INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 37, (3) 129–148

Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines

A. Timothy Church and Marcia S. Katigbak

Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

T he status of efforts to indigenize psychology in the Philippines is reviewed. We address

progress in four aspects of indigenization: theoretical/conceptual, methodological, topical,
and institutional. Much, but not all, of this progress is the result of efforts associated with the
indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) movement, which emphasizes (a) the
development of a Filipino psychology that re ects the unique experiences and orientations of
Filipinos, (b) Filipino identity and national consciousness, (c) explicit socio-political con-
siderations, (d) application of psychology to societal problems, (e) the study of less elite
Filipinos, (f) interdisciplinary efforts, and (g) the use of indigenous languages in the
development and dissemination of indigenous psychology. We note considerable progress, but
also controversy, in the selection and interpretation of indigenous concepts and less progress in
the formulation of indigenous theories. Existing theories are narrow in scope, only partially
speciŽ ed, and have uncertain heuristic value in generating veriŽ able predictions. Filipino
psychologists have also adapted or further speciŽ ed Western theoretical frameworks to make
them more sensitive to Philippine contextual factors. Many indigenous measures have been
developed, but more information is needed on their psychometric properties. Several indigenous
research methods have been described and these methods typically emphasize the importance of
the researcher-participant relationship. There remain questions about the objectivity and
cultural uniqueness of these methods, however, many of which involve (a) unstructured
conversations and discussions in lieu of structured interviews, (b) varying degrees of participant
observation, or (c) qualitative phenomenological methods. Extensive topical indigenization is
evident in studies that focus on everyday Filipinos and Philippine societal concerns.
Institutional indigenization is re ected in courses, theses and dissertations, journals, books,
conferences, and professional organizations with an indigenous focus. Potential limitations or
risks to the indigenous movement include insularity and the limited research culture.
Implications of the Philippine case for indigenization efforts in other cultures are discussed.

L ’état des efforts pour indigéniser la psychologie aux Philippines a été étudié. Nous avons
enregistré des progrès dans quatre aspects de l’indigénisation: théorique/conceptuel,
méthodologique, thématique et institutionnel. Ce progrès est en grande partie, mais pas
totalement, le résultat des efforts associés avec le mouvement indigène Sikolohiyang Pilipino
(psychologie philippine), qui mettent l’accent sur le développement de la psychologie philippine
(a) re étant les expériences et orientations uniques de Philippins, (b) l’identité philippine et la
conscience nationale, (c) mettant en évidence des considérations sociopolitiques, (d) sur
l’application de la psychologie aux problèmes de société, (e) l’étude de Philippins qui
n’appartiennent pas à une élite, (f) sur des efforts interdisciplinaires et (g) l’utilisation des
langues indigènes dans le développement et la vulgarisation de la psychologie indigène. Nous
notons un progrès considérable, mais aussi des controverses dans le choix et l’interprétation des
concepts indigènes et moins de progrès dans la formulation des théories indigènes. Les théories
existantes offre une courte perspective, elles ne sont que partiellement spéciŽ ées et possèdent une
valeur heuristique incertaine dans la réalisation de prédictions vériŽ ables. Les psychologues
philippins ont également adapté ou spéciŽ é d’avantage les cadres théoriques occidentaux aŽ n de
les rendre plus sensibles aux facteurs contextuels philippins. Beaucoup de mesures indigènes ont
été développées, mais plus d’informations sur leurs propriétés psychométriques sont nécessaires.
Plusieurs méthodes de recherche indigène ont été décrites et en général ces méthodes mettent en

Requests for reprints should be addressed to A. Timothy Church, PhD, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology,
Cleveland Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2136 , USA (Tel: (509) 335-0927; Fax: (509) 335-7977;
E-mail: church@mail.wsu.edu).
A version of this paper was presented as a contribution to the symposium Indigenous psychologies: Assessment of progress and development,
John G. Adair (chair), conducted at the 27th International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, July 2000. Manuscript preparation was
supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R01-MH59941.

Ó 2002 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.htm l DOI: 10.1080/0020759014300031 5
130 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK

relief l’importance de la relation chercheur – participant. Cependant, il reste encore des

questions ouvertes à propos de l’objectivité et l’unicité culturelle de ces méthodes. Beaucoup
d’entre elles sont composées de (a) conversations et discussions déstructurées au lieu
d’entretiens structurés, (b) des différents niveaux d’observation des participants ou (c) de
méthodes phénoménologiques qualitatives. Une large indigénisation thématique est évidente
dans des études focalisées sur les affaires relatives au quotidien des Philippins et à la société
philippine. L’indigénisation constitutionnelle se reflète dans les cours, les thèses et les
dissertations, les journaux, les livres, les conférences, et les organisations professionnelles
centrées sur les thèmes indigènes. Les déŽ ciences ou risques éventuels du mouvement indigène
résident sur son isolation et l’état actuel de la culture de recherche. Les implications de l’exemple
philippin sur les efforts d’indigénisation dans d’autres cultures sont discutées.

S e examinó el estado de los esfuerzos para ‘indigenizar’ a la psicología en las Filipinas.

Tratamos del progreso en cuatro aspectos de la ‘indigenización’: teorético/conceptual,
metodológico, temático, e institucional. En gran parte, pero no del todo, el progreso es el
resultado de los esfuerzos asociados con el movimiento indígena Sikolohiyang Pilipino
(Psicología Ž lipina), el cual enfatiza (a) el desarrollo de una psicología Ž lipina que re eje las
experiencias y orientaciones únicas de los Ž lipinos, (b) la identidad Ž lipina y la conciencia
nacional; (c) las consideraciones socio-políticas explícitas, (d) la aplicación de la psicología a los
problemas de la sociedad, (e) el estudio de los Ž lipinos que no pertenecen a una elite, (f) los
esfuerzos interdisciplinarios, y (g) el uso del lenguaje indígena en el desarrollo y la divulgación
de la psicología indígena. Observamos un progreso considerable, así como controversia, en la
selección e interpretación de los conceptos indígenas y menos progreso en la formulación de las
teorías indígenas. Las teorías existentes son de alcance limitado, y especiŽ cadas solamente de
manera incompleta. Y tienen un valor heurístico incierto para generar predicciones
comprobables. Los psicólogos Ž lipinos también han adaptado o especiŽ cado aun más los
marcos teóricos occidentales para convertirlos en algo más sensible hacia los factores
contextuales Ž lipinos. Se han construido muchas medidas indígenas, pero se necesita más
información acerca de sus propiedades psicométricas. Se han descrito varios métodos de
investigación indígena y estos métodos, por lo general, enfatizan la importancia de la relación
entre el investigador y el sujeto participante. Sin embargo, hay cuestiones que continúan sin
respuesta acerca de la objetividad y la unicidad cultural de estos métodos. Muchos de éstos
están compuestos por (a) conversaciones y discusiones sin estructura en lugar de las entrevistas
estructuradas, (b) varios niveles de observación participante, o (c) los métodos fenomenológicos
cuantitativos. Se maniŽ esta en forma evidente una ‘indigenización’ temática en los estudios que
se enfocan en los asuntos cotidianos de los Ž lipinos y su sociedad Ž lipina. La ‘indigenización’
institucional se re eja en materias académicas, proyectos de tesis, revistas cientíŽ cas, libros,
conferencias, y organizaciones profesionales con un enfoque indígena. Las posibles deŽ ciencias
o riesgos del movimiento indígena incluyen el aislamiento y el estado actual de la limitada
cultura de investigación. Se discuten las consecuencias del caso Ž lipino sobre los esfuerzos de la
‘indigenización’ para otras culturas.

Of the countries in Asia, the trend to indigenizing psy-
chology is strongest and most articulate in the Philippines.
(Sinha, 1997, p. 153)
Sikolohiyang Pilipino seeks to explain Philippine realities
from the Filipino perspective, taking into account the
peculiarities and distinct values and characteristics of the
Filipino which the Western models invariably fail to
explain or consider.
(Enriquez, 1994a, p. 27).
Sinha (1997) noted the scepticism or outright opposition in
many countries to Western psychology. In the Philippines,
Western theories, concepts, and methods still permeate
psychological science and practice, but Filipino scholars
have long questioned their applicabilit y1. Criticisms have
ranged from calls for local adaptation to charges of
intellectual dependence and academic and political
imperialism (David, 1977; Enriquez, 1976b, 1977, 1994a,
b; Espiritu, 1982; A.V. Lagmay, 1984; Salazar, 1991). In
the 1970s, dissatisfaction with Western psychology, an
emergence of cultural pride and identity, cogent scientiŽ c
reasons, and parallel movements elsewhere contributed to
the emergence of an indigenous Sikolohiyang Pilipino
movement (SP; Filipino Psychology; Enriquez, 1976b;
Mataragnon , 1979; Salazar, 1982b). SP proponents advo-
cate a Filipino psychology rooted in its Malayo-Polynesia n
and Asian heritage and the experience, ideas, and orienta-
tion of Filipinos (Enriquez, 1994a). In the writings of
prominent advocates such as Virgilio G. Enriquez, one
Ž nds ideas that parallel and helped mould the terminology
and thinking of indigenous psychologists elsewhere.

1
For a historical overview of the Western roots of psychology in the Philippines, see Enriquez (1994a, Chapter 2) and A.V. Lagmay (1984).
For a historical discussion of Western in uences on the Filipino intellectual elites, see Salazar (1991).
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
For example, Enriquez (1979) coined the terms indige-
nization from within (culture-as-source) versus indigeniza-
tion from without (culture-as-target) in referring to the
distinction between indigenous psychology ––native psy-
chology that is not transplanted from other cultures––and
indigenization––adaptation of psychology originating in
other cultures (Adair, 1992). Enriquez (1994a) distin-
guished between cultural validation of imported concepts
and methods to determine their relevance for the
Philippines and cultural revalidation of indigenous con-
cepts and methods. In lieu of the combined emic-etic
approach, which seeks a comprehensive psychology
through a blending of the indigenous and imported
(Adair, 1992; Sinha, 1997, p. 133), Enriquez (1979)
advocated a cross-indigenous approach in which multiple
indigenous psychologies are developed independently
prior to cross-cultural comparisons.
In reviewing the status of efforts to indigenize psychol-
ogy in the Philippines it is useful to distinguish four
aspects of indigenization (Kumar, 1979; Sinha, 1997): (1)
theoretical and conceptual indigenizatio n––development of
indigenous concepts and theoretical frameworks; (2)
methodological indigenizatio n––adaptation or develop-
ment of instruments and methods that are culturally
appropriate ; (3) topical indigenizatio n––the extent to which
the topics under study are relevant to the concerns of the
society and people; and (4) institutional indigenizatio n––
the extent to which institutional and organizational struc-
tures and processes support the creation and diffusion of
indigenous psychological knowledge2. In the Philippine s
substantial progress has been made in all four aspects of
indigenization.
Although the SP movement has been at the forefront
in efforts to develop indigenous psychology in the
Philippines, contributions to indigenization were also
made prior to the full emergence of the SP movement and
by researchers who are not clearly associated with the SP
movement. In assessing progress toward the development
of an indigenous or “indigenized” Philippine psychology,
it seems unwise to ignore these other efforts, although the
extent to which they are consistent with the philosophy
and methods of the SP movement has sometimes been
controversial. Thus, we also refer to contributions that are
not purely emic or indigenous in nature, re ecting the fact
that the distinction between emic and etic, or indigenous
and imported, is often not a clear dichotomy, but rather a
continuum representing different levels of indigenizatio n
(Church, 2001). A number of authors have noted that
indigenous elements can come from both internal sources
(indigenization from within; internal indigenization) and
the adaptation of elements from external sources (indige-
nization from without; indigenization of the exogenous)
(Adair, 1992; Enriquez, 1979; Sinha, 1997). In short, our
2
Our labels for these four types of indigenization are modiŽ ca-
tions of those used by Kumar (1979) and Sinha (1997)––theoretical,
methodological, substantive, and structural, respectively––but our
deŽ nitions of the four types are comparable.
131
review might best be viewed as an analysis of the broader
progress toward the indigenization of various aspects of
Philippine psychology, which clearly includes but is not
limited to the contributions of SP proponents. Nonethe-
less, we begin with an overview of general characteristics
of the SP movement because of its centrality in the devel-
opment of indigenous elements in Philippine psychology.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO (SP)
Enriquez (1994b, p. 3) deŽ ned Sikolohiyang Pilipino (SP;
Filipino psychology) as a “psychology based on the expe-
rience, ideas and orientation of the Filipino.” Enriquez
(1994a) outlined major characteristics of SP, which
included: (1) principal emphases on identity and national
consciousness, social awareness and involvement, psychol-
ogy of language and culture, and applications and bases in
such Ž elds as health practices, agriculture, art, mass media,
and religion; (2) principal methods of investigation that
include the cross-indigenous method; indigenous Ž eld
methods; and multi-method, multi-language applicatio n
of traditional experimental and psychometric methods; (3)
primary areas of protest against a psychology that perpet-
uates the colonial status of the Filipino mind, the exploita-
tion of the masses, and the imposition of psychologies
developed in industrialized countries; and (4) a focus on
psychological practice as applicable in the Philippine con-
text (for additional characteristics, see Enriquez, 1994a,
Table 2). Others who have discussed the historical or
philosophical bases and goals of the indigenous SP move-
ment include Salazar (1982b; 1985a), San Buenaventura
(1985), Enriquez (1976b), and Pe-Pua and Protacio-
Marcelino (2000).
As these characteristics suggest, there is a strong and
explicit sociopolitical thrust in many SP writings (e.g.,
Enriquez, 1994a, b; L. Samson, 1985). This thrust is seen,
for example, in Enriquez’s (1994b) description of six
phases of cultural domination to which he believes
Filipino psychology and culture have been subjected, fol-
lowed by his discussion of how decolonization, counter-
domination, and empowerment of Filipino psychology
can be achieved through (1) indigenous theorizing, (2) the
development of indigenous methods, and (3) resistance to
sociopolitical , class, and gender oppression and academic
dependency. Enriquez (1994a, p. 2) called for a psychology
that is both liberated (malaya) and liberating (mapag-
palaya), that is, both free of American in uence and
responsive to Philippine social problems that are rooted in
the inequitable distribution of wealth between Westernized
Filipinos and the masses.
Not surprisingly, then, another characteristic of SP has
been its preferential focus on less elite Filipinos. Salazar
(1991) referred to the Great Cultural Divide in Philippin e
society between educated, Westernized Filipinos and the
Filipino masses, and Enriquez (1994a) argued that
Western-oriented psychology in the Philippines caters to
the upper classes. This is particularly true, he opined, in
132 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
industrial psychology––for example, in the use of selection
tests that favour those who are more  uent in
English––and he proposed focusing instead on “livelihood
psychology ” among the Filipino masses (Enriquez, 1994b,
pp. 66–67). The real psychology of Filipinos, he argued,
will be found not in academic psychology, which is largely
Western, but on street corners, in public markets, in rural
barrios, and so forth.
Historically, there has also been a strong interdiscipli-
nary thrust in SP, with SP Ž nding applications in, and
being enriched by, art and literature (Antonio, 1999;
Rivera-Mirano, 1999), religion and philosophy (Bautista,
1999; Mercado, 1977; Obusan & Enriquez, 1994a; Sevilla,
1982a), history (Salazar, 1985a, 1991), linguistics
(Enriquez, 1976a), law and politics (M.E. Samson, 1999),
education (Mendez, 1982; Morales, 1999), and agriculture
and rural sociology (Bonifacio, 1999; Velasco, 1982). For
example, researchers have drawn on indigenous music,
folklore, literature, and linguistic features in the language
in a search for clues about Filipino worldviews, values, and
personality (Antonio, 1999; Timbreza, 1999). Illustrative
of this interdisciplinary focus is a recently edited book on
SP, which contains several chapters on applications in edu-
cation, religion, politics, and the arts (Protacio-Marcelin o
& Pe-Pua, 1999)3.
From the beginning, a deŽ ning characteristic of SP has
been the use and development of the Filipino language for
psychological research and writing. Proponents noted that
(1) use of native languages is consistent with an indige-
nization-from-within approach; (2) native languages are an
important source of indigenous constructs; (3) the devel-
opment and communication of an indigenous psychologi-
cal science may beneŽ t from the use of native languages;
and (4) reports written in native languages can reach a
wider audience and contribute toward the development of
national identity (Enriquez, 1994b; Enriquez & Marcelino,
1984; Javier, 1996; Rood, 1985; Salazar, 1982b, 1991;
Sibayan, 1994). In addition, research indicates that the
nature and quality of the data obtained with Filipinos may
depend on the language of data collection (Church,
Katigbak, & Castañeda, 1988; see Church, 1986, pp.
106–113, for a review). In the view of Enriquez (1977,
1994a), reliance on the English language (a language of
instruction) and token use of Filipino can result in a dis-
tortion of Philippine social realities, the miseducation of
the Filipino, and “an irrelevant Anglocentric psychology
which fails to answer the needs of the Filipino people”
(Enriquez, 1994b, p. 10)4. We turn now to a discussion of
3
Sta. Maria (1996) recently commented, however, that this tradi-
tional interdisciplinary focus began to diminish somewhat in the
1990s as social scientists in other Ž elds began to focus on develop-
ment of their own disciplines, albeit in uenced by the SP movement.
4
Ironically, however, Torres (1997) has criticized SP’s heavy
emphasis on Tagalog, the primary dialect comprising the Filipino
national language; Tagalog is the language primarily of lowland
Christian Filipinos and Torres notes the unfortunate scarcity of
research on other Filipino ethnolinguistic groups.
the status of theoretical and conceptual, methodological,
topical, and institutional indigenization efforts in
Philippine psychology.
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL
INDIGENIZATION
Indigenous concepts
Considerable progress has been made in the identiŽ cation
and elaboration of indigenous concepts, particularly in the
area of personality and values. Prior to the emergence of
the SP movement, many researchers had already elicited
traits and values using free-response descriptions of vari-
ous persons or roles (e.g., “a real friend,” “the best priest,”
“the ideal boss,” “a healthy Filipino”); analyses of Filipino
proverbs, folklore, and other literature; responses to pro-
jective stories; and ethnographic and survey methods with
children and their parents (see Church, 1986, for a review).
Others have identiŽ ed indigenous personality concepts
while developing indigenous tests (e.g., Carlota, 1985;
Church et al., 1988; Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985) or tax-
onomies of person-descriptive terms (Church, Katigbak,
& Reyes, 1996). In student papers and theses conducted
from an SP perspective, descriptive studies of single
indigenous concepts have been extremely popular. In these
studies, respondents typically are asked to deŽ ne the
concept, associate to related terms, and describe the
antecedents, manifestations, or consequences of the con-
cept, with responses being summarized qualitatively or
with frequency counts (Cipres-Ortega, 1985)5.
Detailed anthropological , linguistic, philosophical , or
conceptual analyses have been conducted on a number of
Filipino concepts, including utang na loob (Hollnsteiner,
1973; Kaut, 1961; Kiefer, 1968; Lawless, 1966), hiya
(Bulatao, 1964, 1966; Salazar, 1985b), bahala na (Bostrom,
1968; Jocano, 1974; A.V. Lagmay, 1993), pakikiramdam
(Enriquez, 1994a; Mataragnon , 1987), sumpong
(Mataragnon, 1977), kapwa (Enriquez, 1978), kaluluwa
(Salazar, 1982a), pakikisama (Lynch, 1973), and amor pro-
pio (Bonifacio, 1977; Lynch, 1973). Many purported
Filipino traits and values have been critiqued in the
context of discussions of national identity and develop-
ment (e.g., Andres, 1989; Domingo-Tapales & AlŽ ler,
1991; Morales, Talisayon, & Roxas, 1991).
Although such analyses are consistent with the SP focus
on the elaboration of native language constructs, SP
5
For example, Cipres-Ortega (1985) reviewed 64 such studies
conducted at the University of the Philippines addressing such single
concepts as inggit (envy), pangangantiyaw (bantering), abuso (abuse),
malambing (affection), and pambobola ( attering). Inspection of a list
of undergraduate theses conducted from 1990–1997 at De La Salle
University in Manila revealed studies of such concepts as pagtutulun-
gan (helping each other), pagkababae (femininity), kalusugan (health),
malandi (sensuous), maginoo (gentlemanly), pagtataray (bad temper),
pagkamakabayan (patriotism), kilig (thrill), and sipag at tiyaga
(industry and perseverance).
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
proponent s have expressed ambivalent or negative attitudes
towards some of these studies. They argue that concept
interpretations have sometimes re ected colonial perspec-
tives and that discussions of the role of purported traits and
values in national development can draw attention away
from “compelling social realities” such as poverty and
social injustice (Bartolome, 1985, p. 534) or serve to blame
the victim for these social realities (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 58).
In addition, the importance and interpretation of some
concepts continues to be controversial. For example, the
frequent mention of the concept pakikisama (getting along
with or making concessions to others) in a number of
studies was cited by Lynch (1973) as supportive of his
theory of smooth interpersonal relations (SIR) among
Filipinos. The theory was in uential during the 1960s and
1970s, but not without its critics (Enriquez, 1977; Jocano,
1966; Sechrest, 1969). Pakikisama was viewed by Lynch as
an important means, along with euphemism and the use of
go-betweens, by which Filipinos achieve smooth interper-
sonal relations, which in turn is an important means of
maintaining social acceptance, a basic aim of lowland
Filipinos according to Lynch (1973).
Enriquez (1977, 1978) criticized the singling out of
pakikisama and other Filipino language terms, however.
Enriquez attributed the focus on pakikisama to the token
use of Filipino by Western-oriented social scientists, who
were not immersed in the culture or language.
Nonetheless, numerous Filipino writers continue to cite
pakikisama as a salient value or trait of Filipinos (e.g.,
Andres, 1989; Bulatao, 1992; Domingo-Tapales & AlŽ ler,
1991).
Enriquez (1977, 1978, 1994a) has championed instead
kapwa as the core concept underlying Filipino interper-
sonal behaviour. Kapwa, he argued, refers to the recogni-
tion of shared identity with others, a deeper concept than
SIR, which refers to merely avoiding con ict. Further,
Enriquez argued that pakikisama refers to only one of
many levels of interaction in Philippine culture, ranging
from the uninvolved civility of pakikitungo to the total
identiŽ cation of pakikiisa. In contrast, pakikipagkapwa,
Enriquez argued, is a superordinate concept that embraces
all levels of interaction. Pakikipagkapwa means accepting
and dealing with others as equals, treating them as fellow
human beings (kapwa tao), and having regard for the dig-
nity and being of others (Enriquez, 1977, 1978).
Here too, however, different authors have presented dif-
ferent interpretations of kapwa. For example, Enriquez
(1994a) viewed kapwa as encompassing interactions with
both ingroup and outgroup members. Ramirez (1997),
however, associated kapwa with behaviours towards
ingroup members only, although she advocated a broaden-
ing of kapwa to include the outgroup. Uncertainties
regarding the interpretation of kapwa and other indige-
nous concepts may be due to limited empirical data. As
Sta. Maria (1996) has noted, conceptions of kapwa have
relied heavily on “speculations” and “unsystematic inter-
pretations of the concept rather than on research regard-
ing how the concept is used in everyday language and
observed in everyday experience” (p. 110).
133
Controversy has also surrounded the interpretation of
other salient concepts. For example, does bahala na refer to
submissive fatalism or to determination in the face of
uncertainty? Does utang na loob refer to contract-like
debts of gratitude or to a commitment to human solidar-
ity? Does hiya refer to social shame and embarrassment or
to moral propriety and dignity? Does amor propio refer to
oversensitivity or personal dignity and honour?
Of some concern is the apparent role of sociopolitical
in uences on the interpretation and selection of concepts.
Many of the values and traits attributed to Filipinos have
been criticized as presenting colonial images of Filipinos,
which re ect ideological considerations and implicit com-
parisons against Western values and behaviour (David,
1977; Enriquez, 1994a; Salazar, 1991). In attempting to
move from a “colonial psychology ” to a “liberation psy-
chology,” Enriquez (1994a) countered purported colonial
or “accommodative ” values such as utang na loob, pakik-
isama, and hiya, with more “confrontative” values such as
lakas ng loob (inner strength) and pakikibaka (cooperative
resistance), and a more assertive interpretation of bahala
na (determination) . At the societal level, the values of
karangalan (dignity), katarungan (justice), and kalayaan
(freedom) are now emphasized in Enriquez’s (1994a) value
model. However, these values seem to be emphasized as
much for sociopolitical reasons––that is, their role and
salience during such sociopolitical events as the People
Power Revolution of 1986––as for scientiŽ c or empirical
reasons (e.g., see Enriquez, 1994a, p. 79).
Tan (1997b) has noted that recent reinterpretations of
indigenous concepts such as pakikisama, bahala na, utang
na loob, and hiya may be equally vulnerable to the criticism
made of earlier value research––an overreliance on ideo-
logical impressions and intuitions. He notes that while ear-
lier writers seemed to emphasize “What is wrong with us?”
(e.g., “Why are we an underdeveloped country?”), SP
seems to take the position that “nothing can be wrong with
us” (pp. 564–567). Sta. Maria (1996) has also questioned
the empirical basis of those concepts that comprise
Enriquez’s (1994a) structure of values. She portrays
Enriquez’s efforts as symptomatic of pangkaming (Salazar,
1991) or reactive syndrome, in which selected concepts are
elevated to the status of key values because they contrast
with those highlighted by foreign social scientists. As Sta.
Maria (1996, p. 102) noted:
what [Enriquez] essentially did was to ‘scan’ the entire
range of indigenous terms and to ‘pluck’ out the ones that
contrast with foreign interpretations and to elevate these
concepts to the level of ‘values’. With this approach, any
term in Filipino becomes a potential value as long as it sat-
isŽ es the contrast criterion and his idea about the con-
frontative Filipino.
Pertierra (1992, p. 41) has also raised concerns about a
politically motivated indigenous social science, in which
“the task becomes one of discovering or inventing national
characteristics which forward the ‘national interest’.”
A Ž nal limitation of these concepts is that they have gen-
erally been considered in isolation, with little consideration
134 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
of their structure or organization (i.e., how they interrelate
theoretically or empirically). A few efforts have been made
to structure the value domain, using rational considera-
tions rather than empirical data (Enriquez, 1994a; Hennig,
1983; Talisayon, 1997). Montiel (1991) used factor analy-
sis to derive higher-order value dimensions, but the values
analyzed were those assessed by Rokeach’s Value Survey,
not indigenous values. The limited data available on the
structure of Filipino personality concepts motivated
Church et al. (1996) to develop a comprehensive taxonomy
of Filipino trait and emotion terms and to investigate the
dimensional structure of these domains in self-report data
(Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1998a; Church, Katigbak,
Reyes, & Jensen, 1998b, 1999; Church, Reyes, Katigbak,
& Grimm, 1997; Katigbak, Church, Guanzon-Lape ña,
Carlota, & Del Pilar, 2002).
Indigenous theories
Filipino psychologists have made much more progress in
elaborating indigenous concepts than in formulating
indigenous theories. We can deŽ ne a theory as including
(1) a set of assumptions and constructs that are systemat-
ically related to each other; (2) operational deŽ nitions of
the constructs that enable them to be related to empirical
data; and (3) an evolving set of empirical propositions
(e.g., hypotheses and predictions), which follow from the
theory and facilitate understanding , explanation , and pre-
diction of phenomena in the domain of interest (Hall &
Lindzey, 1978, pp. 9–15). A theory could be viewed as an
indigenous theory to the extent that the assumptions,
constructs, operational deŽ nitions (e.g., measures), and
predicted phenomena of the theory are themselves indige-
nous, or have a culturally relevant conceptual and empiri-
cal basis. By this deŽ nition, we would have to conclude
that theory development in Philippine psychology has
been minimal. Existing “theories” are narrow in scope,
only partially speciŽ ed, and their heuristic value in gener-
ating veriŽ able predictions is unclear. Theoretical develop-
ment has proceeded only to the point of specifying
constructs and their interrelationships, and these efforts
have been largely conceptual rather than linked to empirical
data.
For example, Enriquez (1994a) provided a conceptual
structure of indigenous values made up of three tiers: (1) a
top tier comprised of surface values, both colonial/accom-
modative (hiya, utang na loob, pakikisama) and confronta-
tive (bahala na, sama/lakas ng loob, pakikibaka ); (2) a
middle tier comprised of the pivotal interpersonal value of
pakiramdam (shared inner perception), which underlies the
surface values; the core value of kapwa (shared identity);
and a socio-cultural value of kagandahang-loob (shared
humanity) linking the core value of kapwa to the bottom
tier; and (3) a bottom tier comprised of the associated
societal values of karangalan (dignity), katarungan (jus-
tice), and kalayaan (freedom). Enriquez (1994a) argued
that the conceptual relations depicted in this model were
“recognized links.” It is not clear, however, how universally
recognized or obvious these links are, and most of the
indigenous values discussed in the literature are not
encompassed by the hypothesized structure.
Enriquez (1994b, pp. 51–54) described the levels and
modes of social interaction delineated by Santiago and
Enriquez (1982) as an “indigenous social interaction
theory.” Santiago and Enriquez (1982) described eight
levels of social interaction ranging from more superŽ cial
levels applied with outgroup members to the deeper levels
obtained with ingroup members. One of the most thor-
oughly speciŽ ed and empirically tested theories was
Lynch’s (1973) theory of SIR (smooth interpersonal rela-
tions). However, proponents of SP and others have tended
to reject the theory as based on stereotypes, colonial inter-
pretations, limited understanding of the Filipino language,
and limited data (see Church, 1986, pp. 29–35, for a
review). More recently, Sta. Maria (1999) proposed an
indigenous person typology for Filipinos, which was
derived from content analyses of relatively open-ended
descriptions of self and others.
Carandang (1981) described a conceptual framework,
termed the Rubic’s Cube approach, which is less a formal
theory than a framework for holistic and multidimensional
analyses in studies with Filipino children. The four dimen-
sions of analysis included: (1) the child as a total person,
including intellectual, emotional, physical, social, and
moral/spiritual development; (2) the child’s developmental
level; (3) the context of family, community, and culture;
and (4) the child’s inner world or subjective perceptions.
The approach has been cited as the conceptual framework
for a number of phenomenological studies of children
(Araneta-de Leon, 2000; Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Lee-
Chua, 1999; Puente, 2000).
When theoretical frameworks have been referred to they
have often been Western frameworks. However, a number
of Filipino psychologists have adapted or further speciŽ ed
these frameworks to make them more sensitive to
Philippine contextual factors. For example, Montiel (1997,
2000a) and Briones (2000) applied ideas from an imported
model of personality and politics in constructing con-
ceptual models for Filipino political and peace psychol-
ogy; the authors provided indigenous speciŽ cation by
incorporating context-speciŽ c elements such as the history
of colonization , the Marcos dictatorship, and the role of
the Catholic Church. In a series of political psychology
studies, Montiel has questioned the assumptions underly-
ing Western theory and research on political trauma and
recovery (Montiel, 2000b), discussed Filipino cultural
characteristics that may need to be incorporated in
imported models of con ict resolution (Montiel, 1995),
and suggested that political psychology theories in the
Philippines may need to incorporate stronger affective,
religious, and collective processes than is typical of politi-
cal psychology in the United States, where the focus, she
argues, tends to be more cognitive, secular, and individual -
istic (Montiel & Macapagal , 2000).
In other examples of adaptation or indigenization of
imported theory, Protacio-Marcelino adapted a Western
stress and coping framework in her studies of children of
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
political detainees and children experiencing torture dur-
ing armed con icts (e.g., see Protacio-Marcelino , De la
Cruz, Camacho, & Balanon, 2000); Bernardo (1999)
drew on imported theories of number representation in
bilinguals, but further speciŽ ed these models to more
fully re ect the bilingual context in the Philippines ; and
Tan (1997a) combined Western theory on explanatory
style with indigenous conceptual analyses of the bahala
na concept (A.V. Lagmay, 1993) to interpret his Ž ndings
on the contentment versus discontentment of poor
Filipinos.
Western counselling theories continue to dominate in
counselling research, training, and practice in the
Philippines, despite concerns about their applicabilit y. In
a review of Western counselling approaches in the
Philippines, Villar (1997) considered the compatibility of
each approach to Filipino traits and culture. There have
been a few attempts to develop indigenous counselling
theories or frameworks. Salazar-Clemeña (1991, 1995) drew
on Filipino worldviews and conceptions of peace to con-
struct a counselling for peace model for Filipinos (e.g., she
noted the need to include peace with God as a central
component because of the theocentric worldview of most
Filipinos); however, the counselling methods advocated to
help clients attain peace are standard Western techniques.
Bulatao (1978) presented a Filipino-relevant therapy,
labelled transpersonal counselling, which he described as
compatible with the group-centredness of Filipinos, their
tendency to prefer paternalistic counsellors over non-
directive ones, and their readiness to enter into altered
states of consciousness. Decenteceo (1999) described a
Pagdadala (burden-bearing) model in counselling and
therapy in which the normal burden-bearing experienced
by Filipinos serves as a metaphor or model for counselling
with Filipinos; although Western techniques are seen as
compatible with the model, Decenteceo anticipates that
the model will also lead to more indigenous therapeutic
approaches. Responding to the strong economic needs of
many Filipinos, Velazco (1987) described a model of eco-
nomics counselling that integrates economic principles
with traditional counselling techniques.
The costs of limited theoretical development may be
considerable. For example, Sta. Maria (1996, p. 118)
argued that “the indigenization crisis in Philippine social
science” has not been resolved by SP because SP has not
determined how to systematize indigenous knowledge.
This systematization of knowledge would probably be
greatly facilitated by the development of overarching
theoretical frameworks.
Finally, it can be noted that at least some of the contro-
versies surrounding the selection and interpretation of
indigenous constructs, and their theoretical relationships,
result from disagreements about methodology (e.g., the
procedures or instruments used to identify and elaborate
indigenous concepts and their relationships). That is,
theoretical and conceptual indigenization are inherently
tied to methodological indigenization .
135
METHODOLOGICAL INDIGENIZATION
Indigenous instruments
The Philippines has been a leader in the development of
indigenous instruments and research methods. Enriquez
(1994b) credits Sinforoso Padilla with the development of
the Ž rst local test, the Philippine Mental Abilities Test,
which was developed in the 1950s (Carlota, 1999). Ortega
and Guanzon-Lapeña (cited in Guanzon-Lapeña, Church,
Carlota, & Katigbak, 1998) noted that more than 200 local
measures have now been developed. Unfortunately, as
Bernardo (1997b) has noted, many of these measures have
not been described in published sources, so they are not
readily available and the extent to which they are valid and
culture-speciŽ c is unclear.
Early and continuing efforts have been made to develop
local tests of educational and occupational aptitude,
achievement, and interest, such as the College Scholastic
Aptitude Test (CSAT), Philippine Aptitude ClassiŽ cation
Test (PACT), and Philippine Occupational Interest Survey
(POIS) developed by the Center for Education
Measurement, a testing and research centre serving the
private educational sector (Buen, 1994). These tests resem-
ble, in both content and format, comparable tests in the
United States. More indigenous in content, but also rely-
ing on Western item formats, are the Philippin e
Indigenized Preschool and Primary Intelligence Test
(Taylor, 1993) and the content-indigenized subtests for
rural children developed by Katigbak and Church (Church
& Katigbak, 1987; Church, Katigbak, & Almario-Velazco,
1985; see also Guthrie, Tayag, & Jacobs, 1977). Velazco
(1985) and Church et al. (1985) described the development
of indigenous rating scales that can be used to assess adap-
tive competencies of rural preschoolers based on parents’
conceptions of intelligence. Ledesma, Diputado, Orteza,
and Santillan (1993) developed a “de-Westernized”
dementia screening scale.
In the personality domain, indigenous projective tests
have been developed, beginning with the efforts of A.V.
Lagmay, who constructed the Philippine Thematic
Apperception Test (PTAT; A.V. Lagmay, 1965) and the
Philippine Children’s Apperception Test (PCAT; A.V.
Lagmay, 1975a, b). The PTAT and PCAT have sometimes
been used to elicit values or concerns of particular groups,
rather than to measure individual differences in personal-
ity (e.g., Carandang, 1996; L.A. Lagmay, 1993). Other
indigenous projective tests include Jurilla’s (1986) Family
Welfare Cards and the Crime Picture Interpretation Test
(see Lamug, 1987). Other researchers have also used
indigenous thematic content or sentence completion stems
(e.g., Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000; Laguisma-Sison, 2000;
Puente, 2000).
The two most prominent multidimensional personality
inventories are the Panukat ng Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP;
Carlota, 1985) and the Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao
(PUP; Enriquez & Guanzon, 1985; see also Guanzon-
Lapeña et al., 1998), whose authors selected the traits to in-
clude by drawing on the literature on Filipino personality,
136 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
person descriptions, and cultural informants. Church,
Katigbak, Reyes, and colleagues developed indigenous
measures of personality and mood dimensions using a
comprehensive lexical approach (Church et al., 1996, 1997,
1998a, 1998b, 1999). Katigbak, Church, and colleagues
developed a multidimensional measure based on Filipino
college students’ conceptions of healthy and unhealthy
personality (Church & Katigbak, 1989; Katigbak, Church,
& Akamine, 1996). Indigenous self-concept measures have
been constructed by Pasao (1987) and Agbing (1988).
Some information on the structure, reliability, and valid-
ity of selected personality measures can be found in the
original sources and in reviews by Carlota (1985),
Guanzon-Lapeña et al. (1998), and Church and Katigbak
(2000a, b). However, as Carlota (1999) noted, there is a
strong need for further research on the psychometric prop-
erties of the indigenous measures. Although many of the
trait dimensions assessed by these inventories seem similar
to those in Western inventories, others seem especially
salient for Filipinos. There has been very little research on
how the dimensions of these measures relate to those in
other cultures. Recently, however, Katigbak et al. (2002)
found considerable overlap between the dimensions of
three indigenous inventories and the dimensions of the
Ž ve-factor model (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Such studies
are consistent with a cross-indigenous approach to evolv-
ing a universal psychology.
Indigenous research methods
Many Filipino psychologists have advocated the develop-
ment of indigenous research methods thought to be more
compatible with the cultural characteristics of Filipinos. In
1975 Santiago proposed the Ž rst indigenous method called
pakapa-kapa (groping) (Santiago, 1982). Torres (1982)
described the method as “a suppositionless approach to
social scientiŽ c investigations ... characterized by groping,
searching, and probing into an unsystematized mass of
social and cultural data to be able to obtain order, mean-
ing, and directions for research” (p. 171). In this method,
data were to be explored without the “chains of overriding
theoretical frameworks” borrowed from observations out-
side the focus of investigation , with the goal of generating
a broad database free from the biases and frameworks of
Western concepts and methods.
Subsequently, many indigenous research methods have
been explicated. Many of them are associated with the
research model of Santiago and Enriquez (1982), which is
comprised of two “scales”: Iskala ng Mananaliksi k
(researcher/method scale) and Iskala ng Pagtutunguhan ng
Mananaliksik at Kalahok (researcher-participant relation-
ship scale). The researcher/method scale represents a con-
tinuum varying from unobtrusive observational methods
at one end, to more obtrusive, researcher-participative
methods at the other. For example, pagmamasid (general
scanning or looking around) and pakikiramdam (sensing,
feeling what is happening) are relatively unobtrusive and
can be used initially to determine the feasibility of further
study, or in combination with other methods (Gonzales,
1982). In the middle of the continuum are somewhat more
obtrusive methods like pagtatanung-tanong (unstructured,
informal, interactive questioning; Gonzales, 1982; Pe-Pua,
1989, 1993–94). Methods at the bottom of the scale
involve increasing levels of researcher participation and
obtrusiveness. For example, whereas in padalaw-dala w,
occasional visits are made to respondent homes, in
pakikisangkot a deeper involvement in barrio activities is
undertaken.
The researcher-participant relationship scale is based on
the Filipino view of the equality of this relationship and
the fact that it passes through different levels. For example,
the “top” of the scale describes a superŽ cial level of rela-
tionship involving civility and good manners (pakiki-
tungo). Increasingly deeper levels of relationship are
illustrated by pakikibagay (adjusting to others), pakikipag-
palagayang-loob (mutual trust and security), and pakikiisa
(the deepest level; love, understanding , and acceptance of
the others’ aims as one’s own).
Other indigenous research methods have been pre-
sented, including paali-aligid (casing; Enriquez, 1994b),
pakikipagkuwentuhan (story-telling; De Vera, 1982;
Orteza, 1997), pakikisama (frequent interaction with the
research participants; Nery, 1982; Pe-Pua, 1993–94),
pakikipanuluyan (residing in the research setting; Nicdao-
Henson, 1982; San Juan & Soriaga, 1985), nakikiugaling
pagmamasid (adopting the ways of a group one is observ-
ing; Bennagen, 1985; Pe-Pua, 1993–94); ginabayang
talakayan (guided discussion; Enriquez, 1994b; Pe-Pua,
Aguiling-Dalisa y, & Sto. Domingo, 1993), the collective
indigenous method (community dialogue and small group
interviews; Enriquez, 1994b), personal encounter research
(subjective experiencing of the phenomenon by the
researcher; Enriquez, 1994b, p. 60), and pagninilay/paglil-
imi (introspection/re ection; Obusan, 1994), among others
(e.g., see Elman & Pioquinto, 1997; Obusan, 1994).
Most of these methods involve (1) unstructured (though
guided) conversations and discussions, often in a small
group context, in lieu of more structured interviews; or (2)
various degrees of participant observation. Several princi-
ples or assumptions underly these methods (Pe-Pua &
Protacio-Marcelino, 2000). A foremost assumption is that
the quality and genuineness of the data obtained will
depend on the level of researcher-participant relationship
achieved prior to data gathering. There is apparently some
disagreement, however, regarding the level of relationship
that needs to be achieved. For example, Obusan and
Enriquez (1994b, p. ix, foreword) seem to suggest that the
deepest level of pakikiisa must be reached, whereas most
SP proponents suggest that the level of pakikipagpala-
gayang-loob will be sufŽ cient to obtain the kind of infor-
mation for which psychologists generally aim.
Another goal of these methods is to reduce the power
differential between researcher and participant , with par-
ticipants being treated at least as equals. Indeed, in SP’s
focus on indigenous facilitation research, the participant
wields greater power in determining the research ques-
tions, methods, and interpretations, and the researcher
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
serves mainly as a facilitator, motivator, and consultant.
Other principles emphasise the welfare and ethical treat-
ment of the participants, method appropriateness over
methodological sophistication , and use of the partici-
pants’ native language at all times.
A number of authors have questioned aspects of these
methods. Church (1986) noted that pakapa-kapa (groping)
may be sensible during an initial “bootstrapping ” or data
generation phase of research, but it could also serve as a
rationalization for avoiding literature search and careful
speciŽ cation of method, and thus of repeating previous
research mistakes. The rationale of the method implies
that it is not possible to be informed on previous (particu-
larly Western) research and still design a research method
that will allow the local data to surface free of bias. Use of
the collective indigenous method or pagtatanung-tanong
(informal questioning) in groups may be more appropriate
for obtaining group-level data than individual-level data
and prolonged informal interviews introduce problems of
inaccuracy and selective recall if recording is not
immediate.
Sevilla (1982b) noted that further investigation and
explication is needed regarding (1) the relationship
between the research method and researcher-participant
relationship scales of Santiago and Enriquez (1982) and
(2) the nuances or gradations between the different scale
levels. In addition, research is needed to verify the assump-
tion that more genuine and accurate data will be obtained
with “deeper” levels of relationship and under what condi-
tions this will be the case (e.g., with which samples and
topics). Margallo (1981) saw subjectivity and a higher
probability of data contamination as the most basic difŽ -
culties with the methods, noting that the absence of objec-
tive instrumentation increases the likelihood of researcher
bias. Data contamination may also be a concern when con-
sciousness raising is a simultaneous goal of the research
(Enriquez, 1994b, p. 56; Strobel, 1998).
A few authors have questioned the cultural uniqueness
of these methods, because they resemble standard ethno-
graphic methods such as naturalistic and participant
observation (e.g., Church, 1986; Sevilla, 1982b). Enriquez
(1994b, p. 58) acknowledged resemblances, but contended
that the levels along the Santiago and Enriquez (1982)
method continuum provide more precise speciŽ cation of
different levels of participant observation. Similarly, Sta.
Maria (1996, p. 109) argued that while the methods may be
similar to existing ethnographic methods, their indigenous
character is re ected in behavioural and attitudinal
nuances of interaction that are characteristic of Filipino
culture.
In recent years, the use of qualitative phenomenologica l
methods has increased substantially (Sta. Maria, 2000b;
Torres, 1997). In particular, in studies of children in difŽ -
cult circumstances––for example, children experiencing
abuse, torture, prostitution, or extreme poverty––
researchers have emphasized the value of in-depth inter-
views and case studies in understanding the children’s
subjective experience or “inner world” (Araneta-de Leon,
2000; Bautista, 2000; Gonzalez-Fernando, 2000;
137
Laguisma-Sison , 2000; Puente, 2000; Triviño, 2000). The
importance of the researcher-participant relationship in
eliciting the child’s phenomenological world is again high-
lighted and Arellano-Carandang (2000) noted that the
clinical psychologist or “therapist-researcher,” by virtue of
his or her clinical training, is particularly suited for this
type of research. Although phenomenological methods
are not indigenous to the Philippines, they may be partic-
ularly applicable in the development of indigenous psy-
chologies because of the local and contextual nature of the
information obtained.
In summary, we would like to see more systematic com-
parisons of the nature and quality of the data obtained
with (1) traditional methods (e.g., survey questionnaires,
psychological scales) versus indigenous methods; (2) dif-
ferent indigenous methods; and (3) different levels of
researcher-participant relationship. The indigenous meth-
ods have been applied most often, and are perhaps most
crucial, when investigating less educated samples, who
have limited familiarity with traditional surveys and inven-
tories, or when investigating particularly sensitive topics.
TOPICAL INDIGENIZATION
Topical indigenization in the Philippines has generally
taken two forms: (1) calls for studies of non-elite or “every-
day” Filipinos and their behaviours and ideas; and (2) calls
for research on applied topics that address societal needs
and problems. Examples of the former type of study
include those on haggling behaviour (Du & Paysu, 1979),
the “Kristo” (bet-taker) of the cockpit (Alabanza,
Gonzaga, & Obligacion, 1979), garbage scavengers in slum
areas (Gepigon & Francisco, 1982), and studies of
Filipino conceptions of time (Nicdao-Henson, 1982),
justice (Avila, Diaz, & Rodriguez, 1988), old age
(Domingo, 1991), manhood (Santiago, 1982), and privacy
(Pangilinan , 1986), all of which applied the indigenous
methods referred to earlier.
Examples of studies that have adddressed applied socie-
tal needs include studies of treatment compliance (Orteza,
1996; Ventura, Abella-Matto, & Cipres-Ortega, 1993),
adjustment of Filipino overseas workers and their families
(Du-Lagrosa, 1986; Samonte, 1998), adaptation of rural
migrants in an urbanizing barrio (L.A. Lagmay, 1993),
political con ict and peace-making (Briones, 2000;
Gonzalez-Intal, 1991; Montiel, 1984–85, 1991, 1995, 1997,
2000b; Sta. Maria, 2000a), pre-election attitudes
(Guanzon-Lapeña, 1996), torture of children in situations
of armed con ict (Protacio-Marcelino et al., 2000b), child
labour (Torres, 1998), and children experiencing sexual
abuse, prostitution, or trouble with the law (Araneta-de
Leon, 2000; Arellano-Carandang , Fernando, & Sison,
1999; Bautista, 2000; Carandang, 1996; Carlota, 1982–83;
Gonzales-Fernando, 2000; Laguisma-Sison , 2000; Nery,
1982; Protacio-Marcelino, De la Cruz, Balanon, Camacho,
& Yacat, 2000a; Triviño, 2000).
Other popular applied topics include families, married
life, and children (e.g., Aguiling-Dalisay, Mendoza,
138 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
Santos, & Echevaria, 1995; Philippine Social Science
Council Secretariat, 1995; Ventura, 1985), gender psychol-
ogy (Torres, 1988), stress and coping in various groups
(e.g., Relucio, 1995; Vergara, 1999), and applied cognitive
and educational topics related to learning, thinking, prob-
lem-solving, and bilingualis m (Bernardo, 1993, 1996,
1997a, 1999; Liwag, 1999; Ventura, 1994). Filipino political
psychology provides a particularly good example of topical
indigenization , as the nature of the topics addressed has
shown considerable sensitivity to the evolving Philippin e
political situation in recent decades, for example, from
pre-martial law through the martial law period and the
transition to democracy (Montiel & Macapagal, 2000).
In sum, there is extensive evidence of topical indigeniza-
tion in Filipino psychology. Topical indigenization has
often been accompanied by either theoretical or method-
ological indigenization . However, a number of the studies
cited here were conceived outside the indigenous SP per-
spective and have addressed societally relevant topics using
Western theoretical models. For example, Gonzales-Intal
(1991) found an imported relative deprivation theory to be
useful in understanding collective political violence in the
Philippine s. Araneta-de Leon (2000), in a study of children
in con ict with the law, interpreted the results largely in
terms of Western attachment theories. Clamor (1997)
found Western con ict management frameworks to be use-
ful in understanding con ict management practices in
semiconductor companies in the Philippines. Nonetheless,
such studies are relevant here because the extent to which
researchers address applied problems of local concern has
been described as one criterion for judging the extent of
indigenization in given cultures (Sinha, 1997).
INSTITUTIONAL INDIGENIZATION
Considerable progress has been made in the development
of institutional structures and processes in the Philippine s
that support the creation and diffusion of indigenous
psychologica l knowledge. This progress takes the form
of courses, materials, degree programmes, and theses/
dissertations; journals and other publications ; and psycho-
logical organizations with an indigenous focus.
Courses and curricula
Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) and Enriquez
(1994a) have reviewed the evolution of course offerings
dealing with indigenous Filipino psychology and the
teaching of psychology using the Filipino language. At the
University of the Philippines, efforts to teach psychology
courses in Filipino began around 1970. Other landmark
events and dates include the following: the Ž rst psychology
master’s theses at the University of the Philippines written
in Filipino (1972); the Ž rst elective undergraduate course
and the Ž rst permanent graduate level course on Filipino
psychology at the University of the Philippines (1978); the
Ž rst compilation of papers on Filipino psychology made
available for student use (1982); the Ž rst psychology text-
book using the Filipino language and Philippine materials,
published at Centro Escolar University (1983); the Ž rst
course in Filipino Psychology as an integral part of an
undergraduate curricula, at the University of Santo Tomas
(1987); the Ž rst two psychology doctoral dissertations
written in Filipino at the University of the Philippine s
(1990); and the Ž rst graduate of the doctoral concentra-
tion in Philippine Psychology at the University of the
Philippines (1994). Other Philippine universities offer
courses in indigenous Filipino psychology and since at
least 1975 students have been encouraged to write papers,
theses, and dissertations in Filipino.
Despite these efforts, Enriquez (1994a, p. 36) conceded
that English still predominates in the classroom.
According to Gaerlan (1996), by 1994–1995 “Filipino was
still used to teach sikolohiyang Pilipino and a few other
courses, [but] English was predominantly used for teaching
other areas of psychology which were dominated by
Western concepts” (pp. 148–149)6. Sta. Maria (1996) also
noted that Western psychology continues to predominate
in Philippine universities and that indigenous methods are
given less emphasis than are traditional experimental and
survey methods. The limited integration of Western and
Filipino perspectives is suggested by the following obser-
vations: (1) Filipino psychology tends to be taught as a
separate course alongside standard (Western) courses in
general psychology, personality psychology, experimental
psychology, and so forth; (2) although Filipino psychology
courses are taught in the Filipino language, most other
psychology courses are not; and (3) Filipino psychology
seems to be treated as a distinct topic area (e.g., like the
Filipiniana section in book stores and libraries) in other
ways, for example, in departmental compilations of
student research that list Filipino psychology projects in
a separate category from those on personality, psycho-
metrics, and so forth.
Efforts to teach indigenous Filipino psychology have
been inhibited by the limited availability of indigenous
texts and reading materials. It was not until the early 1980s
that introductory textbooks written by Filipinos included
substantial references to Filipino psychological studies
and concepts (Del Pilar, 1985). Recently, the psychology
department of Ateneo de Manila University was tasked by
the Commission on Higher Education to develop General
Psychology course materials for use in colleges and uni-
versities; the resulting product includes indigenous materi-
als (Teh & Macapagal, 1999). SP proponents have also
compiled several collections of readings to address the
need for indigenous materials (e.g., Aganon & David,
6
Indeed, Gaerlan (1996) concluded that the Multilingual
Language Policy of 1989, which mandated the use of Filipino for all
undergraduate instruction at the University of the Philippines within
5 years, led to language disarray. Not only was the goal of substantial
instruction in Filipino never achieved, but the perceived decline in
proŽ ciency in English, viewed as important for economic develop-
ment and global competitiveness, prompted the university to empha-
size English once again.
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
1985; Bautista & Pe-Pua, 1991; Pe-Pua, 1982; Protacio-
Marcelino & Pe-Pua, 1999).
Efforts to create instructional and scientiŽ c materials in
Filipino might be facilitated by some agreement on scien-
tiŽ c terms in Filipino or to provide criteria for selecting
such terms (e.g., Enriquez, 1994a, p. 23; Enriquez &
Marcelino, 1984). However, there are apparently several
schools of thought regarding proper writing in Filipino,
for example, regarding vocabulary selection, extent and
type of language borrowing, and level of formality
(Gaerlan, 1996). Although an advocate of the use of
Filipino in teaching scientiŽ c disciplines, Sibayan (1994)
expressed the view that Filipino is not yet an intellectual-
ized language that can be used without difŽ culty for this
purpose. Meanwhile, Gaerlan (1996) reports a widespread
lack of interest in translations of English materials into
Filipino, and, in any case, some SP proponents would have
strong philosophical objections to doing this.
Journals and organizations
There are ample presentation and publication outlets for
disseminating indigenous Filipino psychology. The organ-
ization most closely linked to the SP movement is the
Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyan g Pilipino (PSSP;
National Association for Filipino Psychology) , which has
held annual conferences since 1975. The Filipino lan-
guage is used in conference presentations and published
proceedings. The other major general psychological
organization , the Psychologica l Association of the
Philippine s (PAP), also holds annual conferences and the
presentations are in English. The Philippine Journal of
Psychology, the journal of the PAP, is also published in
English, and although some articles address indigenous
topics with indigenous methods, the articles more fre-
quently resemble traditional Western psychology. Two
counselling organization s with strong Filipino involve-
ment––the Philippin e Association for Counselor
Education, Research and Supervision (PACERS) and the
Association of Psychologica l and Educational
Counsellors of Asia (APECA)––also consider the devel-
opment of indigenous or indigenized counselling tech-
niques as part of their mission (Salazar-Clemeña, 1991,
2000). Many university psychology departments publish
their own journals. The Philippin e Psychology Research
and Training House (PPRTH), founded in 1971, is a base
for research and training activities and a repository for SP
materials with more than 10,000 references (Pe-Pua &
Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).
POTENTIAL PITFALLS AND
LIMITATIONS
Sinha (1997), Ho (1998), and Adair (1992), among others,
have noted potential pitfalls or limitations of indigenous
psychologies, and we ask to what extent they characterize
indigenization efforts in the Philippines.
139
Polemics and cosmetic indigenization
Adair (1992) has noted a “bandwagon” tendency in devel-
oping countries, in which local psychologists adopt the
language or “slogans” of indigenization , but with limited
attempts to make their own research indigenous and
limited awareness of how to do so. Related to the pitfall of
“more talk than action” is “cosmetic indigenization ,”
which Sinha (1993) characterizes as casual reference to
indigenous concepts in studies that are basically Western
in nature.
In the Philippines, many psychologists, though not all,
have jumped on the indigenization “bandwagon ” and Sta.
Maria (1996, p. 104), for one, has noted a continuing ten-
dency to “dwell on slogans.” There are also clear examples
of polemic language and uncritical rejection of Western
models and concepts. However, there has also been signif-
icant action to back up the talk, for example, in the elabo-
ration of indigenous concepts and methods. In addition,
several authors have warned against cosmetic indigeniza-
tion, noting, for example, that “token” use of the Filipino
language (Enriquez, 1994a, p. 62), “verbal Filipinization ”
(Bennagen, 1985), and Filipino “labelling” activities
(Bennagen, 1985; Church, 1986) may not result in truly
indigenous perspectives and indeed may lead to miscon-
ceptions about Filipino psychology.
Anti-scientiŽ c tendencies
Sinha (1997, p. 158) criticized the uncritical eulogizing and
speculative views about indigenous psychological knowl-
edge derived from traditional religions, philosophies, and
folklore, “whose only claim to validity is their ancient ori-
gin.” One sees some of this in the Philippines, for example,
in the frequent references to the native psychological
knowledge associated with indigenous religions and heal-
ers (e.g., Enriquez, 1994b, p. 26-27). On the other hand,
Enriquez (1994a) has been explicit about the need to
“revalidate ” such indigenous knowledge.
Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) noted that some
Filipino scholars have questioned the scientiŽ c nature of
SP because of its phenomenological orientation and the
uncertain objectivity, reliability, and validity of its indige-
nous methods, but argued that SP “has mechanisms in
place to ensure that the tenets of scientiŽ c endeavor are
upheld” (p. 65). One serious threat to the scientiŽ c objec-
tivity of SP may be the substantial in uence of sociopolit-
ical factors in the selection and interpretation of
indigenous concepts and methods. Indeed, one can ques-
tion the compatibility or necessity of the explicit socio-
political thrust of SP in developing a scientiŽ c and
objective indigenous psychology, at least in the long-term.
To concerns about lack of objectivity, Enriquez (1994b, p.
49) countered that the SP philosophy of science is actually
more demanding than its Western counterpart, because it
not only requires empirical demonstration of katatagan
(replicability and reliability) and katapatan (multiple oper-
ationism and validity) but also requires that the results be
140 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
authentic (patunay; e.g., experientially valid), afŽ rmed by
participants, and attested to by concerned nonparticipant s
(i.e., patotoo). Experiential validity has been applied in a
few studies in which Filipino researchers sought to experi-
ence Ž rst-hand various spiritual, psychic, or paranormal
phenomena under investigation (Talisayon, 1994). In addi-
tion, researchers have occasionally arranged for their Ž nd-
ings to be afŽ rmed by research participants or attested to
by concerned nonparticipants (e.g., Elman & Pioquinto,
1997). However, the multiple validation criteria advocated
by Enriquez (1994b) have probably never been applied in a
single study.
Insularity
Sinha (1997, p. 159) reminds us that the “goal of indige-
nization is not parochialism in psychology, but the devel-
opment of ‘appropriate ’ psychology.” Parochialism or
insularity can take the form of extreme cultural relativism,
indiscriminate rejection of Western psychology, the prolif-
eration of indigenous psychologies at the expense of
efforts to develop a universal psychology, and resistance to
external stimulation and perspectives (Ho, 1998; Sinha,
1997).
Insularity can be seen in the views of some SP propo-
nents. A milder form of insularity, and perhaps legitimate
at some point in the research process, is the suggestion by
some that previous (mostly Western) literature and models
be ignored when studying an indigenous phenomena, at
least until after the data have been collected and inter-
preted, so as not to be biased by Western perspectives
(Torres, 1982).
A more consequential form of insularity is the insistence
by some authors that only native languages be used to dis-
seminate SP ideas and research (e.g., Javier, 1996; Salazar,
1991). We have noted the importance of the native lan-
guages for indigenous psychology. However, proponents of
the Filipino-only view go further by criticizing those who
publish their research in the English language.
Salazar (1991) has raised an important point in empha-
sizing the need for Filipinos to evolve their own internal or
“insider perspective” (pantayong pananaw), which is
achieved, in part, by (1) communicating in the Filipino
language; and (2) avoiding the goal or tendency to explain
Filipino behaviour or psychology to those outside the cul-
ture (e.g., to Western social scientists) using the English
language. Accordingly, Javier (1996) noted with dismay the
increasing tendencies in the 1990s to get away from the
exclusive use of Filipino in SP writings and to publish SP
works in English, in part, for a foreign audience. One of
Javier’s concerns is apparently that SP proponents are now
communicating results outside the Filipino psychological
community without Ž rst obtaining greater understanding
of Filipino psychology within the community. He is also
critical of Filipino social scientists who have gone
abroad––and are thus no longer “insiders”––but now pub-
lish articles in an outsider’s language such as English to be
read by those inside the Philippines.
A major dilemma, of course, for indigenous psychology
movements is how to evolve an independent psychology
without the risks and costs of insularity. Both De Raedt
(1982) and Rood (1985), for example, noted that exclusive
use of Filipino will probably be harmful in the long run
because it will exclude the perspectives of social scientists
who are more distant from the culture. They argued that a
combination of insider and outsider perspectives is opti-
mal in avoiding metatheoretical biases. An insular SP may
also become scientiŽ cally inefŽ cient, if not misleading, by
(1) ignoring or rejecting aspects of imported psychologies
that might be applicable in the Philippines ; (2) “reinvent-
ing” theories or repeating mistakes already made else-
where; or (3) overstating the cultural speciŽ city of
concepts or methods that may be universal.
To these risks to SP itself, we can add the costs to the
international community of an insular SP. Filipino psy-
chologists have been among the leaders in the development
of indigenous concepts and methods and psychologists
elsewhere can beneŽ t if they are easily able to remain
informed about Philippine developments. It also seems
contrary to the nature of science, where developments are
never Ž nal, to postpone dissemination of SP ideas and
Ž ndings until some undeŽ ned level of understanding
about Filipino psychology is achieved among SP insiders.
Another example of insularity is the view that SP should
encompass only native Filipinos residing in the
Philippines, excluding, for example, Filipino-American s
(Javier, 1996; Salazar, 1991; Sta. Maria, 1996, p. 104). The
SP advocacy of research on the Filipino masses also risks
being exclusionary by treating more educated or elite
Filipinos as less worthy of study and as insufŽ cient bearers
of the indigenous culture. Although the focus on the
Filipino masses may be an important corrective to the
oversampling of more educated (and indeed more
Westernized) Filipinos, Filipinos on both sides of the
“great cultural divide” are representative of Filipinos.
Indeed, some cross-cultural psychologists argue that
comparisons of individuals with different levels of accul-
turation (e.g., Filipino-Americans in America, or elite
Filipinos versus the masses) can be a powerful methodol-
ogy for isolating the cultural variable and learning about
indigenous cultures.
The more insular perspective in SP may be the minority
perspective, however. For example, Enriquez (1994b, p. 44)
rejected the nativistic pantayong pananaw and the exclu-
sion of Filipino-Americans as “inward looking and isola-
tionist”. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) also
expressed a more open view toward inclusion of Filipinos
outside the Philippines archipelago, who do, in fact, share
Filipino culture and identity to varying degrees. In fact,
Enriquez (1994b, p. 4) argued that one purpose of SP is to
“strengthen and develop awareness of Filipino cultural
heritage and indigenous identity among expatriate
Filipinos.”7 Enriquez’s (1979) cross-indigenous approach
7 For a review of Sikolohiyang Pilipino developments in the
United States, see Strobel (1998).
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
is also explicitly noninsular, as are attempts to relate
indigenous and imported personality and intellectual
dimensions in the Philippines (Church et al., 1985;
Katigbak et al., 2002).
Limitations of the research culture
Some of the factors that inhibit the development of
indigenous Filipino psychology are not speciŽ c to indige-
nous approaches, but involve the research culture more
generally. Structural constraints include the limited
resources for research, although Bernardo (1997b)
describes the funding situation as improving. Bernardo
(1997b) also referred to the limited research culture in
Philippine psychology.
For example, only a limited number of Filipino psy-
chologists are active researchers, in part because of heavy
teaching or administrative duties and limited demands and
rewards for research, although this, too, is changing at
some universities. Many SP proponents have gone abroad
as migrants or students, reducing the critical mass of SP
researchers, and constituting a kind of SP brain drain of
uncertain long-term impact. In Bernardo’s (1997b) view,
this small critical mass of researchers, along with some
hesitancy to criticize others’ work, has limited academic
criticism and exchange and the development of a peer-
review system, both of which could contribute to the reso-
lution of indigenous psychology issues (Sta. Maria, 1996).
Several reviewers have noted that most of the empirical
research is done by students for papers, theses, and disser-
tations, and that little of this research is continued or pub-
lished (Bernardo, 1997b; Sta. Maria, 1996; Ventura, 1985).
Protacio-Marcelino et al. (2000a) noted that the results of
many funded research projects are also not widely dissem-
inated beyond the funding agencies. As a result, Bernardo
(1997b) concluded that publication is not a very good indi-
cator of research activity in the Philippines. Sta. Maria
(1996) expressed the opinion that SP progress has been too
closely tied to organizational activities rather than the
research programmes of individual psychologists or the
psychological community as a whole.
Regarding the research itself, Bernardo (1997b) and Sta.
Maria (1996) both criticized the descriptive, atheoretical,
and nonprogrammatic nature of most studies and
Bernardo concluded that this was equally the case for both
the more traditionally Western and indigenous studies.
Bernardo noted that when theoretical frameworks were
used they were most often imported frameworks, but that
SP researchers were somewhat more likely than other
Filipino psychologists to elaborate on the rationale of
their research methods.
FINAL COMMENTS
Despite the limitations and controversies noted here, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that Filipino psycholo-
gists are among the leaders in the development of indige-
141
nous psychologies. Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000)
also concluded that SP is “alive and well” several years
after the death of its foremost intellectual leader, Virgilio
G. Enriquez. Loubser (1985) argued that to indigenize a
social science the following must be accomplished: (1) der-
ivation of indigenous theories, concepts, and methods; (2)
research based on local needs; (3) development of own
teaching and training materials; (4) recruitment and train-
ing of own nationals as members; (5) incentives for schol-
ars to stay in the country and to publish in national
journals; and (6) provision of indigenous sources of sup-
port. Our review indicates considerable progress in most of
these areas, with greatest progress being made in the elab-
oration of indigenous concepts and methods and in topi-
cal and institutional indigenization .
Among the most pressing needs that remain are the fol-
lowing: (1) formulation of indigenous theory, allowing
greater integration of the growing database; (2) objective
consideration, informed by empirical data, of the central-
ity and meaning of indigenous constructs; (3) continuing
development and validation of indigenous measures; (4)
systematic investigation of the comparative and conver-
gent validity of various indigenous and imported research
methods; (5) institutional /structural improvements leading
to growth and stability of the indigenous research culture;
(6) maintenance of an appropriate balance between the
pursuit of an independent psychology and the avoidanc e
of insularity; and, eventually, (7) increased efforts to relate
indigenous elements to those in other cultures, as part of a
cross-indigenous approach toward a universal psychology.
These recommendations, and other issues discussed in
this article, might serve as a useful guide for indigenizatio n
efforts in other cultures as well. In particular, we would
like to conclude by highlighting what we believe to be some
of the most important implications for indigenizatio n
efforts that follow from the Philippine experience.
First, the Philippine experience, which is corroborated
by reports on indigenization efforts in other Asian cultures
(Kim & Berry, 1993; Sinha, 1997), suggests that indige-
nization will most readily be achieved with respect to psy-
chological concepts and the topics studied (i.e., conceptual
and topical indigenization) . The development of indige-
nous theory has proven more difŽ cult and may await
further elaboration of the conceptual and empirical rela-
tionships among indigenous constructs. The development
of culture-relevant research methods is a unique contribu-
tion of the SP movement to indigenous and mainstream
psychology and it would be quite valuable for indigenous
psychologists elsewhere to examine the applicability of
these methods in their cultures.
Second, the Philippine case may provide an example of
a more general process or stage-like sequence in the devel-
opment of indigenous psychologies. Enriquez (1994b) pro-
posed a phase model depicting the process by which
indigenous Philippine psychology could liberate itself
from the domination of Western psychology. It would be
worthwhile for psychologists elsewhere to search for
commonalities in the emergence of indigenous psycholo-
gies to determine whether a general stage model can be
142 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
formulated. At least in general outline, current models of
racial/ethnic identity development may have heuristic
value in formulating such models. Indeed, it might not be
surprising if there were parallels between the process of
developing a self-actualized racial/ethnic identity in the
face of majority culture domination and the process of
developing an indigenous psychological identity in the face
of Western scientiŽ c domination.
For example, Cross’s (1971) stage model of racial iden-
tity development, when adapted for this purpose, might
suggest stages such as the following: (1) pre-encounter: A
stage in which Western psychology is uncritically accepted
and practised, and potential indigenous elements are
denied or marginalized; this stage would probably encom-
pass the Denial and Withdrawal, Destruction and
Desecration, and Denigration and Marginalization “phase
of cultural domination” outlined by Enriquez (1994b); (2)
encounter: A state in which dissonant experiences with
Western psychological elements lead to the realization that
Western elements may not be entirely appropriate,
followed by an initial search for more indigenous elements
through limited adaptation of imported models, concepts,
and measures; this stage might overlap with the Re-
deŽ nition and Token Utilization, Transformation and
Mainstreaming, and Commercialization and Com-
modiŽ cation phases described by Enriquez (1994b); (3)
immersion-emersion: A stage characterized by energetic
efforts to construct truly indigenous psychological ele-
ments, concomitant with an uncritical rejection of Western
psychological elements; within this stage there might be a
typical order in which indigenous concepts, methods, and
theories emerge; this stage would encompass much of what
Enriquez (1994b) described as phases of Decolonization,
Counterdomination , and Empowerment; and (4) internal-
ization: A stage characterized by conŽ dence, security,
and nondefensiveness regarding established indigenous
elements, plus an increased or renewed openness to the
blending of Western elements that may be culturally rele-
vant; Enriquez (1994b) does not describe a corresponding
phase, but he has warned against the dangers of uncritical
rejection of imported psychological elements. Such stages
might be useful in describing (1) the predominant stage of
indigenous psychology within a culture as a whole, and (2)
the varied stages or statuses of individual psychologists
within these cultures.
Third, the Philippine experience has implications for the
relative potential of culture-as-source (indigenous) versus
culture-as-target (i.e., adaptation of imported elements)
approaches in the development of an “indigenized” and
culturally appropriate psychology. Although both
approaches have value, it is unlikely that the full range of
indigenous concepts, methods, and measures that have
been formulated in Filipino psychology would have
emerged without the direct indigenous approaches advo-
cated by SP proponents. We expect that this will be the
case in other cultures as well. In addition, the combined
emic-etic approach always risks being overdetermined by
imported elements––perhaps because they are further
along than indigenous elements in development and
replication. In the cross-indigenous approach advocated
by Enriquez (1979), however, cross-cultural integration
can be delayed until indigenous elements are on a more
equal footing.
Finally, the Philippine experience highlights one of the
central dilemmas that must be addressed in the develop-
ment of indigenous psychologies in all cultures: How does
one evolve an independent and appropriate psychology
while avoiding the risks of parochialism or insularity?
Although this is a serious issue for consideration, we sus-
pect that this dilemma may solve itself in each culture as
researchers with an indigenous focus continue to identify
and apply indigenous concepts and methods, while others,
including culture-comparative psychologists, simultane-
ously pursue the challenging task of integrating indige-
nous and imported elements. This implies that a diversity
of approaches along the emic-etic continuum is to be val-
ued, rather than discouraged or denigrated. Indeed, the
eventual integration of well-established indigenous ele-
ments and well-adapted imported elements can be viewed
as the ultimate goal of indigenous psychologies.
Manuscript received August 2000
Revised manuscript received October 2001
REFERENCES
Adair, J.G. (1992). The indigenous psychology bandwagon:
Cautions and considerations. Paper presented at the 4th Asian
Regional International Association of Cross-Cultural
Psychology conference, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Aganon, A., & David, S.M.A. (Eds.). (1985). New directions in
indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at
kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowledge].
Manila: National Book Store.
Agbing, L.U. (1988). A self-concept scale for children. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 21, 77–80.
Aguiling-Dalisay, G., Mendoza, R., Santos, J.B., & Echevaria, A.
(1995). Luto ng Diyos: Mga kwento ng buhay mag-asawa
[God’s cooking”: Stories of married life]. Quezon City,
Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Alabanza, M.A., Gonzaga, M.A.B., & Obligacion, F. (1979). The
“Kristo” of the cockpit: An unsung phenomenon. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 12, 36–44.
Andres, T.D. (1989). Positive Filipino values. Quezon City,
Philippines: New Day Publishers.
Antonio, L.F. (1999). Panitikan at sikolohiya [Literature and psy-
chology]. In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.),
Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at
etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge,
application and ethics] (pp. 97–100). Quezon City, Philippines:
Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Araneta-de Leon, R.C. (2000). Makasalanan o kapus-palad: A
phenomenological study of children in con ict with the law.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33, 92–110.
Arellano-Carandang, M.L. (2000). The clinician as researcher,
innovator and communicator. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 33, 1–10.
Arellano-Carandang, M.L., Fernando, P.G., & Sison, B.A.I.
(1999). Pagkatao, pagkababae at pagkalalaki [How prostituted
children view themselves, their sexuality and their experience of
prostitution]. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 102–113.
Avila, M., Diaz, M.A., & Rodriguez, C. (1988). Konsepto ng
katarungan [Concept of justice]. Kayâ Tao, 9, 47–54.
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
Bartolome, J.M. (1985). The pitfalls of Filipino personality. In A.
Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New directions in indigenous
psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman
[Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowledge] (pp.
531–537). Manila: National Book Store.
Bautista, V.V. (1999). Gamit at etika ng sikolohiyang pangreli-
hiyon [Application and ethics of a psychology of religion].
In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.), Unang
dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at etika
[The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge,
application and ethics] (pp. 80–90). Quezon City,
Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
Bautista, V.V. (2000). Developing a method for understanding the
resiliency of abused children. Philippine Journal of Psychology,
33, 27–42.
Bautista, V.V., & Pe-Pua, R. (Eds.). (1991). Pilipinolohiya:
Kasaysayan, pilosopiya at pananaliksik [Pilipinolohiya:
History, philosophy and research]. Manila: Kalikasan Press.
Bennagen, P.L. (1985). Nakikiugaling pagmamasid:
Pananaliksik sa kulturang Agta [Participant observation
research on Agta culture]. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David
(Eds.), New directions in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino psychology:
Issues, views and knowledge] (pp. 397–415). Manila:
National Book Store. (Adapted from Pagbabago at pag-
unlad ng mga Agta sa Palanan, Isabela [Change and devel-
opment of the Agta in Palanan, Isabela], Diwa, 1977, 6,
1–4.)
Bernardo, A.B.I. (1993). The use of analogies in learning scien-
tiŽ c concepts in psychology. Philippine Journal of Psychology,
26, 39–46.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (1996). Language and understanding in mathe-
matical problem solving. Philippine Journal of Educational
Measurement, 7, 29–54.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (1997a). The psychology of mathematics
learning and problem solving: Implications for mathematics
education. Layag, 2, 57–81.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (1997b). Psychology research in the Philippines:
Observations and prospects. Philippine Journal of Psychology,
30, 38–57.
Bernardo, A.B.I. (1999). Cognitive representation of number
facts in bilinguals: Insights from an incidental recall task.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 30–49.
Bonifacio, M. (1977). An exploration into some dominant
features of Filipino social behaviour. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 10, 29–36.
Bonifacio, M. (1999). Mahahalagang isyu sa sikolohiyang pang-
nayon [Important issues in rural psychology]. In E. Protacio-
Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.), Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolo-
hiyang Pilipino: Knowledge, application and ethics] (pp.
70–75). Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Bostrom, L.C. (1968). Filipino bahala na and American fatalism.
Silliman Journal, 15, 399–413.
Briones, A.V. (2000). The Cantomanyog zone of peace: The role
of the grassroots church in local peacemaking. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 33, 77–111.
Buen, E.C. (1994). Assessment in the private school sector: The
CEM experience. Philippine Journal of Educational
Measurement, 5, 1–15.
Bulatao, J.C. (1964). Hiya. Philippine Studies, 12, 424–438.
Bulatao, J.C. (1966). The “Hiya” system in Filipino culture. In
F.L. Jocano (Ed.), Filipino cultural heritage, Lecture series no.
2: Filipino social structure and value orientation. Manila:
Philippine Women’s University.
Bulatao, J.C. (1978). An Asian approach to transpersonal counsel-
ing. Paper presented at the Convention of the Association of
Psychological and Educational Counselors in Asia, Hong
Kong University, July.
143
Bulatao, J.C. (1992). Another look at Philippine values. In J.C.
Bulatao, Phenomena and their interpretation: Landmark essays
1957–1989 (pp. 282–288). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo
de Manila Press.
Carandang, M.L. (1981). The Rubic’s Cube approach: A multi-
dimensional model for working with children. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 4, 47–54.
Carandang, M.L.A. (1996). From a place of violence: Street
children speak through their metaphors and wishes. Paper pre-
sented at the 33rd annual convention of the Psychological
Association of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines,
August.
Carlota, A.J. (1982–83). Filipino female juvenile delinquents: An
exploratory study of their level of intelligence, personality,
and attitudes towards the self and selected social Ž gures.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 15–16, 3–27.
Carlota, A. (1985). The development of the Panukat ng
Pagkataong Pilipino (PPP). Philippine Journal of Educational
Measurement, 4, 55–68.
Carlota, A. (1999). Ang gamit ng panukat na sikolohikal sa
Pilipinas [The use of psychological tests in the Philippines].
In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.), Unang
dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at etika
[The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge,
application and ethics] (pp. 57–62). Quezon City,
Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
Church, A.T. (1986). Filipino personality: A review of research and
writings (Monograph Series No. 6). Manila: De La Salle
University Press.
Church, A.T. (2002). Personality measurement in cross-cultural
perspective. Journal of Personality, 69, 979–1006.
Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (1987). Ecocultural bias in
culture-speciŽ c intelligence tests in an ecologically diverse
culture: The Philippines. Intelligence, 11, 371–389.
Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (1989). Internal, external, and
self-report structure of personality in a non-Western culture:
An investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural general-
izability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
857–872.
Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (2000a). Filipino personality:
Indigenous and cross-cultural studies. Manila: De La Salle
University Press.
Church, A.T., & Katigbak, M.S. (2000b). Trait psychology in the
Philippines. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 73–94.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., & Almario-Velazco, G. (1985).
Psychometric intelligence and adaptive competence in rural
Philippine children. Intelligence, 9, 317–340.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., & Castañeda, I. (1988). The
effects of language of data collection on derived conceptions
of healthy personality with Filipino bilinguals. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 178–192.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., & Reyes, J.A.S. (1996). Toward a
taxonomy of trait adjectives in Filipino: Comparing personal-
ity lexicons across cultures. European Journal of Personality,
10, 3–24.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., & Reyes, J.A.S. (1998a). Further
exploration of Filipino personality structure using the lexical
approach: Do the big-Ž ve or big-seven dimensions emerge?
European Journal of Personality, 12, 249–269.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., Reyes, J.A.S., & Jensen, S.M.
(1998b). Language and organization of Filipino emotion con-
cepts: Comparing emotion concepts and dimensions across
cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 63–92.
Church, A.T., Katigbak, M.S., Reyes, J.A.S., & Jensen, S.M.
(1999). The structure of affect in a non-Western culture:
Evidence for cross-cultural comparability. Journal of
Personality, 67, 503–532.
Church, A.T., Reyes, J.A.S., Katigbak, M.S., & Grimm, S.D.
(1997). Filipino personality structure and the Big Five model:
A lexical approach. Journal of Personality, 65, 477–528.
144 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
Cipres-Ortega, S. (1985). Ang larangang leksikal: Kalakaran at
paraan [The lexical domain: State of the art and alternative
approaches]. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New direc-
tions in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu,
pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and
knowledge] (pp. 371–396). Manila: National Book Store.
Clamor, M.R.J. (1997). Con ict management in semiconductor
companies. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 30, 87–111.
Cross, W.E., Jr (1971). The negro-to-black conversion experience:
Toward a psychology of black liberation. Black World, 20,
13–27.
David, R. (1977). Ang pagkagapos ng agham panlipunang
Pilipino [The colonization of Philippine social science]. In
L.F. Antonio, L.L. Samson, E.S. Reyes, & M.A. Paguio
(Eds.), Ulat ng ikalawang pambansang kumperensya sa sikolo-
hiyang Pilipino [Proceedings of the second national conference
on Filipino psychology]. Quezon City, Philippines:
Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Decenteceo, E.T. (1999). The pagdadala model in counseling.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 89–104.
De Raedt, J. (1982). Burdensome heritage and insistent future:
Teaching social anthropology in the Philippines. In R. Pe-Pua
(Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino
psychology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 139–147).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and
Training House. (Reprinted from Agham-tao, 1978, 1, 9–20.
De Vera, M.G.A. (1982). Pakikipagkuwentuhan: Paano kaya
pag-aaralan ang pakikiapid? [Pakikipagkuwentuhan: How do
we study adultery?] In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory,
method and application] (pp. 187–193). Quezon City,
Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Training
House.
Del Pilar, G.H. (1985). Decolonizing introductory psychology
textbooks: A search for Filipino elements. In A. Aganon &
S.M.A. David (Eds.), New directions in indigenous psychology:
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino
psychology: Issues, views and knowledge] (pp. 215–227).
Manila: National Book Store.
Domingo, M.F.A. (1991). Old age: Meanings, perceptions and
situations. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 24, 39–48.
Domingo-Tapales, P., & AlŽ ler, M.C.P. (1991). Sustaining
Filipino unity: Harnessing indigenous values for moral recov-
ery. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 35, 99–113.
Du, M.E., & Paysu, R. (1979). Pagtawad: Haggling behaviour.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 12, 25–35.
Du-Lagrosa, M.E. (1986). Some family-related factors and per-
sonality variables affecting the adjustment of father-absent
adolescents. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 19, 61–77.
Elman, N.R., & Pioquinto, C.E. (1997). The quadrangulation
appraisal technique as research strategy for the Negros
Oriental ancestral domain research project. Silliman Journal,
58, 5–22.
Enriquez, V.G. (1976a). Sikolinggwistikang Pilipino: Wika at
lipunan, kaasalang pangwika, bilinggwalismo at suliranin sa
pagpapahayag [Filipino psycholinguistics: Language and
culture, verbal behaviour, bilingualism and communicative
disorders]. Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines: University of
the Philippines Press.
Enriquez, V.G. (1976b). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Perspektibo at
direksyon [Filipino psychology: Perspectives and direction]. In
L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes, R.E. Pe, & N.R. Almonte (Eds.),
Ulat ng unang pambansang kumperensya sa sikolohiyang
Pilipino [Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on
Filipino Psychology]. Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang
Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Enriquez, V.G. (1977). Filipino psychology in the third world.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 10, 3–18.
Enriquez, V.G. (1978). Kapwa: A core concept in Filipino social
psychology. Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review,
42, 100–108.
Enriquez, V.G. (1979). Towards cross-cultural knowledge through
cross-indigenous methods and perspective. Philippine Journal
of Psychology, 12, 9–15.
Enriquez, V.G. (1994a). From colonial to liberation psychology:
The Philippine experience. Manila: De La Salle University
Press.
Enriquez, V.G. (1994b). Pagbabangong-dangal : Indigenous psy-
chology and cultural empowerment. Quezon City, Philippines:
Akademya ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Enriquez, V.G., & Guanzon, M.A. (1985). Towards the assess-
ment of personality and culture: The Panukat ng Ugali at
Pagkatao. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 4,
15–54.
Enriquez, V.G., & Marcelino, E.P. (1984). Neo-colonial politics
and language struggle in the Philippines: National conscious-
ness and language in Philippine psychology. Quezon City,
Philippines: Akademya ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Philippine
Psychology Research and Training House.
Espiritu, A.C. (1982). The limits of applicability of Western con-
cepts, values and methods in the social sciences to the concrete
realities of Asian societies. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology:
Theory, method and application] (pp. 111–119). Quezon City,
Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Training
House. (Reprinted from The relevance of social sciences in con-
temporary Asia, 1968, pp. 35–44, Tokyo: World Student
Christian Federation.)
Gaerlan, B. (1996). Con icting aspirations: Filipino language at
the University of the Philippines in the wake of the multi-
lingual language policy of 1989. Pilipinas: A Journal of
Philippine Studies, 26, 145–163.
Gepigon, S.D., Jr, & Francisco, V.A. (1982). Pagdalaw at
pakikipag-palagayang-loob sa mamumulot ng basura
[Visiting and mutual trust interaction techniques with
scavengers]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and
application] (pp. 194–202). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Gonzales, L.F. (1982). Ang pagtatanung-tanong: Dahilan at
katangian [Pagtatanung-tanong: Rationale and characteris-
tics]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
metodo at gamit [Filipino Psychology: Theory, method and
application] (pp. 175–186). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Gonzalez-Fernando, P. (2000). Pagkatao, pagkababae, at
seksuwalidad (Self-concept, womanhood, and sexuality): A
phenomenological study of the inner world of the girl child
prostitute. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33, 67–91.
Gonzalez-Intal, A.M. (1991). Relative deprivation theory and
collective political violence in the Philippines. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 24, 22–38.
Guanzon-Lapeña, M.A. (1996). 1995 pre-election surveys: A ret-
rospective view of the survey method. Layag, 1, 11–38.
Guanzon-Lapeña, M.A., Church, A.T., Carlota, A.J., &
Katigbak, M.S. (1998). Indigenous personality measures:
Philippine examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,
249–270.
Guthrie, G.M., Tayag, A.H., & Jacobs, P.J. (1977). The Philippine
nonverbal intelligence test. Journal of Social Psychology, 102,
3–11.
Hall, C.S., & Lindzey, G. (1978). Theories of personality (3rd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hennig, R.P. (1983). Philippine values in perspective: An analyti-
cal framework. Philippine Sociological Review, 31, 55–64.
Ho, D.Y.F. (1998). Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 88–103.
Hollnsteiner, M.R. (1973). Reciprocity in the lowland Philippines.
In F. Lynch & A. de Guzman II (Eds.), Four readings on
Philippine values (4th ed., enlarged, IPC Papers No. 2, pp.
69–91). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
Javier, R.E., Jr (1996). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Papaloob o papal-
abas? [Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Inward or outward?]. Layag, 1,
51–56.
Jocano, F.L. (1966). Rethinking “Smooth interpersonal rela-
tions.” Philippine Sociological Review, 14, 282–291.
Jocano, F.L. (1974). Toward a new conceptual orientation of
Filipino culture and personality. Philippine Education
Quarterly, 6, 9–15.
Jurilla, L.J. (1986). An exploratory study of the motivational sys-
tem for parenthood of rural married couples. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 19, 5–17.
Katigbak, M.S., Church, A.T., & Akamine, T.X. (1996)
Cross-cultural generalizability of personality dimensions:
Relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two
cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
99–114.
Katigbak, M.S., Church, A.T., Guanzon-Lapeña, M.A., Carlota,
A.J., & Del Pilar, G.H. (2002). Are indigenous personality
dimensions culture-speciŽ c? Philippine inventories and the
Ž ve-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 89–101.
Kaut, C.R. (1961). Utang na loob: A system of contractual
obligation among Tagalogs. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology, 17, 256–272.
Kiefer, T.M. (1968). Reciprocity and revenge in the Philippines:
Some preliminary remarks about the Tausog of Jolo.
Philippine Sociological Review, 16, 124–131.
Kim, U., & Berry, J.W. (Eds.). (1993). Indigenous psychologies:
Research and experience in cultural context. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Kumar, K. (1979). Indigenization and transnational cooperation
in social sciences. In K. Kumar (Ed.), Bonds without knowl-
edge. Honolulu: East-West Cultural Learning Institute.
Lagmay, A.V. (1965). The Philippine Thematic Apperception Test.
Manila: University of the Philippines.
Lagmay, A.V. (1975a). A Philippine Children’s Apperception Test
(PCAT): Construction and development, administration.
Philippine Journal of Mental Health, 6, 18–25.
Lagmay, A.V. (1975b). Responses of elementary school children
to the Philippine Children’s Apperception Test (PCAT).
Philippine Journal of Mental Health, 6, 9–16.
Lagmay, A.V. (1984). Western psychology in the Philippines:
Impact and response. International Journal of Psychology, 19,
32–44.
Lagmay, A.V. (1993). Bahala na! [“Come-what-may” attitude].
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 26, 31–36. (Translation of
earlier work in Ulat ng ikalawang pambansang kumperensiya
sa sikolohiyang Pilipino [Proceedings of the second national
conference on Filipino psychology], pp. 120–130, by L.F.
Antonio, L.L. Samson, E.S. Reyes, & M.A. Paguio (Eds.),
1977, Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.)
Lagmay, L.A. (1993). Kaingin II, Pansol: Cultural and psycho-
logical adaptation of rural migrants in an urbanizing barrio.
Philippine Social Sciences Review: Understanding Filipino
Migration, 51, 139–157.
Laguisma-Sison, B.A. (2000). The inner world of the boy-child
prostitute: A phenomenological and in-depth clinical study.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33, 43–66.
Lamug, C.B. (1987). The Crime Picture Interpretation Test
(CPIT): An empirical measure of sociopathy. In A.J. Carlota
& L.S. Lazo (Eds.), Psychological measurement in the
Philippines: A book of readings (pp. 105–132). Quezon City,
Philippines: University of the Philippines Psychology
Foundation.
Lawless, R. (1966). A comparative analysis of two studies on
utang na loob. Philippine Sociological Review, 14, 168–172.
Ledesma, L.K., Diputado, B.V., Orteza, G.O., & Santillan, C.E.
(1993). De-Westernization of a dementia screening scale: The
Philippine experience. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 26,
30–38.
145
Lee-Chua, Q.N. (1999). The Rubic’s Cube approach to diagnosis
and remediation of mathematical learning disabilities in chil-
dren. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 86–101.
Liwag, M.E.C.D. (1999). What do young children think about
thinking? Exploring preschoolers’ understanding of pag-iisip.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 1–29.
Loubser, J.J. (1985). The need for the indigenization of the social
sciences. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New directions
in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw
at kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowl-
edge] (pp. 15–29). Manila: National Book Store.
Lynch, F. (1973). Social acceptance reconsidered. In F. Lynch &
A. de Guzman II (Eds.), Four readings on Philippine values
(4th ed., IPC Papers No. 2, pp. 1–68). Quezon City,
Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Margallo, S.P. (1981). The challenge of making a scientiŽ c indige-
nous Ž eld research: An evaluation of studies using
makapilipinong pananaliksik. In S.P. Margallo (Ed.),
Relevance and indigenization: From concepts to concrete appli-
cation (pp. 25–33). Quezon City, Philippines: University of the
Philippines.
Mataragnon, R.H. (1977). A conceptual and psychological analy-
sis of sumpong. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 10, 45–53.
Mataragnon, R.H. (1979). The case for an indigenous psychol-
ogy. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 12, 3–8.
Mataragnon, R.H. (1987). Pakikiramdam in Filipino social inter-
action. In Social Science I Committee, University of the
Philippines, Foundations of behavioral sciences: A book of
readings. Quezon City, Philippines: Author.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr (1997). Personality trait structure
as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
Mendez, P.P. (1982). Ang sikolohiyang Pilipino at ang edukasyon
[Filipino psychology and education]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psy-
chology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 315–322).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House. (Reprinted from Ulat ng unang pam-
bansang kumperensya sa sikolohiyang Pilipino [Proceedings of
the 1st National Conference on Filipino Psychology], pp.
124–134, by L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes, R.E. Pe, & N.R.
Almonte (Eds.), 1976, Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang
Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.)
Mercado, L.N. (Ed.). (1977). Filipino religious psychology.
Tacloban, Leyte: Divine Word University and Pambansang
Samahan ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Montiel, C. (1984–85). Values and value changes of former
Filipino student activists. Philippine Journal of Psychology,
17–18, 55–72.
Montiel, C.J. (1991). Factor analysis of ideological and genera-
tional differences in value orientation among Filipino student
activists. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 24, 12–21.
Montiel, C.J. (1995). Social psychological dimensions of political
con ict resolution in the Philippines. Peace and Con ict:
Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 149–159.
Montiel, C.J. (1997). Citizen-based peacemaking in a protracted
war: Two Philippine cases. Peace and Con ict: Journal of
Peace Psychology, 3, 115–134.
Montiel, C.J. (2000a). Philippine political culture: A conceptual
framework. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33, 112–128.
Montiel, C.J. (2000b). Political trauma and recovery in a pro-
tracted con ict: Understanding contextual effects. Peace and
Con ict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6, 93–111.
Montiel, C.J., & Macapagal, M.E.J. (2000). Political psychology
in the Philippines: An update. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 33, 1–32.
Morales, A.T. (1999). Ilang konsiderasyon ukol sa sikolohikal
at pilosopikal na aspeto ng edukasyon [Some considera-
tions regarding the psychological and philosophical aspects
of education]. In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua
(Eds.), Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman,
gamit at etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino:
146 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
Knowledge, application and ethics] (pp. 45–48). Quezon
City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
Morales, H.R., Jr, Talisayon, S.D., & Roxas, S.K. (1991). Filipino
values, moral recovery, and development. In B.A. Aquino
(Ed.), Moral recovery and Philippine development: Proceedings
of the Consultative Forum on Moral Recovery (pp. 46–59).
Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University.
Nery, L.C. (1982). Pakikisama as a method: A study of a subcul-
ture. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and
application] (pp. 203–208). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Nicdao-Henson, E. (1982). Pakikipanuluyan: Tungo sa pag-
unawa sa kahulugan ng panahon [Pakikipanuluyan: Toward
understanding the meaning of time]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psy-
chology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 209–220).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House.
Obusan, T.B. (1994). A hiyang approach. In T.B. Obusan & A.R.
Enriquez (Eds.), Pamamaraan: Indigenous knowledge and
evolving research paradigms (pp. 89–110). Quezon City,
Philippines: Asian Center, University of the Philippines.
Obusan, T.B., & Enriquez, A.R. (Eds.). (1994a). The Filipino spir-
itual culture. Reprint series no. 1. Manila: Mamamathala.
Obusan, T.B., & Enriquez, A.R. (Eds.). (1994b). Indigenous
knowledge and evolving research paradigms. Quezon City,
Philippines: Asian Center, University of the Philippines.
Orteza, G.O. (1996). Problems in patient compliance and the role
of psychology in ensuring adherence among Filipino tubercu-
losis patients. Layag, 1, 73–84.
Orteza, G.O. (1997). Pakikipagkuwentuhan (Indigenous
Research Methods). PPRTH occasional papers series no. 1.
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House.
Pangilinan, M.E.T. (1986). The concept of privacy in an urban
setting: An exploratory study. Kayâ Tao, 8, 115–130.
Pasao, M.M. (1987). Self-concept: A conceptual and method-
ological study in the Philippine context. In A.J. Carlota & L.S.
Lazo (Eds.), Psychological measurement in the Philippines: A
book of readings (pp. 66–104). Quezon City, Philippines:
University of the Philippines Psychology Foundation.
Pe-Pua, R. (Ed.). (1982). Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at
gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and application].
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House.
Pe-Pua, R. (1989). Pagtatanong-tanong: A cross-cultural
research method. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 13, 147–163.
Pe-Pua, R. (1993–94). Advances in the development of indige-
nous social research methods. DLSU Dialogue, 27, 20–28.
Pe-Pua, R., Aguiling-Dalisay, G., & Sto. Domingo, M. (1993).
Pagkababa e at pagkalalaki: Tungo sa pag-unawa sa sekswalidad
ng mga Pilipino [Femininity and masculinity: Toward under-
standing Filipino sexuality]. Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang
Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G.
Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 49–71.
Pertierra, R. (1992). A national imagination and the social sci-
ences: Indigenization and the discovery of the Pilipino.
Pilipinas, 19, 39–53.
Philippine Social Science Council Secretariat. (1995). A special
issue on the Filipino family. PSSC Social Science Information,
23 (1–2).
Protacio-Marcelino, E., De la Cruz, M.T.C., Balanon, F.A.G.,
Camacho, A.Z.V., & Yacat, J.A. (2000a). Child abuse in the
Philippines: An integrated literature review and annotated
bibliography. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the
Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies.
Protacio-Marcelino, E., De la Cruz, M.T.C., Camacho, A.Z.V., &
Balanon, F.A.G. (2000b). Torture of children in situations of
armed con ict: The Philippine experience. Quezon City,
Philippines: University of the Philippines Center for
Integrative and Development Studies.
Protacio-Marcelino, E., & Pe-Pua, R. (Eds.). (1999). Unang
dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at etika
[The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge, appli-
cation and ethics]. Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang
Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
Puente, M.K.B.N. (2000). Re-visiting the children of Smokey
Mountain: The past still speaks for the present. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 33, 111–145.
Ramirez, M.M. (1997). The Filipino worldviews and values. In
T.B. Obusan & A.R. Enriquez (Eds.), The Filipino spiritual
culture: Reprint series no. 1 (pp. 3–14). Manila: Mamamathala.
Relucio, E.S. (1995). The stresses and coping reactions of sepa-
rated women: An exploratory study. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 28, 91–101.
Rivera-Mirano, L. (1999). Musika at kaugalian [Music and
culture]. In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.),
Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at
etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge,
application and ethics] (pp. 101–104). Quezon City,
Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
Rood, S. (1985). Language and Philippine social science. In A.
Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New directions in indigenous
psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman
[Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowledge] (pp.
76–90). Manila: National Book Store.
Salazar, Z.A. (1982a). Ang kamalayan at kaluluwa: Isang paglili-
naw ng ilang konsepto sa kinagisnang sikolohiya
[Consciousness and soul: A clariŽ cation of some concepts in
indigenous psychology]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology:
Theory, method and application] (pp. 83–92). Quezon City,
Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Training
House. (Reprinted from Ulat ng ikalawang pambansang
kumperensya sa sikolohiyang Pilipino [Proceedings of the 2nd
National Conference on Filipino Psychology], pp. 131–144, by
L.F. Antonio, L.L. Samson, E.S. Reyes, & M.A. Paguio
(Eds.), 1977, Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan
sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.)
Salazar, Z.A. (1982b). Ilang batayan para sa isang sikolohiyang
Pilipino [Some bases for a Filipino psychology]. In R. Pe-Pua
(Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino
psychology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 45–55).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House. (Reprinted from Ulat ng unang pam-
bansang kumperensya sa sikolohiyang Pilipino [Proceedings of
the 1st National Conference on Filipino Psychology], pp.
33–48, by L.F. Antonio, E.S. Reyes, R.E. Pe, & N.R. Almonte
(Eds.), 1976, Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan
sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.)
Salazar, Z.A. (1985a). Four Ž liations in Philippine psychological
thought. In A. Aganon & M.A. David (Eds.), New directions
in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw
at kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowl-
edge] (pp. 194–214). Manila: National Book Store.
Salazar, Z.A. (1985b). Hiya: Panlapi at salita [Hiya: AfŽ x and
word]. In A. Aganon & M.A. David (Eds.), New directions in
indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at
kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowledge]
(pp. 288–297). Manila: National Book Store.
Salazar, Z.A. (1991). Ang pantayong pananaw bilang diskursong
pangkabihasnan [The insider perspective as cultural dis-
course]. In V.V. Bautista & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.), Pilipinolohiya:
Kasaysayan, pilosopiya at pananaliksik [Pilipinolohiya:
History, philosophy and research] (pp. 46–72). Manila:
Kalikasan Press.
 INDIGENIZATION OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES
Salazar-Clemeña, R.M. (1991). Counselling psychology in the
Philippines: Research and practice. Manila: De La Salle
University Press.
Salazar-Clemeña, R.M. (1995). Counselling for peace. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 28, 30–49.
Salazar-Clemeña, R.M. (2000). Epilogue: The APECA story. In
R.M. Salazar-Clemeña (Ed.), Counselling in Asia: Integrating
cultural perspectives (pp. 135–140). Manila: De La Salle
University Press.
Samonte, E.L. (1998). Filipino migrant workers: Cost beneŽ t
analysis of their sojourn and its implications. In A.B.I.
Bernardo, N.A. Dayan, & A.L. Tan (Eds.), Understanding
behaviour bridging cultures: Readings on an emerging global
psychology (pp. 77–99). Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Samson, L. (1985). The politics of understanding Philippine cul-
ture. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New directions in
indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at
kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views and knowledge]
(pp. 538–545). Manila: National Book Store. (Reprinted from
Diliman Review, 1980, 22, 45–48.)
Samson, M.E. (1999). Etika ng sikolohiyang pampulitika [Ethics
of a psychology of politics]. In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R.
Pe-Pua (Eds.), Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Kaalaman, gamit at etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Knowledge, application and ethics] (pp. 142–144).
Quezon City, Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa
Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
San Buenaventura, M. (1985). Ang kaganapan ng sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Pagsasakatutubo, pagka-agham at pagka-Pilipino
[The vision of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Indigenization, science
and national culture]. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.),
New directions in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang
Pilipino: Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino psychology:
Issues, views and knowledge] (pp. 228–253). Manila: National
Book Store.
San Juan, J.B., & Soriaga, R. (1985). Ang panunuluyan: Mula
paninimbang hanggang malalimang pakikipagpalagayang-
loob [Panunuluyan: Interaction techniques and levels of
relationship]. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New
directions in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views
and knowledge] (pp. 433–480). Manila: National Book Store.
Santiago, C.E. (1982). Pakapa-kapa: Paglilinaw ng isang kon-
septo sa nayon [Pakapa-kapa: Clarifying a barrio concept]. In
R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at
gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and application]
(pp. 161–170). Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine
Psychology Research and Training House.
Santiago, C.E., & Enriquez, V.G. (1982). Tungo sa
makapilipinong pananaliksik. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psy-
chology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 155–160).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House. (Reprinted from Sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Mga ulat at balita, 1976, 1, 3–10.)
Sechrest, L. (1969). Philippine culture, stress, and psychopathol-
ogy. In W. Caudill & T.Y. Lin (Eds.), Mental health research in
Asia and the PaciŽ c. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Sevilla, J.C. (1982a). Filipino religious psychology: A commen-
tary. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and
application] (pp. 306–314). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
(Reprinted from Sikolohiya, 1978, 1–3, 1–11.)
Sevilla, J.C. (1982b). Indigenous research methods: Evaluating
Ž rst returns. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory method
and application] (pp. 221–232). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Sibayan, B.P. (1994). The teaching of the technical disciplines in
Filipino. Unitas, 67, 88–99.
147
Sinha, D. (1993). Indigenization of psychology in India and its
relevance. In U. Kim & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psycholo-
gies: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 30–43).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sinha, D. (1997). Indigenizing psychology. In J.W. Berry, Y.H.
Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psy-
chology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (pp. 129–169). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sta. Maria, M. (1996). Is the indigenization crisis in Philippine
social sciences resolved in sikolohiyang Pilipino? Layag, 1,
101–120.
Sta. Maria, M. (1999). Filipinos’ representations for the self.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 32, 53–88.
Sta. Maria, M. (2000a). Managing social con ict: The Philippine
peace zone experience. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33,
48–76.
Sta. Maria, M. (2000b). The phenomenological approach in
psychological research. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33,
11–26.
Strobel, L.M. (1998). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology)
in the United States. In A.T. Church (Chair), Filipino psychol-
ogy: Indigenous and cross-cultural perspectives and research in
the Philippines and United States. Symposium conducted at
the 14th International and Silver Jubilee Congress of the
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Bellingham, Washington, August.
Talisayon, S.D. (1994). Patotoo––Concepts of validity among
some indigenous Filipino spiritual groups. In T.B. Obusan &
A.R. Enriquez (Eds.), Pamamaraan: Indigenous knowledge and
evolving research paradigms (pp. 124–143). Quezon City,
Philippines: Asian Center, University of the Philippines.
Talisayon, S.D. (1997). Distinct elements of Filipino values:
Cross-national comparisons. In T.B. Obusan & A.R. Enriquez
(Eds.), The Filipino spiritual culture: Reprint series no. 1 (pp.
37–48). Manila: Mamamathala.
Tan, A.L. (1997a). Choices through the life cycle. Philippine
Journal of Psychology, 30, 1–16.
Tan, A.L. (1997b). Values research in the Philippines. Philippine
Studies, 45, 560–569.
Taylor, K. (1993). Philippine Indigenized Preschool and Primary
Intelligence Test: Test administration manual. Manila:
Canossian Daughters of Charity.
Teh, L.H., & Macapagal, M.E. (Eds.). (1999). Readings in general
psychology. Caloocan City, Philippines: Twin A Press.
Timbreza, F.T. (1999). Pagkataong Pilipino: Dalawang mahala-
gang sangkap [Filipino personality: Two important compo-
nents]. In E. Protacio-Marcelino & R. Pe-Pua (Eds.),
Unang dekada ng sikolohiyang Pilipino: Kaalaman, gamit at
etika [The Ž rst decade of sikolohiyang Pilipino: Knowledge,
application and ethics] (pp. 11–19). Quezon City,
Philippines: Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang
Pilipino.
Torres, A.T. (1982). “Pakapa-kapa” as an approach in Philippine
psychology. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.), Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya,
metodo at gamit [Filipino psychology: Theory, method and
application] (pp. 171–174). Quezon City, Philippines:
Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.
Torres, A.T. (1988). Gender imagery in Philippine psychology: A
critique of the literature. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 21,
24–38.
Torres, A.T. (1997). Methods, mind or meaning: Shifting para-
digms in Philippine psychology. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 30, 17–37.
Torres, A.T. (1998). Understanding child labour in the
Philippines. In A.B.I. Bernardo, N.A. Dayan, & A.L. Tan
(Eds.), Understanding behaviour bridging cultures: Readings on
an emerging global psychology (pp. 18–29). Manila: De La
Salle University Press.
Triviño, M.L.P. (2000). Minding the minds of the sexually abused
street children: A look into their cognitive functioning.
Philippine Journal of Psychology, 33, 146–165.
148 CHURCH AND KATIGBAK
Velasco, A.B. (1982). Ang sikolohiyang Pilipino sa pagsasaka
[Filipino psychology in agriculture]. In R. Pe-Pua (Ed.),
Sikolohiyang Pilipino: Teorya, metodo at gamit [Filipino psy-
chology: Theory, method and application] (pp. 257–264).
Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research
and Training House.
Velazco, G.A. (1987). Economics counseling: Counseling in life
with reduced/limited economic resources. Philippine Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1, 55–69.
Ventura, E.R. (1985). Child psychology in the Philippines: Some
current trends. In A. Aganon & S.M.A. David (Eds.), New
directions in indigenous psychology: Sikolohiyang Pilipino:
Isyu, pananaw at kaalaman [Filipino psychology: Issues, views
and knowledge] (pp. 512–530). Manila: National Book
Store.
Ventura, E.R. (1994). The Filipino child as a learner: A review of
research and prospects. Philippine Journal of Educational
Measurement, 5, 16–33.
Ventura, E.R., Abella-Matto, L., & Cipres-Ortega, S. (1993).
Psychological and social factors affecting compliance in blood
examination and treatment of Ž lariasis. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 26, 37–55.
Vergara, M.B. (1999). Multiple role stress, burnout, and purpose
in life among female counselors. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 32, 105–126.
Villar, I.V.G. (1997). Western approaches to counselling in the
Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University.