Validation of the General Evaluation Scale for Measuring Ethnic and Religious Prejudice in an Indonesian Sample

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is interesting, but I think the authors should reflect on the following points: 

 

Provide more discussion on the findings, for example, what do the findings mean socio-politically and culturally.

 

Why wasn’t race used as a measuring category, given the recent protests against racism by Papuans? 

 

Why is social tension only framed through ethnicity and religion rather than other socio-political conditions, which may condition the ethnic and religious experiences of different communities?

 

Is the term prejudice and, for this matter, other terms being imposed on the Indonesian context without reflection by the authors on their global north history and connotation?

 

What is the decolonial criticism of psychological testing, and how does this/doesn’t impact research in the global south, given that psychology has a colonial history?

Author Response

Response to First Reviewer:

 

The research is interesting, but I think the authors should reflect on the following points: 

1. Provide more discussion on the findings, for example, what do the findings mean socio-politically and culturally.

Response: Thank you very much for your invaluable input. In lines 429-468, we added a subsection in discussion i.e. 6.4 The GES and Ethoreligious Prejudice in Indonesia, and incorporated three paragraphs to discuss the study's findings within the socio-political and cultural context of Indonesia.

 

2. Why wasn’t race used as a measuring category, given the recent protests against racism by Papuans? 

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. The authors fully understand your point of view. Our decision not to use race as a measuring category in the study, given the recent protests against racism by Papuans, is based on the consideration that this study primarily focuses on ethnic and religious prejudice, aligning with the specific goals and objectives of the research. Nevertheless, we have conducted several studies (e.g., Ikhsan & Tondok, 2023; Meliana & Tondok, 2023) indicate that in the context of intergroup relations in Indonesia, racism, such as towards Papuans, has become an important research issue.  In the Limitations and Future Directions Section (line 497), we have included 'race' as another potential social identity for exploring the versatility and relevance of the GES scale in measuring prejudice. Once again, thank you; the points you conveyed have evolved into interesting and significant ideas for us to pursue further research in the area of race in Indonesia.

 

3. Why is social tension only framed through ethnicity and religion rather than other socio-political conditions, which may condition the ethnic and religious experiences of different communities?

Response: In this research, framing social tension through ethnicity and religion rather than other socio-political conditions is a methodological choice aimed at maintaining clarity and ensuring a targeted investigation into the primary drivers of social tension within the given research scope. However, we fully agree with you that it is important to acknowledge that such a focus might limit a comprehensive understanding of the broader socio-political landscape and its impact on diverse communities. To address this point, we have added two sentences in the second limitations section (lines 507-511).  

 

4. Is the term prejudice and, for this matter, other terms being imposed on the Indonesian context without reflection by the authors on their global north history and connotation?

Response: Thank you for your critical concern. The term 'prejudice' is commonly used in Indonesia as 'prasangka.' Its application in Indonesia's cultural context involves a nuanced understanding of local history, sociopolitical dynamics, and linguistic nuances to avoid potential misinterpretations, ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the research in the Indonesian context (Al Qurtuby, 2016; Putra, 2014). While this term has universal conceptual underpinnings, awareness of its nuances is crucial for fostering cross-cultural understanding and producing research that resonates with the lived experiences and perspectives of the Indonesian population. Nevertheless, in qualitative research employing critical discourse analysis, the focus is on the social construction of language and power relations that define the meaning of intergroup prejudice. Therefore, in the limitation section, we added a paragraph two sentences to address this point (lines 517-522).

 

5. What is the decolonial criticism of psychological testing, and how does this/doesn’t impact research in the global south, given that psychology has a colonial history?

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful comment. Methodologically, in psychological testing, your comment relates to the issue of equivalence in cross-cultural scale adaptation (Epstein et al., 2015; Hernández et al., 2020).  We addressed this concern by employing four steps in cross-cultural scale adaptation (see Materials and Methods section, lines 197-208). However, to ensure equivalence in the context of the global North and South, empirical measurement invariance testing across cultures can be conducted (He & Van De Vijver, 2012). Therefore, researching the cross-cultural equivalence of the GES measurement tool and the two other scales in this study (BSPS and FTS) could be an intriguing area for exploration in our future research. The testing of measurement instruments is indeed valid and can be revealed through different epistemological approaches, such as employing critical discourse analysis or social representation approaches. This is, of course, distinct from positivist or objectivist approaches that tend to mechanistically view issues in a linear and universalist manner. The paradigmatic differences have been reflected by the authors in the limitations of the study, as exemplified in the fourth limitation of this research (lines 517-522).

 

References:

Al Qurtuby, S. (2016). Religious Violence and Conciliation in Indonesia: Christians and Muslims in The Moluccas (1st ed.). Routledge.

Al Qurtuby, S. (2023). Beyond liberal peace: Religious violence and tactical peacebuilding in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 10(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/23477970231173525

Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021

Guimond, S., De La Sablonnière, R., & Nugier, A. (2014). Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 142–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.957578

Harsono, A. (2019). Race, Islam and Power: Ethnic and Religious Violence in Post-Suharto Indonesia. Monash University Publishing.

He, J., & Van De Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111

Hernández, A., Hidalgo, M. D., Hambleton, R. K., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2020). International Test Commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema, 32.3, 390–398. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.306

Horton, P., & Brown, G. W. (2018). Integrating evidence, politics and society: A methodology for the science–policy interface. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0099-3

Ikhsan, S. A., & Tondok, M. S. (2023). Kontak antaretnis berperan sebagai moderator hubungan etnosentrisme dengan prasangka terhadap Etnis Papua. SENTRI: Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, 2(6), 2040–2052. https://doi.org/10.55681/sentri.v2i6.949

Meliana, Y., & Tondok, M. S. (2023). Prejudice toward Papuan Students: The role of intergroup anxiety, belief, contact quality, and social identity. Sosiohumaniora, 25(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v25i2.38300

Putra, I. E. (2014). The role of ingroup and outgroup metaprejudice in predicting prejudice and identity undermining. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000068

Sumaktoyo, N. G. (2021). Ethnic and religious sentiments in Indonesian politics: Evidence from the 2017 Jakarta gubernatorial election. Journal of East Asian Studies, 21(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2020.35

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been developed with methodological seriousness; I hope that the considerations made will be useful to improve the quality already provided by you.

1. General comment:

The article is organised into eight sections, including the introduction and conclusions, and is well-referenced. It highlights the attempt to adapt the GES for Indonesia in order to develop studies based on intergroup relations research. It particularly uses the works of Converse et al. (Line 50), Pettigrew and Meertens (Line 50), and Wright et al. (Line 52). The presence of these works allows for the articulation of others that have used them in different fields, topics, and countries, as well as the instrumentation of the scale (57-99).

The context of ethno-religious prejudices in Indonesia seems to be a more protocolary and generic section, perhaps because there is no interest in presenting sociological data, but rather in offering the validation procedure for the adequacy of the instrument. However, it could be interesting for this section to be complemented with some results from the application of the instrument itself, as it is relevant to have applied the instrument for both ethnicity and religion. This complementarity would reduce the impression left by the work of using very general, albeit up-to-date, information.

The three objectives of the article: confirming the monofactorial structure of the Indonesian version of the GES, evaluating internal consistency, and determining the convergent validity of the GES-Indonesia with BSPS and FTS (lines 158-164), structure the article properly from beginning to end. The section on materials and methods is developed in accordance with them, the description of the survey and the instruments used is precise, as well as the description of the internal structure of the adaptation to the GES.

The discussion (Lines 350-422) is solid and highlights the structural factor, internal consistency, and convergent validity. The limitations (448-470) are relevant and qualify the strength with which the verification of the instrument is presented. As the authors point out in their conclusions, the instrument has solid properties (internal consistency, composite reliability, convergent validity, and adaptability to different scales (lines 476-477), but the diversity contexts in which it could be applied outside of Indonesia should be taken into account.

2. Ad-hoc reflection:

The article presents the psychometric validation of the GES, widely used but poorly validated, with a sample of university students in Indonesia and two studies, one ethnic and one religious. It unequivocally highlights the importance of this instrument for Indonesia, a country that is so ethnically and religiously complex. Nevertheless, it warns that verification in other contexts is necessary.

Although the BSPS is introduced, the problem of measurement is still present, without considering the possibility that the samples or the index itself may have been affected by the researchers' own prejudices. From the works of Fleck (1981), Bachelard (1971), and Latour & Woolgar (1979), it is understood that the devices of scientific knowledge can be affected by laboratory variables and that statistical instruments without vigilance of preconceptions can reproduce prejudices (Bourdieu, 1973).

The issue of instrument measurements like the GES, without undergoing critical scrutiny, leaves unmonitored problems that may be reproduced. We wonder if the article contributes to the knowledge of prejudices or to the knowledge of instruments. If it contributes to the latter, as it has been understood, it would be necessary to measure how much prejudice those who develop or adapt the instruments contribute.

3. Peer evaluation

3.1. The article does not significantly contribute to the knowledge of prejudices in Indonesia, although it is possible that it may have data that could be used to complement section 2, "Context of Ethnoreligious Prejudice in Indonesia" (Line 101-142), but it does contribute in relation to the validity of the instrument, as that is its objective. The article is well-structured from that perspective.

3.2. The validation of the instrument is a methodological issue, and the article fulfills that. It is one thing to talk about methodology in research in relation to sociological data obtained, and another to focus on statistical procedures while leaving sociological data aside. However, it could be complemented with data obtained from the application of the instrument in section 2. The goal is to complement what has been written with them, not to change the direction of the article.

3.3. The opinion expressed regarding the quantitative criterion (Lines 42-44; 171-172), without taking into account the qualitative evaluations from which prejudices are inferred, prevents understanding the need for an urgent review of the role of researchers in formulating instruments, without which all invoked solidity can be undermined. Prejudices affect researchers and generate correlated behaviors. We do not know how many prejudices we are capable of accepting and how many prejudices we are capable of mobilizing under the umbrella of scientific objectivity.

3.4. The strategy of the ethnic and religious studies is important. But it would also be interesting to know why they chose them and not a study where ethnic and religious elements are combined to generate prejudiced behaviors.

4. Conclusion and suggestions

On the basis of the above, this article is accepted for publication after minor revision.

1. It is suggested that the authors provide data to complement point 2, so that they do not give the impression that they are providing only generic data. 

2. It would be interesting to dedicate two lines to point out the importance or not of reviewing these instruments if they are affected by the researchers.

3. It is suggested to indicate in one or two lines why a study that considers ethno-religious prejudice (e.g. religious dimension in ethnic prejudice) was not carried out. 

5. Cited references

Gastón Bachelard (1971) Épistémologie. Presses Universitaires de France.

Pierre Bourdieu (1973) Le métier de sociologue. École Pratique des Hautes Études.

Ludwick Fleck (1981) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. The University of Chicago Press.

Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No have.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer: Second Reviewer

 

The article has been developed with methodological seriousness; I hope that the considerations made will be useful to improve the quality already provided by you.

1. General comment:

The article is organised into eight sections, including the introduction and conclusions, and is well-referenced. It highlights the attempt to adapt the GES for Indonesia in order to develop studies based on intergroup relations research. It particularly uses the works of Converse et al. (Line 50), Pettigrew and Meertens (Line 50), and Wright et al. (Line 52). The presence of these works allows for the articulation of others that have used them in different fields, topics, and countries, as well as the instrumentation of the scale (57-99).

The context of ethno-religious prejudices in Indonesia seems to be a more protocolary and generic section, perhaps because there is no interest in presenting sociological data, but rather in offering the validation procedure for the adequacy of the instrument. However, it could be interesting for this section to be complemented with some results from the application of the instrument itself, as it is relevant to have applied the instrument for both ethnicity and religion. This complementarity would reduce the impression left by the work of using very general, albeit up-to-date, information.

The three objectives of the article: confirming the monofactorial structure of the Indonesian version of the GES, evaluating internal consistency, and determining the convergent validity of the GES-Indonesia with BSPS and FTS (lines 158-164), structure the article properly from beginning to end. The section on materials and methods is developed in accordance with them, the description of the survey and the instruments used is precise, as well as the description of the internal structure of the adaptation to the GES.

The discussion (Lines 350-422) is solid and highlights the structural factor, internal consistency, and convergent validity. The limitations (448-470) are relevant and qualify the strength with which the verification of the instrument is presented. As the authors point out in their conclusions, the instrument has solid properties (internal consistency, composite reliability, convergent validity, and adaptability to different scales (lines 476-477), but the diversity contexts in which it could be applied outside of Indonesia should be taken into account.

Response: Thank you for your general comment. We remain engaged in addressing and incorporating your comments.

 

2. Ad-hoc reflection:

The article presents the psychometric validation of the GES, widely used but poorly validated, with a sample of university students in Indonesia and two studies, one ethnic and one religious. It unequivocally highlights the importance of this instrument for Indonesia, a country that is so ethnically and religiously complex. Nevertheless, it warns that verification in other contexts is necessary.

Although the BSPS is introduced, the problem of measurement is still present, without considering the possibility that the samples or the index itself may have been affected by the researchers' own prejudices. From the works of Fleck (1981), Bachelard (1971), and Latour & Woolgar (1979), it is understood that the devices of scientific knowledge can be affected by laboratory variables and that statistical instruments without vigilance of preconceptions can reproduce prejudices (Bourdieu, 1973).

The issue of instrument measurements like the GES, without undergoing critical scrutiny, leaves unmonitored problems that may be reproduced. We wonder if the article contributes to the knowledge of prejudices or to the knowledge of instruments. If it contributes to the latter, as it has been understood, it would be necessary to measure how much prejudice those who develop or adapt the instruments contribute.

Response: Thank you for your Ad-hoc reflection. We are actively working on addressing and integrating your comments.

 

3. Peer evaluation

3.1. The article does not significantly contribute to the knowledge of prejudices in Indonesia, although it is possible that it may have data that could be used to complement section 2, "Context of Ethnoreligious Prejudice in Indonesia" (Line 101-142), but it does contribute in relation to the validity of the instrument, as that is its objective. The article is well-structured from that perspective.

3.2. The validation of the instrument is a methodological issue, and the article fulfills that. It is one thing to talk about methodology in research in relation to sociological data obtained, and another to focus on statistical procedures while leaving sociological data aside. However, it could be complemented with data obtained from the application of the instrument in section 2. The goal is to complement what has been written with them, not to change the direction of the article.

3.3. The opinion expressed regarding the quantitative criterion (Lines 42-44; 171-172), without taking into account the qualitative evaluations from which prejudices are inferred, prevents understanding the need for an urgent review of the role of researchers in formulating instruments, without which all invoked solidity can be undermined. Prejudices affect researchers and generate correlated behaviors. We do not know how many prejudices we are capable of accepting and how many prejudices we are capable of mobilizing under the umbrella of scientific objectivity.

3.4. The strategy of the ethnic and religious studies is important. But it would also be interesting to know why they chose them and not a study where ethnic and religious elements are combined to generate prejudiced behaviors.

Response: Thank you very much for your peer evaluation. We continue to respond to your comments.

 

 

4. Conclusion and suggestions

On the basis of the above, this article is accepted for publication after minor revision.

1. It is suggested that the authors provide data to complement point 2, so that they do not give the impression that they are providing only generic data. 

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. We have addressed this issue by supplementing it in subsection 2 (lines 137-139) with empirical data from previous research as an example of how ethno-religious prejudice has become a highly relevant issue in contemporary Indonesia. Furthermore, in the discussion section (lines 433-443), we have discussed how the GES data in this study can be interpreted in the context of ethno-religious dynamics in higher education institutions in Indonesia.

2. It would be interesting to dedicate two lines to point out the importance or not of reviewing these instruments if they are affected by the researchers.

Response: Thank you very much for your critical suggestion. In the instruments section (lines 201-204), we added two sentences to address this critical issue.

3. It is suggested to indicate in one or two lines why a study that considers ethno-religious prejudice (e.g. religious dimension in ethnic prejudice) was not carried out. 

Response: Thank you very much for your substantial suggestion. To maintain coherence among the objectives, results, and implications of this research, we included two sentences in the last paragraph of the introduction section (lines 172-176) to amplify the significance of this study. Furthermore, in the discussion section (lines 439-478), we elucidated the research findings in the context of ethnoreligious prejudice within Indonesia. Finally, in the implications section (lines 518-512; 527-532), we introduced additional implications that align with the significance of this research.

 

5. Cited references

Gastón Bachelard (1971) Épistémologie. Presses Universitaires de France.

Pierre Bourdieu (1973) Le métier de sociologue. École Pratique des Hautes Études.

Ludwick Fleck (1981) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. The University of Chicago Press.

Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.