Next Article in Journal
Commodification in Urban Planning: Exploring the Habitus of Practitioners in a Neoliberal Context
Previous Article in Journal
Connecting Us Back to Ourselves: Aesthetic Experience as a Means to Growth after Trauma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci13010021
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

by
Marselius Sampe Tondok
1,2,
Suryanto Suryanto
1,* and
Rahkman Ardi
1
1
Doctoral Program in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Surabaya, Surabaya 60284, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(1), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021
Submission received: 6 November 2023 / Revised: 18 December 2023 / Accepted: 21 December 2023 / Published: 26 December 2023
Review Reports Versions Notes

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.

1. Introduction

Understanding outgroup attitudes in various social identities has become a crucial need in today’s multicultural society characterized by cultural diversity and a wide range of belief systems (Verkuyten et al. 2023; Visser et al. 2023). Negative attitudes or prejudice toward outgroups based on social identity, such as ethnicity and religion, can lead to significant detrimental consequences for individuals and society as a whole (Kite et al. 2023). Ethnoreligious prejudice has the potential to disrupt social harmony by creating tension and division within communities, pitting different groups against each other, leading to social conflict, tension, and even violence (Hossain 2023; Tondok et al. 2022). Furthermore, these intergroup negative attitudes can hinder the realization of inclusive societies where all individuals, regardless of their background, can fully participate and benefit from the community’s opportunities and resources (Mayhew and Rockenbach 2021; Saroglou 2016).
Theoretically, prejudice refers to a preconceived and unjustified attitude or feeling, usually negative toward a group and its members based on their perceived characteristics (Allport 1966; Nelson 2016). Like prejudice in general, ethnic and religious prejudice can manifest as discrimination, bias, or stereotyping, leading to social exclusion and intergroup conflicts (Kite et al. 2023; Nelson 2016). Ethnic and religious prejudice is not confined to any specific ethnic or religious group; it is a global concern that transcends national, cultural, and religious boundaries (Saroglou et al. 2020). Prejudice, as viewed by Gordon Allport (Allport 1954) in his book ‘The Nature of Prejudice’, is considered the root of intergroup conflicts. The consequences of prejudice can be far-reaching, affecting psychological well-being, social cohesion, and even political stability (Kollar and Fleischmann 2022). Hence, possessing a robust psychometric measurement of ethnic and religious prejudice is vital, as it permits a quantitative evaluation of the scope of these biases, facilitating the creation of evidence-based interventions and policies.
Social scientists have created and developed numerous instruments for measuring intergroup prejudice, which have been extensively used in diverse intergroup relations, including those rooted in ethnic and religious identities. Some of these prejudice measurement tools include the Allophilia Scale (Pittinsky et al. 2011), the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (Bogardus 1928), the Feeling Thermometer Scale (Converse et al. 1980), the Subtle and Blatant Prejudice Scale (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995), and the General Evaluation Scale (Wright et al. 1997). In the field of social science research, the General Evaluation Scale (hereafter GES) is the second most commonly utilized assessment instrument after the Feeling Thermometer Scale. This prominence owes to its straightforwardness and adaptability in appraising attitudes toward outgroups across various social contexts and demographic groups (Lolliot et al. 2015).
In intergroup relations research, social scholars have extensively employed the GES to assess attitudes toward diverse outgroups based on social identities such as race and ethnicity (Zhang et al. 2023), religion (Stathi et al. 2020), immigrants (Jolley et al. 2023), asylum seekers and refugees (Vezzali et al. 2022), foreign people (Lissitsa et al. 2022), lesbian, gay, or LGBTI individuals (Vezzali et al. 2023), individuals with disabilities (Lindau et al. 2018), obese people (Vezzali et al. 2023), people with schizophrenia (Stathi et al. 2020), elderly people (Drury et al. 2017), other student-faculty in the university (Yetkili et al. 2018). Thus far, the GES has been used with various ingroup samples, including: elementary school (Lissitsa 2022), high school (Bayram Özdemir and Özdemir 2020), university (Stathi et al. 2020), adults (Drury et al. 2017), retired adults (Crisp and Abrams 2008), and citizens (Visintin et al. 2017). In addition, the GES has been utilized across a range of research designs encompassing cross-sectional (Vezzali et al. 2023), longitudinal (Meleady et al. 2021), and experimental (Tassinari et al. 2023) designs.
Furthermore, the GES has been widely employed in multiple countries, including China (Wang et al. 2019), Cyprus (McKeown and Psaltis 2017), Estonia (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al. 2021), England (Jolley et al. 2023), Finland (Tassinari et al. 2023), France (Adam-Troian et al. 2020), Germany (Royal 2022), India (Reimer et al. 2020), Indonesia (Yustisia 2016; Yustisia and Hudijana 2021), Israel (Kushnirovich and Lissitsa 2022), Italy (Vezzali et al. 2022), Ireland (McKeown and Psaltis 2017), the Netherlands (Vedder et al. 2017), Nigeria (Cocco et al. 2023), South Africa (Jolley et al. 2023), Spain (Eller et al. 2017), Sweden (Bayram Özdemir and Özdemir 2020), Turkey (Adam-Troian et al. 2020), United Arab Emirates (Lalljee et al. 2009), the UK (Jolley et al. 2023), and the USA (Stark 2020). In conclusion, the GES has demonstrated its versatility and widespread utility in diverse research settings across age groups, designs, and countries, offering valuable insights into intergroup attitudes, including religion and ethnicity, which are the focus of this study.
The article by Wright et al. (1997) on the extended contact effect introduced the GES for assessing outgroup attitudes, using six bi-polar adjective pairs items separated by a 7-point semantic differential scale. These items are presented on opposite ends of two anchors (e.g., 1 = negative to 7 = positive). The GES serves as a metric for intergroup attitudes, encompassing both the positivity or negativity and the degree of valence and extremity of the attitudes. As an illustration, in the earlier example of negative and positive attitudes, a score of two represents a more negative attitude than does a score of four. Swart and colleagues (Swart et al. 2011) modified the six-item GES into a shorter version consisting of 4 items by removing items number 1 and 6 from the full version of the GES. The short version of the GES uses a 5-point rating scale. The GES compiled by Wright et al. (1997) originally had a 7-point scale. Nonetheless, some researchers have modified it to a 6-point scale (Costarelli and Gerłowska 2015; Yustisia and Hudijana 2021), a 5-point scale (Vezzali et al. 2023), and an 11-point scale (Healy et al. 2017). Thus, there are variations in the scaling of the GES among researchers. However, in this study, we used a 7-point scale as used by Wright et al. (1997). In Wright et al. (1997) study the six items of the GES were unidimensional constructs and had a reliability alpha Cronbach of 0.90. Other researchers also found that the GES has very good internal consistency reliability estimates (Kushnirovich and Lissitsa 2022; Vezzali et al. 2023).

2. Context of Ethnoreligious Prejudice in Indonesia

We conducted this research in Indonesia, a nation characterized by cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity, encapsulated by the national motto of ‘Unity in Diversity’ (Ardi et al. 2021). Located in Southeast Asia, Indonesia ranks as the fourth most populous nation globally, with over 270 million people. Furthermore, this country consists of 17,000 islands and is home to 1340 distinct ethnic groups and 733 different languages (Mu’ti 2023).
Indonesia currently recognizes six official religions, namely Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, although there are also other belief systems and ancestral religions (Suntana et al. 2023; Wijaya Mulya and Schäfer 2023). Religion plays a central role in Indonesian society, shaping social interactions and daily routines (Al Qurtuby 2023). Religion stands as a fundamental pillar of Indonesia’s state ideology, with mandatory courses on individual religions in both public schools and universities (Mulya and Aditomo 2019). Indonesia’s 270 million people are composed of about 86.93 percent Muslims, 7.47 percent Protestants, 3.08 percent Catholics, 1.71 percent Hinduism, 0.74 percent Buddhism, 0.03% Confucianism, and 0.05 percent other belief systems and ancestral religions (BPS-Statistics Indonesia 2022). In the context of interreligious relations in Indonesia, history shows that conflicts between the two majority religions, Islam and Christianity, are often triggered by issues related to religious conversion. The spread of religions in the form of Islamization and Christianization is a highly sensitive matter among Muslims and Christians in Indonesia (Kanas et al. 2017; Putra and Wagner 2017). Therefore, in Study 1 (interreligious prejudice), we focused on identity-based religious attitudes among university students who adhere to Islam and Christianity, the two largest religions in Indonesia.
Indonesia is a country with a diverse range of ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group is the Javanese, constituting the majority, followed by the Sundanese, Batak, Minangkabau, Bugis, and many others. Additionally, there are various smaller ethnic groups dispersed throughout the archipelago (Ananta et al. 2015). One of the minority ethnic groups in Indonesia is the ethnic group from East Nusa Tenggara. Among university students in Indonesia, ethnic conflicts sometimes occur, such as the several cases of university-student clashes in Malang from 2014 to 2017 involving Javanese and East Nusa Tenggara ethnic university students (Adelina et al. 2017; Parela et al. 2018). Hence, in Study 2 (ethnic prejudice), we examined the prejudice of Javanese university students as the majority ethnic group toward university students from East Nusa Tenggara, one of the minority ethnic groups in Indonesia.
Ethnoreligious identities play a crucial role in Indonesian society, as sentiments based on ethnoreligious identities have become the primary sources of social and political conflicts (Harsono 2019; Al Qurtuby 2023). As an example, during the 2017 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election, the socio-political circumstances was manipulated to influence religious and ethnic sentiments for political gain of certain parties (Sumaktoyo 2021). The extensive ethnoreligious diversity in Indonesia, with the potential to generate social conflicts, serves as a cultural context for validating the GES measurement tool, enabling the creation of evidence-based interventions and policies. Therefore, cross-cultural adaptation is needed to ensure the quality and equivalency of the Indonesian version of the GES. According to Beaton et al. (2000), cross-cultural adaptation refers to a procedure where the scale items are translated, evaluated, and modified to align with the cultural context in which the scale will be employed.

3. The Present Research

The existing body of literature has shown that the GES has been used extensively to assess attitudes towards various outgroups, in different countries, and with various research samples (Tassinari et al. 2023; Vezzali et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2023). However, to the best of our knowledge, the GES has not yet been validated in Indonesia. Our exhaustive search did not yield any studies in the Indonesian context or in other countries that have validated the GES in measuring any intergroup attitudes, including ethnic and/or religious prejudice. We conducted a thorough search for references on PsycINFO, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Scopus using keywords such as ‘GES’, ‘General Evaluation Scale’, ‘validation’, ‘Indonesia’, and ‘Indonesians’. Nevertheless, we found no references to validation studies of the GES in the Indonesian context, confirming its cultural sensitivity and adaptability. Therefore, to address this gap, this research aims to assess the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the GES, focusing on factor structure, composite reliability, and criterion validity.
The purposes of this study were threefold. First, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (hereafter CFA) to confirm the single-factor structure of the Indonesian version of the GES. Second, we assessed internal consistency using the composite reliability formula to calculate the internal consistency of the Indonesian version of the GES. Finally, we determined the convergent validity of the Indonesian version of the GES by establishing correlations between its total scores and those of other instruments that measure attitudes toward outgroups, namely the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale (hereafter BSPS) and the Feeling Thermometer Scale (hereafter FTS). We expected that the Indonesian version of the GES would have a significant negative correlation with the BSPS and a significant positive correlation with the FTS. These three objectives were examined through two separate studies, one focusing on religious prejudice (Study 1) and the other on ethnic prejudice (Study 2). This research, which validated the ethno-religious prejudice scale using The GES in the context of Indonesia, can provide a profound understanding of the dynamics of intergroup relations, generate valuable academic knowledge, and serve as the basis for effective intervention policies.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Research Design and Procedure

This research was a quantitative cross-sectional survey design, using a convenience sample of students from several universities in Surabaya, the second-largest city in Indonesia. We conducted CFA to assess the overall fit of the internal structure, calculated composite reliability to determine internal consistency, and examined criterion validity by assessing the correlation of the Indonesian version of the GES with the BSPS (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995) and the FTS (Converse et al. 1980), two other instruments measuring outgroup attitudes. This research has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Surabaya. We provided informed consent to ensure that participants willingly agreed to take part in this research. Informed consent encompassed a detailed explanation of the research’s objectives, participants’ rights, and data privacy before participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire.

4.2. Participants

We recruited 200 university students as participants for both Study 1 and Study 2. This sample size was chosen based on the criteria recommended by Comrey and Lee (Comrey and Lee 2013) (a minimum of 200 to ensure adequate sample size) and Gorsuch (Gorsuch 2014) (five subjects for each item, with a minimum N of 100). In Study 1, the participants included 100 females and 100 males aged 18–24 years (M = 20.37, SD = 1.23). The participants identified themselves as either Muslim (N = 100) or Christian (Protestant and Catholic, N = 100). In Study 2, there were 100 females and 100 males aged 18–25 years (M = 20.50, SD = 1.46). All participants identified themselves as ethnically Javanese, which is the largest ethnic group in Indonesia. Among them, 116 (58%) had both Javanese parents, while 84 (42%) had one Javanese parent.

4.3. Instruments

Three self-reported scales used in these two studies were the GES, the BSPS, and the FTS. To ensure objectivity and minimize potential bias from researchers towards the three measurement tools used in this study, researchers ensured the reliability and validity of the instruments, as well as preserved the integrity of the research findings. To achieve this, the research followed the guidelines provided by the International Test Commission (ITC) (International Test Commission 2017). Cross-cultural adaptation of measurement instruments aims to achieve equivalence between the original instrument and the adapted version (Epstein et al. 2015; Hernández et al. 2020). To achieve this goal, we conducted four stages. First, two independent translators translated the instruments from English to Indonesian. Second, two reviewers assessed the accuracy of the translations, resulting in the Indonesian version of the instruments. Third, two different independent translators, distinct from the first translator, translated the Indonesian version of the instruments back into English to refine the Indonesian version. Finally, a pilot test was conducted to assess participants’ understanding of the Indonesian version of the instruments.
The General Evaluation Scale. We used an adapted version of the original GES in the Indonesian language, comprising six items measuring a single construct of the outgroup attitude (Wright et al. 1997). Participants were asked to ‘describe how you feel about [outgroup] in general’ using six bi-polar adjective pairs items, separated by a 7-point semantic differential scale: warm-cold*, negative-positive, friendly hostile*, suspicious-trusting, respect-contempt*, admiration-disgust*. The asterisk-highlighted items were reverse-scored, with a higher score indicating a more positive outgroup attitude and less outgroup prejudice. These items are presented on opposite ends of two anchors (e.g., 1 = hostile to 7 = friendly). Thus, the GES measures intergroup attitudes by capturing both valence and extremity. For example, in the case of the hostile-friendly pair, a score of two represents a more negative attitude than a score of four. The GES is approximately balanced, containing both positively and negatively directed adjective pairs. In Study 1, we used the GES to assess interreligious prejudice. For Muslim participants, they expressed their attitudes toward predominantly Christian outgroups (Catholic and Protestant). Conversely, the Christian participants expressed their feelings toward Muslims as an outgroup. In Study 2, we used the GES to assess ethnic prejudice. All participants who identified as Javanese expressed their feelings toward the East Nusa Tenggara ethnic group as an outgroup. Higher values indicate a more positive attitude toward the outgroup or lower prejudice.
The Feeling Thermometer Scale. The Indonesian version of the FTS (Converse et al. 1980) was used to measure outgroup attitude. Originally this instrument used a continuum scale of 100 (0, cold to 100, warm). Positive feelings are labeled as warm feelings and negative feelings are equivalent to cold feelings. Some researchers modify this with a 7-point semantic differential scale (1 = least warm and 7 = most warm) (e.g., Cocco et al. 2023; Shaver et al. 2016). In this study, we used the Feeling Thermometer Scale with a continuum scale of 0 to 100. In Study 1, participants rated their feelings toward the outgroup (Christian outgroup for Muslim participants, and Muslim outgroup for Christian participants). Meanwhile, in Study 2, the participant rated their feelings toward East Nusa Tenggara Ethic as an outgroup. Higher scores indicated positive outgroup attitudes or lower prejudice.
The Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale. For the purposes of this study, the 10-item BSPS (5 for blatant prejudice and 5 for subtle prejudice) was based on the original scale developed by Pettigrew and Meertens (71, α  =  0.85). Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors at 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =  strongly agree. The internal consistency levels for the BSPS in the present study were McDonald’s Omega (ω) = 0.87 (Study 1, religious prejudice) and ω = 0.91 (Study 2, ethnic prejudice). A higher score indicated a more pronounced level of prejudice. In contrast, a lower score reflected a lower level of prejudice.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Internal structure. Internal structure validity determines how well a scale’s actual structure is consistent with the hypothesized structure of the construct it measures (AERA et al. 2014). The GES scale was developed as a single-factor structure scale (Lolliot et al. 2015; Wright et al. 1997). The internal structure validity of the GES consists of 6 items tested using CFA first order with robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation. Confirmatory factor analysis is a psychometric evaluation method that enables the systematic evaluation of an alternative factor structure defined in advance through systematic fit assessment procedures and calculates the associations between latent constructs, accounting for measurement errors (Kline 2023).
To evaluate model fit, we used three measures of absolute fit indices: the standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI). Chi-square was not used in this study as a model fit index because it tends to be sensitive to the sample size (Brown 2015). Furthermore, we employed two measures of incremental/comparative/relative fit indices: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). A satisfactory model fit is indicated when the coefficient of SRMR ≤ 0.08 (Schreiber et al. 2006), RMSEA < 0.08 (Kline 2023; van de Schoot et al. 2012), GFI ≥ 0.95 (Schreiber et al. 2006), CFI ≥ 0.95 (Kline 2023; van de Schoot et al. 2012), TLI ≥ 0.95 (Schreiber et al. 2006). SRMR/RMSEA values below 0.08 indicated an acceptable fit and values less than 0.05 suggested a good fit. GFI/CFI/TLI values higher than 0.90 indicated an acceptable fit, and values higher than 0.95 represented a good fit (Kline 2023).
Internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency reliability is considered satisfactory when Cronbach’s alpha is ≥0.70 and McDonald’s Omega (ω) ≥ 0.70 (Trizano-Hermosilla and Alvarado 2016). As suggested by some scholars, McDonald’s Omega (ω) provides a more unbiased estimate of the reliability (McNeish 2018). Hence, in this study, we employed McDonald’s Omega (ω) to evaluate the internal reliability of the adapted GES scale. A reliability coefficient of ω < 0.50 indicates unacceptable internal consistency, 0.51–0.59 poor consistency, 0.60–0.69 questionable consistency, 0.70–0.79 acceptable consistency, 0.80–0.89 good consistency, and >0.90 excellent consistency (Kottner et al. 2011).
Convergent validity. Convergent evidence validity of a scale is obtained when the scale demonstrates a strong and statistically significant correlation with other measures that are theoretically expected to assess the same or similar construct (AERA et al. 2014). (Schober et al. 2018) suggested the standard cut-points of correlational coefficients were: 0.00–0.10 = negligible correlation; 0.10–0.39 = weak; 0.40–0.69 = moderate, 0.70–0.89 = strong, 0.90–1.00 = very strong. In this study, we assessed convergent validity by examining the correlation between the total scores of the Indonesian version of the GES and those of other instruments that measure attitudes toward outgroups, namely the BSPS and the FTS. All the statistical analyses in this study were conducted using the JASP (Jeffrey’s Amazing Statistics Program) version 0.18.0 for MacOS (JASP Team 2023).

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Analysis

Before analyzing the GES’s psychometric properties in the Indonesian version, we checked item adherence to basic statistical assumptions, including normal distribution. The descriptive data for the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), skewness, and kurtosis of the items are presented in Table 1 (Study 1, religious prejudice; Study 1, ethnic prejudice).
Table 1, Study 1 reveals values of skewness ranging from −0.51 (item 5) to 0.01 (item 1). For kurtosis, values varied between −0.55 (item 4) and 0.17 (item 5). In study 2, values of skewness range from −1.13 (item 5) to −0.61 (item 6). For kurtosis, values range from −0.63 (item 4) to 0.01 (item 6). Curran et al. (1996) pointed out that issues related to non-normality occur when skewness surpasses 2.0 and kurtosis exceeds 7.0. In our dataset, all absolute values of skewness and kurtosis remain within these specified thresholds. The average scores in both studies range from 4.53 (item 6) to 5.40 (item 5) in Study 1; and between 5.09 (item 6) and 5.42 (item 5) in Study 2. The higher the score, the more positive the attitude or the lower the prejudice towards the outgroup. The component loadings and corrected item-total correlation (hereafter CITC) of the Indonesian version of the GES are shown in Table 2.
In Study 1, the standardized factor loadings of items ranged from 0.76 (item 6) to 0.93 (item 1); and from 0.75 (item 6) to 0.90 (item 1) in Study 2. The CITC ranged from 0.73 (item 5) to 0.88 (item 2) in Study 1; and from 0.72 (item 6) to 0.86 (item 4) in Study 2. Component loading and CITC indicate the extent to which an item correlates with the factor or construct measured by the model (Hair et al. 2019). The data in Table 2 show component loadings above 0.5 and CITC values above 0.3, indicating that all items in the Indonesian version of the GES are correlated with the construct measured by the GES model.

5.2. The Evidence of Validity Based on Internal Structure

Model indices fit for the single-factor structure of the Indonesian version of the GES in Studies 1 and 2 using CFA are shown in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, in both Study 1 and Study 2, all the absolute fit indices indicate a good fit (SRMR ≤ 0.08; GFI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA < 0.08). The relative or incremental fit indices (CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95) also indicate a good fit.

5.3. Evidence of Internal Consistency Reliability

The results of unidimensional McDonald’s Omega (ω) reliability coefficients of the Indonesian version of the GES in Studies 1 and 2 are shown in Table 4.
As can be observed in Table 4, the measures of internal consistency reliability in both of these studies demonstrate excellent levels of reliability, with McDonald’s Omega (ω) values of 0.93 and 0.94, respectively.

5.4. Evidence of Validity Based on Relations to Other Variables: Convergent Validity

The results of the convergent validity of the Indonesian version of the GES in correlation with the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale (BSPS) and The Feeling Thermometer Scale (FTS) are shown in Table 5.
The table above illustrates that the Indonesian version of the GES exhibits a negative correlation with the BSPS: r = −0.44 (Study 1) and r = −0.74 (Study 2). Conversely, the Indonesian version of the GES shows a positive correlation with the FTS: r = 0.60 (Study 1) and r = 0.78 (Study 2). Using data from Indonesia, a multi-ethnoreligious society, this study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the GES in its factor structure, composite reliability, and criterion validity to measure religious prejudice (Study 1) and ethnic prejudice (Study 2) in an Indonesian context. Both of these current studies emphasize the robustness of the GES as an acceptably valid scale for assessing outgroup attitudes based on religious and ethnic identities in the Indonesian sample, a highly multicultural country.

6. Discussion

6.1. Factor Structure and Internal Consistency

One of the central objectives of this research was to evaluate the factor structure and internal consistency of the Indonesian version of the GES. Consistent with the original GES (Wright et al. 1997), our findings in Table 3 show that the Indonesian version of the GES constitutes a single construct of outgroup attitude in both Study 1 (religious prejudice) and Study 2 (ethnic prejudice). The results of the CFA analysis indicate that all three absolute fit indices used in this research are met in three parameters, both Study 1 and Study 2. These absolute fit indices, namely SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual), GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index), and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) indicate a good fit because SRMR < 0.08 (Schreiber et al. 2006), GFI > 0.95 (Schreiber et al. 2006), RMSEA < 0.08 (Kline 2023; van de Schoot et al. 2012). Thus, it can be concluded that the internal structure validity of the Indonesian version of the GES, as a single factor consisting of six items, is valid for measuring both religious prejudice (Study 1) and ethnic prejudice (Study 2) in the Indonesian context.
The results of Study 1 indicate an acceptable model fit for a single-factor structure of the Indonesian version of the GES scale, which is consistent with prior research on measuring religious outgroup negative attitudes or interreligious prejudice (Mazziotta et al. 2015; Stathi et al. 2020). Study 2 yields congruent results, aligning with prior studies on assessing racial or ethnic prejudice (e.g., Bayram Özdemir and Özdemir 2020; Cocco et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2023). These findings affirm the appropriateness of the GES scale for evaluating attitudes towards outgroups, in line with prior research conducted across diverse cultural and sociopolitical settings.

6.2. Internal Consistency

In terms of internal consistency, it is important to highlight the impressive reliability coefficients obtained through McDonald’s Omega (ω) analysis in both Study 1 (ω = 0.93) and Study 2 (ω = 0.94) as shown in Table 4. These coefficients are indicative of the GES’ excellent reliability which is greater than 0.90 (Kottner et al. 2011; Saliasi et al. 2021) in measuring ethnic and religious prejudice within the Indonesian context. In this study, we used the GES with a 7-point scale, consistent with the original GES developed by Wright et al. (1997).
Several prior studies that also employed the GES with a 7-point scale reported good consistency (α = 0.80–0.89) (e.g., Stark 2020) and excellent consistency >0.90 (e.g., Jolley et al. 2023; Meleady et al. 2020; Van Assche et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019). Several other studies have utilized the GES with a 6-point scale, including those conducted in an interreligious relations context in Indonesia (Yustisia and Hudijana 2021; Yustisia 2016). Yustisia (2016) investigated 110 Muslim university students’ attitudes toward Christians, and the GES demonstrated a reliability coefficient (α) of 0.83. Furthermore, Yustisia and Hudijana (2021) conducted two studies employing the GES. The first study involved 126 Muslim public high school students aged 15 to 18 and reported a GES reliability coefficient (α) of 0.87. The second study included 112 participants from a more fundamentalist Islamic Boarding School and 230 participants from a more moderate Islamic Boarding School, all aged 12 to 19, and reported a GES reliability coefficient (α) of 0.80. These studies (Yustisia 2016; Yustisia and Hudijana 2021) exhibited a good consistency of GES’s α between 0.80 to 0.89 (Kottner et al. 2011; Saliasi et al. 2021). Other studies have employed the GES with a 5-point scale, demonstrating a satisfactory reliability (Kushnirovich and Lissitsa 2022; Mazziotta et al. 2015). In another study, the GES was utilized with an 11-point scale, yielding an α value of 0.96 (Healy et al. 2017). In summary, our study, in line with prior research, confirms the GES’s suitability as an outgroup attitudes measurement scale across various scales, including 7-point, 5-point, 6-point, or 11-point scales.

6.3. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity, which contributes to establishing construct validity, relies on the fundamental concept that assessments of closely related constructs should demonstrate strong correlations (AERA et al. 2014; Taherdoost 2016). In our research, we assessed the convergent validity of the Indonesian version of the GES by examining correlations between its total scores and those of other instruments measuring attitudes toward outgroups, namely the BSPS and the FTS, in both interreligious (Study 1) and interethnic (Study 2) contexts among university students in Indonesia.
As expected (see Table 5), higher GES scores, indicating more positive attitudes (Wright et al. 1997), negatively correlate with higher BSPS scores, signifying greater negative attitudes or prejudice toward outgroups (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995). In line with (Schober et al. 2018) categorization, the correlation coefficients between the GES and BSPS in both studies fall within the moderate to strong range. Furthermore, as assumed, a higher total score on the GES is associated with a higher FTS score. A higher FTS score indicates more positive outgroup attitudes or a lower prejudice (Converse et al. 1980). The stronger the GES-FTS correlation compared to the GES-BSPS correlation in both our studies supports the assertion by (Lolliot et al. 2015) that the GES and FTS are the two commonly used tools for assessing outgroup attitudes across diverse contexts and demographics. Therefore, our study robustly validates the GES by demonstrating its significant correlations with both BSPS and FTS in the assessment of ethnoreligious prejudice in an Indonesian sample. These findings strongly support the GES as a valid psychological scale for evaluating attitudes toward ethnoreligious outgroups in Indonesia. In summary, this research contributes to the growing body of literature confirming the GES’s applicability and psychometric properties in diverse cultural and intergroup settings.

6.4. The GES and Ethoreligious Prejudice in Indonesia

Expanding on the above discussions concerning the psychometric properties of the GES, encompassing factor structure, composite reliability, and convergent validity, this research highlights the GES as an indispensable scale for comprehending ethnoreligious prejudice in the Indonesian context. The descriptive data in Table 1 shows that the mean scores for all items in both studies are above four, which is the hypothetical mean. This data suggests that, overall, the university students participating in this study tend to have relatively high levels of ethno-religious prejudice. In essence, students and educational institutions, such as universities, play a crucial and strategic role in reducing social prejudices by equipping individuals with knowledge, attitudes, and competencies to live harmoniously in social diversity (Tondok et al. 2022; Sugihartati et al. 2020; Bukhori 2017).
Scholars such as Al Qurtuby (2023) and Harsono (2019) underscore the significance of ethnoreligious identities in shaping the societal landscape, emphasizing ethnoreligious identities’ pivotal role in contributing to social and political tensions and conflicts in Indonesia. Given that Indonesia is a country that is so ethnically and religiously complex, socio-political as contextual factors of intergroup relations (Guimond et al. 2014) can contribute to varied experiences of ethnoreligious relations within different communities in Indonesia. For instance, in the 2017 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election, socio-political conditions were manipulated to exploit religious and ethnic sentiments for political purposes (Sumaktoyo 2021). Other contextual factors, between 2011 and 2019, a series of worldwide bombing incidents, including those in Indonesia, allegedly carried out by radical Muslim groups and sometimes involving women, were reinforced by intensive media coverage. This, in turn, strengthened prejudice and discrimination against veiled Muslim women in daily life in Indonesia (Inderasari et al. 2021).
This study finds that the GES proves valuable in accurately depicting ethnoreligious prejudice in Indonesia through tailored psychometric testing. This testing ensures that the instrument is finely tuned to capture the complexities of Indonesia’s diverse sociocultural landscape, providing researchers and policymakers with nuanced insights into the multifaceted nature of religious and ethnic tensions. The accurate portrayal of socio-political measurements, as emphasized by Horton and Brown (2018), forms a foundational cornerstone for evidence-based interventions and policies. In essence, this research sheds light on the pivotal role of the GES in understanding and addressing religious and ethnic prejudice in Indonesia. By combining insights from psychometric testing with scholarly observations on ethnoreligious identities, the study contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between these identities and the socio-political landscape. The GES, with its nuanced and evidence-based approach, stands as a valuable resource in guiding interventions and policies aimed at fostering a more harmonious and inclusive societal environment in Indonesia.

7. Implications, Limitations and Future Directions

7.1. Implications

The psychometric validation of the Indonesian version of the GES has significant implications for research in intergroup relations and policy interventions in Indonesia and other diverse societies in three ways. First and foremost, this research underscores the value of the GES as a valid and reliable instrument for assessing ethnic and religious prejudice in Indonesia. In other words, this study contributes to the expanding body of literature which measures prejudice, particularly in multicultural societies characterized by ethnoreligious diversity. Therefore, researchers and policymakers can employ this scale to measure outgroup attitudes and perceptions toward various social identity groups. Its simplicity and strong psychometric properties make it a valuable tool for monitoring changes in intergroup relations over time and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing prejudice, fostering social cohesion, and promoting intergroup understanding.
Second, our study, consistent with earlier research, affirms the appropriateness of the GES as a single-factor structure scale with excellent consistency reliability for measuring outgroup attitudes, regardless of whether it is implemented on 5-point, 6-point, 7-point, or 11-point scales. When deciding on the preferred scaling for the GES, several scaling options may be considered, allowing researchers to adapt the scale to their specific needs.
Third, the positive correlations of the Indonesian version of the GES with the BSPS and FTS confirm its convergent validity, indicating its comprehensive measurement of different prejudice dimensions. The GES’s versatility enables a nuanced understanding of individuals’ outgroup attitudes, spanning from overt biases to subtle, implicit forms of prejudice.

7.2. Limitations and Future Directions

While this research represents a significant step in validating the GES for measuring ethnoreligious attitudes or prejudice in a multicultural society context, several limitations must be acknowledged for future researchers. Firstly, although this study strongly supports the GES’s validity in Indonesia, it’s important to approach the generalization of these results to other cultural and societal contexts with caution. Variations in cultural nuances and sociopolitical conditions may impact the scale’s effectiveness differently since conditional factors can impact individuals’ responses to attitudinal scales. Therefore, further research is needed, encompassing diverse samples and examining its performance in various social contexts.
Secondly, this study focused exclusively on ethnic and religious prejudice. To enhance the GES scale’s versatility and relevance, future investigations could explore its suitability for measuring prejudice against other social identity dimensions, such as gender, age, sexual orientation, race, socioeconomic status, or other aspects of the socio-political landscape. Furthermore, social-political conditions serve as a crucial social setting that can influence the ethnic and religious experiences of various communities. Therefore, further research can validate the GES by considering social-political conditions as a factor influencing intergroup prejudice.
Thirdly, the samples in this study primarily consisted of young adults aged 18–25 and university students samples, which limits the generalizability of the findings to broader age and social groups. Future research should aim to include more diverse age cohorts and social groups to assess the scale’s applicability across the entire socially diverse population.
Fourth, this research employs a quantitative method, thus limiting the exploration of a deeper understanding of ethno-religious prejudice through the social construction of language. Socially constructed meanings play a crucial role in understanding stereotypes towards outgroups. Therefore, future research could adopt a qualitative approach, such as cognitive interviews, to uncover stereotypes towards outgroups, which would then serve as semantic differential adjectives on the GES scale.
Lastly, while this study used the BSPS and FTS as criterion measures, other validated scales could provide further insights into the GES’s validity. Comparing it with a broader range of measures would strengthen the scale’s construct validity. Moreover, future studies could benefit from examining discriminant validity by assessing the scale’s ability to distinguish between attitudes toward different outgroups. Discriminant validity analyses would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the scale’s measurement properties.

8. Conclusions

This is the first study to validate an Indonesian version of the GES. We propose that this Indonesian version of the GES is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring ethnic and religious prejudice within the Indonesian context. Its strong psychometric properties, including internal consistency, composite reliability, convergent validity, and adaptability to different scales, make it a valuable outgroup for the measurement of attitudes measurement for researchers and practitioners working in multicultural settings. However, researchers and practitioners should consider this study’s limitations when applying the GES in diverse cultural and sociopolitical contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and M.S.T.; methodology, R.A. and M.S.T.; software, M.S.T.; validation, all authors; formal analysis, R.A. and M.S.T.; investigation, M.S.T.; resources, S.S.; data curation, M.S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.T.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and R.A.; visualization, M.S.T.; supervision, S.S.; project administration, M.S.T.; funding acquisition, S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was by the Indonesian Research, Technology, and Higher Education (RISTEKDIKTI) for Doctoral Dissertation Research under Contract No. 751/UN3.LPPM/PT.01.03/2023.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declartion of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Surabaya (122/KE/X/2022 for Study 1; 110/KE/IX/2022 for Study 2).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adam-Troian, Jais, Elif Çelebi, Eric Bonetto, Nagihan Taşdemir, and Taylan Yurtbakan. 2020. Together We Stand? Belonging Motive Moderates the Effect of National Ingroup Salience on Attitudes towards Ethnic Minorities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 77: 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Adelina, Femita, Fattah Hanurawan, and Indah Yasminum Suhanti. 2017. Hubungan Antara Prasangka Sosial Dan Intensi Melakukan Diskriminasi Mahasiswa Etnis Jawa Terhadap Mahasiswa Yang Berasal Dari Nusa Tenggara Timur (The Relationship between Social Prejudice and the Intention to Discriminate against Javanese Ethnic Students by Students from East Nusa Tenggara). Jurnal Sains Psikologi 6: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. AERA, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, and Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.), eds. 2014. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar]
  4. Al Qurtuby, Sumanto. 2023. Beyond Liberal Peace: Religious Violence and Tactical Peacebuilding in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 10: 145–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  6. Allport, Gordon W. 1966. The Religious Context of Prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 5: 447–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ananta, Aris, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, and M. Sairi Hasbullah. 2015. Demography of Indonesia’s Ethnicity. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ardi, Rahkman, David Hizkia Tobing, Gita Nuraini Agustina, Ahmad Fauzan Iswahyudi, and Diah Budiarti. 2021. Religious Schema and Tolerance towards Alienated Groups in Indonesia. Heliyon 7: e07603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bayram Özdemir, Sevgi, and Metin Özdemir. 2020. The Role of Perceived Inter-Ethnic Classroom Climate in Adolescents’ Engagement in Ethnic Victimization: For Whom Does It Work? Journal of Youth and Adolescence 49: 1328–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Beaton, Dorcas E., Claire Bombardier, Francis Guillemin, and Marcos Bosi Ferraz. 2000. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine 25: 3186–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bogardus, Emory S. 1928. Immigration and Race Attitudes. Boston: Heath and Company. [Google Scholar]
  12. BPS-Statistics Indonesia. 2022. Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2022. Jakarta: BPS. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown, Timothy A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: The Guildford Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bukhori, Baidi. 2017. Educational Environment, Ethnocentrism, and Prejudice towards Indonesian Chinese. ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal 32: 109–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cocco, Veronica Margherita, Loris Vezzali, Tobiloba Ikeola Kola-Daisi, and Huseyin Çakal. 2023. The Role of Common Ingroup Identity in Promoting Social Change among Tribes in Nigeria. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 26: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Comrey, Andrew L., and Howard B. Lee. 2013. A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Converse, Philip E., Jean D. Dotson, Wendy J. Hoag, and William H. McGee. 1980. American Social Attitudes Data Sourcebook 1947–1978. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Costarelli, Sandro, and Justyna Gerłowska. 2015. I Am Not Prejudiced towards ‘Them’ … I Am Ambivalent! The Moderating Roles of Attitudinal Basis and Motivation to Respond without Prejudice. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 19: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Crisp, Richard J., and Dominic Abrams. 2008. Improving Intergroup Attitudes and Reducing Stereotype Threat: An Integrated Contact Model. European Review of Social Psychology 19: 242–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Curran, Patrick J., Stephen G. West, and John F. Finch. 1996. The Robustness of Test Statistics to Nonnormality and Specification Error in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods 1: 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Drury, Lisbeth, Dominic Abrams, Hannah J. Swift, Ruth A. Lamont, and Katarina Gerocova. 2017. Can Caring Create Prejudice? An Investigation of Positive and Negative Intergenerational Contact in Care Settings and the Generalisation of Blatant and Subtle Age Prejudice to Other Older People. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27: 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eller, Anja, Angel Gomez, Alexandra Vázquez, and Saulo Fernández. 2017. Collateral Damage for Ingroup Members Having Outgroup Friends: Effects of Normative versus Counternormative Interactions with an Outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 20: 483–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Epstein, Jonathan, Ruth Miyuki Santo, and Francis Guillemin. 2015. A Review of Guidelines for Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Questionnaires Could Not Bring out a Consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68: 435–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gorsuch, Richard L. 2014. Factor Analysis: Classic Edition, 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guimond, Serge, Roxane De La Sablonnière, and Armelle Nugier. 2014. Living in a Multicultural World: Intergroup Ideologies and the Societal Context of Intergroup Relations. European Review of Social Psychology 25: 142–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Andover: Cengage. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harsono, Andreas. 2019. Race, Islam and Power: Ethnic and Religious Violence in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  28. Healy, Esther, Emma Thomas, and Anne Pedersen. 2017. Prejudice, Polyculturalism, and the Influence of Contact and Moral Exclusion: A Comparison of Responses toward LGBI, TI, and Refugee Groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 47: 389–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hernández, Ana, María D. Hidalgo, Ronald K. Hambleton, and Juana Gómez-Benito. 2020. International Test Commission Guidelines for Test Adaptation: A Criterion Checklist. Psicothema 32: 390–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Horton, Peter, and Garrett W. Brown. 2018. Integrating Evidence, Politics and Society: A Methodology for the Science–Policy Interface. Palgrave Communications 4: 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hossain, Md. Intekhab. 2023. Global Citizens, Civic Responsibility, and Intercultural Communication in a Rapidly Globalising Multicultural World: Community Revitalisation and Reflective Practise. Ethnopolitics 22: 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Inderasari, Annisa Puspita, Marselius Sampe Tondok, and Ananta Yudiarso. 2021. Prejudice against Veiled Muslim Women: The Role of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Intergroup Anxiety. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi 6: 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. International Test Commission. 2017. ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Test (Second Edition). International Journal of Testing 18: 101–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jasinskaja-Lahti, Inga, Loris Vezzali, Mona Ranta, Maria Giuseppina Pacilli, Mauro Giacomantonio, and Stefano Pagliaro. 2021. Conditional Secondary Transfer Effect: The Moderating Role of Moral Credentials and Prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24: 1219–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. JASP Team. 2023. JASP (Version 0.18.0). Available online: https://jasp-stats.org/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  36. Jolley, Daniel, Charles R. Seger, and Rose Meleady. 2023. More than a Prejudice Reduction Effect: Positive Intergroup Contact Reduces Conspiracy Theory Beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology 53: 1262–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kanas, Agnieszka, Peer Scheepers, and Carl Sterkens. 2017. Positive and Negative Contact and Attitudes towards the Religious Out-Group: Testing the Contact Hypothesis in Conflict and Non-Conflict Regions of Indonesia and the Philippines. Social Science Research 63: 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kite, Mary E., Bernard E. Whitley Jr., and Lisa S. Wagner. 2023. Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, 4th ed. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kline, Rex B. 2023. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 5th ed. New York: Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kollar, Rachel, and Fenella Fleischmann. 2022. Does Religion Foster Prejudice among Adherents of All World Religions? A Comparison across Religions. Review of Religious Research 64: 627–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kottner, Jan, Laurent Audigé, Stig Brorson, Allan Donner, Byron J. Gajewski, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Chris Roberts, Mohamed Shoukri, and David L. Streiner. 2011. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) Were Proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kushnirovich, Nonna, and Sabina Lissitsa. 2022. Economic Contact in Service Encounters between Groups in Protracted Conflict. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 22: 582–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lalljee, Mansur, Tania Tam, Miles Hewstone, Simon Laham, and Jessica Lee. 2009. Unconditional Respect for Persons and the Prediction of Intergroup Action Tendencies: Respect and Intergroup Action Tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology 39: 666–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lindau, Natalie, Tara Amin, Amy Zambon, and Katrina Scior. 2018. The Effect of Brief Digital Interventions on Attitudes to Intellectual Disability: Results from a Pilot Study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 31: 106–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lissitsa, Sabina, Nonna Kushnirovich, and Matan Aharoni. 2022. Domestication of Remote Threats: From Vicarious Learning of Foreign Events to Local Intergroup Relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 87: 157–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lolliot, Simon, Benjamin Fell, Katharina Schmid, Ralf Wölfer, Hermann Swart, Alberto Voci, Oliver Christ, Rachel New, and Miles Hewstone. 2015. Measures of Intergroup Contact. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 652–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mayhew, Matthew J., and Alyssa N. Rockenbach. 2021. Interfaith Learning and Development. Journal of College and Character 22: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mazziotta, Agostino, Anette Rohmann, Stephen C. Wright, Pablo De Tezanos-Pinto, and Sebastian Lutterbach. 2015. (How) Does Positive and Negative Extended Cross-Group Contact Predict Direct Cross-Group Contact and Intergroup Attitudes?: Positive and Negative Extended Contact Effects. European Journal of Social Psychology 45: 653–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. McKeown, Shelley, and Charis Psaltis. 2017. Intergroup Contact and the Mediating Role of Intergroup Trust on Outgroup Evaluation and Future Contact Intentions in Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 23: 392–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. McNeish, Daniel. 2018. Thanks Coefficient Alpha, We’ll Take It from Here. Psychological Methods 23: 412–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Meleady, Rose, Richard J. Crisp, Kristof Dhont, Tim Hopthrow, and Rhiannon N. Turner. 2020. Intergroup Contact, Social Dominance, and Environmental Concern: A Test of the Cognitive-Liberalization Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118: 1146–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Meleady, Rose, Charles R. Seger, and Marieke Vermue. 2021. Evidence of a Dynamic Association between Intergroup Contact and Intercultural Competence. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24: 1427–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mulya, Teguh Wijaya, and Anindito Aditomo. 2019. Researching Religious Tolerance Education Using Discourse Analysis: A Case Study from Indonesia. British Journal of Religious Education 41: 446–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mu’ti, Abdul. 2023. Pluralistic Islamic Religious Education: A Vision for Indonesia. The Review of Faith & International Affairs 21: 121–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nelson, Todd D., ed. 2016. Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Parela, Kresna Abdi, Winin Maulidya Saffanah, and Khoirul Anwar. 2018. Konflik Mahasiswa Timur Di Kota Malang: Studi Kasus Pada Mahasiswa Timur Di Kota Malang (Conflict among Eastern Indonesian Students in Malang City: A Case Study of Eastern Indonesian Students in Malang City). Sosioglobal: Jurnal Pemikiran Dan Penelitian Sosiologi 3: 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pettigrew, T. F., and R. W. Meertens. 1995. Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology 25: 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pittinsky, Todd L., Seth A. Rosenthal, and R. Matthew Montoya. 2011. Measuring Positive Attitudes toward Outgroups: Development and Validation of the Allophilia Scale. In Moving beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations. Edited by Linda R. Tropp and Robyn K. Mallett. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Putra, Idhamsyah Eka, and Wolfgang Wagner. 2017. Prejudice in Interreligious Context: The Role of Metaprejudice and Majority-Minority Status. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27: 226–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Reimer, Nils Karl, Shanmukh Vasant Kamble, Katharina Schmid, and Miles Hewstone. 2020. Intergroup Contact Fosters More Inclusive Social Identities. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 25: 133–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Royal, Nell. 2022. Prejudice Reduction through Text-Based e-Contact in Germany. November. Available online: http://essay.utwente.nl/93508/ (accessed on 25 July 2023).
  62. Saliasi, Ina, Prescilla Martinon, Emily Darlington, Colette Smentek, Delphine Tardivo, Denis Bourgeois, Claude Dussart, Florence Carrouel, and Laurie Fraticelli. 2021. Promoting Health via Mhealth Applications Using a French Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9: e30480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Saroglou, Vassilis. 2016. Intergroup Conflict, Religious Fundamentalism, and Culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 47: 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saroglou, Vassilis, Magali Clobert, Adam B. Cohen, Kathryn A. Johnson, Kevin L. Ladd, Pierre-Yves Brandt, Sebastian Murken, Antonio Muñoz-García, Lucia Adamovova, Joanna Blogowska, and et al. 2020. Fundamentalism as Dogmatic Belief, Moral Rigorism, and Strong Groupness across Cultures: Dimensionality, Underlying Components, and Related Interreligious Prejudice. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 14: 558–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schober, Patrick, Christa Boer, and Lothar A. Schwarte. 2018. Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia 126: 1763–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schreiber, James B., Amaury Nora, Frances K. Stage, Elizabeth A. Barlow, and Jamie King. 2006. Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research 99: 323–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shaver, John H., Geoffrey Troughton, Chris G. Sibley, and Joseph A. Bulbulia. 2016. Religion and the Unmaking of Prejudice toward Muslims: Evidence from a Large National Sample. PLoS ONE 11: e0150209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Stark, Tobias H. 2020. Indirect Contact in Social Networks: Challenging Common Interpretations of the Extended Contact Hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 23: 441–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Stathi, Sofia, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, Loris Vezzali, Samantha Pendleton, and Linda R. Tropp. 2020. Do They Want Contact with Us? The Role of Intergroup Contact Meta-perceptions on Positive Contact and Attitudes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 30: 461–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sugihartati, Rahma, Bagong Suyanto, Medhy Aginta Hidayat, Mun’im Sirry, and Koko Srimulyo. 2020. Habitus of Institutional Education and Development in Intolerance Attitude among Students. Talent Development & Excellence 12: 1965–79. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sumaktoyo, Nathanael Gratias. 2021. Ethnic and Religious Sentiments in Indonesian Politics: Evidence from the 2017 Jakarta Gubernatorial Election. Journal of East Asian Studies 21: 141–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Suntana, Ija, Iu Rusliana, Chay Asdak, and Lubna Gazalba. 2023. Ideological Distrust: Re-Understanding the Debate on State Ideology, Normalization of State-Religion Relationship, and Legal System in Indonesia. Heliyon 9: e14676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Swart, Hermann, Miles Hewstone, Oliver Christ, and Alberto Voci. 2011. Affective Mediators of Intergroup Contact: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 1221–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Taherdoost, Hamed. 2016. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM) 5: 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tassinari, Matilde, Matthias Burkard Aulbach, Ville Harjunen, Veronica Cocco, Loris Vezzali, and Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti. 2023. The Effects of Positive and Negative Intergroup Contact in Virtual Reality on Outgroup Attitudes: Testing the Contact Hypothesis and Its Mediators. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369973099_The_Effects_of_Positive_and_Negative_Intergroup_Contact_in_Virtual_Reality_on_Outgroup_Attitudes_Testing_the_Contact_Hypothesis_and_its_Mediators (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  76. Tondok, Marselius Sampe, Suryanto Suryanto, and Rahkman Ardi. 2022. Intervention Program to Reduce Religious Prejudice in Education Settings: A Scoping Review. Religions 13: 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Trizano-Hermosilla, Italo, and Jesús M. Alvarado. 2016. Best Alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability in Realistic Conditions: Congeneric and Asymmetrical Measurements. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Van Assche, Jasper, Kristof Dhont, and Thomas F. Pettigrew. 2019. The Social-psychological Bases of Far-right Support in Europe and the United States. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 29: 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. van de Schoot, Rens, Peter Lugtig, and Joop Hox. 2012. A Checklist for Testing Measurement Invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9: 486–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vedder, Paul, Erlijn Wenink, and Mitch Van Geel. 2017. Intergroup Contact and Prejudice between Dutch Majority and Muslim Minority Youth in the Netherlands. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 23: 477–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Verkuyten, Maykel, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Levi Adelman. 2023. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Tolerance and Intolerance. European Review of Social Psychology 34: 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vezzali, Loris, Elena Trifiletti, Ralf Wölfer, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, Sofia Stathi, Veronica Margherita Cocco, Alessia Cadamuro, Soraya Elizabeth Shamloo, and Miles Hewstone. 2022. Sequential Models of Intergroup Contact and Social Categorization: An Experimental Field Test of Integrated Models. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 26: 1181–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Vezzali, Loris, Stefano Pagliaro, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, Shelley McKeown, and Veronica Margherita Cocco. 2023. Solidarity across Group Lines: Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact, Perceived Moral Distance, and Collective Action. European Journal of Social Psychology 53: 450–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Visintin, Emilio Paolo, Alberto Voci, Lisa Pagotto, and Miles Hewstone. 2017. Direct, Extended, and Mass-Mediated Contact with Immigrants in Italy: Their Associations with Emotions, Prejudice, and Humanity Perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 47: 175–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Visser, Hannah J., Anke I. Liefbroer, and Linda J. Schoonmade. 2023. Evaluating the Learning Outcomes of Interfaith Initiatives: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, Changcheng, Fei Huang, and Loris Vezzali. 2019. A Test of Positive and Negative Extended Intergroup Contact in a Chinese Minority with Perceived Group Norms and Intergroup Anxiety as Mediators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 49: 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wijaya Mulya, Teguh, and Saskia Schäfer. 2023. Who Belongs Where? Geographies of (Inter)Religion and Urban Segregation in Surabaya, Indonesia. Cities 141: 104476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wright, Stephen C., Arthur Aron, Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe, and Stacy A. Ropp. 1997. The Extended Contact Effect: Knowledge of Cross-Group Friendships and Prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yetkili, Orkun, Dominic Abrams, Giovanni A. Travaglino, and Roger Giner-Sorolla. 2018. Imagined Contact with Atypical Outgroup Members That Are Anti-Normative within Their Group Can Reduce Prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 76: 208–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yustisia, Whinda. 2016. Group Norms as Moderator in the Effect of Cross Group Friendship on Outgroup Attitude: A Study on Interreligious Group in Indonesia. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia 20: 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yustisia, Whinda, and Joevarian Hudijana. 2021. Extended Intergroup Contact and Outgroup Attitude of Students in Public and Religious Homogeneous Schools: Understanding the Mediating Role of Ingroup Norms, Outgroup Norms, and Intergroup Anxiety. Jurnal Psikologi 48: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, Yan Bing, Jake Harwood, Cameron Piercy, Ning Liu, and Racheal Ruble. 2023. Accommodation, Social Attraction, and Intergroup Attitudes on Social Media: The Effects of Outgroup Self-Presentation and Ingroup Accommodation. Language Sciences 99: 101563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the GES items in two studies.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the GES items in two studies.
Item (Describe How You Feel about [OUTGROUP] in General)MSDSkewnessKurtosis
Study 1Study 2Study 1Study 2Study 1Study 2Study 1Study 2
1 …warm-cold *4.655.221.351.740.01−1.01−0.360.31
2 …negative-positive4.755.341.321.66−0.13−1.16−0.430.72
3 …friendly-hostile *5.085.391.411.65−0.25−1.05−0.400.44
4 …suspicious-trusting4.545.131.481.69−0.03−0.92−0.630.10
5 …respect-contempt *5.405.421.431.75−0.51−1.06−0.400.20
6 …admiration-disgust *4.535.091.331.74−0.09−0.670.01−0.54
Note. * unfavorable item, each item used a 7-point semantic differential scale. For the mean, the hypothetical mean is 4. In Study 1, the ‘outgroup’ for Muslim samples is Christian; conversely, for Christian samples, the outgroup is Muslim. In Study 2, the outgroup is the East Nusa Tenggara ethnic minority, as evaluated by the Javanese ethnic majority.
Table 2. Component loadings and CITC of the GES items in the two studies.
Table 2. Component loadings and CITC of the GES items in the two studies.
Item (Describe How You Feel about [Outgroup] in General)Component LoadingCITC
Study 1Study 2Study 1Study 2
1 …warm-cold *0.930.900.800.85
2 …negative-positive0.900.890.880.85
3 …friendly-hostile *0.830.880.860.83
4 …suspicious-trusting0.800.860.770.86
5 …respect-contempt *0.800.800.730.77
6 …admiration-disgust *0.760.750.770.72
Note. * unfavorable item.
Table 3. The goodness of fit of the single-factor structure of the Indonesian version of the GES.
Table 3. The goodness of fit of the single-factor structure of the Indonesian version of the GES.
Fit IndexIndex CriteriaStudy 1 Study 2
Study 1Study 2Study 1Study 2
Absolute Fit Indices:
 SRMR≤0.080.02Good fit0.02Good fit
 RMSEA [90% CI]<0.080.07 (0.04; 0.10)Good fit0.06 (0.03; 0.09)Good fit
 GFI≥0.950.99Good fit0.99Good fit
Relative Fit Indices:
  CFI≥0.950.98Good fit0.99Good fit
  TLI≥0.950.97Good fit0.98Good fit
Note: SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index.
Table 4. Component loadings and CITC of the GES items in the two studies.
Table 4. Component loadings and CITC of the GES items in the two studies.
ScaleReliability: McDonald’s ω (95% CI/Confidence Interval)
Study 1Study 2
The Indonesian version of the GES0.93 (0.92; 0.95)0.94 (0.93; 0.95)
Table 5. Convergent validity: Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Table 5. Convergent validity: Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
ScaleStudy 1 (N = 200)Study 2 (N = 200)
BSPSFTSBSPSFTS
The Indonesian version of the GES−0.44 ***0.60 ***−0.74 ***0.78 ***
Note: *** p < 0.00; BSPS (the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale) FTS (the Feeling and Thermometer Scale).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tondok, M.S.; Suryanto, S.; Ardi, R. Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021

AMA Style

Tondok MS, Suryanto S, Ardi R. Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tondok, Marselius Sampe, Suryanto Suryanto, and Rahkman Ardi. 2024. "Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample" Social Sciences 13, no. 1: 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021

APA Style

Tondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., & Ardi, R. (2024). Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample. Social Sciences, 13(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010021

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop