European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

Parenting Style in a Collectivist Culture of Malaysia

Somayeh Keshavarz
Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Faculty of Human Ecology
University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: somayeh_k15@yahoo.com
Tel: 006-0162506252

Rozumah Baharudin
Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Faculty of Human Ecology
University Putra Malaysia, 43400 Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: rozumah@putra.upm.edu.my
Tel: 603-89467082; Fax: 603-89437093

Abstract
The article reviews empirical studies which emphasize that parenting styles are strongly
influenced by the cultural context of the society. Cultural differences in values, described
as individualism-collectivism, similarly shape understanding of the forms (e.g.,
authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles) and interpretation of parenting
styles. The review indicates that Malaysian parents from the three ethnic groups (i.e.,
Malay, Chinese and Indian) are similar with other parents from collectivist countries which
endorse authoritarian parenting more than individualist parents, and do not regard it as an
unfavorable style of parenting.

Keywords: Parenting styles, culture, collectivism, individualism, Malaysian society

1. Introduction
Parents and their influences on the socialization of the children have been considered as the basis of
mainstream psychological theories. In other words, most research regarding parenting behaviors have
been initiated by theoretical concerns regarding the role of parents’ behaviors on children’s
socialization. Equipping children with the necessary means to become a successful member in society
have been linked to the adaptive child rearing strategies expressed in the parent-child interaction
context (Bornstein, 2002). Behaviorist learning theories emphasized the “blank slate” status of infants,
and parents were considered as those responsible and have power to train and teach their children what
they must learn. For decades, developmental psychologists have been interested in how parents
influence their children’s development, and one approach in this area is the study of what has been
termed as parenting style (Darling and Steinberg, 1993).
Baumrind’s (1971) parenting style typology (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive)
provides a useful framework in the examination of early parent-child relationships. In Baumrind’s
(1991) study, she found that authoritative parents who are approving, responsive and nurturing with
moderate control, to be most facilitative in a child’s development of social competence in comparison
to authoritarian and permissive parenting styles. The development of parents’ philosophy about
parenting is based on individual and family experiences, personality style, their own child’s
characteristics, social context and their cultural background (Belsky, 1984). In the present review, we
focus on the role of culture as one of the factors that affect parenting behavior.

66
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

Parents’ values, belief system, and socialization goals are influenced by cultural context
(Tamminen, 2006). Analogously, parent-child interaction can be quite consistent within a particular
cultural context and can change substantially from one context to another. To this extent, what is
normal within the bounds of one culture may be labeled abnormal in others. Some behaviors may be
considered normal in one culture and abnormal in others. When parents are exposed to a dominant
given culture with high frequency, they are affected by the norms and values of that culture. Previous
studies have shown that specific attitudes and values are usually different between individualism and
collectivism societies (Triandis, 1991; Rhee et al, 1996).Consequently; socially learned norms and
values offer standards which parents usually use to direct their own interaction with their children.
Understanding the cultural context of the society can potentially help to predict differences in
parenting styles that predominate in that society and to understand why these differences occur.
Although the beneficial effects of the authoritative style have consistently been demonstrated for
Western cultures (Claes et al, 2003), there is limited research on parenting styles in Asian societies
such as Malaysia. For this reason, this article aims to explain parenting styles with regards to the
Malaysian cultural context. Hence, generalizability studies in Asian cultures provide information
regarding parenting in other societies and broaden the cross-cultural database to better understand the
role of cultural factors in parenting.
This paper is a literature review of past research conducted on cultural context and parenting
styles. The article is divided into several sections. First, it starts with the classification of parenting. It
is then followed by a review on the individualism and collectivism orientations. The paper then
demonstrates the influence of culture on parenting styles and finally provides an overview of culture in
Malaysia.

2. The Classification of Parenting Styles

The principal role of parenting involves the promotion of nurturing, balanced relationships or,
contrastingly, the exacerbation of stress-prone, hostile exchanges between parents and children
(Abidin, 1992; Katz and Woodin, 2002; Brooks-Gunn and Markman, 2005).
Baumrind (1991) investigated parenting styles and found three categories which included:
authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. She found that authoritative parents are warm, responsive,
demanding and involved. They also exhibit behaviours that include respect for the child’s viewpoint
and their independence although they set clear limits for them. In addition, they set high but realistic
goals for their children and provide the necessary support for them to achieve these goals. The
authoritative parent was found most effective in fostering social responsibility, sense of self-esteem,
confidence and adaptability in their children to meet challenges of academic and other contexts where
strong beliefs in one’s abilities are required. Kaufmann et al. (2000) examined the relationship between
parenting style and children’s adjustment. This study confirmed that authoritative parenting style is
positively associated with healthy adjustment and reducing maladjustment than other styles of
parenting.
The permissive parent is characterized as warm, high nurturance, responsive but low in parental
control and demand few maturity behaviours. Permissive parents are more likely to give way to the
child’s impulses, desires and actions. These parents place few demands on their children and let them
do whatever they want. This style of parenting appears unsuccessful in enabling children to develop a
range of self-directing abilities that underlie academic success (Diaz, 2005).
Authoritarian parents are highly controlling and demanding but affectively cold, requiring
children to be responsive to parental demands. They attempt to evaluate the behavior and attitudes of
children based on absolute sets of standards. Children are discouraged to negotiate over the family
rules. These parents expect their children to obey explicit standards and rules and disobedience is
dealt with by forceful and punitive discipline. Authoritarian parents also are less likely than others to
use more gentle methods of persuasion; it means that they tend to be low in affection, praise and

67
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009)

rewards with their children to motivate the child. Children of authoritarian parents tend to be
withdrawn, mistrusting, and unhappy. In a study on the relationship between parenting styles and
parental beliefs, Colpan et al. (2002) found that children of authoritarian parents tend to have low self-
esteem and lack spontaneity. However, they cautioned readers to take into consideration the
importance of culture when evaluating parenting behaviour. They wrote, “In non-western, collectivist
cultures, parents may engage in behaviours that are consistent with authoritarian parenting styles
without espousing beliefs or attitudes that are typical of authoritarian Western parents”.

3. Cultural Models of Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism refers to the manner in which individuals perceive themselves in
relation to other members of the society (Kagitcibasi, 1996). By definition, in collectivist cultures there
is a strong emphasis on interdependent relationships with others. In contrast, individualist cultures
emphasize one’s independence from others (Triandis, 1994). Although all cultures have a coexistence
of individualistic and collectivistic values, each differs in its individual emphasis (Niles, 1998; Raeff,
1997). Differences in the historical and religious backgrounds of various cultures are important factors
which contribute to variations in particular collectivistic and/ or individualistic characteristics
observed.
These two cultural orientations, individualism and collectivism, have been shown to be related
to the differences in human thought and behavior such as emotions, morality, attributions, goals, sense
of self, and social relationships (Triandis, 2001). The societies which develop individualistic
characteristics encourage emotional independence, assertiveness, autonomy, and the need for privacy
where the ties between individuals are loose (Hofsted, 2001; Hofsted and McCrae, 2004). In contrast
for collectivists, sociability, security, harmony, duty, family integrity and obedience are forced (Oishi
et al, 1998).
To reiterate, individualists may be conceptualized as a tendency to support autonomy,
distinctiveness and self-containment. Correspondingly, collectivists tend to act in ways that maintain
group cohesion and they also are encouraged toward conformity towards their parents, family, and
larger social groups. It is assumed that these different orientations result in different family
relationships, parent-child interactions, self-conceptions, and academic achievement (Chao, 1996;
Triandis, 1995). In other words, there are fundamental differences in parenting behaviors and child
outcomes across various cultural communities. Therefore, the arrangement of children’s activities
differs from parents to parents with differing childrearing goals and cultural meaning systems.

4. Cultural Influences on Parenting Styles

The values and ideals of a culture are transmitted to the next generation through child-rearing practices.
Therefore, cultural context is believed to be of particular salience to parenting research (Sprott, 1994).
Parenting behavior can be influenced by the direct and indirect effects of cultural models of
individualism and collectivism. Its direct influence on parenting behavior could be explained by
passing on values of a culture to their children to become productive and integrated members of their
culture (Holden, 1997). Cultural models can also impact parenting behavior through more societal
forces such as language patterns and customs, and economic structure indirectly (Lillard, 1997; Levine,
1980). Therefore, parents can base their actions according to the direct and indirect cultural influences.
In collectivist countries, parents promote values such as helpfulness, conformity, adherence to
social conventions and interdependence with their in-groups such as family and nation in child
socialization (Greenfield and Suzuki, 1998). One of the studies that have compared the personality
traits amongst youths in collectivist and individualist cultures demonstrated that Malaysian youth
revealed high agreeableness and low extraversion and openness in comparison to youths in
individualist cultures (Mastor et al, 2000). The results of authoritarian parenting practices in the
68
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

collectivist groups show that individuals must suppress their own requirements and consider the needs
of others in the in-group (Grusec et al, 1997). Therefore, according to the outcome valued in
collectivist groups, authoritarian parenting may be more appropriate compared with other parenting
styles.
It could therefore be documented that the form (e.g., authoritative parenting style) and function
of behavior (the interpretation or meaning of parenting styles) can be fully understood only in the
context of the culture (Bornstein, 1995). In this conceptualization, culture is theorized to afford
different meaning to behaviors (e.g., parenting) and has different effects on children and adolescents
across different cultures. For instance, it is known that behavioral control is related to the positive
outcome of Korean adolescents and they perceive it as parental warmth and acceptance. In contrast,
European American adolescents perceive behavioral control as the negative indices of parenting (Kim,
2005).
Baumrind (1972) theorized that if parenting behavior is consistent with cultural values, children
will accept it. For example, children respond differently if spanking signify love and concern in their
community than if spanking is seen as unacceptable behavior. It has been shown that cultural factors,
such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status may affect parenting styles. For instance, the research
conducted using Asian-American sample illustrates that authoritarian parenting appears to be
associated with positive development rather than pathology in adolescent if the social setting of family
and community respond favorably in concert with this parenting style (Millon, 2006).
Another study investigated the relationship between parenting practices and academic
achievement among a sample of Asian-Americans, Hispanics, African-Americans, and European-
Americans. The authors argued that the relationship between authoritative parenting style and student
academic achievement only applies to the European-Americans (Park and Bauer, 2002). Hence, there
have been some debates about whether these parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive) have similar outcomes for children and adolescents who are not of European descent. Chao
(2001) mentioned that, Asian participants may interpret the meaning of authoritarian parenting style
differently. Thus, authoritarian parents’ might be defined as caring and concerned parents to Asians but
might appear controlling and dictatorial to European Americans.
A study on the effects of parenting style on personal and social variables in Singapore among
three ethnic groups (Indian, Chinese and Malay) demonstrated that Malay adolescents with
authoritarian mothers tend to have better adjustment in attitude towards school compared to those who
perceived their mothers to be authoritative (Rebecca, 2006). Another study found that authoritarian
parenting style to be positively associated with academic achievement of Hong Kong Chinese students
while authoritative style was unrelated to the academic achievement of these students (Leung et al,
1998).
Chao (1994) introduced the notion of “training” which includes parental control as well as high
degree of parent-child interactions, support, concern and physical proximity. Training emphasizes
obedience, self-discipline, and the need to do well in school. The notion of training explains why
authoritarian parenting style has a positive influence on Asian children development. These concepts
are largely absent from Western culture.
Acculturation also appears to have effects on parenting cognitions (Cote and Bornstein, 2003).
For example, authoritative parenting has been shown to be the most common parenting style among
Asian Indian mothers who live in the United States while Asian Indian mothers living in India had
more authoritarian styles (Jambunathan and Counselman, 2002). Indian mothers tend to assume
attitudes and characteristics that are more similar to their American counterparts than to those
individuals in their countries of origin (Kagan and Madsen, 1971; Negy and Woods, 1993).

69
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009)

5. Malaysian Culture
Malaysia reflects a multi-racial and multi-religious country with a population of 26.26 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 65%, 24.6% and 6.9%, respectively.
The oldest inhabitants, the tribal peoples, constitute about 5 percent 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%). It could be seen
that in Malaysia religion is highly correlated with ethnicity.
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 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.
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 behavior
pattern (Kling, 1995). Nonetheless, Malays continue to emphasize values such as unity, sharing, and
caring for others.
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. (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.
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 behavior and autonomy.

70
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

6. Conclusion
It can be concluded that parenting style could be regarded as a global construct reflecting the overall
emotional climate between parents and children. Parental behavior and involvement plays a crucial role
in the development of social and cognitive competence in children. Parenting behaviors and their
effects may vary depending on different culture. It means that the ways in which family members
interact with each other are influenced by the culture of the society. Every culture and civilization
develops a definite pattern for raising children and what counts as good or adoptive in one culture can
be viewed as maladaptive in another society. For example, Asian culture is considered to be group-
oriented as individuals are taught to cooperate with the larger unit (family, community, country).
Therefore, encouragement of independence and pursuit of Western society would be seen as poor
parenting in traditional Asian society like Malaysia. Hence, parenting styles may have different
consequences for children’s development across different cultures.
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.

References
[1] Abidin, R. (1992). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 21, 407-412.
[2] Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph, 4, 1-103.
[3] Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some
black–white comparison. Child Development, 43, 261–267.
[4] Baumrind, D. (1980). New direction in socialization research. Psychological Bulletin, 35, 639-
652.
[5] Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
Use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11 (1), 56-95.
[6] Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-
96.
[7] Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self-concept: A test of Hofstede’s
individualism/ collectivism distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 273-83.
[8] Bornstein, M. H. (1995). Form and function: Implications for studies of culture and human
development. Culture and Psychology, 1, 123-137.
[9] Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Parenting infants. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting,
Vol. 1: Children and Parenting (2nd ed., pp.3-43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[10] Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial
gaps in school readiness. Future of Children, 15, 139-168.
[11] Burns, D. J., & Brady, J. (1992). Cross-cultural comparison of the need for uniqueness in
Malaysia and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 487-495.
[12] Carlson, J., Kurato, Y., Ruiz, E., Ng, K. M., & Yang, J. (2004). A multi-cultural discussion
about personality development. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and
Families, 12 (2), 111-121.
[13] Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding
Chinese parenting through the cultural notion training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.
[14] Chao, R. K., & Sue, S. (1996). Chinese parental influence and their children’s school Success:
A paradox in the literature on parenting styles. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing the Chinese Way:
71
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009)

Chinese Child and Adolescent Development (pp. 69–91). Hong Kong: The Chinese University
of Hong Kong Press.
[15] Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese
Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832–1843.
[16] Claes, M., Lacourse, E., Bouchard, C., & Perucchini, P. (2003). Parental practices in late
adolescence, a comparison of three countries: Canada, France, and Italy. Journal of
Adolescence, 26, 387-399.
[17] Colpan, R. J., Hastings, P. D., lalace-Seguin, D. G., & Moulton, C. E. (2002). Authoritative and
Authoritarian mothers’ parenting goals, attribution and emotions across different child rearing
context. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2(1), 1-26.
[18] Cote, L. R., & Bornstein, M. H. (2003). Cultural and parenting cognitions in acculturating
cultures: 1. Cultural comparisons and developmental continuity and stability. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 34(3), 323–349.
[19] Darling, N., Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3):487-496.
[20] Diaz, M. V. (2005). The relations among parenting style, parent- adolescent relationship, family
stress, cultural context and depressive symptomatology among adolescent females. Doctoral
dissertation, Georgia State University.
[21] Department of Statistic of Malaysia. (2001). Retrieved on November 17, 2005 from http://
www. Statistics. Gov.my/English/frameset_census.php? file=pressdemo
[22] Greenfield, P. M. & Suzuki, L. K. (1998). Culture and human development: Implications for
parenting, education, pediatrics, and mental health. In I, E.Sigel & K.A. Remminger (Eds.),
Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4, (pp. 1059-1068). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[23] Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognitions and child outcomes: An
overview and implications for children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L.
Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and Children’s Internalization of Values: A Handbook of
Contemporary Theory (pp. 259–282). New York: Wiley.
[24] Ho, D. Y. F. (1981). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Acta Psychology
Taiwanica, 23(2), 81-95.
[25] Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[26] Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52- 88.
[27] Holden, G. W. (1997). Parents and the Dynamics of Childrearing. Boulder, Co: Westview
Press.
[28] Jambunathan, S., & Counselman, K. P. (2002). Parenting attitudes of Asian Indian mothers
living in the United States and in India. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 657–662.
[29] Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1971). Cooperation and competition of Mexican, Mexican-
American, and Anglo-American children of two ages under four instructional sets.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 32-39.
[30] Kagiticibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European
Psychologist, 1, 180-186.
[31] Katz, L., & Woodin, E. (2002). Hostility, hostile detachment, and conflict engagement in
marriages: Effects on child and family functioning. Child Development, 73, 636- 652.
[32] Kaufmann, D., Gesten, E., Santa Lucia, R. C., Salcedo, O., Rendina-Gobioff, G., & Gadd, R.
(2000). The relationship between parenting style and children’s Adjustment. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 9, 231–245.
[33] Mastor, K. A., Jin, P., & Cooper, M. (2000). Malay culture and personality: A big five
perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 95–111.

72
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)

[34] Kim, E. (2005). Korean American parental control: Acceptance or rejection? Ethos, 33(3), 347-
366.
[35] Kling, Z. (1995). The Malay family: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 26(1), 43-67.
[36] Krishnan, U. D. (2004). Parent- adolescent conflict and adolescent functioning in a collectivist,
ethnically heterogeneous culture: Malaysia. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
[37] Leung, K., Lau, S., Lam, W. L. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-
cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44 (2), 157-172.
[38] Levine, R. A. (1980). Anthropology and child development. In C. Super & S. Harkness (Eds.),
Anthropological perspectives on child development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[39] Lillard, A. (1997). Ethnopsychologies: Cultural variations in theories of mind. Psychological
Bulletin, 123, 3-32.
[40] Millon, T. (2006). Biography. Retrieved April 6, 2008 from
http://www.millon.net/content/tm_bio.htm.
[41] Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1993). Mexican- and Anglo-American differences on the
Psychological Screening Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 543-555.
[42] Niles, F. S. (1998). Individualism and collectivism revisited. Cross-cultural Research, 32, 315-
341.
[43] Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and
individualism and collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,1177-1189.
[44] Park, H. S., Bauer, S. (2002). Parenting practices, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and academic
achievement in adolescents. School Psychology International, 23(4), 386-396.
[45] Raeff, C. (1997). Maintaining cultural coherence in the midst of cultural diversity. Reply to
Culture, self, and development: Are cultural templates useful of stereotypic? Developmental
Review, 17, 250-261.
[46] Rebecca P. A. (2006). Effects of parenting style on personal and social variables for Asian,
adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 76, No. 4, 503–511.
[47] Rhee, E., Uleman, J., & Lee, H. K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by
ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 1037-1054.
[48] Sala, M. J. (2002). The conflict between collectivism and individualism in adolescent
development: Asian Indian female decision making in regard to cultural normative behavior.
Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago.
[49] Shek, D. T. L. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relations of family functioning to adolescent
psychological well-being. Journal of Youth studies, 1, 195-209.
[50] Sheth, M. (1995). Asian Indian Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans:
Contemporary Trends and Issues (pp. 169-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[51] Sprott, J. E. (1994). One person’s spoiling is another freedom to become overcoming
ethnocentric views about parental control. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 1111-1124.
[52] Tamminen, T. (2006). How does culture promote the early development of identity? Infant
Mental Health Journal, 27, 603-605.
[53] Triandis, H. C. (1991). A need for theoretical examination. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 59-61.
[54] Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism
and individualism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds).
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and Applications. (pp. 41-51), Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
[55] Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In David
Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

73