Ethnocentrism Scale

Abstract

The Ethnocentrism Scale, predominantly operationalized and recognized in intercultural communication literature as the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE), was developed by James W. Neuliep and James C. McCroskey to quantify the degree to which individuals view their own culture or ingroup as the central reference point against which all other cultural groups are judged, evaluated, and ranked. Grounded in the classical anthropological and sociological formulations of William Graham Sumner (1906), the instrument assesses generalized cultural bias rather than prejudice directed toward one specific outgroup. The revised instrument comprises a total of 22 items administered via a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometrically, the instrument features a 15-item scored unidimensional composite, while 7 items function as unscored balance fillers designed to mitigate acquiescence bias and mask the focal diagnostic intent of the questionnaire. Extensive validation research conducted across diverse geographic, national, and educational contexts—including samples from the United States, Japan, China, Romania, and South Korea—demonstrates robust internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha estimates consistently ranging between .82 and .92. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses substantiate an underlying primary factor reflecting generalized ethnocentrism, which exhibits high convergent validity with intercultural communication apprehension, prejudice, and patriotic chauvinism, as well as divergent validity against intercultural communication competence, attributional confidence, and cognitive flexibility. The scale represents an indispensable assessment tool in intercultural communication, organizational diversity training, diplomacy, cross-cultural management, and social psychology.

Keywords

Ethnocentrism Scale, Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale, GENE, Intercultural Communication, Ingroup Favoritism, Outgroup Derogation, Psychometrics, Intercultural Competence, Social Identity Theory, Cross-Cultural Assessment, Neuliep and McCroskey

Authors

The Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale was formulated and refined by two prominent scholars in intercultural communication and communication apprehension:

• James W. Neuliep, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Communication at St. Norbert College (De Pere, Wisconsin, USA). Dr. Neuliep has served as a foundational researcher in intercultural communication, cross-cultural interaction dynamics, and communication apprehension across diverse cultural groups. He has authored seminal textbooks, including Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, and published extensively in journals such as the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research and Human Communication Research.
• James C. McCroskey, Ed.D. (1938–2012): Former Professor of Communication Studies at West Virginia University and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. McCroskey was one of the most prolific scholars in the field of human communication, internationally recognized for pioneering psychometric instruments assessing communication apprehension (e.g., the PRCA-24), willingness to communicate (WTC), teacher immediacy, and socio-communicative style.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ethnocentrism Scale (GENE) is to provide empirical researchers and applied practitioners with a culturally unbiased, content-valid, and structurally reliable assessment of an individual’s generalized ethnocentric orientation. In early social psychological inquiry, measurements of ethnocentrism were heavily conflated with attitudes toward specific localized outgroups—such as the anti-Semitism, anti-Black, or anti-immigrant scales embedded within the California Ethnocentrism (E) Scale developed by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) in The Authoritarian Personality. While target-specific scales measure localized prejudice, they inherently lack universal generalizability across distinct national, regional, or tribal boundaries.

Neuliep and McCroskey developed the GENE to overcome this ecological limitation. The instrument assesses ethnocentrism as a universal, cross-situational socio-psychological stance wherein one's own cultural group is unconsciously or consciously held as normative, superior, and righteous, irrespective of which specific outgroup is encountered. The scale serves critical roles across several domains:

• Intercultural Communication Research: Scholars utilize the scale to evaluate how ethnocentric perceptual filters distort message encoding, decoding, attributional complexity, and willingness to initiate intergroup dialogue.
• Expatriate Selection and Global Mobility: International corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and diplomatic institutions apply the instrument to screen personnel slated for foreign assignments, identifying individuals who may be at risk for culture shock, interpersonal hostility, or intercultural communication breakdowns.
• Higher Education and Study Abroad Assessment: Academic institutions administer the scale in pre-test/post-test designs to evaluate whether global citizenship curricula, immersive study abroad experiences, or virtual international exchanges succeed in diminishing ethnocentric parochialism.
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Diagnostics: Applied sociologists and organizational psychologists employ the tool to diagnose institutional insularity, interdepartmental tribalism, and systemic bias in multicultural workplace environments.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Ethnocentrism Scale is ethnocentrism, conceptualized not merely as isolated prejudice or xenophobia, but as a dual-faceted psychological and behavioral disposition encompassing:

1. Ingroup Positivity and Centrality (Ingroup Favoritism): The habitual tendency to position one's cultural community, behavioral norms, religious assumptions, and societal practices at the absolute center of human reality. This includes evaluating one's own cultural norms as uniquely rational, moral, civilized, advanced, and aesthetically pleasing.
2. Outgroup Derogation and Subordination: The systematic perception of cultural outgroups as abnormal, backward, illogical, immoral, or deficient. Outgroups are not judged on their own intrinsic historical or ecological premises; rather, they are rated strictly along an evaluative continuum defined by the degree to which they conform to or diverge from the respondent's native standard.

Neuliep and McCroskey distinguish between benign patriotism or cultural identification and dysfunctional ethnocentrism. While basic group loyalty is sociologically normative and bolsters social cohesion, high levels of generalized ethnocentrism foster communication apprehension, prejudice, and behavioral discrimination. The construct manifested across the 15 scored items incorporates three primary cognitive and behavioral dynamics:

• Cultural Superiority and Normative Standardization: Expressed through assertions that the respondent's culture represents the universal role model that other nations should emulate (e.g., items asserting that other cultures are backward or should adopt the respondent's way of life).
• Cognitive Inflexibility and Value Imposition: The tendency to project indigenous moral and behavioral criteria onto foreign cultural paradigms without acknowledging cultural relativism or historical context.
• Intergroup Avoidance and Distrust: Explicit reluctance to engage with, cooperate with, or place confidence in cultural strangers, accompanied by affective discomfort and social detachment.

Theoretical Framework

The Ethnocentrism Scale is theoretically anchored in foundational sociological, social psychological, and intercultural communication frameworks:

Sumner's Sociological Foundations (1906)

William Graham Sumner introduced the technical term ethnocentrism in his seminal treatise Folkways (1906), defining it as:

“…the technical name for this view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. Folkways correspond to it to reinforce the delusion that the group is superior to all others.” (Sumner, 1906, p. 13)

Sumner theorized that human societies differentiate between the “we-group” (ingroup) and “others-groups” (outgroups), wherein internal peace, cooperation, and pride are directly matched by external suspicion, fear, and contempt. The GENE directly operationalizes this definition by creating items that explicitly require the respondent to scale and rate other cultures against their own subjective cultural baseline.

Social Identity Theory (SIT)

Formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979), Social Identity Theory posits that individuals derive substantial components of their self-concept, self-worth, and psychological security from the social groups to which they belong. To maintain a positive social identity, individuals engage in social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. This comparison is inherently biased: individuals consistently engage in positive distinctiveness, accentuating intergroup differences to favor the ingroup. In the context of the GENE, elevated ethnocentrism represents a rigid, self-protective mechanism wherein group members affirm personal self-worth by asserting institutional and moral supremacy over outgroups.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) Theory

Developed by William B. Gudykunst, AUM theory identifies mindfulness, uncertainty reduction, and anxiety management as primary determinants of effective intercultural communication. Gudykunst identified ethnocentrism as a primary cognitive filter that inflates both cognitive uncertainty and affective anxiety during intergroup encounters. Highly ethnocentric individuals lack communicative mindfulness; they rely on rigid, stereotypic categories that prevent them from managing anxiety, ultimately inducing avoidance, defensiveness, or communication apprehension.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale have been verified across empirical studies spanning several decades.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial construct validation by Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) involved developing an initial pool of over 40 candidate items drawn from previous literature and intercultural panels. Iterative factor analyses systematically excised items demonstrating dual loadings, weak communalities, or explicit conflation with specific geopolitical regimes. Confirmatory studies by Neuliep (2002) confirmed that the remaining 15 scored items converge onto a robust underlying dimension representing generalized ethnocentrism across both male and female cohorts and across culturally varied populations.

Convergent Validity

Extensive correlations with conceptually allied constructs corroborate the convergent validity of the scale:

• Intercultural Communication Apprehension (ICA): Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) established a statistically significant positive correlation between the GENE and the Personal Report of Intercultural Communication Apprehension (PRICA; r = .38 to .52, p < .001). Individuals displaying higher ethnocentric orientations report pronounced anxiety and dread when anticipating or engaging in interactions with cultural outgroup members.
• Prejudice and Authoritarianism: Studies demonstrate moderate-to-high correlations with modern racism inventories, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1988), and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto et al., 1994), indicating that generalized ethnocentrism functions within an overarching cluster of closed-minded and hierarchical ideological beliefs.
• Patriotism vs. Nationalism: As demonstrated by Raden (2003), while constructive patriotism correlates weakly or non-significantly with ethnocentrism, chauvinistic nationalism displays strong positive correlations (r > .45), reinforcing that the scale accurately captures outgroup derogation rather than simple domestic pride.

Discriminant Validity

The scale effectively discriminates against unrelated or inversely related constructs:

• Intercultural Communication Competence (ICC): Validated scales measuring intercultural competence, behavioral adaptability, and cross-cultural communication empathy correlate negatively with the GENE (typically r = -.35 to -.55, p < .001).
• Cognitive Flexibility: Measures such as Martin and Rubin's Cognitive Flexibility Scale show inverse relationships, demonstrating that ethnocentric individuals exhibit elevated cognitive rigidity when evaluating social reality.
• Attributional Confidence: Highly ethnocentric individuals exhibit low attributional confidence regarding outgroup behavior, confirming that the scale differentiates sophisticated social observers from ethnocentrically insulated observers.

Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance

Neuliep, Chaudoir, and McCroskey (2001) tested the cross-cultural validity of the GENE in Japan and the United States. Although baseline cultural means differed (with American students demonstrating slightly lower generalized ethnocentrism than Japanese peers in specific cross-sections), the single-factor structure replicated reliably across both language versions, establishing structural and metric equivalence. Subsequent investigations in South Korea (Neuliep et al., 2005) and Romania (Croucher et al., 2008) further corroborated the scale's configural invariance across diverse socio-political settings.

Reliability

The Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale consistently demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse populations, settings, and linguistic adaptations.

Internal Consistency

Across empirical investigations, internal consistency measured via Cronbach's alpha has proven remarkably stable:

• In the baseline psychometric validation study published by Neuliep (2002), the 15-item scored instrument achieved a Cronbach's alpha of .92 among a diverse sample of undergraduate respondents in the United States.
• In cross-cultural validation studies comparing US and Japanese participants (Neuliep, Chaudoir, & McCroskey, 2001), Cronbach's alpha coefficients were reported at .88 for the American cohort and .82 for the Japanese cohort.
• In subsequent administrations across various academic disciplines, international business organizations, and longitudinal training programs, alpha reliability estimates consistently fall between .80 and .92, well above the traditional .70 psychometric threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for psychological assessment instruments.

Test-Retest Stability

When evaluated over short- to medium-term intervals (2 to 6 weeks) in the absence of targeted intercultural intervention or immersion programs, test-retest correlation coefficients have been documented between r = .78 and .86. This temporal stability indicates that generalized ethnocentrism functions as a relatively stable social trait or disposition rather than a transient, fluctuating state.

Factor Analysis

During the structural design and psychometric refinement of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were systematically conducted to determine the underlying dimensionality of the instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Neuliep and McCroskey performed principal components analysis (PCA) followed by oblique and varimax rotations on the initial 24-item and subsequent 22-item iterations. The screen plot and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently revealed a dominant primary factor accounting for the vast majority of common variance (frequently exceeding 40% to 50% of the total variance before rotation). Items specifically drafted to reflect outgroup derogation and ingroup superiority loaded heavily on this primary factor (factor loadings ranging from .50 to .82). Seven items demonstrated inconsistent secondary factor splits or were intentionally constructed as reverse-valenced items; these were retained in the test protocol as non-scored filler items to balance response acquiescence and disrupt set-response patterns.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling and CFA conducted by Neuliep (2002) confirmed the unidimensional fit of the 15-item scored core. Model fit indices across diverse cross-cultural samples routinely show:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranges between .91 and .96, indicating strong correspondence between the hypothesized unidimensional model and empirical covariances.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically exceeds .90.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently falls between .052 and .078 (90% CI [.045, .085]), satisfying accepted criteria for adequate-to-good model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .06.

All 15 scored items yield standardized factor loadings exceeding .45, with the vast majority falling between .55 and .78 (p < .001). These robust structural coefficients confirm that the 15 scored items reliably tap into a single, cohesive latent variable: generalized ethnocentrism.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Instrument Specifications

• Instrument Name: Ethnocentrism Scale (Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale – GENE)
• Developer: James W. Neuliep & James C. McCroskey
• Administration Type: Self-administered questionnaire; available in paper-and-pencil or computerized format.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (aged 16+); adaptable for multicultural populations.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 22 items total (15 scored items; 7 unscored filler items).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree

Scoring Instructions

• Step 1: Reverse-Coding
  Recode the following three positively oriented items so that higher numerical values reflect greater ethnocentrism:
  • Item 4: Lifestyles in other cultures are just as valid as those in my (Recode: 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1)
  • Item 7: People in my culture could learn a lot from people in other (Recode: 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1)
  • Item 9: I respect the values and customs of other (Recode: 1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1)
• Step 2: Discard Unscored Filler Items
  Do NOT include the following seven items in the final score calculation: Items 3, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 19. These items were included solely to balance the positive and negative phrasing of the scale and prevent response set bias.
• Step 3: Sum Scored Items
  Sum the values of the remaining 15 scored items (Items 1, 2, 4 [recoded], 5, 7 [recoded], 8, 9 [recoded], 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, and 22).
• Composite Score Range: 15 to 75.
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • 15 – 34: Low Ethnocentrism. The individual displays open, relativistic cultural perspectives, actively tolerates ambiguity, respects foreign customs, and experiences minimal communication apprehension toward cultural strangers.
  • 35 – 54: Moderate / Average Ethnocentrism. The typical normative range for the general population. The individual exhibits normal ingroup identification accompanied by occasional implicit cultural biases, but remains capable of effective intercultural adaptation when mindful.
  • 55 – 75: High Ethnocentrism. The individual views their native culture as distinctly superior and normative. They are likely to experience pronounced outgroup distrust, intercultural communication apprehension, behavioral avoidance, and cultural insensitivity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: Originally published by Neuliep and McCroskey in 1997; refined and validated in its standardized revised form by Neuliep in 2002.
• Permissions & Copyright: The Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, non-commercial research, and educational instructional purposes. It was published in non-profit academic journals to facilitate cross-cultural inquiry.
• Fee: There are no licensing fees, royalties, or purchasing costs required for academic and empirical non-commercial research. Commercial entities or third-party corporate assessment providers wishing to incorporate the instrument into commercial human resource toolkits should seek formal written permission from the copyright holders (the authors and corresponding publishers: Taylor & Francis / Eastern Communication Association).

References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Row.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
• Croucher, S. M., Oommen, D., & Steele, E. (2008). Validating the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale in Romania. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475750903135398
• Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). An anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory of strangers’ intercultural adaptation. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 419–457). SAGE Publications.
• Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31(4), 201–215.
• Neuliep, J. W., Chaudoir, M., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States college students. Communication Research Reports, 18(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384791
• Neuliep, J. W., Hintz, K. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (2005). The influence of ethnocentrism in organizational contexts: Perceptions of interviewee competence, credibility, and attractiveness. Communication Quarterly, 53(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500055979
• Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388688
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A measure of delicate intergroup relations and social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
• Raden, D. (2003). Ingroup bias, patriotism, and nationalism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijir.2003.08.004
• Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Ginn and Company.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Items of the Scale