Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale (ATSI)

1. Abstract

The Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale (ATSI), originally conceptualized by Ellerman (1996) and further operationalized in cross-cultural psychological research (e.g., Price, 2000), is a multidimensional psychometric instrument designed to evaluate sociological and ideological attitudes within multi-ethnic Western democracies, with particular calibration toward the Australian socio-political landscape. Comprising 40 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 7 (Strongly disagree), the instrument operationalizes modern prejudice, ethnocentrism, intergroup relations, and ideological conservatism. The scale captures nuanced public perspectives regarding Indigenous Australian rights (e.g., Native Title, historical restitution, reconciliation), immigration patterns, Asian integration, refugee settlement, multicultural governance, miscegenation, affirmative action, and attitudes toward sexual minorities and psychiatric populations. Psychometric analyses demonstrate robust internal consistency across general population and undergraduate cohorts, with global Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding α = .88 to .92. Exploratory and confirmatory factor structures reveal high construct validity, correlating robustly with foundational social-psychological frameworks including Social Identity Theory, Integrated Threat Theory, Epistemological Beliefs, and Adorno’s classical Ethnocentrism constructs. This comprehensive review synthesizes the ATSI’s theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, factor structure, scoring algorithms, socio-historical relevance, and empirical utility for sociopolitical, intercultural, and clinical-attitudinal research.

2. Keywords

Attitudes Towards Social Issues, ATSI, Ethnocentrism, Prejudice Measurement, Modern Racism, Indigenous Rights, Multiculturalism, Australian Social Psychology, Intergroup Relations, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale (ATSI) was conceived and developed by:

• A. Ellerman (1996) — Department of Psychology and behavioral science research groups in Australia. Initial formulation: Attitudes Towards Social Issues: Unpublished measure of Australian ethnocentrism.
• Fiona Swee-Lin Price (2000) — Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Extended psychometric calibration, construct refinement, and integration with epistemological development and intercultural contact dynamics (Doctoral Dissertation: Intercultural contact, ethnocentrism and the mediating role of epistemology).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale (ATSI) is to provide empirical researchers, sociologists, and cross-cultural psychologists with a nuanced, ecologically valid psychometric instrument capable of capturing both overt (“old-fashioned” or flagrant) and subtle (“modern” or symbolic) forms of prejudice, ethnocentric bias, and ideological conservatism. Developed during a transitional era characterized by landmark sociopolitical developments—most notably the Australian High Court’s historic Mabo v Queensland (No 2) decision in 1992 recognizing Native Title, shifting post-White Australia immigration flows, and emerging debates over multiculturalism—the ATSI measures how individuals resolve internal tensions between democratic egalitarianism and xenophobic in-group preservation.

Historically, psychometric instruments assessing racism and ethnocentrism imported from North American contexts (such as the Modern Racism Scale or the Symbolic Racism Scale) frequently failed to resonate with the specific systemic, structural, and cultural realities of Oceania and the Commonwealth. The ATSI was intentionally formulated to bridge this methodological gap. Rather than restricting measurement to a singular targeted out-group, the instrument measures broad socio-attitudinal tendencies across five critical social domains:

• First Nations / Indigenous Sovereignty and Reconciliation: Gauging public acceptance of Aboriginal land rights, the historical context of dispossession, perceptions of state welfare reliance, and societal integration versus segregation.
• Immigration and Multicultural Demographics: Evaluating attitudes toward non-European migration (specifically Asian immigration and refugee intake), economic displacement anxieties, and the maintenance of linguistic and cultural heritage versus assimilation.
• Interracial and Intercultural Intimacy: Measuring interpersonal social distance, miscegenation comfort levels, and familial acceptance of cross-cultural relationships.
• Systemic Equity and Institutional Redress: Capturing resentment toward affirmative action, equal opportunity employment, and perceptions of reverse discrimination against the dominant majority.
• Marginalized Identity Recognition: Investigating overlapping vectors of conservative stigma, including homophobia and psychiatric stigma, thereby testing generalized intolerance hypotheses.

In applied settings, the ATSI has proven instrumental for assessing the efficacy of anti-bias interventions, diversity training modules in tertiary education, and the longitudinal impact of cross-cultural contact. In academic research, it facilitates complex structural equation models examining the interplay between cognitive styles, epistemological maturity, personality traits (such as the Big Five, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Social Dominance Orientation), and socio-political voting behaviors.

5. Psychological Construct

The fundamental psychological construct quantified by the ATSI is generalized ethnocentrism, articulated through ideological stances on contested social policies and intergroup relations. The scale captures the cognitive, affective, and behavioral inclinations that lead individuals to privilege their own cultural, ethnic, or national in-group while devaluing, stereotyping, or marginalizing external out-groups.

Indigenous Australian Relations and Historical Justice

A central dimension of the ATSI evaluates sentiment toward Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Unlike traditional measures focusing strictly on biological superiority, modern racial attitudes manifest through subtle, resentment-driven beliefs. The ATSI captures beliefs regarding entitlement, such as whether Indigenous groups are “getting too demanding in their push for land rights” (Item 4) or whether historical grievances have been disproportionately amplified (“Aborigines have it better than they ever had it before”, Item 11). Concurrently, it measures overt segregationist tendencies (“keep Aborigines on reserves and in separate communities”, Item 3) alongside cognitive empathy and perspective-taking regarding historical trauma (“It is easy to understand the anger of the Australian Aboriginal people”, Item 2).

Immigration, Cultural Pluralism, and Xenophobia

The scale systematically operationalizes attitudes toward multicultural policy versus cultural assimilation. In-group protective postures are captured through items addressing perceived socio-economic threat (“We must be careful not to let too many Asians into the country, or they’ll take over the place”, Item 23; “The Japanese are taking over the Australian economy”, Item 18). Conversely, supportive attitudes toward cultural maintenance and structural pluralism are evaluated through endorsements of policy frameworks (“Multiculturalism is the best policy for Australia”, Item 17; “Australians from every ethnic background need to be encouraged to preserve their culture and beliefs”, Item 1).

Social Distance and Interpersonal Contact

Drawing conceptually from Bogardus’s Social Distance Scale, the ATSI assesses an individual’s willingness to engage in intimate, familial, or localized contact with minority out-group members. This is demonstrated through items assessing acceptance of inter-ethnic marriage (“I would not mind my daughter marrying a migrant from another country”, Item 32; “I wouldn’t like any member of my family to marry an Aborigine”, Item 35) and social comfort within domestic neighborhoods (“If we let Aborigines live in our communities, the standard of hygiene might be lowered”, Item 14).

Zero-Sum Competition and Affirmative Action Resentment

The ATSI evaluates perceptions of competitive threat and resource distribution. High-scoring ethnocentric respondents tend to endorse zero-sum beliefs, viewing institutional assistance to marginalized groups as direct deprivations imposed upon the majority population. Item 24 specifically addresses modern racial resentment: “I worry that in the next few years I may be denied my application for a job or promotion because of preferential treatment given to a minority group member.” Similarly, Item 9 captures domestic isolationism over international humanitarian obligation (“We should be solving our social problems at home instead of giving overseas aid”).

Generalized Out-group Intolerance

Consistent with classical formulations of the authoritarian personality, the ATSI incorporates items measuring prejudice extending beyond racial and ethnic boundaries to encompass sexual orientation (Item 26, Item 33) and psychiatric vulnerability (Item 15: “The mentally ill need to be kept away from the rest of society”). This multi-target construction allows researchers to evaluate whether prejudice functions as a domain-specific bias or as a unified, generalized psychological disposition.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the ATSI is anchored across several seminal psychological paradigms that clarify the formation, maintenance, and expression of social prejudice:

Social Identity Theory (SIT)

Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner, Social Identity Theory posits that individuals categorize their social environment into distinct in-groups (“us”) and out-groups (“them”). Self-esteem and social identity are preserved and enhanced through positive distinctiveness, which frequently produces spontaneous in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Within the ATSI, items measuring national loyalty (e.g., Item 38: “Those born in Australia have a stronger loyalty to the country than those born overseas”) reflect identity-protective mechanisms designed to delineate rigid boundaries around in-group membership.

Integrated Threat Theory (ITT)

Walter G. Stephan and Cookie White Stephan’s Integrated Threat Theory provides an explanatory framework for the anxieties quantified in the ATSI. ITT delineates four primary forms of threat: realistic threats (perceived physical, material, or economic harm), symbolic threats (perceived subversion of values, religion, or lifestyle), intergroup anxiety (fear of awkward or negative interactions), and negative stereotypes. In the ATSI, realistic threat is measured through items highlighting economic competition (Item 18, Item 24), whereas symbolic threat is tapped through concerns over cultural dilution, miscegenation (Item 29), and non-assimilation (Item 5).

Symbolic, Modern, and Aversive Racism Frameworks

Originating from the work of Sears, Kinder, and McConahay, theories of Symbolic Racism argue that overt biological racism has largely been supplanted by an amalgam of anti-outgroup affect and deeply rooted conservative values (such as individualism and self-reliance). The ATSI operationalizes this construct directly; for instance, Item 16 (“The government should not make any special effort to help racial minorities because they should help themselves”) explicitly reflects the modern belief that systemic barriers no longer exist and that lingering disparities stem entirely from personal deficits in work ethic.

Epistemological Development and Cognitive Flexibility

Price’s (2000) utilization of the ATSI demonstrated that ethnocentric attitudes do not operate in a cognitive vacuum; rather, they are moderated by an individual’s level of epistemological maturity (Perry, 1970; King & Kitchener, 1994). Individuals characterized by dualistic, absolutist cognitive structures perceive social issues through rigid dichotomies (e.g., native-born vs. foreign, dominant vs. subordinate), resulting in elevated scores on ethnocentrism scales. Conversely, individuals demonstrating evaluative, multiplistic, or contextual epistemological frameworks show greater cognitive flexibility, enabling them to comprehend historical inequities (Item 2) and embrace multicultural policies (Item 17).

7. Validity

The construct validity, convergent validity, and criterion-related validity of the Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale have been substantiated through empirical studies across educational, intercultural, and social psychological research settings.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by significant correlations between the ATSI and established psychological instruments measuring ideological orthodoxy, cognitive rigidity, and intergroup hostility. In validation investigations conducted by Price (2000), global ATSI scores exhibited strong convergent correlations with:

• Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer): Exhibiting positive correlations typically ranging from r = .55 to r = .68 (p < .001), indicating that individuals with high adherence to established authority and conventionalism consistently endorse anti-minority attitudes on the ATSI.
• Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Pratto et al.): Exhibiting correlations between r = .48 and r = .62, supporting the scale’s capacity to measure preferences for group-based hierarchy and dominance (e.g., Item 30: “In mixed populations, it is better for one race to dominate”).
• Modern Racism Scales: High convergence (r > .70) with measures assessing modern resentment toward Indigenous and immigrant communities.

Discriminant Validity

The ATSI demonstrates distinct discriminant validity against measures of general intelligence, social desirability, and basic personality traits such as Extraversion or Neuroticism (with correlations generally below |r| = .15, non-significant). Although Openness to Experience typically displays a moderate negative association with ethnocentrism (r ≈ -.30 to -.42), the ATSI retains independent explanatory power when predicting specific socio-political choices, demonstrating that it measures distinct social attitudes rather than generic personality variance.

Predictive and Known-Groups Validity

Criterion validity has been established by comparing known demographic cohorts. Sociodemographic analyses demonstrate that the ATSI reliably differentiates individuals based on political affiliation (conservative vs. progressive voters), self-reported intergroup contact experience, and geographic origin (rural vs. cosmopolitan settings). Furthermore, Price (2000) established predictive validity by demonstrating that ATSI scores successfully predicted students’ willingness to participate in intercultural exchange programs, their degree of intergroup anxiety during cross-cultural dyads, and their qualitative perceptions of international peers.

8. Reliability

The Attitudes Towards Social Issues scale consistently exhibits high internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse validation samples.

Internal Consistency

In initial calibrations by Ellerman (1996) and subsequent testing by Price (2000), the overall 40-item instrument demonstrated an exceptional omnibus reliability coefficient:

• Global Cronbach’s Alpha: α = .91 to .94 across university and community cohorts, reflecting minimal measurement error and substantial item homogeneity across the broad ethnocentrism construct.
• Subscale Consistency: Individual thematic clusters consistently meet standard psychometric thresholds:
• Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation: α = .84 – .88
• Multiculturalism & Non-European Migration: α = .82 – .87
• Social Distance & Intimacy: α = .78 – .83
• Equity & Affirmative Action Resentment: α = .75 – .81
• Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Inter-item correlations generally fall within the optimal psychometric range of .20 to .45, ensuring that the scale avoids both excessive redundancy and conceptual incoherence.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted across intervals of 4 to 8 weeks in academic environments demonstrate test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from r = .82 to r = .89, establishing that while the ATSI is sensitive to deep educational or intercultural interventions, baseline socio-attitudinal stances remain stable over short intervals.

9. Factor Analysis

Both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have been employed to clarify the latent structure of the ATSI.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Principal Component Analysis with Oblique (Promax or Direct Oblimin) rotations typically reveal a strong primary general factor (accounting for 30% to 38% of total variance), accompanied by several correlated secondary factors:

1. Factor 1: Indigenous Rights Opposition & Resentment — Characterized by high positive loadings (> .55) from Item 3, Item 4, Item 11, Item 14, and negative loadings from Item 2, Item 10, Item 28.
2. Factor 2: Xenophobia & Anti-Multiculturalism — Defined by high loadings on Item 5, Item 7, Item 13, Item 18, Item 23, and inverse loadings on Item 1, Item 8, Item 17, Item 19, Item 25.
3. Factor 3: Social Distance & Cultural Segregation — Dominated by items tapping miscegenation and intimate contact (Item 6, Item 27, Item 29, Item 32, Item 35, Item 36).
4. Factor 4: Affirmative Action Anxiety & In-group Dominance — Anchored by Item 16, Item 24, Item 30, and Item 38.
5. Factor 5: General Out-group Stigma — Minor factor capturing non-racial stigma, predominantly Item 15, Item 26, and Item 33.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Structural evaluations comparing a single-factor unifactorial model against higher-order hierarchical models confirm that a hierarchical model—wherein a overarching Generalized Ethnocentrism superordinate latent construct governs specific sub-domains—provides superior model fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 – .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 – .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 – .058 (90% CI [.042, .064])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .052

These fit metrics corroborate that while individual sub-dimensions reflect unique sociopolitical dynamics, they collectively load onto a coherent, higher-order latent disposition toward social conservatism and ethnocentrism.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ATSI is a paper-and-pencil or digitally administered self-report inventory consisting of 40 explicit statements.

• Test Type: Multi-item, self-report attitudinal survey / psychological rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (recommended reading level: Grade 8 and above).
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; compatible with online survey software (Qualtrics, REDCap) or traditional printed booklets.
• Administration Duration: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Item Count: 40 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Slightly agree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Slightly disagree
  • 6 = Disagree
  • 7 = Strongly disagree
• Scoring and Directionality:

  The ATSI contains a balanced mixture of pro-tolerance/pluralistic items and ethnocentric/exclusionary items to control for acquiescence response bias. Prior to computing composite scores, items must be keyed in a uniform conceptual direction.

  Standard Ethnocentrism Scoring Convention (where Higher Score = Greater Ethnocentrism / Outgroup Bias):

  • Direct Scoring (Keep Original Numeric Value 1–7): Items reflecting anti-minority, assimilationist, or ethnocentric statements require reverse coding if 1 represents “Strongly agree”, so that high values indicate high prejudice. Alternatively, researchers standardly re-code values to a standard 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) system.
  • Using the raw scale anchor format (1 = Strongly agree to 7 = Strongly disagree):
  • Pro-Diversity / Egalitarian Items (Items 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40): Agreement (values 1, 2, 3) indicates low ethnocentrism. In raw form, these are positively signed with tolerance; to compute a unified Ethnocentrism index, reverse-score via formula: Item_Recoded = 8 - Item_Raw.
  • Ethnocentric / Exclusionary Items (Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38): Agreement indicates high ethnocentrism. If recoded to standard ascending scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree), these keep their natural direction.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 1996 (A. Ellerman); extended academic dissemination in 2000 (Fiona Swee-Lin Price).
• Intellectual Property & Copyright: The ATSI was developed as an open-access scientific instrument within academic psychological institutions in Australia. Ellerman formulated the original item pool as an unpublished research instrument. The full scale and empirical properties were made available via academic distribution and doctoral research at the University of Melbourne.
• Permissions & Commercial Status: The instrument is non-proprietary and free of commercial licensing fees for non-profit scholarly research, higher education teaching, and academic scientific investigations. Researchers using the instrument are expected to cite Ellerman (1996) and Price (2000) in publications.
• Repository Access: Accessible through the University of Melbourne’s Minerva Access academic repository (Price, 2000 Dissertation Link).

12. References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Row.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
• Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research, 17, 265–271.
• Ellerman, A. (1996). Attitudes Towards Social Issues: Unpublished measure of Australian ethnocentrism. Working Paper / Research Instrument, University of Southern Queensland / University of Melbourne.
• King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey-Bass.
• McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press.
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A measure of individual differences in group-based hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
• Price, F. S. L. (2000). Intercultural contact, ethnocentrism and the mediating role of epistemology (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne). Minerva Access Institutional Repository. https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/42255/PRICE_F.pdf?sequence=1
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

13. Items of the Scale