Scales to Measure Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Guide for Researchers

Abstract

The study of consumer ethnocentrism is, and has been, widely studied in academic literature. The need to analyze what drives the consumer to adopt an attitude of rejection towards specific products/services from abroad is undoubtedly a crucial consideration for many companies wishing to access new markets. One of the most important reasons is, actually, the concern for sustainability in the production process, a key aspect to satisfy many consumers who are increasingly demanding environmentally sustainable products. With the aim of studying this characteristic of consumer behavior, various measurement scales have been proposed in the literature, with CETSCALE—developed by Shimp and Sharma in 1987—being the most commonly utilized. In the present work, we conduct a study of the different scales designed to measure consumer ethnocentrism, with the goal of offering researchers a comparative analysis of the advantages and drawbacks of these scales to guide them in their future research.

1. Introduction

Ethnocentrism as a theoretical concept originates from the study of behaviors and ways of interacting among groups. It was formally introduced for the first time by Sumner in 1906 [1], who defined it as “the 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” (p. 13). This author argued that ethnocentrism nourished a group’s pride and vanity while looking at outsiders, or outgroups, with contempt.

The first attempt to adapt this theoretical concept to a practical instrument with which it could be measured is credited to Adorno et al. (1950) [2], who designed the E-Scale (Ethnocentrism Scale). Subsequently, Warr, Faust, and Harrison (1967) [3] designed the BE-scale (British Ethnocentrism Scale), Beswick and Hills (1969) [4] proposed the Australian Ethnocentrism scale, Chang and Ritter (1976) [5] designed the BES (Black Ethnocentrism Scale), Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) [6] introduced the GENE scale (Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale), and recently, Kock et al. (2019) [7] proposed TE (Tourism Ethnocentrism), as alternative scales. The E-scale consists of 34 items and comprises three subscales: N (Negro subscale), M (minority subscale), and P (patriotism subscale). The Australian Ethnocentrism Scale incorporates some items from the E-scale and BE-scale. The GENE scale [6] has two versions of 21 and 24 items. The scale of 24 items was reviewed later by Neuliep, Chandoir, and McCroskey (2001) [8] and validated by Neuliep (2002) [9]. In addition, Neto and Neto (2022) [10] propose SFGENE-7, a short version of GENE scale with seven items (see Appendix A). In the case of GENE or TE, Kock et al. (2019) [7] argued that the CETSCALE is not applicable in the tourism context and introduced the notion of tourism ethnocentrism (TE). However, according to Stepchenkova [11], CETSCALE can be applied to both domestic and international tourism. TE has been applied by Lever, Elliot, and Joppe (2023) [12], Stepchenkova (2023) [11], Kim and Hyun (2024) [13], and Amani (2024) [14]), who analyzed the ethnocentrism in the tourism context (see Appendix A).

In 1987, Shimp and Sharma introduced “consumer ethnocentrism”, a concept interpreted by both authors as a subset of ethnocentrism in a specific domain for the study of consumer behavior with marketing implications [15]. In this regard, consumer ethnocentrism is considered a “unique economic form of ethnocentrism that captures the beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness and indeed morality of purchansing foregin-made products” (Shimp and Sharma 1987) (According to Bizumic (2019) [16], Shimp and Sharma (1987) [17] incorrectly claimed that Sumner invented the concept because the original conceptualization of ethnocentrism was by Gumplowicz, a Polish Jew working in Austria-Hungary (can be found in his eight publications in German and Polish in 1881 and 1887). Sumner (1906) [1] defined ethnocentrism under the influence of Gumplowicz .

Both aspects, appropriateness and morality, have been considered from an economic perspective in the different scales that have been proposed in the literature. In fact, all of them, including the most recent ones, consider the negative effects that imports have on a country’s economy and their influence on employment or the profitability of companies.

However, something as important nowadays as environmental sustainability is not expressly included, despite the fact that it is a main reason for the rejection of many products by consumers. Aspects such as the manufacture of products that, in all phases of their life cycle, have a lower impact on the environment, the consumption of renewable resources, or the minimization of the quantity and toxicity of the waste generated, are left out of the possible causes of consumer ethnocentrism. Therefore, we can affirm that the scales developed do not consider ethnocentrism from a sustainability perspective.

Consumer ethnocentrism has been extensively explored in the literature, with an increasing number of works published since Shimp and Sharma’s study. In fact, it is still a very important research area today, as evidenced by the numerous studies that continue to be published in different research journals, as well as the numerous citations that these works receive. Only in the last decade (2015–2024), according to Scopus, an average of 60 documents (articles, books, and book chapters) have been published, and there have been an average of 1.775 citations.

It must be recognized that the study of consumer ethnocentrism remains a very important area of research, as confirmed by recent studies, among which we can find bibliometric analyses [18,19,20,21,22,23], systematic reviews [22,24,25,26], meta-analyses [27], monographic books [28,29,30], and innovative research approaches [31].

One of the key aspects of consumer ethnocentrism introduced by Shimp and Sharma (1987) [17] is that this concept was supported by the development of CETSCALE (Consumer Ethnocentrism Tendencies Scales), the first complete scale to measure the concept. However, as Shankarmahesh (2006) [15] highlights, at that time, there were already other instruments to measure “attitudes towards foreign goods”, such as the scale by Reierson (1966) [32].

CETSCALE was originally developed in the USA but was subsequently confirmed in numerous works conducted in different geographical locations throughout the five continents [33,34]. It was this scale’s international validity that made it so prevalent over other measurement scales.

Despite being the scale of choice, in recent years, some works have proposed the need to review the concept of consumer ethnocentrism and how it should be measured [34,35,36,37,38,39,40], even questioning the scale proposed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) [17]. However, as mentioned above, none of these new scales include items related to sustainability in their design.

The present work conducts a study of the different scales proposed in the literature for measuring consumer ethnocentrism, with the objective of offering researchers a comparative analysis of said scales so it may serve to guide them during future research. For this purpose, first, Section 2 contains a theoretical background of the different scales found in the literature to measure consumer ethnocentrism. Next, Section 3 analyses the different measurement scales proposed, focusing on CETSCALE, the most widely used scale in the last four decades, and also considering CEESCALE, CES, and SCONET, the most recent proposals found in the literature. Finally, Section 4 offers a discussion that compares the four scales analyzed, examining their advantages and drawbacks to provide a tool for measuring consumer ethnocentrism.

Although this paper focuses on scales that measure consumer ethnocentrism, it also aims to recover those scales that were the germ of CETSCALE or that have been proposed more recently and that measure ethnocentrism. All of these appear in Appendix A.

2. Theoretical Background

Since Shimp and Sharma (1987) [17] introduced the term “consumer ethnocentrism” and proposed CETSCALE as a measurement model, their scale has been without question the point of reference in the literature, enjoying exclusivity for many years. In fact, it was not until 2015 that other alternative proposals began to emerge. Therefore, more than three decades of exclusive use of CETSCALE passed before new scales appeared in the literature.

However, in recent years, various works have already been warning about the need to review the concept of consumer ethnocentrism and, above all, how it should be measured [35,36,37,38].

Regarding its conceptualization, Maison et al. (2018) [40] consider that CETSCALE is based on a very strong ideological and normative character. In fact, today, this ideological component could be contradictory to the concepts of opening-up to different cultures, acceptance of diversity, and globalization. As for Sharma (2015) [39], this author highlights the lack of consensus on the conceptual and empirical structure of CETSCALE and its applicability in different countries, product categories, and consumer characteristics.

With regard to measurements, as stated by Jiménez, Pérez, and Galdeano (2020) [34], the literature contains a large number of works carried out in different cultural contexts that question the existence of one single dimension when applying CETSCALE. To a certain extent, these inconsistent findings might be due to the lack of relevance of CETSCALE in the contemporary world, considering that it is based on a series of conscious consumer beliefs that buying foreign products is negative for local industry (Maison et al., 2018) [40]. However, such beliefs are especially irrelevant among consumers in developing countries, who do not display such a high level of ethnocentrism as in western countries [41,42,43], given that the quality of many locally manufactured products is, quite often, objectively inferior.

The collective result of this body of critical research is the recent development of new alternative scales to measure consumer ethnocentrism with the aim of improving on those aspects for which CETSCALE has been most notably criticized: its multidimensional behavior and the strong ideological bias upon which the scale is constructed.

Thus, in 2015 two proposals were presented: first, CES (Revised Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale), developed by Sharma (2015) [39], and, months later, CEESCALE (Consumer Ethnocentrism Extended Scale) by Siagmagka and Balabanis (2015) [44]. Three years later, a new proposal emerged in SCONET (Scale of Consumer Ethnocentrism), a scale created by Maison et al. (2018) [40].

Among the arguments that the various studies present to justify their scales, in some cases (CEESCALE and CES), they coincide in the need to address the main deficiency that the empirical evidence on CETSCALE has detected: its multidimensional behavior. Thus, CEESCALE contemplates five different dimensions of ethnocentrism, and CES reconceptualizes the concept of consumer ethnocentrism into a construct of a three-dimensional attitude that contemplates emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. As for SCONET, its authors propose the need for a scale that is free of the ideological factors present in CETSCALE.

Table 1. Scales to measure consumer ethnocentrism.

Scale	Author	Year	Dimen.	Items
CETSCALE	Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. [17]	1987	1	17
CEESCALE	Siamagka, N.T. and Balabanis, G. [44]	2015	5	17
CES	Sharma, P. [39]	2015	3	18
SCONET	Maison, D., Ardi, R., Yulianto, J.E., and Rembulan, C.L. [40]	2018	1	6

summarizes the main characteristics of the different scales proposed in the literature.

As can be seen in Table 1, CEESCALE and CES are two scales composed of a similar number of items from CETSCALE, while SCONET features a smaller number of items.

The following section analyzes the most significant aspects of each of the measurement scales.

3. Scales to Measure Consumer Ethnocentrism Behavior

3.1. CETSCALE

For over 35 years, researchers have been applying CETSCALE to represent consumer beliefs about the suitability of acquiring foreign products.

Although its original application focused on consumers in the United States, it has subsequently been validated at the international level by numerous works in many geographic areas.

Only in the past decade do we find applications of CETSCALE in countries such as Bangladesh [45,46], China [47,48], Germany [33], India [49,50], Indonesia [51], Iran [52], Kazakhstan [53], Kenya [54], Malaysia [55], Mexico [56], Nigeria [57], Portugal [58,59], Romania [60], Serbia [61], Slovenia [62], Turkey [63], Tunisia [64], USA [65,66], Vietnam [67], and Zimbawe [68] (For a more in-depth review of CETSCALE application, see the work by Jiménez, Gázquez, and Linares (2014) [33] and Jiménez, Pérez, and Galdeano (2020) [34]).

As CETSCALE was developed more than three decades ago, it currently has important limitations in its conceptual approach. For example, it does not address the complexities of existing consumer markets, so consumers may prefer foreign products but still hold ethnocentric beliefs [11]. In addition, it is a scale that completely ignores consumer preferences for environmentally sustainable products.

Regarding its practical application, in recent years, as mentioned in the Introduction, some works have also proposed the need to review the way of measuring ethnocentrism, primarily because empirical evidence has revealed a non-unidimensional behavior of CETSCALE [49,55,65,69,70,71,72].

This possibility to consider different assessments of a reduced set of the 17 items that comprise CETSCALE, has resulted in many works applying a fragmented version of the scale [73,74,75,76] or alternative versions [42,77,78].

The following section analyzes the multidimensional behavior of CETSCALE as well as the different versions of the scale presented in the literature.

3.1.1. Multidimensionality of CETSCALE

One of the aspects that has generated the most debate in the literature with regard to the use of CETSCALE, as confirmed over time by empirical evidence, is its multidimensional behavior.

However, there are many works in the literature carried out in different geographic areas, in which the scale exhibits a unidimensional behavior. For example, Netemeyer, Duvarsula, and Lichtenstein (1991) [79] in Germany, the USA, France, and Japan; Durvasula, Andrews, and Netemeyer (1997) [80] in the USA and Russia; Kucukerimoglou (1999) [81] in Turkey; Luque, Ibáñez, and Del Barrio (2000) [82] in Spain; Pereira, Hsu, and Kundu (2002) [83] in China, India, and Taiwan; Orth and Firbasová (2003) [84] in Czech Republic; Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004) [85] in the UK; Kwak, Jaju, and Larsen (2006) [86] in South Korean, the USA, and India; Nadiri and Tümer (2010) [87] in Cyprus; Teo, Mohamad, and Ramayah (2011) [88] in Malaysia; Bandyopadhyay (2012) [89] in Iceland; and Mockaitis, Salciuviene, and Ghauri (2013) [90] in Lithuania.

The problem arises because, on the other hand, there are also a large number of works conducted in different cultural contexts that question the existence of a single dimension when applying CETSCALE. As highlighted by Jiménez et al. (2020) [34], these works obtain two dimensions (e.g., Holland [91], Australia [92], Russia [37], Greece [93], China [69], South Africa [94], Germany [33], USA [65], Zimbabwe [68], Malaysia [55], and Azerbaijan [95]) or, in some cases, three dimensions (e.g., Poland [96], India [97]; Brazil [98], and Etiopia [72]) and even four different dimensions (e.g., Czech Republic [99], Moldova [71], and Nigeria [57]) that explain the ethnocentric behavior of consumers within a specific cultural and geographic context.

By closely analyzing some of these studies, it can be observed that the authors came to identify nearly thirty different dimensions, resulting from the various combinations of the CETSCALE items and their subsequent interpretation. Terms such as patriotism, protection, hard ethnocentrism, conservatism, animosity, and xenophobia, among others, define the different dimensions identified in these works (see Table 2).

As can be seen in Table 2, not only is the multidimensional nature of CETSCALE evident, but there does not appear to be a clear pattern that makes it possible to identify which items comprise each dimension, given that the interpretation in each study is very different. Therefore, the large number of dimensions identified, along with the mere fact that one specific dimension is the result of various combinations of different items (e.g., six in the case of the protectionism dimension and four for soft ethnocentrism), rather than serving as a reference to guide researchers, the application of CETSCALE ultimately proves chaotic and complex.

Table 2. Dimensions of CETSCALE. (We can find in the literature other works in which CETSCALE presents a multidimensional behavior, but the authors do not provide a description of these dimensions (e.g., Yu and Albaum (2002) [100], Bawa (2004) [97], Saffu and Walker (2005) [37], Khan and Rizvi (2008) [101], Singh and Dhiman (2012) [102], Renganathan et al. (2015) [49])).

Dimension	Study	Number of Item	Items (Detail)
Patriotism/Patriot	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99] Pentz et al. (2013) a [94] Weber et al. (2015) [65] Kiriri (2019) [54] Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	4 6 5 12 6 6	1,7,9, 10 1,4,5,7,9,13 1,2,3,6,8 5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 1,2,3,4,9,13, 1,4,5,7,9,13
Conservative patriotism	Hsu and Nien (2008) a [103]	8	2,4,7,8,11,13,16,17
Defensive patriotism	Hsu and Nien (2008) [103]	2	5,6
Protectionism	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Hsu and Nien (2008) [103] Weber et al. (2015) [65] Cazacu (2016) [71] Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	5 3 7 4 5 6	2,12,14,15,16 14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,13,17 1,2,3,4 11,12,14,15,17 2,10,12,14,15,16
Hard ethnocentrism	Chryssochoidis et al. (2007) [93] Ramayah et al. (2011) [105] Teo et al. (2011) [88] Akbarov (2022) [95]	9 10 10 5	5,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,17 5,6,7,12,14
Soft ethnocentrism	Chryssochoidis et al. (2007) [93] Ramayah et al. (2011) [105] Teo et al. (2011) [88] Akbarov (2022) [95]	8 7 7 6	1,2,3,4,9,10,13,16 1,2,3,4,9,10,16 1,2,3,4,9,10,16 1,2,3,4,10,16
Domestic product preferences/Positive attitude/Buy domestic products	Wei et al. (2009) [69] Strehlau et al. (2012) [98] Jiménez et al. (2014) [33] Lewis and Grebitus (2016) [70]	9 6 4 8	1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,13 3,4,7,8,9,13 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,8,13,16
Foreign products negative attitude/No imports	Wei et al. (2009) [69] Jiménez et al. (2014) [33] Lewis and Grebitus (2016) [70]	7 9 9	5,6,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,10,11,12,14,15,17
Socio-economic conservatism	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	5 4 4	6,8,11,13,17 2,8,10,16 2,8,10,16
Emotional consumer etnocentrism	Acharya and Elliot (2003) [92]	5	1,3,4,9,13
Self-reliance	Hsu and Nien (2008) [103]	3	2,4,16
Rational consumer ethnocentrism	Acharya and Elliot (2003) [92]	12	2,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,14,15,16,17
Animosity	Mavondo and Tan (1999) [106] Ghani and Mat (2017) [55]	- 6	- 5,6,11,14,15,17
Nationalism	Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	5 5	1,3,4,9,13 1,3,4,9,13
Ultra nationalism	Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	3 3	5,6,7 5,6,7
Xenophobia	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99]	3	12,14,15
Negative impact on economy and/or employment/Economic	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99] Strehlau et al. (2012) [98] Pentz et al. (2013) [94] Kiriri (2019) [54]	5 5 5 5	3,6,8,11,17 5,6,11,16,17 5,6,7,11,17
Product availability	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99]	3	2,10,16
Trade	Strehlau et al. (2012) [98]	6	1,2,10,12,14,15
Foreign products	Kiriri (2019) [54]	3	14,15,16
Prosocial	Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	5	3,6,8,11,17

Source: Own elaboration. ^a These studies use the reduced version of CETSCALE (10 items).

Table 2. Dimensions of CETSCALE. (We can find in the literature other works in which CETSCALE presents a multidimensional behavior, but the authors do not provide a description of these dimensions (e.g., Yu and Albaum (2002) [100], Bawa (2004) [97], Saffu and Walker (2005) [37], Khan and Rizvi (2008) [101], Singh and Dhiman (2012) [102], Renganathan et al. (2015) [49])).

Dimension	Study	Number of Item	Items (Detail)
Patriotism/Patriot	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99] Pentz et al. (2013) a [94] Weber et al. (2015) [65] Kiriri (2019) [54] Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	4 6 5 12 6 6	1,7,9, 10 1,4,5,7,9,13 1,2,3,6,8 5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 1,2,3,4,9,13, 1,4,5,7,9,13
Conservative patriotism	Hsu and Nien (2008) a [103]	8	2,4,7,8,11,13,16,17
Defensive patriotism	Hsu and Nien (2008) [103]	2	5,6
Protectionism	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Hsu and Nien (2008) [103] Weber et al. (2015) [65] Cazacu (2016) [71] Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	5 3 7 4 5 6	2,12,14,15,16 14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,13,17 1,2,3,4 11,12,14,15,17 2,10,12,14,15,16
Hard ethnocentrism	Chryssochoidis et al. (2007) [93] Ramayah et al. (2011) [105] Teo et al. (2011) [88] Akbarov (2022) [95]	9 10 10 5	5,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,17 5,6,7,12,14
Soft ethnocentrism	Chryssochoidis et al. (2007) [93] Ramayah et al. (2011) [105] Teo et al. (2011) [88] Akbarov (2022) [95]	8 7 7 6	1,2,3,4,9,10,13,16 1,2,3,4,9,10,16 1,2,3,4,9,10,16 1,2,3,4,10,16
Domestic product preferences/Positive attitude/Buy domestic products	Wei et al. (2009) [69] Strehlau et al. (2012) [98] Jiménez et al. (2014) [33] Lewis and Grebitus (2016) [70]	9 6 4 8	1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,13 3,4,7,8,9,13 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,8,13,16
Foreign products negative attitude/No imports	Wei et al. (2009) [69] Jiménez et al. (2014) [33] Lewis and Grebitus (2016) [70]	7 9 9	5,6,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,8,11,12,14,15,17 5,6,7,10,11,12,14,15,17
Socio-economic conservatism	Marcoux et al. (1997) [96] Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	5 4 4	6,8,11,13,17 2,8,10,16 2,8,10,16
Emotional consumer etnocentrism	Acharya and Elliot (2003) [92]	5	1,3,4,9,13
Self-reliance	Hsu and Nien (2008) [103]	3	2,4,16
Rational consumer ethnocentrism	Acharya and Elliot (2003) [92]	12	2,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,14,15,16,17
Animosity	Mavondo and Tan (1999) [106] Ghani and Mat (2017) [55]	- 6	- 5,6,11,14,15,17
Nationalism	Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	5 5	1,3,4,9,13 1,3,4,9,13
Ultra nationalism	Upadhyay and Singh (2006) [104] Cazacu (2016) [71]	3 3	5,6,7 5,6,7
Xenophobia	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99]	3	12,14,15
Negative impact on economy and/or employment/Economic	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99] Strehlau et al. (2012) [98] Pentz et al. (2013) [94] Kiriri (2019) [54]	5 5 5 5	3,6,8,11,17 5,6,11,16,17 5,6,7,11,17
Product availability	Wanninayake and Chovancová (2012) [99]	3	2,10,16
Trade	Strehlau et al. (2012) [98]	6	1,2,10,12,14,15
Foreign products	Kiriri (2019) [54]	3	14,15,16
Prosocial	Kibret and Shukla (2021) [72]	5	3,6,8,11,17

Source: Own elaboration. ^a These studies use the reduced version of CETSCALE (10 items).

3.1.2. Versions of CETSCALE

CETSCALE can be applied using the full 17-item scale (CET-17) or a reduced scale of only 10 items (CET-10) (see Appendix B).

However, we can find in the literature that some authors decide not to utilize CET-17 or CET-10 in the original version, carrying out an item selection or rewriting that responds to the need to adapt the scale to the specific geographic and socio-cultural context of their analyses. Therefore, for example, Steenkamp, Hofstede, and Wedel (1999) [107], Batra et al. (2000) [42], and Guo, Tu, and Chang (2018) [48] selected only four items; Keillor et al. (1996) [77], Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price (2012) [108], Rusell and Rusell (2006) [109], and Sun, González, and Wang (2021) [110] selected five items; Klein et al. (2006) [78], Sharma (2011) [75], and Miguel, Marques, and Duarte (2022) [58] chose six items; John and Brady (2010) [74] and Kamwendo, Corbishley, and Mason (2014) [111] selected seven items; Ma, Wang, and Hao (2012) [112], Yadav and Kishor (2023) [50], and Hanchukova, Velikova, and Koo (2024) [66] chose only eight items, and finally, Elida, Hasyim, and Hanfan (2016) [113] selected nine adapted items. As highlighted by Jiménez et al. (2020) [34], some of these “new scales” have demonstrated their reliability and validity, so they have been used in subsequent research [42,77,78,107] (see Table 3). However, such practices can lead to dimensional confusion and, especially, to proposing scales with a significant loss of reliability and validity.

However, sometimes, authors only change the country in which the scale is applied but still decide to give it a unique name, as is the case with the Ice-scale and the Indian Consumer Ethnocentrism Scale [114].

Table 3. Adapted versions of CETSCALE.

New Version of Scale	Other Applications	Items	Items (Detail) 1
Keillor et al. (1996) [77]	Keillor and Hult (1999) [115] Thelen et al. (2011) 2 [116]	5	2,8,9,11,13
Bailey and Gutiérrez de Pineres (1997) 3 [117]	Seidenfuss et al. (2013) [118]	10	2,4,5,6,7,8,11,13,16,17
Klein et al. (1998) [119]	Ishii (2009) [120] Wang et al. (2013) [121] Narang (2016) [122] Nguyen et al. (2023) [123]	6	4,5,6,8,16,17
Steenkamp et al. (1999) [107]	Klein (2002) [124] Cleveland et al. (2013) [125]	4	6,7,8,11
Batra et al. (2000) [42]	Alden et al. (2006) [126] Cleveland et al. (2009) [38] Zhou et al. (2010) [127] Nelson and Deshpande (2013) [128] Jin et al. (2015) [129]	4	5,6,7,11
Klein et al. (2006) [78]	Bevan-Dye et al. (2012) 4 [130] Auruskeviciene et al., (2012) [131] Tong and Li (2013) [132] Fernández and Bande (2013) 5 [133] Fernández and Bande (2015) [134] Aktan and Chao (2016) [135] Fernández et al. (2018) 6 [136]	6	2,4,7,11,13,17
Fernández and Bande (2013) [133]	Pestar et al. (2018) [62] Fernández et al. (2018) [136]	5	2,4,7,11,17
Prats and Vida (2013) [137]	Purwanto (2014) [138]	5	1,6,11,16,17
Zeugner-Roth et al. (2015) [139]	Wilkins et al. (2019) [140]	5	6,7,8,9,11
Kock et al. (2019) 7 [7]	Lever, Elliot, and Joppe (2022) [12] Stepchenkova (2023) [11] Kim and Hyun (2024) [13] Amani (2024) [14]	6

Source: Jiménez et al. (2020) [34] and own elaboration. ¹ Some items have adapted wording. ² Remove an item from the scale. ³ It is an adapted version of CET-10 (Items 16 and 17). ⁴ Add one more item to the scale. ⁵ It is an adapted version of Klein et al. (2006) [78] with one item removed. ⁶ It is an adapted version of Klein et al. (2006) [78] and Fernández and Bande (2013) [133], consisting of six items. ⁷ It is an adapted version for the tourism context.

Table 3. Adapted versions of CETSCALE.

New Version of Scale	Other Applications	Items	Items (Detail) 1
Keillor et al. (1996) [77]	Keillor and Hult (1999) [115] Thelen et al. (2011) 2 [116]	5	2,8,9,11,13
Bailey and Gutiérrez de Pineres (1997) 3 [117]	Seidenfuss et al. (2013) [118]	10	2,4,5,6,7,8,11,13,16,17
Klein et al. (1998) [119]	Ishii (2009) [120] Wang et al. (2013) [121] Narang (2016) [122] Nguyen et al. (2023) [123]	6	4,5,6,8,16,17
Steenkamp et al. (1999) [107]	Klein (2002) [124] Cleveland et al. (2013) [125]	4	6,7,8,11
Batra et al. (2000) [42]	Alden et al. (2006) [126] Cleveland et al. (2009) [38] Zhou et al. (2010) [127] Nelson and Deshpande (2013) [128] Jin et al. (2015) [129]	4	5,6,7,11
Klein et al. (2006) [78]	Bevan-Dye et al. (2012) 4 [130] Auruskeviciene et al., (2012) [131] Tong and Li (2013) [132] Fernández and Bande (2013) 5 [133] Fernández and Bande (2015) [134] Aktan and Chao (2016) [135] Fernández et al. (2018) 6 [136]	6	2,4,7,11,13,17
Fernández and Bande (2013) [133]	Pestar et al. (2018) [62] Fernández et al. (2018) [136]	5	2,4,7,11,17
Prats and Vida (2013) [137]	Purwanto (2014) [138]	5	1,6,11,16,17
Zeugner-Roth et al. (2015) [139]	Wilkins et al. (2019) [140]	5	6,7,8,9,11
Kock et al. (2019) 7 [7]	Lever, Elliot, and Joppe (2022) [12] Stepchenkova (2023) [11] Kim and Hyun (2024) [13] Amani (2024) [14]	6

Source: Jiménez et al. (2020) [34] and own elaboration. ¹ Some items have adapted wording. ² Remove an item from the scale. ³ It is an adapted version of CET-10 (Items 16 and 17). ⁴ Add one more item to the scale. ⁵ It is an adapted version of Klein et al. (2006) [78] with one item removed. ⁶ It is an adapted version of Klein et al. (2006) [78] and Fernández and Bande (2013) [133], consisting of six items. ⁷ It is an adapted version for the tourism context.

There are several explanations for this widespread practice of using a reduced number of items from CET-17, according to Jiménez et al. (2020) [34]. The first reason could lie in the high internal correlation that exists among the 17 items in CETSCALE, as highlighted by Klein (2002) [124], which would naturally lead researchers to create a reduced scale. The second explanation is directly linked to the specific objective of a given study and the resulting convenience of using only a portion of the scale for a particular aim. Without question, this practice provides a measurement of the flexibility of CETSCALE and the vast possibilities that it offers to researchers. The third reason relates to the fact that numerous works, such as those analyzed in the previous section, have confirmed the multidimensional behavior of the scale.

3.2. CEESCALE and CES: Two Solutions to Behavior Multidimensional of CETSCALE

With the aim of solving the problem of multidimensionality identified in numerous studies that have applied CETSCALE, two alternative proposals have emerged in the literature: CEESCALE, by Siamagka and Balabanis (2015) [44], and CES, by Sharma (2015) [39]. It is mainly this multidimensional aspect that determined the need to conceptually reexamine consumer ethnocentrism, in addition to modifying how it is measured. The aim, therefore, is to help researchers to identify consumer ethnocentrism behavioral intentions with greater accuracy.

3.2.1. CEESCALE

CEESCALE is a scale comprised of 17 items and distributed among five different dimensions: (1) Prosociality (items 1–5); (2) Cognition (items 6–8); (3) Insecurity (items 9–11); (4) Reflexiveness (items 12–14); and (5) Habituation (items 15–17) (see Appendix B).

Despite being a scale structured in five different dimensions, some of its items display great similarity to the items in CETSCALE with regard to their wording. Thus, for example, Item 1 of the Prosociality dimension is very similar to Item 4 of CETSCALE, while Items 3 and 4 of this dimension are very similar to Items 9 and 7, respectively. Also, another close similarity can be observed between Item 9 of the Insecurity dimension and Item 6 of CETSCALE.

Consequently, it seems logical that Siamagka and Balabanis (2015) [44] do not question the content of many of the items in CETSCALE, nor how they are worded. Instead, they only attempt to offer a shortened multidimensional structure based on five dimensions. In doing so, they seek to avoid two very important aspects: first, that the interpretation of a given set of items depends on the discretion of the researcher, as observed in Table 2, thus preventing multiple dimensions from being proposed; and, second, to prevent the fragmented use of the scale that has so frequently occurred with CETSCALE, as mentioned in Table 3.

Finally, regarding the results produced by CEESCALE, it has been observed that it has a higher reliability and predictive validity than CETSCALE.

At present, studies that have utilized this scale to measure consumer ethnocentrism are still very scarce (e.g., China and Greece [141], Syria [142], Iraq and Turkey [143], and Myanmar [144]).

3.2.2. CES

CES is a scale comprised of 18 items that, like CEESCALE, is also distributed in different dimensions, although in this case, there are only three: (1) Affective reaction (6 items); (2) Cognition bias (6 items); and (3) Behavioral preference (6 items) (see Appendix B).

The scale was designed and validated with consumers from four countries: China, India, the UK, and the USA. The three sub-scales of CES, and the full scale of 18 items, showed high reliability.

As occurred with CEESCALE, despite being a scale structured in three different dimensions, some of its items also bear great similarity in their wording to the CETSCALE items. Thus, for example, Item 1 for the dimension of Behavioral preference is very similar to 4 in CETSCALE, while Item 2 of this same dimension bears a close similarity to the idea presented in Item 7.

What CES does feature, unlike CETSCALE and CEESCALE, is a hate and disdain component for foreign products in the wording of certain items. More specifically, Items 5 and 6 of the Affective reaction dimension are presented in rather radical terms, in an attempt to reflect the deepest patriotic sentiment among consumers.

With regard to the arguments of Sharma (2015) [39] for proposing this tridimensional scale, they are in keeping with what we have presented for the case of CEESCALE, that is, it offers a solution to the multidimensionality problem of CETSCALE. However, its level of acceptance still remains to be tested, considering that studies that have utilized this scale to measure consumer ethnocentrism are still very scarce (e.g., Colombia [145], Brazil and Russia [146], and China [147]).

3.2.3. Equivalence of the Dimensions of CETSCALE, CEESCALE and CES

To finalize the analysis of the scales that attempt to provide a solution to the multidimensional behavior of CETSCALE,

Table 4. Equivalence of the dimensions of CETSCALE, CEESCALE, and CES.

Dimensions of CETSCALE	Dimensions of CEESCALE	Dimensions of CES
Patriotism/Patriot	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Protectionism	Habituation	Behavioral preference
Hard ethnocentrism	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Soft ethnocentrism	Habituation	Behavioral preference
Domestic product preferences/Positive attitude/Buy domestic products	Habituation	Behavioral preference
Foreign products negative attitude/No imports	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Socio-economic conservatism	Habituation	Behavioral preference
Emotional consumer ethnocentrism	Cognition	Cognition bias
Rational consumer ethnocentrism	Habituation	Behavioral preference
Animosity	-----	Behavioral preference
Nationalism	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Ultra nationalism	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Xenophobia	-----	Behavioral preference
Negative impact on the economy and/or employment/Economic	Insecurity/Reflexivity	-----
Prosocial	Prosociality	Affective reaction
Product availability	-----	-----
Trade	----	-----

Source: Own elaboration.

establishes a parallelism between the different dimensions of CETSCALE proposed in the literature and its equivalent in CEESCALE and CES. For this purpose, we considered the items that comprise each dimension and its corresponding meaning.

As can be seen in Table 4, most of the dimensions in CETSCALE that have been identified in the literature have their equivalent in both CEESCALE and CES.

Therefore, the fact that the multidimensional structure of both scales (five in CEESCALE and three in CES) contemplates a set of items that clearly resemble most of the dimensions of CETSCALE undoubtedly solves the multidimensional problem while also opening the door to increased use of these scales.

Because the multidimensionality of CETSCALE should be understood as an “abnormality” in the scale’s behavior, the ideal scenario would be to have a measurement tool that somehow reduces and limits these dimensions, and both CEESCALE and CES provide a solution.

However, it is important to recognize that the greatest obstacle that both scales may have is the tendency in the literature to use only a part of the CETSCALE items, according to the criteria of the researchers. In fact, as can be seen in Table 3, this selection of items has even given rise to “subscales” that are beginning to be used in other studies, although with these “subscales”, it is not possible to identify any of the dimensions described in Table 2. Therefore, we do not believe that these subscales will hinder the use of CEESCALE or CES in the future.

3.3. SCONET

SCONET is a scale comprised of 6 items, which analyzes consumer ethnocentrism from a psychological point of view, eliminating the normative character and, above all, highly ideological of CETSCALE. In this regard, as Maison et al. (2018) [40] state in the justification of their scale, SCONET eliminates the strong ideological bias that many individuals would encounter when responding to the items in CETSCALE (see Appendix B).

Objectively, it is understandable that, in view of the growing need for tolerance and acceptance of diversity, compounded with the phenomenon of modern globalization, many people do not wish to express their negative opinions about foreign products in such a direct manner, as CETSCALE proposes. In fact, Maison et al. (2018) [40] consider that some inconsistent data obtained with CETSCALE, related to its multidimensional behavior, might be partially caused by the lack of relevance of Shimp and Sharma’s scale in the contemporary world, having been designed years ago in 1987. In this sense, they argue that, in this day and age, it does not seem logical to continue to maintain that conscious beliefs exist among consumers that link purchasing foreign products with a negative effect on local industry or a reduction in employment and, therefore, with unpatriotic behavior.

With the objective of analyzing the relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and preference for national brands, while also contemplating the link with the psychological concept of “social identity”, SCONET was designed and validated with consumers from two countries, Poland and Indonesia, displaying a unidimensional behavior. The results confirm the relationship between SCONET, social identity, and the preference for national brands in both countries.

As with the previous scales, at present, studies that have utilized SCONET to measure consumer ethnocentrism are still very scarce [148].

4. Discussion: Selection of a Scale to Measure Consumer Ethnocentrism

Following the in-depth analysis of the different scales found in the literature for measuring consumer ethnocentrism, a degree of uncertainty arises concerning which scale would be the most suitable for beginning a new study, regardless of the geographic area where it would be conducted. Thus,

Table 5. Advantages and drawbacks for scales to measure consumer ethnocentrism.

Scale	Advantage	Drawbacks
CETSCALE	* Abundant empirical evidence * Possibility of using the original version (17 items) or the reduced version (10 items) * Possibility of selecting items at the researcher’s discretion * Possibility of using reduced subscales (e.g., 4, 5, or 6 items), which have already been replicated in the literature	* Possibility of displaying a non-unidimensional behavior, both with the 17-item version and the 10-item version * Multiple dimensions identified in the literature without clear limitations * Dimensions with the same description can be comprised of different items * Displays strong ideological bias * The scale does not consider the sustainability aspects
CEESCALE	* Contemplates different dimensions that identify various ethnocentric behaviors among consumers	* Scarce empirical evidence * Ethnocentric behavior of consumers limited to 5 dimensions * Displays strong ideological bias * The scale does not consider the sustainability aspects
CES	* Contemplates different dimensions that identify various ethnocentric behaviors among consumers	* Scarce empirical evidence * Ethnocentric behavior of consumers limited to 3 dimensions * Displays strong ideological bias * The scale does not consider the sustainability aspects
SCONET	* Eliminates ideological bias * The scale presents a psychological approach	* Scare empirical evidence * Fails to describe the ethnocentric behavior of consumers * The scale does not consider the sustainability aspects

summarizes the main advantages and drawbacks that each of the analyzed scales features.

Without question, CETSCALE has been the undisputed reference in studies on consumer ethnocentrism ever since Shimp and Sharma developed it in 1987. It has been utilized in the original 17-item version, the 10-item version, and in fragmented form through the selection of certain items at the researcher’s discretion, by adapting the wording of the items and by means of applying subscales proposed in the literature (e.g., [52,81]). Whichever the case, CETSCALE has always offered an acceptable academic solution for countless studies. It would appear, therefore, that the criticism that CETSCALE has received in the literature, thus far, has not diminished its use, possibly because no alternative scale has been available to researchers.

As can be seen in Table 5, the main arguments upon which the new alternative scales to CETSCALE were based, and which rectify its main limitations, basically focus on two aspects: its multidimensional behavior, a clear anomaly for a scale conceived as a single construct, and its strong ideological bias, which is inappropriate in the current context of the globalized world economy.

With regard to the first limitation, we consider that accepting as valid all the proposed dimensions that studies submitted for a scale designed to be unidimensional proves rather questionable and, therefore, detracts credibility from CETSCALE. In all probability, the fact that, until very recently, there were no alternative scales may have led to the general acceptance of using CETSCALE in any of the forms previously mentioned, as well as accepting as valid the results of the various studies.

However, as of 2015, when CEESCALE and CES, two scales with reduced dimensions (five in one case and three in the other), appeared in the literature, researchers had access to new measurement tools that, from then on, have served as legitimate alternatives to CETSCALE. Nonetheless, we believe that the wider range of possibilities that CEESCALE offers with five dimensions, that is, five different motivations with which to describe ethnocentric consumer behavior, gives it a certain advantage over CES for future use.

Although CEESCALE and CES solve the problem of multidimensionality, the fact that both scales have maintained a wording style in the items similar to CETSCALE fails to solve the limitation of its strong ideological component. In this sense, SCONET, the scale developed by Maison et al. (2018) [40], could be considered the only one that truly adapts to the current context of economic globalization by eliminating this ideological bias. However, SCONET features the notable limitation of offering a single conception of consumer ethnocentrism, erroneously ignoring the concept’s various nuances.

Therefore, in short, we consider CEESCALE to be a legitimate alternative to CETSCALE, provided it gains wider recognition and adoption. However, the deep-rooted hold that CETSCALE has in the literature means it will surely continue to be used in both its original formats and through the various subscales that have been designed and validated. With respect to CES and SCONET, it is likely they will not achieve a lasting presence in the literature. In any case, the reflections that have been presented here, based on the advantages and drawbacks offered by each of the different scales in relation to the others, will have to be confirmed by the literature in the years to come.

Finally, as we mentioned in the Introduction, we consider the contribution that these new scales make to the literature to be limited, since they focus, above all CEESCALE and CES, exclusively on solving the problem of multidimensionality. None of the scales modifies the content of the items and, therefore, the economic perspective with which they were designed. The new scales do not allow us to know, for example, whether this attitude of consumer rejection responds to sustainability criteria related to production methods, the use of non-recyclable materials, or the emission of waste, among other causes. For this reason, we believe that it would be recommended to design a new scale whose items would focus on economic sustainability, i.e., the use of economic practices that are profitable from both the social and environmental points of view, or to modify the wording of the items of the most recent scales. For example, the wording of the items in the Cognition dimension of CEESCALE could be revised as follows: 6. When it comes to British products manufactured in an environmentally sustainable way, I do not need further information to assess their quality; the country of origin is a sufficient signal of high quality for me. 7. British products manufactured with sustainable methods are better than imported goods. 8. British products are manufactured to high standards using environmentally sustainable production systems, and no other country can beat them.