Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-12-26 DOI:10.3390/socsci13010021
Marselius Sampe Tondok, Suryanto Suryanto, Rahkman Ardi
{"title":"Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample","authors":"Marselius Sampe Tondok, Suryanto Suryanto, Rahkman Ardi","doi":"10.3390/socsci13010021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The General Evaluation Scale (GES) has been widely employed to assess attitudes toward outgroups, including ethnic and religious prejudice. However, validation within the Indonesian context has not been conducted. Using two studies (Study 1, religious prejudice; Study 2, ethnic prejudice), we provide evidence of psychometric properties of a six-item GES for measuring ethnic and religious prejudice based on factor structure, composite reliability, and convergent validity in Indonesia. The results demonstrate an acceptable model fit for a single-factor structure characterized by high internal consistency (McDonald’s Omega/ω = 0.93 in Study 1, ω = 0.94 in Study 2). Furthermore, the scale exhibits solid convergent validity, as evidenced by its correlations with the blatant and subtle prejudice scale (r = −0.44 in Study 1, r = −0.74 in Study 2) and the feeling thermometer scale (r = 0.60 in Study 1, r = 0.78 in Study 2). In summary, this research unequivocally establishes the GES as a valuable instrument for measuring religious and ethnic prejudice in the Indonesian context, underpinned by its robust psychometric properties. Nevertheless, it underscores the need for further investigations with diverse samples and varying social contexts to bolster the scale’s reliability and applicability.","PeriodicalId":37714,"journal":{"name":"Social Sciences","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The General Evaluation Scale (GES) has been widely employed to assess attitudes toward outgroups, including ethnic and religious prejudice. However, validation within the Indonesian context has not been conducted. Using two studies (Study 1, religious prejudice; Study 2, ethnic prejudice), we provide evidence of psychometric properties of a six-item GES for measuring ethnic and religious prejudice based on factor structure, composite reliability, and convergent validity in Indonesia. The results demonstrate an acceptable model fit for a single-factor structure characterized by high internal consistency (McDonald’s Omega/ω = 0.93 in Study 1, ω = 0.94 in Study 2). Furthermore, the scale exhibits solid convergent validity, as evidenced by its correlations with the blatant and subtle prejudice scale (r = −0.44 in Study 1, r = −0.74 in Study 2) and the feeling thermometer scale (r = 0.60 in Study 1, r = 0.78 in Study 2). In summary, this research unequivocally establishes the GES as a valuable instrument for measuring religious and ethnic prejudice in the Indonesian context, underpinned by its robust psychometric properties. Nevertheless, it underscores the need for further investigations with diverse samples and varying social contexts to bolster the scale’s reliability and applicability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在印度尼西亚样本中验证用于衡量种族和宗教偏见的一般评价量表
一般评价量表(GES)已被广泛用于评估对外部群体的态度,包括种族和宗教偏见。然而,印尼尚未对该量表进行验证。通过两项研究(研究1,宗教偏见;研究2,种族偏见),我们根据因子结构、综合信度和收敛效度,证明了在印尼测量种族和宗教偏见的六项目GES的心理测量特性。结果表明,单因素结构的模型拟合度可以接受,且具有较高的内部一致性(研究 1 中的 McDonald's Omega/ω = 0.93,研究 2 中的 ω = 0.94)。此外,该量表与明目张胆的和微妙的偏见量表(研究1中的r=-0.44,研究2中的r=-0.74)和感觉温度计量表(研究1中的r=0.60,研究2中的r=0.78)之间的相关性也证明了该量表具有良好的收敛效度。总之,这项研究明确证实,在印尼,GES 是测量宗教和种族偏见的重要工具,它具有强大的心理测量特性。尽管如此,本研究仍强调有必要对不同的样本和不同的社会背景进行进一步的调查,以提高量表的可靠性和适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Sciences
Social Sciences Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
494
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760) is an international, peer-reviewed, quick-refereeing open access journal published online monthly by MDPI. The journal seeks to appeal to an interdisciplinary audience and authorship which focuses upon real world research. It attracts papers from a wide range of fields, including anthropology, criminology, geography, history, political science, psychology, social policy, social work, sociology, and more. With its efficient and qualified double-blind peer review process, Social Sciences aims to present the newest relevant and emerging scholarship in the field to both academia and the broader public alike, thereby maintaining its place as a dynamic platform for engaging in social sciences research and academic debate. Subject Areas: Anthropology, Criminology, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, Social policy, Social work, Sociology, Other related areas.
期刊最新文献
Social Media, Newsworthiness, and Missing White Woman Syndrome: A Criminological Analysis Adversarial Growth among Refugees: A Scoping Review After Being Granted or Refused Asylum in Norway: Relational Migration Journeys among Afghan Unaccompanied Young Men The Role of Subjective Well-Being in Cuban Civil Protest against the Government: A Moderated Mediation Model Narratives of Symbolic Objects: Exploring Relational Wellbeing of Young Refugees Living in Scotland, Finland, and Norway
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1