Ethnocentrism Scale

Abstract

The Ethnocentrism Scale (E-Scale) is a foundational psychometric instrument designed to measure an individual’s degree of ethnocentric attitudes and hostility toward specific outgroups. Developed by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) as a critical component of their research into the Authoritarian Personality, the scale assesses generalized prejudice across various minority groups and expressions of extreme nationalism. The version presented here is a 20-item iteration, specifically adapted and utilized by Zagona (1959) in studies linking dogmatism and equalitarian processes. The items are structured to elicit agreement or disagreement regarding stereotypes, social distance, and perceived threats posed by diverse groups.

The E-Scale provides researchers with a quantifiable measure of the disposition to value one’s own group above all others, often leading to generalized negative stereotypes and discrimination against those perceived as foreign or different. This instrument remains historically significant in the fields of social psychology and political science, despite the dated and culturally specific language of some of its original items.

Keywords

Ethnocentrism, Prejudice, Xenophobia, Nationalism, Authoritarian Personality, Social Attitudes, Adorno, E-Scale, Dogmatism, Social Distance.

Authors

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., Sanford, R. N. (1950), Adopted by Zagona, Salvatore V. (1959).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ethnocentrism Scale is to measure an individual’s tendency toward ethnocentrism—the belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own ethnic, national, or cultural group—and its corresponding hostility toward outgroups. It was originally used to demonstrate a strong empirical link between underlying personality structure and susceptibility to anti-democratic and prejudicial ideologies.

The scale served a crucial function in the post-World War II era research conducted by the Berkeley group, aiming to map the psychological roots of fascism and social intolerance. By grouping various types of prejudice (anti-Semitism, anti-Black attitudes, and political xenophobia) under a single measure, the researchers sought to prove that prejudice is a generalized trait, not merely a collection of specific attitudes.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Ethnocentrism, which is defined by three key elements: a positive attitude toward the ingroup (patriotism, loyalty); negative attitudes toward outgroups (stereotyping, hostility); and a reliance on rigid, conventional, and often nationalistic values. The E-Scale is distinct from, but highly correlated with, the F-Scale (Fascism Scale), which measures overall authoritarian tendencies.

The items reflect historical and social anxieties prevalent in mid-20th century America, examining attitudes toward racial minorities, religious groups, and perceived foreign threats to national identity. Responses are intended to capture the respondent’s acceptance of societal norms that maintain social hierarchy and ingroup dominance.

Validity

In the original 1950 study, the E-Scale demonstrated significant construct validity, correlating strongly with other measures of anti-democratic potential and political conservatism. Its high correlation with the F-Scale confirmed the hypothesis that ethnocentrism is an integral component of the broader Authoritarian Personality syndrome.

The scale’s validity was primarily established through known-groups validation, showing that individuals identified as highly prejudiced based on clinical interviews scored significantly higher on the E-Scale. However, critics have pointed to issues of potential acquiescence bias inherent in the scale’s predominantly unidirectional phrasing (most items reflect a high ethnocentric score through agreement).

Reliability

The E-Scale has historically exhibited strong internal consistency reliability. In the original studies by Adorno et al. (1950), coefficient alphas for the total scale were consistently high, often exceeding .80, indicating that the individual items effectively measure a single underlying construct (generalized ethnocentrism).

Test-retest reliability has been moderately high across subsequent research, suggesting that ethnocentric attitudes measured by the scale are relatively stable over time. The version adapted by Zagona (1959) utilized the E-Scale as a reliable measure within a specific doctoral dissertation context, further confirming its utility in academic research settings of that era.

Factor Analysis

The original factor analysis of the E-Scale, while supporting a strong general factor of ethnocentrism, revealed several specific sub-factors reflecting distinct targets of prejudice. These sub-factors included Anti-Semitism (A-S), Anti-Black Attitudes (E-N), and Political and Economic Conservatism (PEC), alongside general ethnocentric nationalism (E-P).

While the items are highly intercorrelated, indicating a single overarching construct, the sub-scales allowed researchers to differentiate between specific manifestations of prejudice. Later researchers often used the scale as a highly unidimensional measure, focusing on the total score as the primary indicator of authoritarian ethnocentrism.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Attitude Scale (Self-Report)

Format: 20 items presented as statements requiring agreement or disagreement.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population; originally tested primarily on white, non-Jewish American adults.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 18+)

Population Details: Used widely in social research, particularly following its inclusion in the foundational work on the Authoritarian Personality.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from Complete agreement (+3) to complete disagreement (-3). Higher scores indicate higher levels of ethnocentrism and prejudice.

Keywords

Social Psychology, Adorno, Measurement, Racism, Stereotypes, Social Research, Dogmatism, Attitude Assessment, Psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not applicable (Historical scale)

Affiliation Email addresses: Not applicable (Historical scale)

Correspondence Address: Not applicable (Historical scale)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was first published in 1950. The specific version utilized by Zagona was adopted in 1959. Due to its historical significance and inclusion in major academic works, the scale is generally available for non-commercial academic research without requiring a specific fee, though citation of the original source (Adorno et al., 1950) is mandatory.

The original PDF of the dissertation utilizing this instrument can be downloaded here: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/284376/1/azu_td_5906119_sip1_m.pdf

Reference’s

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality, New York: Harper & Bros.

• Zagona, Salvatore V. (1959). Dogmatism and A theory of interdependence Between Libertarian and Equalitarian Processes: A study in reciprocal evaluation. University of Arizona, Doctoral Dissertation.

• Robinson, John P, & Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan

Items of the Ethnocentrism Scale

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

1. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and prevent other people from ha‎ving a fair chance in competition.

2. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew.

3. There may be a few exceptions‚ but in general Jews are pretty much alike.

4. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.

5. To end prejudice against Jews‚ the first step is for the Jews to try sincerely to get rid of their harmful and irritating faults.

6. There is something different and strange about Jews; it’s hard to tell what they are thinking and planning‚ and what makes them tick.

7. Negroes have their rights‚ but it is best to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much contact with whites.

8. It would be a mistake ever to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over whites.

9. Negro musicians may sometimes be as good as white musicians‚ but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands.

10. Manual labor and unskilled jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and ability better than more skilled or responsible work.

11. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level as whites are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts

12. Host Negroes would become overbearing and disagreeable if not kept in their place.

13. Beatniks or Zootsuiters prove that when people of their type have too much money and freedom‚ they just take advantage and cause trouble.

14. The worst danger to real Americanism during the last 50 years has come from foreign ideas and agitators.

15. Now that a new world organization is set up‚ America must be sure that she loses none of her independence and complete power as a sovereign nation.

16. Certain religious sects who refuse to salute the flag should be forced to conform to such a patriotic action‚ or else be abolished.

17. Filipinos are all right in their place‚ but they carry it too far when they dress lavishly and go around with white girls.

18. America may not be perfect‚ but the American Way has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society.

19. It is only natural and right for each person to think that his family is better than any other.

20. The best guarantee of our national security is for America to have the biggest army and navy in the world and the secret of the atom bomb.