This article was downloaded by: [University of Minnesota Libraries, TwinCities]On: 30 September 2013, At: 21:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

The Protestant Work Ethic inBritain and MalaysiaAdrian Furnham a & Clare Muhiudeen aa University College of London, EnglandPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Adrian Furnham & Clare Muhiudeen (1984) The Protestant WorkEthic in Britain and Malaysia, The Journal of Social Psychology, 122:2, 157-161

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1984.9713476

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The Journal of Social Psychology, 1984, 122, 157-161.

THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC IN BRITAIN AND MALAYSIA*

University College of London, England

ADRIAN FURNHAM 1 AND CLARE MUHIUDEEN

SUMMARY

Two matched groups of British (N = 73) and Malaysian (N = 73) 5scompleted the Mirels-Garrett Protestant ethic scale on which high scoresindicate strong beliefs in the Protestant work ethic (PWE) and low scores,weak beliefs. Although there was no significant difference in scores be­tween the three ethnic groups comprising the Malaysian sample (Malay,Indian, Chinese), there were large significant differences between theBritish and Malaysians: the former had less belief in the PWE. There werealso significant sex differences-females had higher scores than males-andsocioeconomic differences-working-c1ass 5s had higher scores thanmiddle-class 5s. The results are interpreted in terms of the previous studiesof the Protestant work ethic in Asia and the social, cultural, and economicdifferences between Britain and Malaysia.

A. INTRODUCTION

Despite the fact that the link between European Protestantism andcapitalism outlined by Weber (15) has been challenged, the ideas in hisseminal study of the Protestant work ethic (PWE) have inspired a greatdeal of research. The validity of the historical, economic, and theologicalhypothesis remains in doubt, yet few have denied the validity and accuracyof Weber's description of PWE beliefs and behavior: namely, asceticism,hard work, thrift, frugality, postponement of gratification, etc. Psychologi­cal studies on the PWE starting with McClelland (10) are now numerous(4, 5, 11, 13, 14).

These studies have been concerned with various issues: constructing avalid and reliable measure of PWE belief (14); examining the relationship

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 16, 1983, andgiven special consideration in accordance with our policy for cross-cultural research. Copy­right, 1984, by The Journal Press.

I Reprint requests should be directed to the first author at the address shown at the end ofthis article.

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

158 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

between PWE and paid employment as well as unemployment (7); andcorrelations between the PWE and certain related personality (6, 12),demographic (2), and belief (6) variables.

Fewer studies have examined the extent and correlates of PWE beliefs indifferent cultures. Most PWE studies have been done in the English­speaking world: America (7), Australia (13), and Great Britain (4). A fewhave attempted to trace and measure PWE in different cultures. Bellah (3)noted the applicability of the Weberian thesis to Asia but stressed thesubtle and nonobvious connections between cultural and religious beliefsand various behavioral outcomes. Kennedy (8) examined PWE beliefsamong the Parsees of India and found similar social and religious valuesassociated with economic activity. Although the thesis was not totallyapplicable, Weber's concept of varying rationalities was found useful inunderstanding the positive association between the acceptance of economicand technical values and the appearance of commercial and technologicalbehavior. Similarly Alatas (1) has attempted to find evidence of the workethic theses among Muslim communities in contemporary South-EastAsia, although Marshall (9) has argued that the Weberian thesis was meantto be universally valid.

The applicability of the Weberian thesis to Asian countries has beenchallenged on theoretical grounds, but few have attempted to measurePWE beliefs outside English-speaking countries. The present study, there­fore, compared PWE beliefs in Britain and Malaysia. The economic suc­cess of countries such as Malaysia contrast starkly with the decline ofBritish economic and political power since World War II. In part, this rela­tive difference may be reflected in the difference in PWE beliefs in the twocountries.

B. METHOD

Two matched groups of Malaysian and English Ss completed the ques­tionnaire. There were 73 Malaysians (36 males and 37 females from threeethnic groups, Malay, Indian, and Chinese, in approximately equal num­bers). Most were in their 29's and 30's and had completed secondaryeducation. Approximately half were in working-class and half in middle­class occupations. A control group of 73 English Ss matched in terms ofeducation, sex, age, and class was drawn mainly from industry andhealth-related occupations. All were required to complete the Mirels andGarrett (12) Protestant Work Ethic scale which has been used extensivelyin previous research (4,5). This is a 19-item inventory, which is rated on a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

ADRIAN FURNHAM AND CLARE MUHIUDEEN 159

seven-point agree-disagree scale. Of the 19 items, 16 are scored in thedirection of high PWE endorsement and three in the direction of low PWEendorsement. Examples of the items are as follows: "Most people who don'tsucceed in life are just plain lazy"; "Life would have very little meaning ifwe never had to suffer"; "A distaste for hard work usually reflects aweakness of character." Ss were tested by a person of their own ethnicgroup at their place of work. Because the Malaysians had an excellentcommand of English and because a Malaysian translator was present, itwas felt that the questionnaire did not require translation. Each 50s wastold that the questionnaire concerned their attitudes to work in general andwas part of a larger nationwide survey. It was completed anonymously.

C. RESULTS

A one-way analysis of the PWE scores from the three ethnic Malaysiangroups revealed no significant results (F = 1.02, df = 1/72, P > .05); hencethe three groups were combined for further analysis. Two, two-wayANOVA were then computed on the PWE scores. A sex x cultureANOVA was calculated for the PWE scores, which revealed a highlysignificant culture difference (F = 43.28, df = 1/71, P < .00l) and amarginally significant sex difference (F = 4.28, df = 1/72, P < .05). Thetotal scores were as follows: Malaysian male M = 62.44, SD = 16.34;Malaysian femaleM = 68.97, SD = 17.60; British male, M = 47.81, SD =14.21; and British female, M = 51.41, SD = 11.27. Clearly, Malaysiansmore than the British, and females more than males endorsed the PWE.There was no significant interaction.

A second, occupation x culture ANOVA revealed predictably significantcultural differences (F = 43.73, df = 1/72, P < .001) and social-classdifferences (F = 3.37, df = 1/72, P < .05). The total scores were as follows:Malaysian working class, m = 73.54, SD = 19.72; Malaysian middle class,M = 63.85, SD = 14.45; British working class, M = 50.54, SD = 9.83;British middle class, M = 49.41, SD = 13.32. Thus, Malaysians more thanBritish, and working-class more than middle-class workers endorsed thePWE. Similarly, there was no interaction effect. A three-way ANOVA wasnot possible because of the cell sizes.

D. DISCUSSION

The results reveal consistent and wide differences in the PWE beliefs ofmatched British and Malaysian Ss. Predictably Malaysians of varyingethnic and religious background had higher PWE scores than the British.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

160 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

However, the two other variables-sex and occupation-also showedhigher scores for females than males, and working-class than for middle­class workers. In neither case were the interactions significant, which sug­gests that differential determinants of the PWE are similar in differentcultures. The degree to which people believed in the PWE, however,differed between cultures.

Although the difference is dramatic, the cause of this difference is farfrom clear for two reasons:

1. It is uncertain whether PWE beliefs are the cause or consequence ofeconomic success. Psychological theory and research on the PWE appearsto favor the former: early socialization in independence training leads tohigher achievement motivation and then economic achievement (5, 13). Yetthe cause of a person's or a country's economic success is almost bound tobe determined by more than simply one factor, such as a belief system.

2. The results are difficult to interpret because of the absence of histori­cal data. The only certain way to determine whether PWE beliefs havebeen differentially effective in economic growth in Britain and Malaysiasince World War II is to have valid and reliable longitudinal data on PWEin both societies. Nevertheless, historical and empirical data (4, 5, 6) seemto indicate that PWE beliefs for this period have been declining in Britainand rising in Malaysia and other South-East Asian countries, which maywell account for the comparative economic success of the latter countries.

REFERENCES

1. ALATAS, S. The Weber thesis in South East Asia. Arch. Sociol. Relig., 1963 15, 21-34.2. BEIT-HALLAHMI, B. Personal and social components of the Protestant ethic J. Soc.

Psychol., J. Soc. Psychol., 1979, 109, 263-267.3. BELLAH, R. Reflections on the Protestant ethic analogy in Asia. J. Soc. Issues, 1979,

109, 263-267.4. FURNHAM, A. The Protestant work ethic and attitudes to unemployment. J. Occup,

Psychol., 1982, 55, 277-285.S. . The Protestant work ethic: A review of the psychological literature. Europ,

1. Soc. Psychol., 1984, in press.6. FURNHAM, A., & BLAND, K. The Protestant work ethic and conservatism. Personal, &

Indiu. Diff., 1983, 4, 205-206.7. GREENBERG, J. The Protestant work ethic and reactions to negative performance

evaluations on a laboratory task. J. Appl. Psychol., 1977, 62, 682-690.8. KENNEDY, R. The Protestant ethic and the Parsis. Amer. J. Sociol., 1062,68,11-20.9. MARSHALL, G. In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Hutchinson, 1982.

10. MCCLELLAND, D. The Achieving Society. Princeton, N]: Van Nostrand, 1958.II. McDoNALD, A. More on the Protestant ethic. J. COIlSUIt. & Clin, Psychol., 1971,36,

40-44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13

ADRIAN FURNHAM AND CLARE MUHIUDEEN 161

12. MIRELS, H., & GARRETT, J. The Protestant ethic as a personality variable. J. Consult.& Clin. Psychol., 1965, 2, 85-92.

13. RAY, J. The Protestant ethic in Australia. J. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 116, 127-138.

14. WATERS, L., BATHIS, N., & WATERS, C. Protestant ethic attitudes among collegestudents. Educ. & Psychol. Meas., 1975, 35, 447-450.

15. WEBER, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin, 1930

Department of PsychologyUniversity College London26 Bedford WayLondon, England WCI0AP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Lib

rari

es, T

win

Citi

es]

at 2

1:16

30

Sept

embe

r 20

13