The Index of Happiness of the Malaysian and Indonesian Peoples

By. Rifki Herinyanto (113 2002 8)

1. INTRODUCTION Understanding and facilitating happiness and subjective well-being is the central objective of positive psychology. What good is happiness? Studies have shown that people who are at the least mildly happy most of the time have more self confidence and better relationships, perform better at work, are rated more highly by their superiors, are better creative problem solvers, are more likely to volunteer or engage in altruistic behavior, and make more money than their less happy counterparts. Some evidence also suggests that these people are healthier and live longer. Longitudinal research has also indicated that happiness may actually be the cause of desirable characteristics, and not the consequence of these characteristics. It is likely that there is a psychological loop that reinforces itself: that success in marriage, work, and other life domains lead to continued happiness which, in turn, contributes to further successes. Thus, the emerging body of research literature seems to indicate that happiness does not simply feel good - it is actually good for the human spirit.

Growth in the field of happiness reflects the larger societal trends concerning the values of the individual, the importance of subjective views in evaluating life, and the recognition that ones well-being does necessarily include positive elements that transcend economic prosperity. psychology on negative states. & Diener, 1995). The scientific study of happiness has developed, in part, as a reaction to the overwhelming emphasis in Psychological articles examining the negative states outnumber those examining the positive states by a ratio of 17 to 1 (Myers Similarly, Hoyer dan Rodin (2003) found that more than 136,000 psychological studies dating back to 115 years ago are related to the

negative aspects of human behavior. In contrast, there are only 9,500 topics or research conducted on the positive aspects. This situation reflects the dearth of research on the positive aspects of human behavior in psychology. Research on the negative aspects of human behavior includes depression, mental disorders, anti social behavior, aggression, delinquency and maladjustment. For the past 20 years, psychologists have begun to view life from its positive perspective, that is, what brings happiness to human beings. According to Heady et al. (2004), empirical studies on happiness only began at the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s at the Universities of Chicago and Michigan. Veenhoven (1984) has studied the meaning of happiness and asserts that there are a few words which are synonymous with it. These words include optimism, life satisfaction, well-being, global life-worth, life quality, hedonistic level, euphoria, elation, enjoyment and success in achieving life goals. All these words reflect the happiness of an individual. Therefore, happiness is not bound to one word, interpretation or one specific definition. 2000; Lee et al., 1999; Uchida et al., 2004). In Malaysia, there are very few empirical studies on happiness while many studies evaluate the levels of happiness from a Western perspective. So far, there have been discussions on happiness in marriages (Akbar Husain, 2006), the relationship between personality and subjective well-being (Haslina, 2006), well-being and the happiness of women (Nor Bayah and Kamsiah, 2002; Noraini, 1999), the subjective well-being of the aged (Marof dan Asnarulkhadi, 2006), the life satisfaction of the aborigines (Orang Asli) (Howell, Howell & Schwabe, 2006) and, most recently, the study on the validity of The Malay However, happiness and subjective well-being are typically used by psychologists (Lu & Lin, 1998; Diener,

Subjective Happiness Scale (Swami, 2007), and the relationship between life
satisfaction and general health (Swami et al., 2007). Apart from these studies, there are two other studies on happiness, one according to Islam, that is, the perception of the Malays in the philosophy of happiness according to al-Ghazali (Salasiah, 1999), and the second, happiness according to Islam (Mohd. Nasir Othman, 1996). What is apparent is that the true meaning of happiness

according to Malaysians has yet to be determined. This study is the first attempt to investigate the meaning of happiness according to the Eastern community. It is hoped that the present study will provide a new insight on the level of happiness of Malaysians, and eventually help to construct an index of happiness. This scenario is the same with the Indonesians. So far, there have been studies on the quality of life of the aged in Indonesia (Lamb, 1996; Wada, Ishine, Sakagami and friends, 2005), successful aging (Lamb dan Myers, 1999), the relationship between gender and well-being (Ofstedal, Reidy dan Knodel, 2004) and the life satisfaction of adolescents in Indonesia (Diponegoro, 2004). Like their Malaysian counterparts, the Indonesian psychologists also focus more on the negative aspects. There is a possibility that they may be using other words or terms to explain their happiness as well. It may be useful to investigate this as Malaysia and Indonesia are both collectivistic societies (Bochner, 1994; Diener et al., 1995; Teo, 1998). Both societies emphasize politeness, courtesy, cooperation, tact, tolerance, consideration and concern about the feelings of others, and helping each other (Norazit et al., 1997; Ismail, 1991; Wan Kadir, 1994). In cnotrast, Western societies are more individualistic with emphasis on individual interests without taking into consideration on the communal or societal interest (Diener, 1995; Argyle & Hills, 2001; Ryff, 1989). Apart from the values mentioned, the Malaysian and Indonesian societies also uphold traditional and religious values (Wan Kadir, 1994; Mat Saat, 1993; Zakaria et al., 2003). For example, several sociologists and anthropologists have indicated that the Malays and Javanese hold onto traditional values such as politeness and grace (see Geertz, 1974). Therefore, there is a possibility that these people correlate happiness to these values and norms. The issue is how these two collectivistic societies interpret happiness. Is their interpretation similar to the explanation given by Western psychologists? One of the main contributing factors of happiness is personality. Extroversion and neuroticism, in particular, are strongly tied to emotional experience. Studies show that people who are extrovert - that is who is more

socially outgoing and exhibit more sensitivity to rewards - tend to experience higher levels of positive emotions such as joy and enthusiasm, even when they are alone (Steel and Ones, 2002). In contrast, neurotic people are more susceptible to anxiety, guilt, and depression (Hayes and Joseph, 2003). Researchers have also discovered much about what the source of happiness. In the first three decades of research on happiness, researchers concentrated on the examination of possible demographic factors that correlated with feeling good. Researchers looked at income, gender, age, employment, religiosity, intelligence, health, geography, and education to determine who are happy. Interestingly, many of these variables, which constitute a significant share of the popular theory on happiness, are the least important to it (Andrews and Withey, 1976; Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers, 1976; Headey and Gooden, 2004; Mullis, 1992). Age, gender, ethnicity, education, and beauty seem, on the average, only slightly related to happiness. Religiosity shows small correlations with happiness and health is slightly more important, in that extremely poor health often leads to misery if it interferes with daily functioning, but good health is no guarantee of happiness. The happiness factor that has captured the most media attention is money. However, money is usually, at best, only mildly important to happiness. Large surveys of people from scores of countries around the world show that people seem to be happier in wealthy industrialized countries such as Canada and Sweden than those in poor non-industrialized countries such as Kenya and Bangladesh (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002; Headey and Wooden, 2004). This finding, which is frequently replicated in international surveys, suggests that more money, at national level, may be important, because it means better amenities and infrastructure, less corruption, improved health care, efficient food distribution, opportunities for employment, and lower crime rates. Once the basic needs have been met, increases in income do little to affect happiness. If a nation has achieved a moderate level of economic

prosperity, a little increase in happiness is observed when this society grows richer still. Research on groups living a materially simple lifestyle - from the Masai in Kenya to the Amish in America and to the seal hunters in Greenland shows that these societies exhibit positive levels of happiness despite the absence of swimming pools, Playstations, and MP3 players. In fact, a growing body of research suggests that materialism can actually be toxic to happiness. In one study, people who reported that they valued money more than love were less satisfied with their lives than those who favored love. In the end, having money is probably mildly beneficial to happiness while focusing on money as a major goal is detrimental to it.

2.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY As mentioned earlier, the study on happiness is relatively new in this part

of the world. The existing research represents initial pioneer studies on positive aspects. Malays. However, these studies do not focus on the definition among the Instead, these studies define happiness from a Western perspective.

This study, however, represents a first attempt to study the definition of happiness among the people of Malaysia and Indonesia. It has been stated earlier that Western research concentrated mainly on individualistic societies. This simply means that the individuals definition of happiness is closely linked to the kind of society s/he lives in. This is shown in the definitions postulated by Veenhoven (1984), Diener, Marissa dan Diener (1995), Hills and Argyle (2002) which are dependent on the experience of those living in individualistic societies. However, according to Lu dan Gilmour (2006), the definition of happiness is universal but, in reality, the definition is more complex and dependent on cultural values. This explains the different interpretations of happiness between an individualistic community and a collectivistic society. The definition of happiness in a collectivistic society is more community-centered whereas the definition in an individualistic society gravitates towards the individual. Also, the definition of happiness is linked to ones

culture. For example, the Americans view happiness as a right of the individual whereas the Chinese see happiness in a social relationship within a society (Lu & Gilmour, 2006). Snyder dan Lopez (2007) also mention the Western and Asians views on happiness. The people in the West view happiness as a period of enlightment, whereas the Asians regard happiness from four perspectives, that is, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. It is a possibility that the researchers have excluded the Islamic perspective. The researchers also did not mention the Islamic perspective although there are millions of Muslims living in Asia. China has about 24 million Muslims while India has 174 millions and there are 15 million followers in Malaysia. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country with 210 million believers while Japan has a quarter a million Muslims and there are about 100,000 believers in Korea. This shows that Islam has a large following in Asia. It is clear from this that Islam emphasizes the importance of the positive aspects of happiness. Perhaps, research should, too, focus on the Islamic perspective of happiness. In addition, there has to date, no happiness index of peoples of Malaysia and Indonesia. There is only the World Database of Happiness by Veenhoven (2005). Even then, the data on Malaysia were gathered in 1965, while the data on Indonesia were collected between 1995 and 2005. This study is the first attempt to put together a current happiness index from the Asian perspective.

Based on the discussion above, the objectives of the present study are:

1. to examine the interpretation of happiness according to Malaysians and

Indonesians. Does the interpretation reflect their collectivistic and traditional values and norms? 2. to ascertain what makes the respondents happy 3. to understand the psychological factors influencing happiness (self esteem, personality, religiosity)

4. to investigate the effects of demographic factors (age and gender) in

determining happiness

5. to establish the Malaysian and Indonesian Indices of Happiness

3. SIGNICIFANCE OF RESEARCH There is a great need to understand the quality of life in different countries. So far, studies have been conducted on Western and European countries, for example, in the US, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Russia, Canada, and Sweden but little has been done on Asian countries. To date, there are only studies carried out in Japan, China and India. Psychologists usually tend to put lump the Japanese, Chinese and Indian values and norms as Asian values. In other words, the happiness of the Japanese, Chinese and Indians is also the happiness of other Asian communities. To generalize all cultures as one is a simplistic mechanism. As a first step, the Malaysian and Indonesian Indices of Happiness must be investigated. Happiness is not entirely an individual matter but partly a common property of communities. This is especially true in collectivistic societies like Malaysia and Indonesia. The well-being of communities is, partly, a function of joint purposes, for example, leisure and social cohesion. To understand the true meaning of happiness for Malaysians and Indonesians is of great importance as it may show how the Western framework may not be suitable to define happiness in an Eastern community which emphasizes traditional norms and values.

4. METHOD 4.1 Respondents and Place of Study The places of study cover most of Peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia. The Malaysian states are divided into four zones. Zone 1 consists of Perlis, Kedah, Penang and Perak; Zone 2 consists of Selangor, Federal Territory (Kuala

Lumpur) and Melaka, Zone 3 covers Negeri Sembilan and Johor, and Zone 4 comprises Terengganu, Pahang and Kelantan. There are three major zones for Indonesia. Zone 1 is West Java, Zone 2 is Central Java and Zone 3 is East Java. A total of 1,942 respondents were selected using purposive sampling. There were 893 Malaysians and 1,049 Indonesians. Of the total respondents, 1 091 were young adulthood and 851 were in the middle adulthood (895 males and 1,047 females). The respondents responded voluntarily to a questionnaire on the aspects measured (see Table 1). Table 1 Distribution of Respondents According to Gender, Country and Age Groups Gender Country Age Group N Male Malaysia Early adulthood 154 Middle adulthood 167 Indonesia Female Malaysia Indonesia Total 4.2 Measures Section A of the questionnaire asks respondents for their personal information such as gender, age, income and religiosity. Section B has two open-ended questions in which the respondents have to indicate what makes them happy and then rank the factors according to their importance. Early adulthood Middle adulthood Early adulthood Middle adulthood Early adulthood Middle adulthood 291 283 355 217 291 184 1 942

Section C is a standard questionnaire measuring happiness, that is, The

Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (Argyle et al., 1989). Respondents completed

the 29 items measuring happiness as a whole. Section D is a standard questionnaire measuring personality, which is the

Big Five Personality Scale (Benet-Martinez and John, 1998). The personality of
the respondents will be determined according to the five personality dimensions, that is, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness. Section E consists of a standard questionnaire measuring self esteem, that is, The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). 4.3 Analyses of Data Analyses are made to ascertain the level of happiness of the respondents, and the impact of the demographic factors. In short, the independent variables are the demographic factors, personality and self esteem while the dependent variable is the level of happiness. Three-way analyses of variance were carried out to observe the gender, age and country differences in the level of happiness. On what makes the respondents happy, answers were plotted according to themes. The number of instances was counted to plot the themes or factors.

5. RESULTS The results indicated that 97% of the respondents are happy. Majority of the respondents also reported that they believe in God and religion is important (99% and 97% respectively). Regarding self esteem, 99% of the respondents are found to be high in self esteem. Three-way ANOVA was used to examine the level of happiness according to gender, age and country. The results indicated that there is no significant

differences in level of happiness according to gender and age respectively ((p<0.05, F= .20; p<0.05, F= .90). 39.36. However, significant differences are found in the levels of happiness between the Malaysians and Indonesians, p<0.05, F= The Malaysians are found to be happier when compared to the Indonesians (the mean of the Malaysians is 153.9 whereas the means of the Indonesians is 147.9, see Table 2).

Table 2 Three-Way Analyses of Variance for the Level of Happiness According to Gender, Age and Country Variables Male Female Age group Early adulthood Middle adulthood Country Malaysia Indonesia *p<0.05 Gender N 895 1047 1091 851 893 1049 Mean 150.0 151.2 151.2 150.0 153.9 147.9 F .195 .859 39.36 p .659 .354 .000

The respondents were also asked to answer two open-ended questions on the meaning of happiness and the things that make them happy. The respondents were also asked to rank the things that make them happy. The results show that there are slight differences between the Malaysians and the Indonesians. The Malaysian respondents rank family, intra and inter-personal relationships, and property as important factors in achieving happiness whereas the Indonesians report that family, health and career are the most important things which bring them happiness (see Table 3).

Table 3 What Are the Things That Make You Happy? Themes Malaysia Family 435 Intrapersonal and interpersonal 237 Intrapersonal relationships Wealth 197 Health 117 Emotional stability/well being 100 Career 112 Education 141 Ambition/Aspiration 52 Ambition/Aspiration Religion 78

Indonesia 420 152 182 198 55 157 96 79 165

10

Freedom Recreation Safety Physiological needs 6. DISCUSSION

42 117 6 84

73 116 20 137

The results show that the Malaysians are happier when compared to the Indonesians. This could be due to economic factors. According to the Gross National Income (GNI) report issued by the World Bank in 2006, Indonesia is in the lower middle income ($906-$3,595) category while Malaysia is in the upper

high income ($3,596- $11,115) bracket. The per capita income of Malaysia is
$11,300 whereas the per capita income of Indonesia is $3,950 (http://siteresources.worldbank.org). The disparity in the purchasing power

between the two countries could be an influencing factor on the level of happiness of the respondents because Veenhoven (1984) thinks that happiness is incluenced by the income distribution of a country. The people of industrialised countries like Canada dan Sweden are found to be happier than the people of non-industrialised countries such as Kenya and Bangladesh (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002; influencing happiness. Headey and Wooden, 2004). White (2006) also states This finding as well as other findings show that at This is because clearly that poverty levels and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are factors national levels, having high incomes is an important factor.

wealth brings about more amenities, better infrastructure, less corruption, better healthcare, equitable food distribution, more employment opportunities and lower crime rates. However, wealth or income is not a sole factor in determining happiness because past studies have shown only a minimal correlation between money and happiness (for example; Diener et al., 1995). When basic needs are met, a rise in income does not necessarily raise the level of ones happiness. more properous, the level of happiness in the country rises only a little. In other words, if a country achievers a certain standard of prosperity and if it becomes

11

In short, there is a possibility that Malaysians are happier than Indonesians because of wealth but there are other factors as well. This requires further research to fully understand the situation. After all, happiness is a subjective matter that depends on several factors such as the individual, education, and environment. White (2006) postulates that happiness is closely related to three factors, that are, health, wealth and education. The results of the study also shows that family is an important factor that brings happiness to the respondents from these two countries. Inter and intrapersonal relationships is the second important factor. However, as opposed to the hypothesis of the study, religion was not an important factor in the happiness of the respondents. Finally, the findings show that there are 13 factor indices which bring happiness to the respondents. Generally, Malaysia and Indonesia are two South East Asian countries characterised by collectivistic societies. The family, and intra and interpersonal relationships rate as important aspects in collectivistic societies. Marcus dan Kitayama (1991) state that a collectivistic society is basically a society in which the members connect and interact with one another. So, the importance of the family and intra and interpersonal relationships to the happiness of the people in the two countries shows that these two countries have the characteristics of a collectivistic society. Wealth is also an important factor in happiness of the Wealth is important as it helps to fulfill a basic Malaysians and Indonesians. need, as do food and shelter. However, the values shown by the respondents in the two countries differ in regards to these three factors. The Malaysians display higher values when compared to the Indonesians for these factors. ranking of other happiness factor differs too. In these two countries, the In Malaysia, health is ranked

before ambition, and work relationships are a source of happiness after family, intra and interpersonal relationships, and wealth. Health is an important factor for happiness among many Malaysians who are aware of the significance of having good health in the quality of life.

12

7. CONCLUSION On the whole, although Malaysians are generally happier, the factors or sources of happiness to Malaysians and Indonesians are more or less the same. This is not unexpected given that the Malaysians and Indonesians come from the same ancestry. The two societies emphasize harmony in their social groups and communities, gentle behavior, responsibility and other Eastern traditional values (Cha, 2003; Geertz, 1974; Hofstede, 1980; Liao et al., 2005). The main point here is as predicted, Malaysians and Indonesians do interpret happiness according to the their traditional values and norms. However, religion is not the major contributor. Parallel to past findings, personality, especially extraversion is srongly correlated with happiness and people who are happy tend to be high in self esteem as well. gender. Finally, the present study has shown that at least tentatively, it can be said that there are 13 indices which contributes to Malaysians and Indonesians happiness. Nonetheless, this study is a first attempt to study happiness of the Malaysians and Indonesians. To enhance further understanding of this matter, it is hoped that further research on the influence of poverty levels, health and education should be conducted in the near future. There is no differences in happiness according to age and

13

References Bochner, S. (1994). Crosscultural differences in the self concept. A test of Hofstedes individualism/collectivism distinction. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 25, 273-283. Cha, K.H. (2003). Subjective well-being among college students. Social Indicators Research, 62,63: 455-477 Diener, E., Diener, M., Diener, C. (1995) Factors predicting the subjective weelbeing of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 69, No.5, pp. 851-864 Diener, E. and Diener, M. (1995). Cross-Cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663. Diponegoro, A.M (2004). Analisis faktor kepuasan hidup remaja (Life satisfaction of the adolescents). Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan, 121-133. Duncan, G. (2005). What do we mean by happiness? The relevance of subjective well-being to social policy (policy papers). Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 25:16 (16) Geertz, C. (1974). From the natives point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In K. Basso and H.Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 221-237). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Haslina, M. (2006). The Applicablity of Five-Factor Models (FFM) of Personality to the Malay Culture. M.A thesis, University of Malaya. Headey, B. & Wooden, M. (2004). The effect of wealth and income on subjective well-being and ill-being. Economic Record, 80, 250: S24 (10). Hills, P. and Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33: 1073-1082 Hills, P. and Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31: 1357-1364. Hoyer, W.J, & Roodin, P.A (2003). Adult Development and Aging (5th Edition). New York: McGraw Hill.

14

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Howell, C.J., Howell, R.T., Schwabe (2006). Does wealth enhance life satisfaction for people who are materially deproved? Exploring the Association among the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 76, No. 3, 499-524. Ismail, H. (1991). Masyarakat dan Budaya Melayu (The Malay Society and Culture). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Lamb, V.L. (1996). A Cross-National Study of Quality of Life Factors Associated with Patterns of Elderly Disablement. Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 42, No.3, 363-377. Lamb, V.L. & Myers, G.C. (1999). A comparative study of successful aging in Three Asian Countries. Population Research and Policy Review. Vol. 18, No. 5, October, 433-450. Lee, D.Y., Park, S.H., Uhlemann, M.R., and Patsula, P. (1999). What Makes You Happy?: A Comparison of Self-Reported Criteria of Happiness between Two Cultures. Social Indicators Research, 50, 351-362 Liao, P.H., Fu, Y.H and Yi, C.C. (2005). Perceived quality of life in Taiwan and Hong Kong: An intra-culture comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6: 43-67 Lu, L., Gilmour, R. and Koa, S. F. (2001). Culture values and happiness: An EastWest dialogue. Journal of Social Psychology, 141: 477-493 Lu, L. and Gilmour, R. (2006). Individual-oriented and socially oriented cultural conception of subjective well-being: Conceptual analysis and scale development. Asia Journal of Social Psychology, 9: 36-49 Lu, L. And Lin, Y.Y. (1998). Family roles and happiness in adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 195-207. Marof, R. dan Asnarulkhadi, A.S (2006). Hubungan latar belakang terpilih dengan kesejahteraan subjektif di kalangan orang tua. (The relationship between some demographic variables and subjective well-being of the aged). Paper presented at the Seminar Psikologi Pembangunan Komuniti ISMUKM. 20-21 Dis. Kuala Lumpur. Myers, D. and Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10-19 Nor Bayah, A.K. dan Kamsiah A. (2002). Indicator of Well-Being amongst Malay Single Mothers In Sarawak. Jurnal Kerja Sosial Malaysia, 1, 57-74. Noraini M.Noor (1999). Roles and womens well-being: Some preliminary findings from Malaysia. Sex Roles, Vol. 41, No. 3-4/August, 123-145.

15

Norazit, S. (1997). Adat: Antara tradisi dan kemodenan. In Norazit Selat, Hashim Awang and Nor Hisham Osman (Eds.). Meniti zaman: masyarakat melayu antara tradisi dan moden. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Malays Studies, University of Malaya. Ofstedel, M., Reidy, E., & Knodel, J. (2004). Gender differences in economic support and well-being of older Asians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, Vol. 19, No.3, 165-201. Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or Is It? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081 Salasiah Hanin Hamzah (1999). Falsafah Kebahagiaan menurut al-Ghazali: Kajian Terhadap Kefahaman masyarakat Melayu di Wilayah Persekutuan kuala Lumpur. M.A thesis, University of Malaya. Snyder, C.R. and Lopez, S.J. (2007). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths. Sage: London. Taizo Wada, Masayuki Ishine, Teiji Sakagami, Toru Kita, Kiyohito Okumiya, Kosuke Mizuno, Terry Arthur Rambo & Kozo Matsubayashi (2005). Depression, activities of daily living, and quality of life of communitydwelling alderly in three Asian countries: Indonesia, Vietnam, and Japan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Vol. 41, Issue 3, Nov-Dec 2005, 271-280. Teo Mui Chu. (1998). Individualisme-koletivisme: Perspektif Silang budaya di kalangan Mahasiswa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. First Degree Thesis, National University of Malaysia. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural Construction of Happiness: theory and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies. 5, 223-239. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Viren Swami (2007). Translation and validation of the Malay Subjective Happiness Scale. Social Indicators Research, Online (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5529643122v3/? p=4f407ce1a516433c8ae6). Viren Swami, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Dhachayani Sinniah, Thambu Maniam, Kumaraswami Kannan, Debbi Stanistreet & Adrian Furnham (2007). General health mediates the relationship between loneliness, life satisfaction and depression. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology , Vol. 42, No. 2, 161-166.

16

Wan Abdul Kadir Wan Yusof (1994). Nilai dan world-view orang Melayu. Masfami Enterprise, Petaling Jaya

17