Ethnocentric Image of Democracy Scale

Abstract

The Ethnocentric Image of Democracy Scale is a psychological instrument developed by Hyman, Wright, and Hopkins in 1962. Its primary function is to quantify the degree of ethnocentrism present in an individual’s evaluation of political and social practices in foreign nations. The scale achieves this by presenting respondents with factual descriptions of policies enacted in countries other than their own, prompting them to judge whether these practices align with their personal image of democracy. High scores indicate a rigid, culture-bound perspective where domestic norms are incorrectly universalized as criteria for democratic legitimacy.

Keywords

Ethnocentrism, Political attitudes, Democracy, Cross-cultural psychology, Survey instrument, Political perception, Social psychology.

Authors

Hyman, H., Wright, C., Hopkins, T.

Purpose

The central purpose of the scale is to measure how respondents apply their localized, national understanding of governance when evaluating the political systems and social regulations of other countries. This methodology distinguishes between those who recognize the variability in democratic implementation and those whose judgments are strictly bounded by their own cultural framework.

Specifically, the instrument aims to identify the tendency toward ethnocentrism in the political sphere. By assessing reactions to specific, verifiable policies—such as mandatory voting in Australia or state-regulated alcohol sales in Sweden—the scale provides a quantitative measure of the respondent’s flexibility or rigidity in defining acceptable democratic practice globally.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Ethnocentric Image of Democracy. This construct is defined as the cognitive bias wherein an individual assumes that the political and social norms, institutions, and practices of their own nation are the standard, or the ideal form, of democracy. Consequently, any deviation observed in a foreign state is judged as less democratic, undemocratic, or tolerable only as an aberration.

This psychological construct is crucial in political science and cross-cultural studies as it helps explain resistance to international cooperation, misunderstanding of foreign policy, and the projection of national ideals onto global contexts. The nine items presented are designed as behavioral or policy vignettes that test the limits of the respondent’s democratic tolerance.

Validity

Detailed psychometric reports on the validity of the original 1962 scale, beyond its inclusion in major compilations of social psychological measures, are limited in the provided source material. However, the scale exhibits strong face validity, as its items directly address governmental policies that might challenge a respondent’s preconceived notions of individual liberty or state intervention, which are core tenets often debated within democratic frameworks.

The instrument was included in influential works, such as Robinson and Shaver’s 1969 compilation, suggesting its recognized construct relevance in measuring political attitudes during that era. It is generally understood to possess criterion validity if high scores correlate positively with other established measures of nationalistic rigidity or political intolerance.

Reliability

Specific data regarding internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) or test-retest reliability for the Ethnocentric Image of Democracy Scale is not provided in the original documentation excerpt. Given its structure as a cumulative scale intended to measure a single dimension (ethnocentrism), high internal consistency would be expected if all items successfully load onto this underlying factor.

Researchers utilizing this scale in subsequent studies would need to establish modern reliability metrics appropriate for their specific population and context, though the original authors likely sought high inter-item correlations to ensure the instrument consistently tapped into the narrow construct of cultural bias in political judgment.

Factor Analysis

The scale is typically treated as a unidimensional measure, suggesting that a single factor—the degree of political ethnocentrism—underlies the responses to all nine items. While formal factor analysis results (e.g., Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis) are absent from the summary, the structure implies that rejection of foreign practices (e.g., mandatory voting, state religion registration) cumulatively reflects a unified cognitive disposition.

The original design likely intended for the items to represent varying degrees of deviation from the perceived ideal, allowing for an ordinal, cumulative scoring system reflective of a single dominant factor influencing the perception of democracy globally.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude Scale / Self-Report Survey

Format: Nine factual statements about foreign governmental practices, each followed by a three-option response choice.

Language Available: Originally English (Developed in the United States context).

Population Group: General population (Typically applied to adult samples in political or social surveys).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (Typically 16+).

Population Details: Used in early cross-cultural attitude research, often focused on US samples judging non-US practices.

Test Methodology: Respondents read each statement and select one of three options: “thoroughly democratic,” “undemocratic but tolerable,” or “thoroughly undemocratic.” Scoring ranges from 0 (low ethnocentrism) to 9 (high ethnocentrism), based on the number of non-domestic practices deemed “thoroughly undemocratic.”

Keywords

Social attitudes, Political psychology, Hyman, Wright, Hopkins, Cross-cultural measurement, Attitude assessment, Policy judgment.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source data (N/A)

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source data (N/A)

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source data (N/A)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed in 1962 by Hyman, Wright, and Hopkins. As a classic instrument widely published in academic compilations, it is generally considered to be in the public domain for academic research use, though researchers should always cite the original source meticulously.

The full instrument details, along with other measures of social psychological attitudes, can be reviewed in the compilation volume published by the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. The original PDF compilation document is available here: https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF

Reference’s

• Hyman, H., Wright, C. and Hopkins, T. (1962). Application of methods of evaluation. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.

• Robinson, John P., Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Items of the Ethnocentric Image of Democracy Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. In Australia, every citizen is required by law to vote.

2. Until recently, in Sweden, most babies were automatically registered as members of the Lutheran Church, the state religion.

3. Until recently, in Sweden, the amount of alcohol that a person could buy each month was regulated by law.

4. In France, you must pay for a license in order to have a radio set in your home.

5. In the United States, all children must be vaccinated against smallpox.

6. In Great Britain, under the law, doctors no longer collect their fees from patients but bill the government.

7. In Norway, any Jesuit is prohibited by law from entering the country.

8. In Japan, all school children wear uniforms.

9. In the United States, one may legally have only one husband or wife at a time.

Response Format: This practice seems to me: thoroughly democratic; undemocratic but tolerable; thoroughly undemocratic.

Scoring Range: 0 (low ethnocentrism) to 9 (high ethnocentrism).