All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale
Unformatted Document Text:  Assessing Reliability 16 were significantly correlated with scores on the Patriotism scale. Elsewhere Adorno et al. (1950), Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) and Neuliep et al. (2001) have maintained that ethnocentrism forms the basis for group loyalty and patriotism. Hence, these results provide additional evidence of the revised GENE’s construct validity and are not unexpected. However, that scores on the revised GENE were not significantly correlated with scores on the CETSCALE was unexpected and is difficult to explain. In their conceptualization of consumer ethnocentrism, Shimp and Sharma (1987) pointed out that the term “consumer ethnocentrism” is adapted from the general concept of ethnocentrism. Specifically, Shimp and Sharma (1987) maintained that the concept of consumer ethnocentrism reflected American consumer beliefs about the morality and appropriateness of purchasing foreign-made products. Representative scale items from the CETSCALE include “American people should always buy American-made products instead of imports,” It is not right to purchase foreign products because it puts Americans out of jobs,” and “Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets.” Perhaps the distinctly economic focus of consumer ethnocentrism renders it theoretically separate from the more generalized “cultural” ethnocentrism. Interestingly, the correlation between scores on Gudykunst’s (1994) ethnocentrism scale and scores on the CETSCALE was not statistically significant. In fact, the correlation between Gudykunst’s (1998) ethnocentrism scale and the CETSCALE was virtually identical to the correlation between the revised GENE and CETSCALE. 1 The Self-Construal scale may not have been the ideal choice for assessing the construct validity of the revised GENE scale. The initial thought was that the interdependent self-construal

Authors: Neuliep, James W..
first   previous   Page 16 of 25   next   last



background image
Assessing Reliability
16
were significantly correlated with scores on the Patriotism scale. Elsewhere Adorno et al.
(1950), Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) and Neuliep et al. (2001) have maintained that
ethnocentrism forms the basis for group loyalty and patriotism. Hence, these results provide
additional evidence of the revised GENE’s construct validity and are not unexpected. However,
that scores on the revised GENE were not significantly correlated with scores on the CETSCALE
was unexpected and is difficult to explain. In their conceptualization of consumer ethnocentrism,
Shimp and Sharma (1987) pointed out that the term “consumer ethnocentrism” is adapted from
the general concept of ethnocentrism. Specifically, Shimp and Sharma (1987) maintained that
the concept of consumer ethnocentrism reflected American consumer beliefs about the morality
and appropriateness of purchasing foreign-made products. Representative scale items from the
CETSCALE include “American people should always buy American-made products instead of
imports,” It is not right to purchase foreign products because it puts Americans out of jobs,” and
“Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets.” Perhaps the distinctly
economic focus of consumer ethnocentrism renders it theoretically separate from the more
generalized “cultural” ethnocentrism. Interestingly, the correlation between scores on
Gudykunst’s (1994) ethnocentrism scale and scores on the CETSCALE was not statistically
significant. In fact, the correlation between Gudykunst’s (1998) ethnocentrism scale and the
CETSCALE was virtually identical to the correlation between the revised GENE and
CETSCALE.
1
The Self-Construal scale may not have been the ideal choice for assessing the construct
validity of the revised GENE scale. The initial thought was that the interdependent self-construal


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.