported. In regards to the

Table 2 Key statistics for individual-level value dimensions

DimensionEthnicgroup

Cronbach’salpha

IRA statistic(αwg(J))

Rawmean

Centredmean S.D. F p

Self-enhancement Malay 0.805 0.866 4.354 −0.350 0.617 0.69Indian 0.809 0.867 4.023 −0.428 0.619Chinese 0.785 0.885 4.019 −0.372 0.649

Openness-to-change Malay 0.818 0.859 4.291 −0.455 0.556 1.03Indian 0.782 0.866 4.356 −0.352 0.594Chinese 0.806 0.880 4.143 −0.380 0.566

Conservation Malay 0.870 0.862 4.926 0.238 0.346 9.04 ***Indian 0.872 0.849 4.476 0.051 0.481Chinese 0.870 0.904 4.463 0.083 0.352

Self-transcendence Malay 0.886 0.845 4.763 0.112 0.388 8.13 ***Indian 0.866 0.866 4.712 0.231 0.406Chinese 0.870 0.880 4.654 0.297 0.399

***p < 0.001.

Table 3 Tukey HSD multiple comparisons

DimensionCentredmean Group

Conservation 0.238 Malay0.051 Indian *0.083 Chinese *

Malay IndianSelf-transcendence 0.112 Malay

0.231 Indian *0.297 Chinese *

Malay Indian

*p < 0.05.



covariates, age was found to be a significant covariate on allfour value dimensions. Religiosity was significant to alldimensions except Self-transcendence while gender wassignificant only to Openness-to-change.

To ensure homogeneity of regression slopes, we re-ran theANCOVAs on the Conservation and the Self-transcendencedimensions with three possible interaction terms – ethnicity-by-age, ethnicity-by-gender, and ethnicity-by-religiosity –as additional covariates. There was a significant interactioneffect of ethnicity-by-religiosity on Conservation, and ofethnicity-by-gender on Self-transcendence. Given the sig-nificant interaction effect, we did further ANCOVAs. First,we conducted ANOVAs by religiosity, using Conservationas the dependent variable, ethnicity as the factor, and age andgender as covariates.Among those who claimed to be mildlyreligious, Malays were significantly more conservative thanIndians or Chinese [F(2, 325) = 5.33, p < 0.01] and therewas no ethnicity effect in the other three religious groups.Second, we ran two ANCOVA tests by gender on Self-transcendence, using ethnicity as the factor, and age andreligiosity as covariates. The significant difference on theSelf-transcendence score only appeared between the malesof the three ethnic groups [F(2, 331) = 11.20, p < 0.001].Malay males scored significantly higher than Indian orChinese males, whereas among females, there was no sig-nificant ethnicity effect.

The ANCOVA results for the ten value types that make upthe value dimensions are provided in Table 4. They werefairly consistent with those conducted on the dimensionallevel. Tradition [F(2, 465) = 6.25, p < 0.01] was the valuetype that drove the significant difference across ethnicitiesfor the Conservation dimension, as was Universalism [F(2,468) = 9.8, p < 0.001] for the Self-transcendence dimen-sion. Furthermore, Indians scored significantly higher thanMalays in Self-direction values [F(2, 469) = 5.34, p < 0.01]and Stimulation values [F(2, 469) = 3.31, p = < 0.05], andChinese scored significantly higher than Indians in Benevo-lence values [F(2, 468) = 5.82, p < 0.01].

To examine the sex differences between various valuetypes and value dimensions, we repeated the same set ofANCOVAs (Table 5). Significant differences betweensexes only appeared between Malay males and females butnot between Chinese or Indian males and females. Moreo-ver, it was found that Malay males scored significantlyhigher in Self-enhancement values (or more preciselyPower values), but lower in Self-transcendence (or Univer-salism values) than Malay females.

Discussion and conclusion

The findings in our study support both our convergenceand divergence hypotheses, where three of our findings areworth highlighting. First, Malays, Chinese and Indians

differ significantly on their collectivistic value dimensions,Conservation and Self-transcendence, while their individu-alistic values of Self-enhancement and Openness-to-change show no significant differences. Second, mildlyreligious Malays were more conservative compared tomildly religious Chinese or Indians. Third, Chinese andIndians did not differ significantly in all of the SVS valuedimensions.

The first finding provides support for the projection ofvalue change based on modernization theories andRalston’s postulation (2008). Traditional values influencedby socio-cultural factors and dependent upon historical her-itage are indeed more resistant to change whereas individu-alistic values that facilitate competition in a capitalist worldare easier to change. Since our sample is biased towardshighly educated professionals and managers, value conver-gence should have been more pronounced than that in arepresentative sample. The fact that there is limited conver-gence in the traditional values suggests that these values arehighly resilient.

The second and third findings suggest that Malay values,relative to Chinese or Indian values are more resistant tochange. This conclusion is consistent with the findings inGelfand et al.’s (2011) study on cultural tightness andlooseness. Of the 33 societies in their study, Malays wereranked second in the tightness list. A tight society is onethat has strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behav-iour. This could explain why Malays are more conservativeor more traditional than Chinese or Indians, and mightfurther explain the sex differences on values betweenMalays. The tighter a culture is, the harder it is to breakaway from traditional values and sex norms.

The third finding that Chinese and Indians do not differsignificantly across all four value dimensions is intriguingas these two groups have very different cultural heritages.Though value congruence is expected among highly edu-cated individuals in a society, the fact that they do notdiffer significantly on the values influenced primarily bysocio-cultural forces suggests the relatively loose andadaptive nature of the Chinese and Indian cultures inMalaysia.

With respect to future research, our findings concludethat behavioural scientists need to consider ethnicity as akey explanatory or control variable in their models whenusing data from multi-ethnic Malaysia. Since values have aprofound influence on an individual’s decisions, the vari-ance in behaviour and attitudes in question could be a resultof ethnic differences, as identified in our comparative study.Nonetheless, the findings of our study need to be judged inlight of the study’s limitation. Our convenience sample thatfocused on the educated elites prevents us from generaliz-ing the results to wider society.

In conclusion, Malaysia is indeed a diverse country butit is more diverse in ethnicity than in values. Although



Tab

le4

Key

stat

isti

csan

dA

NC

OVA

resu

lts

for

valu

ety

pes

Dim

ensi

onV

alue

type

Eth

nic

grou

pC

entr

edm

ean

S.D

.R

awm

ean

αF

pSi

gnifi

cant

cova

riat

eSi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

cebe

twee

ngr

oups

Self

-enh

ance

men

tA

chie

vem

ent

Mal

ay0.

190.

704.

910.

790.

570.

563

Age

,rel

igio

sity

Non

eIn

dian

0.27

0.66

4.79

0.73

Chi

nese

0.28

0.69

4.69

0.75

Pow

erM

alay

−0.8

90.

903.

830.

652.

710.

067

Age

,rel

igio

sity

,gen

der

Non

eIn

dian

−1.1

00.

963.

390.

69C

hine

se−1

.02

0.95

3.40

0.63

Ope

nnes

s-to

-cha

nge

Stim

ulat

ion

Mal

ay−0

.91

0.90

3.81

0.72

3.31

0.03

7R

elig

iosi

ty,g

ende

rIn

dian

>M

alay

*In

dian

−0.6

50.

883.

850.

70C

hine

se−0

.76

0.81

3.66

0.69

Self

-dir

ectio

nM

alay

−0.1

00.

584.

620.

716.

210.

002

Rel

igio

sity

Indi

an>

Mal

ay*

Indi

an0.

140.

614.

640.

61C

hine

se0.

040.

564.

550.

63H

edon

ism

Mal

ay−0

.35

1.01

4.37

0.59

1.44

0.23

8A

ge,r

elig

iosi

tyN

one

Indi

an−0

.55

1.14

3.95

0.44

Chi

nese

−0.4

21.

174.

000.

58C

onse

rvat

ion

Tra

ditio

nM

alay

−0.2

30.

664.

500.

709.

270.

000

Non

eM

alay

>In

dian

*M

alay

>C

hine

se*

Indi

an−0

.60

0.76

3.89

0.70

Chi

nese

−0.4

80.

663.

940.

58C

onfo

rmity

Mal

ay0.

530.

555.

260.

760.

720.

489

Non

eN

one

Indi

an0.

470.

714.

970.

79C

hine

se0.

410.

634.

830.

71Se

curi

tyM

alay

0.41

0.56

5.13

0.69

2.64

0.07

3N

one

Non

eIn

dian

0.29

0.65

4.79

0.71

Chi

nese

0.30

0.67

4.72

0.69

Self

-tra

nsce

nden

ceB

enev

olen

ceM

alay

0.37

0.59

5.10

0.81

4.43

0.00

1N

one

Chi

nese

>In

dian

*In

dian

0.31

0.63

4.81

0.79

Chi

nese

0.52

0.60

4.94

0.81

Uni

vers

alis

mM

alay

−0.1

40.

514.

590.

8311

.77

0.00

0A

geIn

dian

>M

alay

*C

hine

se>

Mal

ay*

Indi

an0.

150.

524.

650.

81C

hine

se0.

070.

544.

490.

82

*p<

0.05

.



Malays, Chinese and Indians continue to preserve theirtraditional cultural practices and speak their own lan-guages, their value systems have shown some convergence.As measured by the SVS, all three ethnic groups attributethe same level of importance to the individualistic valuesdimensions. Such convergence in values is partly reflectedin the recent national elections, which revealed an increasedunity in calling for change and transparency in the govern-ment. That being so, our findings show that Indians andChinese do not differ significantly in all four value dimen-sions, and that Malays are the unique cultural group among

the three with their higher rating in Conservation values andlower rating in Self-transcendence values.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Monash University Malaysia.The authors want to thank Ms. Saramma Joseph for herassistance in data collection, and the editor and threeanonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier draftsof the manuscript.

References

Abdullah, A. (1996). Going Global: CulturalDimensions in Malaysian Management.Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute ofManagement.

Abdullah, A. & Lim, A., eds. (2000). Under-standing the Malaysian Workforce, 2nd edn,Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute ofManagement.

Abdullah, A. & Lim, L. (2001). Culturaldimensions of Anglos, Australians andMalaysians. Malaysian ManagementReview, 36 (2), 9–17.

Abdullah, A. & Pedersen, P. B. (2003). Under-standing Multicultural Malaysia: Delights,Puzzles & Irritations. Kuala Lumpur:Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Fischer, R. (2004). Standardization to accountfor cross-cultural response bias: A classifica-tion of score adjustment procedures andreview of research in JCCP. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 263–282.

Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E. M. L.,Redford, P. & Harb, C. (2005).

Organizational behaviour across cultures.Interntional Journal of Cross-Cultural Man-agement, 5, 27–48.

Fontaine, R. & Richardson, S. (2005). Culturalvalues in Malaysia: Chinese, Malays andIndians compared. Cross-Cultural Manage-ment, 12, 63–77.

Gelfand, M., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L.M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., et al. (2011). Differ-ences between tight and loose cultures.Science, 332, 1100–1104.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Conse-quence: Comparing Values, Behaviors,Institutions, and Organization acrossNations, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. E. (2000). Moderni-zation, cultural change, and the persistenceof traditional values. American SociologicalReview, 65, 19–51.

Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. (2005). Moderniza-tion, Cultural Change and Democracy: TheHuman Development Sequence. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lim, L. (2001). Work related values of Malaysand Chinese Malaysians. International

Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1,209–226.

Liu, J. H., Lawrence, B., Ward, C. & Abraham,S. (2002). Social representations of historyin Malaysia and Singapore: On the relation-ship between national and ethnic identity.Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5,3–20.

Ralston, D. A. (2008). The crossvergence per-spective: Reflections and projections.Journal of International Business Studies,39, 27–40.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Reynaud, E.,Srinivasan, N., Furrer, O., Brock, D., et al.(2011). A twenty-first century assessment ofvalues across the global workforce. Journalof Business Ethics, 104 (1), 1–31.

Roccas, S. (2005). Religion and value systems.Journal of Social Issues, 61, 747–759.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in thecontent and structure of values: Theory andempirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York:Academic Press.

Table 5 Sex difference on value types and higher-order value dimensions

Value dimension Significant within-ethnicity sex difference Value type Significant within-ethnicity sex difference

Self-enhancement Malay male > Malay female** Achievement NonePower Malay male > Malay female***

Openness-to-change None Stimulation NoneSelf-direction NoneHedonism None

Conservation None Tradition NoneConformity NoneSecurity None

Self-transcendence Malay male < Malay female*** Benevolence NoneUniversalism Malay male < Malay female*

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.



Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimension ofvalues. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),Individualism and collectivism: Theory,method, and applications (pp. 85–119).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Draft Users Manual:Proper Use of the Schwarz Value Survey,v14. Compiled by Romie F. Littrell. Centrefor Cross Cultural Comparisons. [Cited 14Feb 2009.] Available from URL: http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/DraftManual_SVS_14Feb2009.doc

Storz, M. L. (1999). Malay and Chinese valuesunderlying the Malaysian business culture.International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 23, 117–131.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The socialidentity theory of inter-group behavior. In S.Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychologyof intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago:Nelson-Hall.

Tung, R. & Verbeke, A. (2010). BeyondHofstede and GLOBE: Improving thequality of cross-cultural research. Journalof International Business Studies, 41, 1259–1274.

Verkuyten, M. & Khan, A. (2012). Inter-ethnicrelations in Malaysia: Group identifications,indispensability and inclusive nationhood.Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15,132–139.

Westwood, R. I. & Everett, J. E. (1995). Com-parative managerial values: Malaysia andthe West. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business,1 (3), 3–37.



http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/DraftManual_SVS_14Feb2009.doc



Documents

Convergence and divergence of individual-level values: A study of Malaysian managers