What Is and Is Not Ethnocentrism? A Conceptual Analysis and Political Implications

Abstract

Conceptual analysis has not been systematically implemented in psychology, and many concepts have often been defined in different and contradictory ways. This article focuses on a conceptual clarification of ethnocentrism. It points out the conceptual confusion surrounding the term, reviews numerous definitions and operationalizations, and attempts to clarify it. Ethnocentrism is reconceptualized as a strong sense of ethnic group self‐centeredness, which involves intergroup expressions of ethnic group preference, superiority, purity, and exploitativeness, and intragroup expressions of ethnic group cohesion and devotion. It is conceptually and empirically distinguished from other concepts, such as outgroup negativity and mere ingroup positivity. The article presents a theoretical framework and related empirical analyses supporting the usefulness of reconceptualized ethnocentrism. It also details important and unique implications of reconceptualized ethnocentrism for political phenomena. It is expected that reliance on the clarified reconceptualization should enable researchers to systematically study ethnocentrism, its origins, and consequences.

Ethnocentrism and Prejudice: History of the Concepts

“…Occasionally, and influenced by the work of Theodor W. Adorno and colleagues (Adorno et al, 1950), ethnocentrism has been seen primarily as hostility or prejudice against a variety of outgroups. Indeed, more recent crosscultural measurement of ethnocentrism has suggested that there are two kinds of ethnocentrism: (1) intragroup ethnocentrism, which includes a sense of strong group cohesion and devotion to one's own ethnic group, and (2) intergroup ethnocentrism, which includes preference for ethnic ingroups over outgroups, a belief in ethnic superiority, a desire to maintain ethnic purity, and approval of exploitation of ethnic outgroups if it is in the interest of one's own ethnic group (Bizumic and Duckitt, 2012). Empirical research, however, suggested that ingroup positivity (i.e., ingroup love) and outgroup negativity (i.e., outgroup hate) are often unrelated phenomena and not necessarily mutually interdependent (Brewer, 1999).…”

“…Others, however, have focused on a broader conceptualization. As mentioned above, however, research has shown that ethnocentric attitudes are conceptually and empirically distinct from prejudice (Bizumic and Duckitt, 2012;Brewer, 1999). For example, Walter Stephan and Cookie Stephan (2000) saw and measured prejudice primarily as negative affect toward outgroups, involving both emotional reactions (e.g., hatred, disdain) and evaluations (e.g., disliking, disapproval) as well as the absence of positive emotions and evaluations.…”

Corrective Note

“…Our original article (Bizumic & Duckitt, ) argued that the first printed use of the concept of ethnocentrism was probably in an article by McGee (). This deviates from the almost universally held view that Sumner () coined the concept of ethnocentrism (e.g., Adorno et al, ; LeVine & Campbell, ; Tajfel, ).…”

Ethnocentrism in Russia and Ukraine

“…As discussed in the previous chapter, some later work has argued for a decoupling of the two-parts of ethnocentrism Campbell 1976, Bizumic andDuckitt 2012). Brewer and Campbell (1976) conclude that for there to be a relationship between positive in-group and negative out-group attitudes, there must be a "convergence of boundary defining mechanisms" between the groups (144).…”

“…Whether or not the concept of ethnocentrism should be focused primarily on positive in-group attitudes, negative out-group attitudes, or a combination of the two is still debated. Thus, while Sumner's definition was extremely influential on generations of scholars (Murdock 1949;LeVine and Campbell 1972;Kinder and Kam 2009), some have called for the decoupling of the concepts of the in-group and out-group components from ethnocentrism (Cashdan 2001;Hammond and Axelrod 2006;Cooper 2012;Bizumic and Duckitt 2012). Brewer and Campbell (1976) for example, in their analysis of public opinion data in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, did not confirm Sumner's claim of the reciprocal relationship between in-group and out-group relations.…”