Ethnic Trust Scale

Abstract

The Ethnic Trust Scale is an advanced, culturally contextualized psychometric instrument developed to evaluate the multifaceted dynamics of trust among diverse ethnic groups within the social framework of contemporary China. Whereas conventional Western psychometric paradigms frequently conceptualize intergroup trust through lenses of racial antagonism, institutional grievance, or post-migration acculturation, this instrument was engineered to capture the operational dynamics of a unified, multi-ethnic society guided by relational philosophies and institutional emphases on social harmony. Developed by Yaning Li, Yisheng Yang, Junying Liu, Pai Wang, and Zheng Mao (2024), the instrument resolves enduring theoretical and methodological limitations associated with unidimensional or single-item trust metrics by introducing a hierarchical, multidimensional structural architecture.

The scale encompasses 48 items evaluated via a 7-point Likert-type response format, spanning two overarching core domains: interpersonal-oriented ethnic trust and intergroup-oriented ethnic trust. Each of these higher-order orientations bifurcates into two distinct sub-dimensions: universal trust (generalized, benevolent expectations extended across group boundaries) and particular trust (relational, identity-anchored, and contact-mediated trust). Developed across rigorous sequential mixed-method phases—encompassing qualitative free association, semi-structured interviews, expert content validation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA; N = 899), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; N = 671)—the scale demonstrates exceptional structural validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > .89 across subscales), and robust test-retest stability (r > .70). The instrument provides sociologists, cross-cultural psychologists, and public administrators with a rigorous diagnostic apparatus to evaluate community cohesion, monitor interethnic interactions, and assess multicultural institutional initiatives.

Keywords

ethnic trust, intergroup relations, interpersonal trust, psychometrics, scale development, social cohesion, Chinese culture, self-categorization theory, social capital, cross-cultural psychology, factor analysis

Authors

The Ethnic Trust Scale was conceptualized, developed, and psychometrically validated by an academic research team specializing in cross-cultural psychology, social cognition, and ethnic studies:

• Yaning Li — Corresponding Researcher; primary contributor to theoretical modeling, scale construction, and psychometric evaluation. Corresponding email: [email protected].
• Yisheng Yang — Senior Investigator; specialized in ethnic psychology, intergroup dynamics, and psychological assessment methodologies. Corresponding email: [email protected].
• Junying Liu — Co-author; contributed to qualitative item generation, content validation panels, and sample recruitment.
• Pai Wang — Co-author; engaged in statistical data collection, psychometric modeling, and statistical computing.
• Zheng Mao — Co-author; participated in cross-cultural analysis, construct operationalization, and literature synthesis.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ethnic Trust Scale is to provide an empirically substantiated, theoretically coherent, and culturally authentic measurement tool designed to assess the multidimensional spectrum of trust operative between ethnic groups. Historically, psychological assessments of trust have suffered from significant methodological bifurcations. On one hand, foundational research in personality and social psychology—pioneered by scholars such as Julian Rotter—predominantly concentrated on generalized interpersonal trust as a broad, individual trait, largely divorcing relational expectations from structural intergroup contexts, cultural scripts, and ethnic group identities. On the other hand, sociopolitical and sociological surveys often reduced intergroup trust to single-item direct queries or adapted standard outgroup prejudice measures, failing to differentiate nuanced psychological facets such as collective perceptions, personal interactions, benevolent expectations, and situational reliance.

Furthermore, mainstream psychological instruments assessing ethnic and racial attitudes have been largely formulated within Western societal contexts marked by explicit racial conflict, historical systemic segregation, or minority immigrant integration. When applied to non-Western contexts—specifically the pluralistic social landscape of China characterized by a historical framework of pluralistic unity—these instruments often miss culturally salient markers of relational harmony, social embeddedness, and collective mutual responsibility. The Ethnic Trust Scale was designed to bridge these gaps by:

• Moving beyond deficit-oriented metrics (such as explicit prejudice, stereotype endorsement, or discriminatory intention) to operationalize positive social expectations, mutual respect, and benevolent relational assumptions across ethnic boundaries.
• Differentiating cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations directed toward individual members of another ethnic group from those directed toward the ethnic group as a holistic collective entity.
• Distinguishing between generalized, unconditional benevolent orientations (universal trust) and relationally contingent, interaction-based connections (particular trust).
• Equipping sociologists, community practitioners, and policymakers with a precise diagnostic apparatus to assess the health of interethnic relations in multi-ethnic regions, evaluate community-based integration programs, and monitor long-term shifts in national social cohesion.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Ethnic Trust Scale is hierarchical and multidimensional. Rather than conceptualizing ethnic trust as a monolithic, bipolar continuum ranging from distrust to trust, the construct is defined as a complex psychological matrix reflecting cognitive evaluations, emotional propensities, and behavioral expectations of benevolence, reliability, and integrity across ethnic categories. The construct is formally divided into two primary orientations, each housing two distinct sub-dimensions:

1. Interpersonal-Oriented Ethnic Trust

This primary domain captures trust directed specifically toward individual members belonging to different ethnic groups. It reflects direct, person-to-person social perceptions and behavioral predispositions. Within this domain, two sub-dimensions are established:

• Interpersonal Universal Trust (PA Dimension; Items PA1–PA9): Measures generalized positive expectations of reliability, basic decency, and non-harm directed toward individual members of other ethnic backgrounds, irrespective of prior relationship depth or social familiarity. It reflects a foundational presumption of goodwill toward any individual member of an outgroup in routine social interaction.
• Interpersonal Particular Trust (PB Dimension; Items PB1–PB15): Assesses deeper, relational, and interaction-dependent trust toward specific outgroup individuals. This facet is cultivated through shared experiences, interpersonal bonding, emotional reciprocity, mutual disclosure, and cooperative history in workplaces, educational institutions, or residential communities.

2. Intergroup-Oriented Ethnic Trust

This primary domain evaluates an individual’s psychological orientation toward other ethnic groups conceived as collective, institutional, and social wholes. Rather than evaluating individual persons, it assesses trust in the broader social category. It likewise bifurcates into two distinct sub-dimensions:

• Intergroup Universal Trust (GA Dimension; Items GA1–GA11): Encompasses broad, macro-level cognitive appraisals regarding other ethnic collectives. It reflects positive expectations concerning another ethnic group’s overarching social integrity, prosocial societal contributions, collective morality, and general cultural reliability within the shared social order.
• Intergroup Particular Trust (GB Dimension; Items GB1–GB13): Gauges concrete, contextualized expectations of collective collaboration, mutual intergroup solidarity, and shared social fate. It evaluates the degree to which an individual believes that specific ethnic groups will cooperate fairly during resource allocation, respect mutual cultural traditions, support one another during public crises, and collaborate toward common community goals.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual formulation of the Ethnic Trust Scale is built upon an integration of modern social-cognitive theories and classical sociological frameworks of cultural harmony. The scale’s architecture draws directly upon three foundational theoretical traditions:

Social Categorization and Social Identity Theories

According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 2012; Abrams, 2000), individuals organize their social environment through categorization, dividing the world into ingroups and outgroups. Outgroup categorization frequently triggers cognitive biases, selective perception, and ingroup favoritism. However, social cognitive frameworks also establish that category boundaries are flexible; the activation of higher-order superordinate identities can restructure social perception, enabling individuals to extend trust and positive social expectations beyond narrow ethnic boundaries. The Ethnic Trust Scale accounts for these cognitive levels by systematically distinguishing individual exemplars (interpersonal orientation) from abstract categorical aggregates (intergroup orientation).

Social Capital and Relational Trust Paradigms

The theoretical bifurcation between universal and particular trust finds its lineage in the social capital literature (Nooteboom, 2004; Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995). Particularized trust is traditionally anchored in dense, close-knit relational networks where trust is guarded and restricted to familiar actors who possess shared normative markers. In contrast, generalized or universal trust acts as an expansive social lubricant, enabling cooperation between strangers and distinct social collectives. By capturing both universalized benevolence and particularized relational engagement, the scale accommodates both generalized social expectations and deep, network-embedded connections within multi-ethnic ecologies.

Cultural Paradigms of Diversity in Unity and Harmony

Importantly, the scale is theoretically anchored in the foundational sociopolitical model formulated by Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong (1980), termed the “Pattern of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nation” (中华民族多元一体格局). Within this conceptualization, distinct ethnic groups maintain their cultural identities (diversity) while simultaneously sharing a comprehensive, overarching political and cultural identity (unity). Relational philosophies embedded in Chinese culture prioritize interpersonal benevolence (ren), relational reciprocity (bao), and harmonious coexistence (he) (Shao, 2001; Wang, 2006). Trust in this cultural matrix is not merely an individual transactional assessment of risk (as commonly formulated in rational choice theories), but a moral and communal commitment to collective balance, shared social responsibility, and institutional solidarity (Meng, 2022; Tang, 2020).

Validity

The psychometric validation of the Ethnic Trust Scale adhered to stringent multi-stage methodological standards to establish content, construct, and structural validity:

Content and Face Validity

Item generation originated from qualitative exploratory protocols, including free association tasks and semi-structured interviews with multi-ethnic participants to identify natural cognitive frameworks of trust. Following initial drafting, a panel of experts in ethnic studies, psychometrics, and cross-cultural psychology systematically reviewed the preliminary item pool. Items were rigorously evaluated based on definitional correspondence, linguistic clarity, conceptual distinctiveness, and absence of ethnic stereotyping, in accordance with standard content validation guidelines (Colquitt, 2019). Redundant and ambiguous items were iteratively pruned.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was demonstrated through sequential structural equation modeling. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed that items loaded cleanly onto their respective target constructs without cross-loadings exceeding acceptable thresholds. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis verified the higher-order hierarchical model, demonstrating that a model featuring two primary higher-order factors (Interpersonal-Oriented Trust and Intergroup-Oriented Trust) and four corresponding first-order factors (Interpersonal Universal, Interpersonal Particular, Intergroup Universal, Intergroup Particular) provided superior fit to the observed data compared to alternative single-factor or orthogonal models.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The scale’s dimensions demonstrated strong convergent validity, evidenced by substantial factor loadings on all designated latent variables (> .50) and robust average variance extracted (AVE) values across sub-dimensions. Discriminant validity was supported by factor correlation analyses: while the four sub-dimensions demonstrated positive, statistically significant intercorrelations—confirming that they belong to a unified higher-order construct of ethnic trust—the magnitude of correlations between factors was sufficiently below the threshold indicating construct redundancy, verifying that interpersonal and intergroup trust, as well as universal and particular orientations, represent conceptually and empirically distinct psychological phenomena.

Reliability

The Ethnic Trust Scale demonstrates outstanding psychometric reliability across diverse testing environments and multi-ethnic participant cohorts:

• Internal Consistency: Analysis of internal consistency across independent empirical samples demonstrated high reliability. The overall scale and its four constituent subscales yielded Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients comfortably exceeding .89, indicating high internal homogeneity among items within each sub-dimension without destructive collinearity.
• Split-Half and Composite Reliability: Composite reliability (CR) indices calculated during structural equation modeling consistently surpassed the recommended psychometric threshold of .80 across all latent factors, confirming the internal robustness of the operationalized dimensions.
• Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability): Longitudinal evaluation conducted with an independent sub-sample across a designated temporal interval yielded test-retest correlation coefficients exceeding .70. These stability metrics confirm that the instrument measures stable cognitive orientations and enduring social attitudes rather than fleeting affective reactions, situational mood states, or short-term social desirability swings.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Ethnic Trust Scale was derived and verified through sequential factor analytic procedures across independent multi-ethnic samples:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (Study 2)

Study 2 utilized an exploratory sample of N = 899 multi-ethnic participants. Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation was conducted on the generated item pool. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity confirmed the suitability of the data matrix for factor extraction. Items demonstrating low primary factor loadings (< .45), cross-loadings, or weak item-total correlations were progressively eliminated. This data-driven purification resulted in a refined 48-item instrument exhibiting a clear, interpretable four-factor structure:

• Factor 1 (Interpersonal Particular Trust): 15 items (PB1 to PB15)
• Factor 2 (Intergroup Particular Trust): 13 items (GB1 to GB13)
• Factor 3 (Intergroup Universal Trust): 11 items (GA1 to GA11)
• Factor 4 (Interpersonal Universal Trust): 9 items (PA1 to PA9)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Study 3)

To confirm the validity of the structural architecture identified in the exploratory phase, Study 3 tested the factorial model on an independent sample of N = 671 multi-ethnic individuals. Maximum likelihood estimation was utilized to evaluate first-order and second-order structural equation models. The hypothesized hierarchical two-factor higher-order model (interpersonal-oriented ethnic trust subsuming PA and PB; intergroup-oriented ethnic trust subsuming GA and GB) yielded excellent goodness-of-fit metrics:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) < .06

All item standardized factor loadings onto their corresponding first-order factors were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial in magnitude, confirming that the 48-item multidimensional structure represents an empirically validated operationalization of ethnic trust.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The technical parameters and administration specifications of the Ethnic Trust Scale are summarized below:

• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / psychometric rating scale
• Format: 48 items, 7-point Likert scale
• Response Options: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Disagree, 4 = Neutral / Undecided, 5 = Somewhat Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree
• Item Count: 48 items total
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Interpersonal-Oriented Ethnic Trust: 24 items
    • Interpersonal Universal Trust (PA): 9 items (PA1–PA9)
    • Interpersonal Particular Trust (PB): 15 items (PB1–PB15)
  • Intergroup-Oriented Ethnic Trust: 24 items
    • Intergroup Universal Trust (GA): 11 items (GA1–GA11)
    • Intergroup Particular Trust (GB): 13 items (GB1–GB13)
• Scoring Formula & Direction: All 48 items are keyed in a positive direction. Item responses are scored numerically from 1 to 7. Subscale scores are derived by calculating either the sum or mean of the corresponding items. Higher scores reflect stronger levels of ethnic trust.
• Language: Chinese (Original development and validation language)
• Target Population: General adult population, multi-ethnic communities, university students, and civic cohorts
• Administration: Self-administered (paper-and-pencil or computerized/online administration); estimated completion time: 10 to 15 minutes

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Ethnic Trust Scale was officially published in 2024 in Frontiers in Psychology (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394819). As an open-access scientific publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), the theoretical structure, methodology, and psychometric documentation are freely available to the global academic community.

However, the specific 48 questionnaire items are maintained under proprietary copyright by the original authors and are not reproduced in full within public repositories. Non-commercial academic research use requires formal permission. Scholars and institutions wishing to administer the official scale, obtain the authentic Chinese item inventory, or develop authorized cross-cultural adaptations must contact the lead authors directly (Yaning Li at [email protected] or Yisheng Yang at [email protected]). No commercial licensing fees are mandated for non-commercial academic research, subject to author approval and scholarly attribution.

References

• Abrams, D. (2000). Pro-norm and undesirable deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 906–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.906
• Chen, L. (2021). The establishment of National Unity Consciousness Scale based on psychometrics. Journal of Research on Education for Ethnic Minorities, 32(4), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.15946/j.cnki.1001-7178.2021.04.010
• Chen, L. (2021). Design of Chinese National Community Consciousness Scale based on psychometrics. Journal of South-Central Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 41(2), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.19898/j.cnki.42-1704/C.2021.0204
• Chen, L. (2022). Design of ethnic fusion attitude scale based on psychometrics. Journal of South-Central Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 42(5), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.19898/j.cnki.42-1704/C.2022.0505
• Colquitt, J. A. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000406
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
• Fei, X. (1980). The diversified and integrated pattern of the Chinese nation. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 4, 1–19.
• Li, Y., Yang, Y., Liu, J., Wang, P., & Mao, Z. (2024). Ethnic Trust Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1394819. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394819
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
• Meng, H. (2022). Cultivating the sense of community for Chinese Nation led by the socialist core values. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 59(4), 36–45.
• Nooteboom, B. (2004). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. The Economic Journal, 114(498), F156–F160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.191_8.x
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
• Shao, L. (2001). A review of research on the harmonious consciousness in Chinese culture over the past 20 years. Journal of Literature, History and Philosophy, 2, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.16346/j.cnki.37-1101/c.2001.02.005
• Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
• Tang, H. (2020). Connotation, characteristics and realization path of trust among ethnic groups. Journal of South-Central Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 40(1), 28–35.
• Turner, R. N., West, K., & Christie, Z. (2012). Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211418699
• Wang, E. (2006). Building a harmonious society from the perspective of Chinese cultural harmony: A discussion on the system and structure of Chinese culture. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), 164, 42–48.

Items of the Scale