Ethnic Trust Scale

📜
Abstract

The ethnic trust Scale is a newly developed psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the degree of trust between different ethnic groups within the cultural landscape of China. Recognizing that Western models of ethnic trust often center on racial conflict or immigrant integration, the creators of this scale sought to capture the unique dynamics of a unified, multi-ethnic nation that emphasizes social harmony. The resulting tool provides a culturally grounded method for quantifying how individuals perceive and interact with members of other ethnicities.

Development of the scale utilized a rigorous mixed-methods approach, beginning with qualitative free association and in-depth interviews to establish a theoretical framework. This was followed by extensive quantitative validation, resulting in a final 48-item questionnaire. The instrument measures trust across two primary domains—interpersonal and intergroup—each of which is further divided into universal and particular facets.

By offering a highly reliable and structurally validated measure, this scale represents a significant advancement in cross-cultural and Social Psychology. It equips researchers, sociologists, and policymakers with a nuanced tool to assess social cohesion, monitor intergroup relations, and evaluate the effectiveness of multicultural policies aimed at fostering unity and mutual respect among diverse populations.

🏷
Keywords
ethnic trust
intergroup relations
interpersonal trust
psychometrics
scale development
Chinese culture
social cohesion

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
48
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.00
Validation Country
📍 China

Authors

👤 Yaning Li
✉ [email protected]

👤 Yisheng Yang
✉ [email protected]

👤 Junying Liu

👤 Pai Wang

👤 Zheng Mao

Purpose

Historically, psychological assessments of trust have either focused on broad interpersonal dynamics without considering ethnic nuances, or they have relied on overly simplistic, single-item measures of intergroup attitudes. This scale was developed to bridge that methodological gap by providing a comprehensive, multidimensional tool specifically tailored to the complexities of ethnic relations in a multicultural society.

For researchers and social scientists, this instrument is crucial for moving beyond basic prejudice or bias metrics. It allows for the granular examination of positive social expectations and relational harmony. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing interventions that promote social stability, evaluating community integration programs, and advancing theoretical models of intergroup behavior in non-Western contexts.

Construct

The psychological construct of ethnic trust captured by this instrument is rooted in both self-categorization theory and traditional cultural values of social harmony. Rather than treating trust as a monolithic trait, the theoretical framework posits that ethnic trust operates on multiple cognitive and relational levels. It distinguishes between how an individual relates to specific people of other ethnicities versus how they view those ethnic groups as a collective whole.

Specifically, the construct is bifurcated into interpersonal-oriented trust and intergroup-oriented trust. Within these two broad orientations, the model further differentiates between universal trust (generalized positive expectations toward others) and particular trust (trust built upon specific interactions, shared identities, or relational closeness). This hierarchical structure ensures that both broad societal attitudes and intimate, relationship-specific dynamics are accurately represented.

Figure 1
Dimensional construction diagram of the concept of ethnic trust.
Figure 2
The two-factor model of interpersonal-orientation ethnic trust. PA1-9 represents the items of the dimension of interpersonal universal trust; PB1-15 represents the items of the dimension of interpersonal particular trust.
Figure 3
The two-factor model of intergroup-orientation ethnic trust. GA1-11 represents the items of the dimension of intergroup universal trust; GB1-13 represents the items of the dimension of intergroup particular trust.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the instrument involved a comprehensive, multi-stage process to ensure the tool accurately captures its intended construct. Initial content validity was established through expert panel reviews, which systematically evaluated item relevance, clarity, and redundancy, effectively narrowing down a large pool of generated items to the most precise indicators.

Construct validity was subsequently confirmed through rigorous statistical modeling. The researchers demonstrated that the empirical data aligned well with their proposed theoretical framework, confirming that the scale successfully differentiates between interpersonal and intergroup orientations, as well as their respective universal and particular sub-dimensions. This robust structural validation indicates that the tool performs exceptionally well in distinguishing the nuanced facets of cross-ethnic social expectations.

Reliability

The instrument demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability, indicating that it provides consistent and stable measurements of the underlying construct. Internal consistency was evaluated rigorously, yielding Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeding 0.89. These high values suggest that the items within the subscales are highly correlated and reliably capture the same psychological phenomena without excessive redundancy.

Furthermore, the temporal stability of the scale was confirmed through test-retest reliability analyses. With coefficients remaining above 0.70 over time, researchers can be confident that the tool measures stable attitudes and expectations rather than transient moods or situational reactions. These metrics comfortably exceed standard psychometric thresholds, confirming the scale's suitability for both cross-sectional and longitudinal research.

Factor Analysis

To uncover and verify the underlying structure of the scale, the research team employed a sequential factor analytic approach across independent samples. Initially, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was utilized on a large participant pool to identify the natural grouping of items and eliminate those with poor loadings. This data-driven step successfully distilled the item pool into a clean, interpretable structure.

Following the exploratory phase, first- and second-order confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted on a separate sample to test the fit of the hypothesized model. The results indicated a strong fit between the data and the proposed two-factor higher-order model representing interpersonal and intergroup orientations. This confirms that the specific trust facets appropriately load onto their broader theoretical domains, providing strong empirical support for the scale's multidimensional architecture.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Interpersonal-oriented ethnic trust Measures trust directed toward specific individuals of other ethnic groups, encompassing both universal and particular trust facets.
Intergroup-oriented ethnic trust Measures trust directed toward other ethnic groups as collective entities, encompassing both universal and particular trust facets.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 48 items, 7-point Likert scale
Scoring Items are scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All items are scored in a positive direction.
Language Chinese
Population General population
Administration Self-administered

Scoring & Interpretation Guidelines

Scoring Instructions All items are scored in a positive direction.

Figures

Frontiers in Psychology
Winter ice diving underwater in a quarry in Canada

Ethnic Trust Scale Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

Study 2 utilized a sample of 899 participants for exploratory factor analysis. Study 3 utilized an independent sample of 671 multiethnic individuals for confirmatory factor analysis.

📄
Cite This Paper

Yaning Li, Yisheng Yang, Junying Liu, Pai Wang, Zheng Mao (2024). ethnic trust Scale. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394819

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
74 references
  1. Abrams (2000). Pro-nom and undesirable deviance within and between groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 78 906. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.906
  2. Berning (2017). Social trust and radical right-wing populist party preferences. Acta Politica, 52 198. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2015.28
  3. Bertaux (1981). Biography and society: The life history approach in the social sciences.
  4. Brewer (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychol. Rev., 114 133. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133
  5. Chen (2000). Qualitative research in social sciences. 104.
  6. Chen (2021). The establishment of National Unity Consciousness Scale Based on psychometrics. J. Res. Educ. Ethnic Minorities, 32 75. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.15946/j.cnki.1001-7178.2021.04.010
  7. Chen (2021). Design of Chinese National Community Consciousness Scale Based on psychometrics. J. South Central Minzu Univ., 41 30. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.19898/j.cnki.42-1704/C.2021.0204
  8. Chen (2022). Design of ethnic fusion attitude scale based on psychometrics. J. South Central Minzu Univ, 42 37. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.19898/j.cnki.42-1704/C.2022.0505
  9. Cheng (2020). The path to solve the problem of deep poverty in rural areas in Western ethnic minority areas from the perspective of social capital. Southwest Finance, 470 38.
  10. Chua (2019). Mapping cultural tightness and its links to innovation, urbanization, and happiness across 31 provinces in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116 6720. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815723116
  11. Colquitt (2019). Content validation guidelines: evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. J. Biomed. Inform., 104 1243. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000406
  12. Colquitt (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol., 92 909. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
  13. Cook (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. J. Occup. Psychol., 53 39. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
  14. Deutsch (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Hum. Relat., 13 123. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676001300202
  15. Ding (2020). Correction and revision of Chinese-translated interpersonal trust scale. Psychol. Magazine, 15 4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.19738/j.cnki.psy.2020.06.003
  16. Elena (2015). The effect of social categorization on trust decisions in a trust game paradigm. Front. Psychol., 6 1568. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01568
  17. Ellemers (2017). Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: a social identity approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol., 24 160. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.841490
  18. Faul (2009). Statistical power analyses using g*power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods, 41 1149. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  19. Fei (1980). The diversified and integrated pattern of the Chinese nation. J. Peking Univ, 4 1.
  20. Flick (2007). Qualitative sozialforschung.
  21. Gelfand (2018). Rule makers, rule breakers: Tight and loose cultures and the secret signals that direct our lives.
  22. Gong (2021). Can trust game measure trust?. Adv. Psychol. Sci., 9 19. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00019
  23. Gries (2010). Political orientation, party affiliation, and American attitudes towards China. J. Chin. Polit. Sci., 15 219. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-010-9115-1
  24. Haidt (2007). When morality opposes justice: conservatives may have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Soc. Justice Res, 20 98. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
  25. Haidt (2004). Intuitive ethnic: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133 55. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555
  26. Ingelaere (2016). Inside Rwanda’s/Gacaca/courts: Seeking justice after genocide.
  27. Kayaoglu (2017). Determinants of trust in Turkey. Eur. Soc., 19 492. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2016.1228992
  28. Leary (2003). Handbook of self and identity.
  29. Li (2017). Research on the relation among interpersonal relationship, social support and interpersonal trust of Mongolian and Han College Students in Inner Mongolia. J. Res. Educ. Ethnic Minor., 28 38. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.15946/j.cnki.1001-7178.2017.02.007
  30. Li (2021). The effect of the intensity of happy expression on social perception of Chinese faces. Front. Psychol., 12 638398. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.638398
  31. Li (2020). Research on multi-ethnic community interpersonal trust building: inter-embedded development of Mongolian and Han cohabited C community. Social Work Manag., 20 60.
  32. Li (2014). An investigation of the current National Relationship of university students in Xinjiang. J. Xinjiang Univ, 42 59.
  33. Li (2013). A study on the nationality concepts of classical Marxist writers. J. Beijing Jiaotong Univ., 3 92. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16797/j.cnki.11-5224/c.2013.03.015
  34. Liu (2020). On the model of "all ethnic groups are the family members of the Chinese nation". J. Yunnan Minzu University (Social Sciences)., 37 5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.13727/j.cnki.53-1191/c.20200507.006
  35. Liu (2007). The principal and methods of model selection in application of SEM. Psychol. Explor., 27 75.
  36. Liu (2010). Folk concept research: preliminary study on the implicit structure of Chinese concept of gift giving. Psychol. Res., 3 58.
  37. Lu (2009). An investigation of the status quo of China’s contemporary Youth’s affective quality. Acta Psychol. Sin., 41 1152. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.01152
  38. Lv (2021). Understanding, trust and support: National Unity from the perspective of social capital. J. Xinjiang Univ., 49 63. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.13568/j.cnki.issn1000-2820.2021.05.009
  39. Mayer (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev., 20 709. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
  40. Meng (2008). Implicit structure of Junzi’s feature. Psychol. Res., 1 36.
  41. Meng (2022). Cultivating the sense of community for Chinese Nation led by the socialist core values. J. Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences)., 4 36.
  42. Mironova (2018). Social norms after conflict exposure and victimization by violence: experimental evidence from Kosovo. Br. J. Polit. Sci., 48 749. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000028
  43. Morse (2015). Data were saturated. Qual. Health Res., 25 587. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576699
  44. Navarro-Carrillo (2018). Do economic crises always undermine trust in others? The case of universalized, interpersonal, and in-group trust. Front. Psychol., 9 1955. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01955
  45. Nooteboom (2004). Trust: forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Econ. J., 114 F156. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2004.191_8.x
  46. Parent (2023). Identity and Trust in Bosnia and Hercegovina: redrawing broader boundaries through meaningful experiences. Eur. Asia Stud., 75 88. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2022.2088701
  47. Psaltis (2011). Intergroup trust and contact in transition: a social representations perspective on the Cyprus conflict. 83.
  48. Ren (2021). “Extending self-examination to others” and the emotional approach of the construction of “Chinese nation”. Liter. History. Philosophy, 384 42. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16346/j.cnki.37-1101/c.2021.03.04
  49. Rotter (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. J. Pers., 35 651. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
  50. Shao (2001). A review of research on the harmonious consciousness in Chinese culture over the past 20 years. J. Iter. History. Philos., 2 27. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16346/j.cnki.37-1101/c.2001.02.005
  51. Sitkin (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ. Sci., 4 367. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.367
  52. Stevens (2002). Applied multivariate statistic for the social sciences.
  53. Tajfel (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of intergroup relations, American.
  54. Tang (2006). On the topic that trust is the social base of the construction of a harmonious society. Guangxi Ethnic Stud, 2 6.
  55. Tang (2020). Connotation, characteristics and realization path of trust among ethnic groups. J. South Central Minzu Univ., 40 28.
  56. Turner (2012). Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups. Group Process. Intergroup Relat., 15 193. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211418699
  57. Wang (2006). Building a harmonious society from the perspective of Chinese cultural harmony: a discussion on the system and structure of Chinese culture. J. Capital Normal Univ., 164.
  58. Wang (2017). Enhancing interethnic trust: an important task of the current governance of ethnic Affairs of China. J. Minzu University China, 44 86. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.15970/j.cnki.1005-8575.2017.06.010
  59. Wang (2023). The cross-cultural communication of the harmonious values in Chinese culture in the new era. Xinwen Aihaozhe, 4 62. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16017/j.cnki.xwahz.2023.04.011
  60. Wang (2020). Effects of trait cognition and social relationship on Chinese interpersonal trust: the role of social class. Psychol. Dev. Educ., 36 406. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.04.03
  61. Wang (2018). An empirical research of community from the perspective of the national trust with each other: taking Tibetan area in Qinghai as an example. J. Xi’an Univ. Finance Econmic., 31 96. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.19331/j.cnki.jxufe.2018.05.014
  62. Wu (2010). Structural equation model: AMOS operation and application.
  63. Wu (2012). Preliminary exploration on structure of the concept of integrity. Acta Psychol. Sin., 44 354. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00354
  64. Xie (2021). Determining sample size in qualitative research: saturation, its conceptualization, operationalization and relevant debates. J. East China Norm. Univ. Educ. Sci., 39 15. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.12.002
  65. Yang (1991). A study of implement “sharing” norm among friends in middle school students. Acta Psychol. Sin., 3 325.
  66. Yang (2018). Economic development, social inclusion and the subjective well-being of the Western residents from the perspective of multiple ethnic. Ethno Natl. Stud., 5 1.
  67. Yao (2014). The effect of group identity on interpersonal forgiveness. J. Psychol. Sci., 6 1432. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2014.06.025
  68. Yu (2008). The relationship between politics, institutional environments and private enterprises’ access to bank loans. Manage. World, 8 9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2008.08.002
  69. Yuan (2015). Analysis of the status and promotion countermeasures on inter-ethnic trust in Scattered Mixed Minority Areas of ethnic minority taking the hui-Han relationship of Guangyuan City in Sichuan Province as a case. J. Guizhou Normal Univ., 5 54. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16614/j.cnki.issn1001-733x.2015.05.009
  70. Zerfu (2009). Does ethnicity matter for trust? Evidence from Africa. J. Afr. Econ., 18 153. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejn009
  71. Zhang (2018). A qualitative research on the development of attachment to god by Christians through prayer. Acta Psychol. Sin., 50 115. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00115
  72. Zhao (2008). Harmony is the concentrated summary of the characteristics of socialist ethnic relations. J. Southwest Minzu Univ., 1 75.
  73. Zhong (2021). Preventing and detecting insufficient effort survey responding. Adv. Psychol. Sci., 29 225. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00225
  74. Zhu (2014). Chieftain domination and the harmony and trust among ethnic groups in the Wujang River valley–an investigation of chieftains of Shizhu. J. Yangtze Norm. Univ., 30 5.

Cite this article

(2026). Ethnic Trust Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ethnic-trust-scale/

. "Ethnic Trust Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ethnic-trust-scale/.

. "Ethnic Trust Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ethnic-trust-scale/.

(2026) 'Ethnic Trust Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ethnic-trust-scale/.

[1] , "Ethnic Trust Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

. Ethnic Trust Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Trust Scale – Trust within close interpersonal relationships
  2. Racial-Ethnic Identity and Racial-Ethnic Self
  3. Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)
  4. Family Pressure Scale-Ethnic (FPRES-E)
  5. Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)
  6. Trust in People Scale
  7. TRUST IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS SCALE
  8. Group Openness/Trust Scale
  9. Familial Ethnic Socialization (FES)
  10. Multigroup Ethnic Identity
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top