FILIPINO PSYCHOLOGY

Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology) refers to the psychology born out of the
experience, thought and orientation of the Filipinos, based on the full use of Filipino culture
and language. The approach is one of ‘‘indigenization from within’’ whereby the theoretical
framework and methodology emerge from the experiences of the people from the indigenous
culture. It is based on assessing historical and socio-cultural realities, understanding the local
language, unraveling Filipino characteristics, and explaining them through the eyes of the
native Filipino. Among the outcomes are: a body of knowledge including indigenous concepts,
development of indigenous research methods and indigenous personality testing, new
directions in teaching psychology, and an active participation in organizations among Filipino
psychologists and social scientists, both in the Philippines and overseas.
The research of not being on a research into the analyzed and
beginni enmeshed and bound historical and cultural interpreted in the light
ngs of by the culture being roots of Philippine of Western theories.
Sikoloh studied has resulted in Psychology. Since these theories
iyang a characterization of are inevitably culture-
Pilipino the Filipino from the From these bound, the picture of
(Filipin ‘‘judgmental and researches, a two- the Filipino has been
o impressionistic point volume bibliography inaccurate, if not
psychol of view of the on Filipino distorted.
ogy) colonizers’’ psychology and a
(Enriquez, 1992, p. locally developed Enriquez (1985) later
From the beginning of 57). For example, the personality test, defined Sikolohiyang
the periods when the predisposition to Panukat ng Ugali at Pilipino as ‘‘the study
Philippines was indirectness of Pagkatao (Measure of of diwa (‘psyche’),
colonized by Spain, Filipino Character and which in Filipino
and then the USA, communication was Personality), were directly refers to the
academic psychology, regarded as being produced. In 1975, wealth of ideas
or the psychology dishonest and socially Enriquez chaired the referred to by the
taught in schools, was ingratiating and Unang Pambansang philosophical concept
predominantly reflecting a deceptive Kumperensya sa of ‘essence’ and an
Western in theory and verbal description of Sikolohiyang Pilipino entire range of
in methodology. reality (Lawless, (First National psychological
Many Filipino 1969, cited in Conference on concepts from
intellectuals, notably Enriquez, 1992) Filipino Psychology) awareness to motives
the two Philippine rather than a concern which was held at the to behavior’’.
heroes Jose Rizal and for the feelings of Abelardo Auditorium
Apolinario Mabini, others. at U.P. In this It must be stressed at
expressed conference, the ideas, the outset though that
dissatisfaction at the It was in the early concepts, and developing a
pejorative 1970s that this was formulations of particularistic
interpretations of initiated when Sikolohiyang Pilipino psychology such as
Filipino behavior by Virgilio Gaspar were formally Filipino psychology is
Western observers. Enriquez returned to articulated. not anti-universal
This disenchantment the Philippines from inasmuch as the
continued as Filipinos Northwestern What is ultimate aim of
struggled to assert University, USA with Sikolohiyang Sikolohiyang Pilipino
their national and a Ph.D. in Social Pilipino is to contribute to
cultural identity. Psychology and lost universal psychology,
no time in introducing Sikolohiyang Pilipino which can be realized
In the 1960s, many the concept of is anchored on only if each group of
Filipino intellectuals Sikolohiyang Pilipino Filipino thought and people is adequately
and scholars were (Filipino experience as understood by
already sensitive both Psychology). understood from a themselves and from
to the inadequacy as Together with then- Filipino perspective their own perspective.
well as the unfairness chairman of the (Enriquez, 1975). The Sikolohiyang Pilipino
of the Western- Department of most important aspect is a step towards
oriented approaches Psychology at the of this definition is contributing to
to psychology. For University of the the Filipino universal psychology.
instance, in the area Philippines (U.P.), Dr. orientation. For
of personality, the Alfredo V. Lagmay, centuries, Filipino Initial work on
Western approach in Enriquez embarked behavior has been developing
Sikolohiyang Pilipino agriculture, art, mass surroundings (ulirat), perpetuates
concentrated on a media, religion, and information and colonial status
type of indigenization other spheres of understanding (isip), of the Filipino
which is based largely people’s daily life. habits and behavior  Psychological
on simple translation (another meaning of practice in a
of concepts, methods, In his 1975 article on diwa), and the soul Philippine
theories and measures the bases of (kaluluwa) which is context
into Filipino. For Sikolohiyang Pilipino the way to learning  It is concerned
example, on culture and history about people’s with both
psychological tests (Enriquez, 1975) and conscience. science and
were translated into a 1976 article on (Enriquez, 1976) humanistic
the local language, perspectives and approaches
modified in content, directions of Sikolohiyang Pilipino  It also
so that a Philippine- Sikolohiyang Pilipino is anchored on maintains
type version of the (Enriquez, 1976), he Filipino thought and mentalism-
originally borrowed distinguished experience as behaviorism
test was produced. On Sikolohiyang Pilipino understood from a approach
the other hand, (Filipino psychology) Filipino perspective  It is not
another type of from Sikolohiya sa (Enriquez, 1975). inconsistent
indigenization was Pilipinas (psychology Sikolohiyang Pilipino with a
given more emphasis in the Philippines – is the scientific study universal
after the translation the general form of of psychology derived psychology
attempts failed to psychology in the from the experience,
capture or express a Philippine context) ideas, and cultural Development of
truly Filipino and Sikolohiya ng orientation of indigenous concepts
psychology. This is mga Pilipino Filipinos. and theories
called indigenization (psychology of the
from within (as Filipinos – theorizing Why Sikolohiyang There is a good deal
against indigenization about the Pilipino? of literature on the
from without), which psychological nature
Filipino personality
means looking for the of the Filipinos, “Application of which has become
indigenous whether from a local concepts and available. The
psychology from or a foreign measurements which Filipino personality is
within the culture perspective). are not appropriate in a popular area of
itself and not just a particular culture study of many foreign
clothing a foreign (or context) may scholars who came to
body with a local Enriquez searched the result to an incorrect the Philippines.
dress. Filipino culture and interpretation of one’s
history for the bases behavior and thinking
The principal of Sikolohiyang
emphasis of Pilipino instead of Major
Sikolohiyang Pilipino tracing these back to Characteristics of of
is to foster national Western theories. He Sikolohiyang Rethinking Filipino
identity and came up with a Pilipino values
consciousness, social definition of
involvement, and psychology that takes  Identity and Enriquez was critical
psychology of into account the study national of this approach to the
language and culture. of emotions and consciousness study of Filipino
It is thus concerned experienced  It’s against a values. He
with proper knowledge (kalooban psychology encouraged Filipino
applications to health, and kamalayan), that scholars to take a
awareness of one’s
second look at these  KATARUNG  Maki Accomodative
values using a AN/JUSTICE PAGPALAGA Surface Value:
Filipino orientation.  KALAYAAN/ YANG-LOOB HIYA
FREEDOM  Hiya - Sibley
THE CORE (rapport/mutual (1965), an
VALUES KAPWA (SHARED trust) American
IDENTITY)  Maki scholar,
1. CORE (Shared Inner Self, SANGKOT translated hiya
VALUE/KAPWA “The other person is as ‘‘shame’’.
(Shared Identity) also yourself”) (involvement/join  Lynch (1961)
2. PIVOTAL  the core of ing others) saw hiya as
INTERPERSONAL Filipino  Maki ISA ‘‘the
VALUE/PAKIRAM psychology, it (oneness, unity uncomfortable
DAM is humaneness with) feeling that
(Shared Inner at the highest accompanies
Perception) level PAKIRAMDAM awareness of
3. LINKING  implies unique (Knowing Through being in a
SOCIO-PERSONAL moral Feeling or Tacit socially
VALUE/KAGANDA obligation to Knowing; unacceptable
HANG LOOB treat one Participatory position, or
(Shared Humanity) another as Sensitivity) performing a
4. equal fellow  A unique socially
ACCOMODATIVE human beings social skill unacceptable
SURFACE VALUES TWO inherent in action.’’
 HIYA/ CATEGORIES Filipino  Andres (1994)
SHAME • IBANG
personhood. described hiya
TAO/OUTSIDER
 UTANG NA  A request to as ‘‘an
• HINDI IBANG
LOOB/NORM TAO/ONE-OF- feel or to be ingredient in
OF US sensitive to why Filipinos
RECIPROCIT  There is overspend
Y AMONG during fiestas
‘‘hesitation to
 PAKIKISAM OUTSIDERS: in order to
react, attention
A AND  MakiTUNGO please their
to subtle cues
PAKIKIPAGK (courtesy/civil and non- visitors, even
APWA/SMO ity) verbal to the extent
OTH  MakiSALAM behavior in of going into
INTERNAL UHA mental role- debt’’
RELATIONS (mixing) playing  Bonifacio
HIP(SIR)  MakiLAHOK (1976) alerted
5.CONFRONTATIV (joining) KAGANDAHANG us to the
E SURFACE  MakiBAGAY LOOB different
VALUES (adapting) SHARED meanings of
 BAHALA  MakiSAMA HUMANITY the word hiya
NA/FATALIS (getting along (Pagkamakatao) depending on
TIC with/united)  genuine acts its form –
PASSIVENES of generosity, nakakahiya
S kindness and (embarrassing
6. SOCIETAL caring ), napahiya
VALUES (placed in an
 KARANGAL AMONG awkward
AN/DIGNITY INSIDERS: position),
 ikinahiya (be the recipient ‘‘smooth  Rather, they
embarrassed of the favor is interpersonal are telling
with forced ‘‘to relations’’ by themselves
someone), etc. show his (sic) going along that they are
 With some gratitude with the group ready to face
affixes, it properly by or the majority the difficult
becomes returning the decision, i.e., situation
negative, e.g., favor with conformity. before them,
napahiya; interest. and will do
with others,  Looking at Bahala na their best to
positive, e.g., utang na loob (Confrontative achieve their
mahiyain more closely Surface Value) objectives
(shy); and in in the context  Has no exact
still other of Filipino English
forms, it can culture, it translation
either be actually  Bostrom Internality and
positive or means (1968) was the Externality
negative ‘‘gratitude/soli first Components of
depending on darity’’. psychologist Filipino Personality
the context,  It is not to analyze this  Puri or
e.g., kahihiyan necessarily a value by Dangal
(sense of burden as the comparing it  Puri
propriety, or word ‘‘debt’’ with American refers
embarrassmen connotes, fatalism to
t). because in the  Thomas honor
Filipino Andres which
pattern of defines is
UTANG NA LOOB interpersonal bahala na as physic
 Utang na loob relations. ‘‘the Filipino al,
was translated  It is a attitude that such as
by Kaut beautiful makes him that
(1961) as element of accept bestow
‘‘debt of Filipino sufferings and ed
gratitude’’. interpersonal problems, throug
 Andres (1994, relationships leaving h
pp. 190–191) that binds a everything to compli
defined it, person to his God. ‘Bahala ments
following or her home na ang Diyos or
Kaut’s logic, community or (God will take applau
as ‘‘the home country. care of ses for
principle of us)’ . . . a good
reciprocity PAKIKISAMA  Lagmay perfor
incurred when  Pakikisama (1977) mance,
an individual was identified explained that thus
helps another. by Lynch bahala na is externa
 Hollnsteiner (1961, 1973) not ‘‘fatalism’’ l
(1961) took as a Filipino but  Danga
this value, giving ‘‘determinatio l is
interpretation it the English n and risk- honor
further by translation of taking’’. from
claiming that maintaining within
 –  pakikis  kagan of the PUP originated
knowle ama dahan from an
dge of (‘‘com g-loob understanding of the
one’s panion (‘‘shar Filipinos. The test
true ship/es ed administration
worth, teem’’) humani procedures were also
charact ; and ty’’) adapted to Filipino
er,  as  as societal ways (Enriquez &
achiev confrontative values Guanzon, 1985).
ement surface values.  karang
and He alan Cipres-Ortega and
success emphasized (‘‘dign Guanzon-Lapen˜a
.  bahala ity’’), (1997) documented
 Other na  kataru and organized the
examples of (‘‘dete ngan information on both
internality- rminat (‘‘justi published and
externality ion’’), ce’’), unpublished work in
includes saya  sama/l and the area of
and ligaya for akas  kalaya psychological
the English ng an measurement, and
word loob (‘‘free saw a recent upsurge
‘‘happiness’’; (‘‘rese dom’’) in the development of
pigil and timpi ntment indigenous
for ‘‘control’’; /guts’’) psychological
and dama and and measures. Interest has
damdam for  pakiki grown by leaps and
‘‘feel’’. baka bounds from the
(‘‘resis handful of tests in
The Sikolohiyang tance’’ educational
Pilipino perspective ) psychology which
on the Filipino  as core value Development of were locally
behaviour patterns indigenous developed in the
 kapwa
and value structure personality 1950s, to the interest
(‘‘shar in personality testing
 as measures
ed of the projective type
colonial/acco identit
mmodative In the area of Filipino in the 1960s.
y’’)
surface values  as pivotal Personality, Enriquez,
 hiya(‘‘ They further noted
interpersonal together with PPRH, that ‘‘the 1970s saw
propri value developed the
ety/ tests developed in
 Panukat ng Ugali at creativity, self-
dignity Pagkatao (PUP)
Pakikiram perception,
’’) (Measure of Character
dam personality and
 utang and Personality) in
(‘‘shar vocational testing,
na ed 1975 which utilized and the 1980s an
loob inner dimensions of increased interest in
(‘‘grati percept personality that are personality testing,
tude/so ion’’) relevant to Filipinos. with a number of
lidarit  as linking researchers doing
y’’) While psychological
socio-personal studies on the Filipino
and testing is of Western
value child and the Filipino
origin, the substance adolescent. And in the
1990s, tests were relationship quality
developed to measure This study was to be that exists data.
a wide variety of the turning point in between the 2. Research
Filipino Philippine social researcher and participants
characteristics – research for it was in the researched should always
katalinuhan her articles (Santiago, significantly be treated by
[intelligence], 1975, 1977) that the determines the researchers as
pagkarelihiyoso pakapa-kapa quality of the equal, if not
[religiosity], (‘‘groping’’) approach data obtained superior – a
kaasalang sekswal was first introduced. in the research fellow human
[sexual behavior], process being and not
kakayahang magdala In searching for  The levels like a ‘‘guinea
ng tensyon [ability to appropriate research of pig’’
handle stress], methods that are interaction 3. The welfare of
pagkamabahala indigenous to Filipino are the the research
[anxiety], experience, Filipino same ones participants
kahustuhang scholars have learned as the take
emosyonal [emotional to assume the kapwa precedence
stability], kakayahang pakapa-kapa classificati over the data
berbal sa Filipino perspective, ‘‘a ons – obtained from
[verbal ability in suppositionless Ibang-Tao them.
Filipino], Filipino approach to social (‘‘Outsider 4. The method to
management style, scientific ’’) and be used in a
dementia screening, investigations. As Hindi- research
empathy, and implied by the term Ibang- Tao should be
trustworthiness, to itself, pakapa-kapa is (‘‘One-of- chosen on the
name a few’’ (Cipres- an approach us’’). basis of
Ortega & Guanzon- characterized by  It is appropriatenes
Lapen˜a, 1997) groping, searching recommen s to the
and probing into an ded that population
Development of unsystematized mass the first (and not
indigenous research of social and cultural level under sophistication
methods data to obtain order, Hindi- of the method)
meaning and Ibang-Tao, and it should
The impact of directions for which is be made to
Sikolohiyang Pilipino research’’ (Torres, pakikipag adapt to
was greatly felt in the 1982, p. 171). palagayan existing
area of social research g-loob cultural
methods. In 1975, There are at least (level of norms.
Carmen Santiago, a five basic guiding mutual 5. The language of
postgraduate student principles relevant trust, the people
of psychology at U.P., to the use of understand should be the
did a study on indigenous ing, language of
pagkalalaki (no perspective in rapport) research at all
equivalent in English, general, and should be times.
but approximately, it indigenous research reached, at
means ‘‘masculinity’’, methods in the Areas of
‘‘maleness’’, particular. minimum, Applications of
‘‘manhood’’, or all of in order to Sikolohiyang
these) for a class 1. The level of be assured Pilipino
under Enriquez. interaction or of good
 1. Early work was developed countries mananaliksik
focused on the use of the West. This sa kalahok—
of the local psychology aims to be isang kapwa
language in a science comparable tao at hindi
teaching, research to that of the natural “guinea pig”
and in the conduct sciences, thus na ang tanging
of various approximating the papel ay ang
conferences and laws of universality. pagbibigay ng
symposia in datos.
Psychology Two Types of 3. Inuuna ang
2. The work of Indigenization Bunga ng kapakanan ng
Bulatao in karanasan sa loob ng mga kalahok
appropriate 1. Indigenization SP, ang katutubong kaysa sa datos
techniques in from Without pamamaraang na makukuha
therapy suited to the – transporting pananliksik (KPP) ay mula sa
Filipino personality psychological mga pamamaraan sa kanila.
3. Providing theories, pananaliksik na may 4. Kailangang
psychological help concepts, and pagkiling sa piliin ang
to children in methods, and pangangailangang metodo ng
especially difficult modifying sensitibo sa mga pananaliksik
circumstance them to fit to Pilipino. batay sa
4. Feminist local cultural kaangkupan
psychology social context. Ito ay nito sa mga
and clinical 2. Indigenization naglalayong tao at
psychologists have from Within – pangalagaan ang konteksto, at
helped battered culture as tunguhan ng kailangang
women understand source of mananaliksik at iangkop ito sa
their problems in knowledge to kalahok na hindi kultura at
the light of the come up with isinasaalang-alang kaugalian.
different socio- cross-cultural ang kapakanan ng 5. Kailangang
cultural conditions knowledge. kalahok at ang datos ang wika ng
affecting women in sa ngalan ng agham taumbayan
Philippine society. ang maging
5. In industry Mga Pinapalagay ng wika ng
particularly in the KPP pananaliksik.
marketing of
specific products 1. Itinatakda ng
and understanding antas ng
consumer behavior. interaksyon o
ugnayan sa
Towards Universal pagitan ng
Psychology Through mananaliksik
Indigenization at kalahok ang
bisa at husay 2 Modelo ng
We put forward now ng mga datos Pananaliksik
Katutubong
that what is generally na makukuha 1. Iskala ng
Pamamaraan ng
considered as Pnanaliksik (KPP) sa Mananaliksik
‘‘universal’’ pananaliksik - Metodong
psychology is based 2. Mahalagang ginagamit ng
on the psychology of pantay ang isang
industrialized and paturing ng mananaliksik
 sa sikolohiya Indigenous the  One of the
sa pagtatarok Research participants, most complex,
ng diwa ng Methods hesitation and even most
Kalahok timidity are set highly
1. PAKAPA- aside in terms contested,
KAPA - of acts and concepts in
means groping words this modern
(field method) 4. PAGDALAW era
-searching, -DALAW –  Has been the
probing into refers to rallying cry of
an frequent visits the colonized
unsystematize of the  But at the
d mass of researchers to same time, it
social and the also served as
cultural data to participants fuel for the
be able to place to oppression
obtain order, establish and
meaning, and rapport discrimination
2. Iskala ng directions for 5. PAKIKITUN of individuals
Patutunguha research GO-civility and groups
n ng 2. PAKIKIPAG- with considered as
Mananaliksik KUWENTU 6. PAKIKISAL “not one of
at Kalahok - HAN - An AMUHA- us”.
Mga occasion for interaction
metodong exchange of with Three Dimensions of
ginagamit ng information, 7. PAKIKILAH Being a Filipino
isang ideas, insights, OK  pinagmulan,
mananaliksik and opinions -participation (socio-
sa kanyang also it is a with political
pag-aaral ng sharing of 8. PAKIKIBAG dimension);
diwang beliefs, AY -in accord  kinalakhan,
Pilipino sa thoughts, and with/level of (cultural
pamamagitan experiences. conforming dimension);
ng mga An informal, 9. PAKIKISAM and
kalahok. free, as well as A - being  kamalayan,
a social along
(psychological
process of with/level of
dimension).
exchanging adjusting
information, 10. PAKIKIPAN
Pinagmulan
thoughts, and ULAYAN -
 (Socio-
knowledge Residing in
that is part of the research political
human daily setting. origins),
activities. Researcher which
3. PAKIKIPAG lives, sleeps corresponds to
PALAGAYA and eats with a socio-
NG-LOOB – the host political
this displays dimension.
mutual trust  This
between the NATIONAL dimension
researcher and IDENTITY corresponds to
the narrow
 definition of ◦ Pilipin ide  Loob refers to
citizenship as o sa ntit those ideas
stated in the Pangal y. that are
1987 an ◦ Pilipin deemed
Constitution. • o sa important and
An Puso relevant in
Kinalakhan ima • relation to the
 “kinalakhan” ge Someo self
(cultural of ne  Labas is
roots), a wh considered as
revolves pas o irrelevant and
around siv con unimportant
 participation e sid
and being citi ers 3 Elements of
immersed in a zen Fili Filipino Personhood
cultural milieu • pin  Loob, labas
acknowledged Individ o- and lalim
as Filipino. ual nes  Lalim is used
ma sa to signify the
y con gradation of
Kamalayan acc vict integration
 “kamalayan” ept ion into the loob.
(consciousness or •  Thus, Pilipino
). rec Filipin sa pangalan
 The responses ogn o- would imply a
in this ize nes superficial
dimension are that s (mababaw)
associated he has integration
with or bec and Pilipino sa
awareness of she om puso would
the self as is a e suggest a
Filipino, Fili inte deeper
acceptance of pin rna (malalim)
membership in o lize integration
the category but d into the loob.
“Filipino”, and ma or  The difference
also pride in y inte in Pilipino sa
this not gra pangalan and
membership be ted Pilipino sa
inv wit puso lie in the
Babaw at Lalim olv h activity
(Surface and ed the (galaw) of the
Depth): in loo loob or the
Filipinoness as an acti b. lack of it
ethical standard viti  Thus, the
es Loob at Labas
loob’s galaw is
 Filipino-ness that (From within and
recognized
refers to the hig without):
only when it is
quality of hli Filipino as a social
manifested in
being Filipino. ght category
the labas
the
since: “Loob
can manifest
itself only
through some
form of
externalization
”