ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND

BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY

ETHNIC IDENTITY, INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND

ETHNOCENTRISM AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE CASE OF
SELECTED PRIVATE COLLEGES OF ADDIS ABABA

By: Yonas Awol

November, 2018
Addis Ababa

i
Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism among College

Students: the Case of Selected Private Colleges of Addis Ababa

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Psychology of Addis Ababa University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in

Social Psychology

By: Yonas Awol

Advisor: Dr. Dame

November, 2018
Addis Ababa

ii
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY

ETHNIC IDENTITY, INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY AND

ETHNOCENTRISM AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE CASE OF
SELECTED PRIVATE COLLEGES OF ADDIS ABABA

Approval Sheet

Signed by the examining committee

Examiner --------------------------------------------signature ------------------------Date----------------

Examiner --------------------------------------------signature ------------------------Date----------------

Advisor ------------------------------------------ Signature---------------------------Date---------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair of Department or Graduate Program Coordinator

iii
 Acknowledgements

The successful completion of this work is a result of the various contributions from the
committed and supportive individuals and Organizations.

First, I am very much indebted to my advisor Dr. Dame for his invaluable and constructive
comments, suggestion and morale.

Second, I would like to give a very grateful thank to Rediet Tesfaye, Yohannes and Melak for
your big technical assistance while I was developing the research tools and processing the data.

Third, I would like to give grateful thank to my family (for my Mom, sisters and brothers) as a
whole for their morale and material support.

Fourth, the Managements of Phase Academy School for your day leaves permission and material
support.

The students and managements‘ of Unity University, Rift Valley University and Alkan Bio
Medical College, for your cooperation.

Finally, my heartfelt thanks also go to ―DOO‖, for her moral encouragement and strong wish to
see me having my MA.

At the end I would say glory and grace to the almighty God (Allah) that helps me in everything.

i
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ..................................................................................................................................1
1.2. The Research Problem.......................................................................................................................................4
1.3. Research Questions ...........................................................................................................................................6
1.4. Purpose of the study ..........................................................................................................................................7
1.4.1General Objective ......................................................................................................................... 7
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Operational Definitions ......................................................................................................................................7
1.6. Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................................................8
1.7. Delimitation of the Study ..................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................................ 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Conceptual Issues on Ethnic identity .................................................................................................................9
2.1.1Ethnic Identity Defined ................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.2Ethnic Identity versus Racial Identity ......................................................................................... 10
2.2. Theoretical Framework for Ethnic identity.....................................................................................................10
2.2.1. Identity Status Theory ............................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Models of Racial and Ethnic Identity Formation ....................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Ethnic Identity and Social identity theory .................................................................................. 16
2.3 Overview of Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity in Ethiopia ...................................................................................18
2.4 Intercultural Sensitivity ....................................................................................................................................19
2.4.1 Concept of Intercultural Sensitivity ........................................................................................... 19
2.4.2 Theoretical model of Intercultural Sensitivity ......................................................................... 20
2.5 Conceptualizing Ethnocentrism .......................................................................................................................22
2.5.1 Theories of Ethnocentrism .................................................................................................... 23

ii
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 25
3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................. 25
3.1 Research Design ...............................................................................................................................................25
3.2 Study Sites ........................................................................................................................................................25
3.3 Population and Sample Size .............................................................................................................................25
3.4 Sampling Procedure .........................................................................................................................................26
3.5 Instruments .......................................................................................................................................................27
3.5.1 Validating and Determining the Reliability of the Survey Instruments ..................................... 29
3.6 Pilot Test ...........................................................................................................................................................30
3.7 Data Collection Procedure ...............................................................................................................................31
3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation ........................................................................................................................31
3.9 Ethical Consideration .......................................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................... 31
4. Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Data ....................................................................................... 31
4.1. Demographic Background of the Participants ................................................................................................31
4.2. The Status of Ethnic identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism of the Participants ....................33
4.2.1 The Status of Ethnic Identity ..................................................................................................... 33
4.2.2. The status of intercultural sensitivity of the participants .......................................................... 35
4.2.3 The Status of Ethnocentrism of the Participants ........................................................................ 36
4.3 Analysis of Group Differences in the Degree of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism as
a Function of Demographic Variables ...................................................................................................................37
4.3.1 Ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism measures of male and Female
Participants.......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.2 Differences in Status of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism Based On
Ethnic Background.............................................................................................................................. 39
4.3.3 Analysis of Differences in Ethnic Identity Intercultural Sensitivity And Ethnocentrism
Measures Based on Level of Year In University And on Age .......................................................... 40
4.4. Interrelationships among ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism ................................46
4.5 Predicting Ethnocentrism from ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity ..................................................47
4.6 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................49

iii
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 57
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 57
5.1 Summary ...........................................................................................................................................................57
5.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................58
5.3 Recommendation ..............................................................................................................................................59
References …………………………………………………………………………………………….......61
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 70
Appendix I: English Version Student Questionnaire .............................................................................................70
Appendix II: Amharic Version Student Questionnaire .........................................................................................75
Appendix III ............................................................................................................................................ 79
Appendix IV ...........................................................................................................................................................81

iv
 List of Tables
Table.1 Total population and Selected sample by sex and academic status ............................................... 26
Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N=346) ............................................................ 32
Table 3 Summary of Distribution of the Level of Ethnic Identity Scores .............................................. 34
Table 4 Summary of Distribution of The level of Intercultural Sensitivity Scores .................................. 35
Table 5 Summary of Distribution of the Level of Ethnocentrism Scores ................................................. 36
Table 6 Mean& SD and Independent t-test of ethnic identity for Male and Female Participants .............. 37
Table 7. Mean & SD and Independent t- test of intercultural sensitivity for Male and Female Participants
.................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 8 Mean & SD and Independent t- Test of Ethnocentric Attitude for Male and Female Participants 39
Table 9 Mean ,Standard Deviations And Independent t- test of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural
Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism Scores by ethnic Background Factors............................................................ 39
Table10 Mean& SD & One Way ANOVA Test ethnic identity based on Student Year Level .................. 41
Table 11 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test intercultural sensitivity Based on Student Year Level . 42
Table 12 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test ethnocentric attitude based on Student Year Level ...... 43
Table 13 Mean & SD and One Way ANOVA Test Ethnic Identity Based On Age ................................... 44
Table14 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test of Intercultural Sensitivity Based on Age ..................... 45
Table 15 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test of Ethnocentrism Based on age .................................... 45
Table16 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Interrelationships among Ethnic
Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism and Demographic variables .......................................... 47
Table 17 Regression Analysis results for Predicting Ethnocentrism from Ethnic Identity and Intercultural
Sensitivity ................................................................................................................................................... 48

v
Abbreviations

AAU Addis Ababa University

APA American Psychological Association

DMIS Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

EDA Exploratory Data Analysis

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

GES Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale

ICSS Intercultural Sensitivity Scale

MEIM Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure

R/EID Racial and Ethnic Identity Development

vi
Abstract
The study examines the status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and
how it contributes to reducing ethnocentrism among students of private higher education
institutions in Addis Ababa. It was carried out using survey data from 346 randomly sampled
young adults in three private universities in Addis Ababa. Questionnaires adapted from existing
literatures were employed as a data collection tools. The adapted measuring scales were the
Multi group Ethnic Identity Measure, the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, Generalized
Ethnocentrism Scale. The collected data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential
statistical methods. Overall, respondents reported moderate degrees to their ethnic identity and
high levels of intercultural sensitivity and lower level of ethnocentric status. In addition, the
findings indicated significant mean differences on ethnic identity scores due to sex, age and stay
in university (batches). Similarly, results obtained reveals that there was a significant mean
differences in ethnocentrism scores among males and females; different age levels and different
batches of university students. It was also found out that, there was statistically significant
positive correlation between Ethnic identity and ethnocentrism score but not with intercultural
sensitivity scores. Furthermore, a regression analysis indicated that ethnic identity and
intercultural sensitivity were found to be significant predictors of ethnocentrism. The results
suggest that promoting intercultural sensitivity is a possible measure to overcome ethnocentrism
and reduce conflicts among intergroup interactions. Limitations and suggestions for future
research are provided.

vii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study

In the psychological research literature a number of researchers have focused their attention on
ego identity or the individual side of identity (e.g. Buckingham, 2008; Marcia, 1980). Other
researchers have focus on the social side of identity such as racial identity and ethnic identity
(Burke & Stets, 2009; Phinney, 1992). The focus of this study is on ethnic identity and related
two constructs: intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism.

The construct, ethnic identity is often regarded as critical part of an individual‘s social identity
(Grant 2008; Quintana, 2007). It can be conceptualized as an individual‘s sense of self within an
ethnic group, along with their feelings and attitudes and behaviors associated with that sense
(Phinney, 1992; Grant, 2008). In essence, ethnic identity entails self-identification of an ethnic
member, a sense of belonging to this group and favorable attitudes to this group (Grant 2008,
Phinney, 1992). It is commonly conceived as a type of collective identity (Grant, 2008).
Identity becomes more salient in adolescence as recognized by Erikson‘s (1968) stage theory of
psychosocial development. Erikson argued that identity was not exclusively a concept of the
individual; rather, he believed that identity had a strong social component, as it is essentially
developed in a social context. Thus, the identity search results in the question, ―Who am I?‖ as
well as the question, ―Where do I belong in the social context?"

In fact, ethnic identity is created and shaped as individuals become conscious of their ethnicity
within the large socio-cultural environment (French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006; Phinney
1992).

According to Arnett (2000), the emerging adulthood, which Arnett describes as covering the
period from 18 to 25 years of age, represents a developmental stage distinct from other periods.
This developmental period is yet more critical among young adults because their ethnic identity
also forms and develops during this stage (Phinney, 1992).
Phinney's (1992) developmental model of ethnic identity which builds upon the work of
Erikson‘s (1968) and Marcia (1966) among others conceptualizes ethnic identity achievement as
1
a continuous variable, ranging from high degree of ethnic identity (high interest, commitment,
positive attitudes towards the group) to low degree of ethnic identification (negative evaluations
of the group and one‘s group membership, limited involvement and interest towards the group).
This developmental perspective suggests individuals vary in the degree of identification with
their ethnic group as a function of age (Roberts, Phinney, Massey, Chen, & Roberts 1999). It is
thus important to take into account the degree to which an individual identifies with and has
positive feelings towards his or her ethnic group.

In addition to attitudes about one‘s own ethnic group attitudes toward the out-group are
considered to be an important element of understanding ethnic identity, interethnic contact, and
even in-group attitudes (Phinney, 1992). According to social identity theory individuals are
motivated to categorize and evaluate themselves and members of the in-group favorably (Tajfel,
1978 cited in Mounsey, 2007). Ethnic identification occurs in situations where groups are clearly
demarcated through the development of in-group, out-group bias or other intergroup attitudes
(Phinney 1992).

While being concerned with one‘s ethnic group need not preclude taking a meaningful interest in
the cultural backgrounds of members of another group, individuals may develop ethnocentrism,
indicating positive in-group attitudes (Grant, 2008). It has been posited that individuals with
higher ethnic identity, the more bias they demonstrate in favors of their groups at the expense of
out-groups or heightens ethnocentrism (Hogg & Ridgeway 2003).Hence, understanding ethnic
identity attitudes should include an examination of attitudes toward ethnic groups other than
one‗s own (Phinney, 1992; Phinney, 1997).

Intercultural sensitivity is one of the important dimensions for people who work or live in
intercultural workplaces where the cultural differences occur. It is the affective dimension of
intercultural communication competence that refers to the emotional desire of a person to
acknowledge, appreciate and accept cultural differences (Fritz, Mollenberg & Braunschweig,
2000). Intercultural sensitivity starts with cognizance that there are differences between cultures
and these variations are commonly mirrored in the approaches that different groups communicate
and relate to other groups (Mustafa 2018). Intercultural sensitivity is required for successful and

2
productive communication between people from different cultural backgrounds (Chen &
Starosta, 2000; Harris, & Moran, 2007).

Ethnocentrism can be viewed as lacking acceptance of cultural diversity and intolerance for out
groups (Donald & Cindy, 2010). This lack of acceptance of cultural diversity has a strong
tendency to lead to negative stereotypes toward other cultural/ethnic groups, negative prejudice
and negative behaviors against these group members (Donald &Cindy, 2010). Being
ethnocentric with its emphasis on one's own cultural standards as criteria for interpretations
and judgments in intercultural communication can prevent individuals interpreting cultural
dissimilarities in multifaceted ways (Chen,2010;Chen & Starosta, 2003). According to Chen,
(2010) overly strong ethnocentrism is dysfunctional with respect to intercultural relationship
in that it influences the way people communicate with others. It also creates barriers for
intercultural communication in part because people expect others to think and behave as they do
(Chen, 2010, Mekonnen, 2013). In multiethnic populations like Ethiopia, reducing ethnocentrism
improving one‘s ethnic identity promote intercultural sensitivity would greatly facilitate
accommodating diversity in Ethiopia (Abera , 2010; Ashebir , 2015 ).

Institutions of higher education where thousands of students with diverse cultural background
attend and the institutions have a responsibility to support and facilitate this process (Missaye,
2013). Similarly, promoting democratic culture and upholding multicultural community life is
one of the objectives of higher education in Ethiopia as stipulated in Higher Education
Proclamation of Ethiopia (FDRE, 2009NO. 650/2009 ).

Provision of diversity-related programs and activities can facilitate positive intergroup relations
can result in favorable outcomes among university students (Mekonnen, 2013). Such exposure to
university programs may allow the development of intellectual framework for understanding the
historical, psychological, and sociological foundations of multiculturalism, prejudice, cultural
and interethnic conflicts (Phinney 1996).

Apart from this general expectation, however, there exists ethnic tensions and conflicts, which
have ethno-cultural, ethno-political, and/or religious bases, among students of Ethiopian

3
universities (Adamu, 2013; Yirga & Bejitual, 2007). Adamu (2013, p. 79) also underscores that
―higher education institutions are one of the contexts where ethnic tensions and conflicts occur,
and there is an increasing concern that they become the major battle fields for ethnic conflict in
Ethiopia‖. Indeed a research-based understanding of the psychological factors responsible for
such ethnic based conflicts, tensions and misperceptions is helpful to effectively manage the
campus diversity.

However, research on ethnicity and ethnic related issues has been the least addressed topics in
Ethiopia particularly in higher learning institutions because treating them are considered to have
unbearable consequences (Ashebir, 2015). Moreover, as the investigator‘s knowledge and
document reviewing experience most of the available local research works on ethnic and related
concepts in psychology have tended focused on government universities in Ethiopia (Abera
Hailemariam, 2010; Abera Teferi, 2010; Asebe, 2007; Ashebir , 2015, Tilahun, 2007; Birhanu,
2007; Habtamu, Hallahmi & Abbink, 2001; Habtamu, 1998; Demewoz, 1997).

What if private colleges are also areas for youngsters from different life experience, religion,
language and ethnic identity, the researchers have not given due attention to examine the overall
status of these private colleges. So, this study seeks to examine the ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity, and ethnocentrism among students of some selected private college in Addis Ababa.

1.2. The Research Problem

In contemporary Ethiopia, the issues of ethnicity, ethnic autonomy and multiculturalism are
highly popularized than earlier times. Especially, the last three years political instability,
interethnic conflict and mistrust between different ethnic groups are expanding in almost all parts
of Ethiopia. Due to these, people are being unsecured to live on their places, migrating to a safe
place and even losing their life, wealth and materials too. Particularly higher education
institutions (colleges and universities) are places where young people of many ethnic
backgrounds, social class, religious and political affiliations come together in campuses. These
students are expected to learn together in the same classrooms and collaborate in university
organizations, social activities, sports, and cultural festivals and events (Ashebir, 2015)

4
There is a widely accepted belief among scholars that the presence of diverse student population
on campus seems an ideal situation where exposure to diversity in the college campus
contributes to an increase in contact between groups and such contact can promote inter-group
friendships and positive changes in the perceptions of each other and reduce ethnocentrism
(Eller & Abrams, 2004).

Contrary to these general expectations, some local research works that have been conducted on
public universities in Ethiopia depicted conflicting views on intergroup relationships. A study
conducted by Adamu (2013) on Bahir Dar University, to analyze factors that either facilitate or
deter positive intergroup relationships among university students, revealed that prejudice,
stereotypes ethnocentrism and language difference tended to affect intergroup relationships.

Similar research work undertaken by Missaye (2013) revealed the existence of ethnic based
intergroup bias and prejudice between different ethnic groups of students in Addis Ababa
University; the basic causes of such bias and prejudice are attributed to fear of unknown,
historical wound and political ideology difference. Melkamu and Ameyu's study (2013) also
showed political ideology and ethnocentrism as factor responsible for intergroup tension and
prejudice in Jimma University. On the other hand Tesfaye's study (2012) revealed the positive
intergroup relation between different cultural and religious groups of students‗ among Hawassa
University students.

Although these studies are informative in showing the experiences of ethnic prejudice,
ethnocentrism, feeling of distrust and interethnic relations among university students in Ethiopia,
the experience of ethnic prejudice, ethnocentrism and distrust interethnic relation is also
expanding on private colleges and universities students. If this situations in colleges increased
and expanded this distrust may change into interethnic conflict.

However, the majorities of above finding are qualitative and they haven‗t show degree, extent or
level of the existence of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism of students in
private colleges in Addis Ababa. Furthermore, those previous findings don‗t show whether there
is difference between male and female, students of different year level, students of different
ethnic group regarding to the level of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism.

5
Moreover, in light of ethnic based tensions and conflicts among students of Ethiopian
universities (Adamu, 2013; Demewoz, 1997; Yirga & Bejitual,2007), research based
understanding of the situation on ethinic aspects of identity , intercultural sensitivity, and
ethnocentrism is needed to help to promote multiculturalism, intercultural sensitivity, healthy
ethnic identity and reduce ethnocentrism.

Thus, this research tries to fill these gaps and instead of add knowledge to the existing literatures
in areas of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism among students in private
colleges in Addis Ababa. To this end the following leading research questions are put forward:

1.3. Research Questions

In this research an attempt was made to answer the following basic questions: What is the status
of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and ethnic identity and intercultural
sensitivity‘s contribution to ethnocentrism among students of private colleges in Addis Ababa?

This overarching line of inquiry is further broken down into the following interrelated and
logically consistent specific questions that guide the investigation.

1. What is the magnitude of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism of

students in private colleges of Addis Ababa?
2. Are there significant mean differences in ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and
ethnocentrism scores among private college students in Addis Ababa by the sex, age,
ethnic background, and residence and students different year levels of college?
3. To what extent do ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity independently and jointly
relate to ethnocentrism?

Phinney‘s Three-Stage Model of Ethnic Identity Formation and the existing theories on
intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism have provided the conceptual and the analytical
framework for answering the research question.

6
1.4. Purpose of the study

1.4.1General Objective
The general purpose of this study is to examine the status of ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity‘s contribution to
ethnocentrism among students of private colleges in Addis Ababa.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study include the following:

1. To examine magnitude of the ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism

of private college students in Addis Ababa.
2. To find out whether or not there are significant differences in ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity, and ethnocentrism scores due to the differences sex, age, ethnic background,
place grown up and year level of college.
3. To examine the relation of ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity to reduce
ethnocentrism among private college students of Addis Ababa.

1.5 Operational Definitions

Ethnic identity - recognizes that a private college and university student‘s sense of belonging to
an ethnic group that shares not only race but also common cultural and religious practices as
measured by Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measuring Scale by Phinney, 1992.

Ethnic identity formation - it refers to feeling and practice of a private college and university
students to a member of an ethnic group (Phinney 1989).

Intercultural sensitivity - is an affective and emotional readiness of a private college and

university students to intercultural interactions combined with understanding, respect, tolerance,
and acceptance of cultural differences as measured by Intercultural Sensitivity Scale by Chen
and Starosta (1997).

7
Multiculturalism - the degree of co-existence, i.e. mutual acceptance, respect for identity and
diversity among private college and university students of the selected three private colleges in
Addis Ababa.

Ethnocentrism- in the current study it refers to the attitude of college students individuals in
comparing his/her culture, ethnic identity and cultural way of life with others culture, ethnic
identity and cultural ways of life as measured by GENE (generalized ethnocentrism) scale by
Neuliep et al. (1997).

1.6. Significance of the Study

This study has significance from the following point of views. It is highly significant for the
higher education institutions of Ethiopia; a country with multi ethnic and multi religious nations
as far as managing campus diversity is concerned. It will contribute to the limited literature on
the status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and, ethnocentrism among private college
students in Addis Ababa. It will increase the information available about the role of different
personal and parental factors in affecting level of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and,
ethnocentrism. It will provide useful evidence on how ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity
are related to ethnocentrism. On the other hand the findings would help the colleges to assess the
institutional mechanism and practices that applied to lead to more positive outcomes on ethnic
identity and related matters. Lastly, the study would stimulate further investigations on these
sensitive issues including other settings, variables and theories.

1.7. Delimitation of the Study

The scope of the study is centered on the ethnic aspects of identity, intercultural sensitivity, and
ethnocentrism. The ethnic aspect to identity focuses on the components of ethnic identification
including attachment salience exploration and involvement; the racial identity is out of the scope
of this study because of the interest in keeping with the theoretical model of ethnic identity
formation. The study is also delimited to private college students in Addis Ababa owing to
financial constraints as well as due to interest in conducting out in private settings.

8
 CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
A wide array of definition of the construct ethnic identity exists in the literature and at times the
term ―ethnic identity" is used interchangeably with racial identity. As such distinguishing the
construct of ethnic identity from other surrounding issues is needed. Hence this chapter begins
with the varied definitions proposed to grasp the construct ethnic identity. With an intention to
draw some concepts that guide the study, the different theoretical models of ethnic identity
formation are then reviewed in section 2.This chapter also reviews the literature concerning:
ethnicity and ethnic identity in Ethiopian context; the concept and model of intercultural
sensitivity; the concept of ethnocentrism .

2.1 Conceptual Issues on Ethnic identity

2.1.1Ethnic Identity Defined

Ethnic identity has been defined in various ways depending on the theoretical orientations of the
researchers. For example, Cheryan and Tsai (2007) described ethnic identity as the degree to
which one feels part of a group or country of origin. In the same vein, Buckingham (2008)
described it as an afflictive construct, meaning that an individual is viewed by others and
themselves as belonging to a particular group.

According to Cokley (2007) ethnic identity is the extent to which one identifies with one‘s
ethnic group including cultural norms and traditions. La Taillade (2006) further described it
as the part of one is thinking perception and feelings and behavior that is due to group
membership. Moving further, in his review of related literature Ashebir (2015) defined it as the
sense of belongingness ascribed by self and others which imply the emotional and cognitive
significance to the individual.

Similarly, Phinney (1992), whose definition most frequently cited in the psychological literature,
conceptualized it as aspects of a person's self-concept that derives from self-knowledge defined
by membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership (Grant, 2008). Ethnic identity can thus be construed as a person's

9
psychological sense of belonging to their ethnic group, along with their feelings and attitudes
about the group (Buckingham 2008; Grant, 2008, Phinney ,1992 & Phinney).
However, it should be noted here that there is no univerally agreed definition of the term ethnic
identity and that perception of ethnic identity may vary from person to person and group to
group (Trimble, 2007, Vaughan, 2003).

2.1.2Ethnic Identity versus Racial Identity

Distinguishing the construct of ethnic identity from racial identity is also important because these
two constructs are often confused (Grant, 2008). In connection to the literature reviewed for this
study suggests that race is defined as a classification of individuals based on physical
characteristics, without regard to nationality, ancestry, or culture (Smith et al., 1999). But
ethnicity is more than an individual's heritage. It embodies the culture beliefs and values of one's
heritage (Healey, 2010).

Ellis,(2004) also stated that while ethnicity can be determined by cultural or physical
characteristics, it is most often defined by differences in language, customs, religion, or other
factors that are not biologically defined. Inman (2006) further made a distinction that ethnic
identity is based on socio psychological socialization, whereas racial identity is based on
sociopolitical socialization. Similarly Phinney (1996) emphasized that ethnic identity includes
racial awareness and attitudes, whereas racial identity focuses on the impact of phenotype
differences on one‘s sense of self.

Irrespective of the various definition given to the construct ethnic identity, for the purpose of this
study ethnic identity is operationalized as individual‘ s psychological sense of belonging to an
ethnic group, along with their feelings and attitudes about the group as measured by Multi group
Ethnic Identity Measuring Scale.

2.2. Theoretical Framework for Ethnic identity

While much research on ethnic identity has been informed by Tajfel‘s social identity theory and
Erikson‘s identity status theory (e.g. Phinney 1989; Umaña-Taylor & Fine, 2002), other has
approached based on specific theories about ethnic identity. As such to help clarify and provide a

10
scope of the construct of ethnic identity the issue of ethnic identity will be further discussed in
terms of Identity status theory models of racial and ethnic identity formation and social identity
theory in the subsequent section.

2.2.1. Identity Status Theory

Several theoretical models have been proposed to describe stages of racial and ethnic identity
development in the psychology literature. Many such models of ethnic identity development
have their roots in the theoretical foundations of Erik Erikson‘s ego identity model (1968), and
the identity formation studies of Marcia (1966, 1980).

According to Erikson, identity formation is a central task of adolescence and entering

adolescence involves a prolonged period of identity crisis, which includes struggles with social
belongingness as well as with changes in physical and sexual maturity (Erikson, 1968).
Adolescence is thus a developmental period during which exploration and experimentation
towards their ethnic identity exercised. Adolescents move toward an achieved ego identity; such
an identity leads to commitment to various salient areas in one‘s life (Burke & Stets, 2009; &
Grant, 2008).

Marcia (1966, 1980) further advanced the process of adolescents‘ identity formation based
on Erikson‘s theory of ego identity formation. He proposed four possible ego identity
statuses: "diffusion", "moratorium", "foreclosure" and‖ identity achievement". Identity diffusion
refers to a status of lack of concern and passivity where neither exploration nor commitment is
present. While few may remain in the state of Identity diffusion, most continues their search for a
coherent sense of self, entering the phase of moratorium. Moratorium involves exploration of
roles and group affiliations but has not made the commitment'. The third status is identity
foreclosure, referring to the individual making a commitment to an identity without the element
of exploration. An individual with ―foreclosed‖ status may just follow what their parents and
relatives have told them about their ethnic group or they may accept stereotypical images from
the majority society without any questioning.

On the other hand, actual identity achievement involves commitment but only after a period of
exploration. The identity achievement status has been related to superior wellbeing as
measured by self-esteem score (Marcia, 1980).
11
2.2.2 Models of Racial and Ethnic Identity Formation
Parallel to Erikson‘s theory of ego identity formation a number of theoretical models of
ethnic identity development has been created in the literature on racial and Ethnic identity
including Cross‘s (1978) model of Nigrescence, Phinney‘s (1989), Three-Stage Model of
Ethnic Identity Formation, and Sue and Sue‘s (1990) Racial/Cultural Identity Development
model. These models all involve developmental stages. Irrespective of their structure, the racial
identity development models of all groups tend to involve similar developmental tasks (Adams,
2001). The Models of racial and ethnic identity formation are reviewed in this section.

A. Phinney’s Three-Stage Model of Ethnic Identity Formation

Phinney‘s (1989) developmental model describes ethnic identity formation as a three-stage

progression from an unexplored ethnic identity through an exploration period toward an achieved
identity. Phinney‘s theoretical model of ethnic identity formation is based on Tajfel‘s (1981)
social identity theory, Erikson‘s (1968) theory of global identity development, and Marcia‘s
(1966) operationalization of Erikson‘s theory.

Her model of Ethnic identity indicates that ethnic identity formation arises from two processes:
exploration and commitment one's ethnic identity. According to Phinney development of ethnic
identity can be understood by assessing the status of a given individual. The statuses are
operationalized according to the extent to which an individual has explored his or her ethnic
identity/meaning (Phinney, 1992; Roberts et al., 1999 Umaña-Taylor,Yazedjian, & Bámaca-
Gómez, 2004). Her proposed statuses are diffused, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved.
The diffused status is characterized by an absence of exploration of the meaning of one‘s
ethnicity. Individuals who are in the diffused status are said showing no interest in actively
searching for the meaning and importance of their ethnicity in their day-to-day functioning nor
are they committed to any particular identity (Sneed, Schwartz & Cross, 2006; Phinney, 1993).

When individuals are described as being in the foreclosed status, they have defined what their
ethnicity means, but the definition is influenced by individuals in the person‘s life and not by the
individual‘s own exploration.

12
The moratorium status is a stage characterized by an active ethnic identity search. Individuals in
this stage are said to be more interested in discussions with adults, ethnic literatures and
participate in cultural ceremonies. The beginning to search for one's ethnic identity is usually
triggered by personal experience with prejudice by an incident or event such as a significant
world event related to the ethnic group or the death of an elderly family member (Ashebir 2015).
They may not yet be committed to their ethnic identity. After a period of exploration, individuals
are said to have reached an achieved status. Phinney stresses that the meaning of achieved is
different for different people and for different groups. Individuals in this status have a secure
sense of themselves as a member of an ethnic group. They identify and incorporate some
acceptable values of the dominant culture and stand against the oppressive ones. An achieved
ethnic identity status is also associated with acceptance and internalization of one‘s ethnicity
(Phinney, 1993).

In his review of related literature on this topic, Ashebir (2015) while citing Franzoi (2000)
maintained that the positive ethnic identity formation serves not only to keep members of
disparage groups from ongoing intolerance, but it also enables them to use this positive social
identity to peruse mainstream goals and participate in mainstream life .The developmental nature
of ethnic identity has been supported by empirical evidence. Umaña-Taylor et al. (2004) found
evidence for a developmental progression of ethnic identity with age when studying high school
and college students. Generally ethnic identity formation is a dynamic process. It changes over
time and may not fully develop until adulthood, if at all (Phinney, Jacoby & Silva, 2007).

B. Cross's Model of Racial Identity Development

The other theoretical framework for ethnic identify formation is Cross‘s(1971) model of
Nigrescence which Cross described racial identify formation as a distinct psychological
progression that an African American undertakes in becoming aware of their sense of self in
relation to race from a self-degradation to self-pride over time. The model has five stages of
racial identity development: pre-encounter, encounter, emersion internalization and
Internalization and Commitment. At the pre-encounter stage, the individual may not be
consciously aware of her/his race and how it may affect his/ her life. This phase is characterized

13
by de-emphasis on one‘s racial group membership; largely unaware of race or racial
implications.

Movement away from the pre-encounter stage of lacking awareness requires race to become
salient. When it does, individuals enter a period of an encounter that provokes thought about the
role of racial identification in their life. This may be a negative or positive experience related to
race. After an encounter that forces the person to confront racial identity, a period of exploration,
similar to Phinney's moratorium for ethnic identity development, follows. The individual may
actively seek out opportunities to explore aspects of their own history and culture.
Internalization: The individuals now internalize the meaning of their race and attitudes towards
their ethnic group become more expansive.

Internalization and Commitment is the ultimate outcome of the racial identity process .In the
internalization and Commitment stage the individuals have developed a secure sense of racial
identity and is comfortable socializing both within and outside the racial group he or she
identifies with (Cross, 1995). It is possible for individuals to stagnate at the immersion-emersion
stage and not move on or to recycle back through the stages at later points in life after
experiencing a new encounter (Parham, 1995).

C. Sue and Sue: Racial and Ethnic Identity Development (REID) Model

The concept of racial and ethnic identity development was initially applied to understand Asian
Americans but the theory may be applicable to other ethnic groups as well (Ashebir 2015).This
developmental framework is structured in stages, closely akin to Marcia‘s operationalization of
identity formation, suggesting as individuals moving from a state of unexplored and unachieved
racial identity to a state of explored and achieved racial identity which goes through the stages of
conformity to integrative awareness (Sue & Sue, 1990).The racial and ethnic identity
development (REID) model has five stages of racial and ethnic identity development:
(1) The conformity stage in which an individual accepts the values, norms, lifestyles, and may
assume that traditions of the dominant culture are superior to his or her own. As a result, these
individuals will appear to hold negative views of own race or other racial/ethnic groups (Ashebir
2015).

14
(2) The dissonance stage at this point individuals have instigated to question the complete
rejection of their culture of origin and the acceptance of the dominant cultural group. During this
stage, the individuals develop growing sense of one's own cultural heritage and the existence of
racism and moves away from seeing dominant cultural groups as all good; and they begin to
identify racist media images and messages.

(3) The resistance and immersion stage this is a third stage which is characterized by the
complete acceptance of one's own race and cultural heritage; a rejection of the dominant
values of society and culture /European American culture/; focus on eliminating oppression
within own racial/cultural group; likely to possess considerable feelings—including distrust and
anger—toward dominant cultural groups and anything that may represent them; placement of
considerable value on characteristics that represent one's own cultural groups without question;

(4) The introspection stage where individuals begin to realize that not all dominant group
members are bad or explicitly racist. Individuals in this stage desire to refocus more energy on
personal identity while struggling with how to endorse various aspects of dominant culture
without being unfaithful to their heritage and culture.

(5)The integrative awareness stage successful transition into the integrative awareness stage is
characterized by reaching a point by which individuals have developed both a certain level of
awareness about themselves and an understanding of other racial groups (Sue & Sue, 1990).The
difference between stage four and stage five is that individuals who have contemplated and
struggled with what it means to be Asian American in American society have come to be secure
in their unique ethnic identity. As such individuals in this stage appreciate the pros and cons of
all ethnic groups and have actively integrated these different aspects into their ethnic identity,
which now reflects a healthy acceptance of both dominant and minority cultural group
components.

In summary, irrespective of the theoretical structure, the above theoretical models all involve in
developmental stages and tend to involve similar developmental tasks (Adams, 2001).
Commonly they describe the process of ethnic identity development as occurring linearly in a
step wise progression of internalized discrimination moving through phase to an integration of
identity that balances both ethnic identity values and the values of the dominant culture but it is

15
possible for individuals to move back and forth between stages over the course of a lifetime
(Ashebir, 2015). The social identity theory takes a different approach to understanding identity
development which is reviewed below.

2.2.3 Ethnic Identity and Social identity theory

Social identity theory depicts a person's self-concept as derived from perceived membership
in relevant social groups such as ethnic groups, social class family, religious groups, and so on
(Tajfel, 1978).This self-identification with the group is the social identity. The social identity
refers to that "part of an individual‘s self-concept that derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership‖ (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255).As such, ethnic identity is regarded as part of
the more complex construct of social identity (Ethier & Deaux, 1990; Pizarro & Vera, 2001;
Quintana, 2007).

According to social identity theory individuals engage in the process of self-categorization

resulting in the perceptual creation of 'us and them' (Griffiths & Nesdale, 2006). In other way,
self-identification to a certain social identity is formed as a result of categorization process
(Tajfel 1981).This theory also posits that individuals are motivated to evaluate their group
positively in order to maintain self-esteem and they attributes personal value and increases self-
esteem from this sense of belonging (Holley, et al., 2006).In light of this, social identity theory
would assert that ethnic identity would include ethnic attitudes and a sense of group belonging
(Tajfel, 1981).

Proponents of social identity theory argue that in striving to achieve a positive identity,
individuals categorize themselves into social identity groups and make favorable comparisons
between their in group and out-group members (Phinney, Jacoby, & Silva, 2007). If group
members feel that their in group is negatively perceived by society, they will either find ways to
achieve a positive distinction regarding this identity or they will disassociate from it. On the
basis of this theory it has been asserted positive attitudes about ethnic group lead to more
positive self-worth, particularly when accompanied by a sense of belongingness to the group
(Phinney, 1992).

16
According to social identity theory people generally seek to positively differentiate their ethnic
group from other groups in order to maintain, protect, or enhance a positive social identity
for group members (Tajfel& Turner, 1986). Thus, the more strongly individuals identify with
their groups, the more bias they demonstrate in favor of these groups at the expense of out-
groups or heighten ethnocentrism, intergroup competition and conflict (Hogg & Ridgeway,
2003). This conceptualization is often associated with ethnocentrism-the tendency for in-group
members to view themselves superior to out-group members in the context of cultural or ethnic
groups and result in interethnic conflict (Ashebir, 2015). In this regard, in addition to attitudes
about one‘s own ethnic group, attitudes toward the out-group are thus an important element of
understanding ethnic identity, interethnic contact, and even in-group attitudes (Brown, 2000).

In general, this theoretical approach emphasizes a need to maintain a positive sense of self.
Therefore, in respect to ethnic identity, this highlights affirmation to and salience of ethnic group
membership(s). In light of this a secure ethnic identity has been regarded as central to sense of
self for ethnic minorities in a majority society (Phinney & Alipuria (1996). The development of a
strong ethnic identity has also been proven as a basis for positive attitudes toward other
groups (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). In a study conducted by Phinney, Jacoby & Silva
(2007) it was found that minority college students who had given serious thought to and then
committed to their ethnic identity were more open and accepting of members of different ethnic
groups than those who had not explored and committed to their ethnicity.

The impact of ethnic identity is much less meaningful for majority group members; research has
shown that majority group members are significantly less likely to have given thought to their
ethnicity, their ethnic identity plays a less important role in their lives, and their ethnic identity is
less essential in group interactions (Phinney, Jacoby, & Silva, 2007). Researchers put
commitment (personal investment in a group) and attachment (sense of belongingness) as
perhaps the most important factors in the development of a sense of ethnic identity (Phinney,
Jacoby, & Silva, 2007). The models of ethnic identity development assert that ethnic identity is
a social construction that is only salient in societies where multiple ethnic groups are in contact
with each other (Worrel et al, 2006).

17
2.3 Overview of Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is a country in which more than 80 ethnic groups live together. In 1991an ethnicity-
based federal system has been introduced by the Transitional Government (Asefa, 1998). Unlike
the past unitary state, ethnicity has now become prominent and served as the ideological basis
of the government‘s political organization and administration (Abbink, 1997). The rationale
behind the reconfiguration of the Ethiopian state along ethnic lines is to ―…decentralize power
and resolve the ‗nationalities question‘ by accommodating the country‘s various ethno-linguistic
groups‖ (Assefa, 2009:131)

Despite the decision made to federal arrangement along ethnic lines in Ethiopia the concepts of
ethnicity and language are highly overlapping and become controversial (Ziegler, 1972). The
reason for this, in Ethiopia language is the most powerful symbol of ethnicity and ethnic
identification (Mulugeta, 1989). Though ethnic identity highly correlate with a given mother
tongue, surprisingly in Ethiopia the case is simple that people even those who do not speak the
language can be identified upon where they were born, extended families live, origin, family
experience (Alemayehu,2009; Bjeren cited in Demewoz, 1997) and sometimes with religion. In
fact few nations relatively successful with ethno-linguistic federalism like those of India and
Switzerland have shown the viability of ethnic federalism in divided societies (Asnake, 2002).
Both, critiques and advocates of ethnic federalism have their own justifications. Advocates of
ethnic federalism hold that it could reduce groups‘ discrepancy, promote accommodation and
self-rule, encourage ethnic harmony through co-existence and reduce secession or disintegration
tendencies (Osaghae, 2006; O‘Leary, 2002). In contrast, critiques argue that ethnic federalism
could encourage ethnic discrimination, hinder individual citizens‘ rights, strengthen centrifugal
forces, introduce zero-sum ethnic antagonism and generate dangerous reactions like ethnic
conflict, cleansing, expulsion and disintegration (Mamdani, 2005).

Concerning ethnic groups and related matters, the 1995 Ethiopian constitution states that:

A nation and nationalities or people (ethnic group) is a group of people who have or
share a large measure of culture or similar customs, mutual intelligibility in of language,
belief in common or related identities, a common psychological make-up, and who inhabit
in identifiable, predominantly contiguous territory (Proclamation 1/1995, Article 39-5).

18
Again in the constitution regarding ethnic group(s) the following issues are indicated:

 All Ethiopian belongs to some specific ethnic group. This implies that there is no
real room for multiethnic group members, for changing identity etc…
 The members of each ethnic group have a similar history, interests, customs and
values. Ethnic group rights’ are more important than individual member rights.
One way of resolving ethnic conflicts is through secession (FDRE, 1995).

In general from the above discussion it can be understood that if a country is divided on cultural
and linguistic ground (FDRE, 1995; Mulugeta, 1989; Ziegler, 1972), it can be said that ethnic
identification is strong enough to be a significant social and political factor. Thus ethnic factors
are said to have been still playing significant role and perhaps a decisive importance in the
history, social, political and ethnic interaction of modern Ethiopia. Demewoz (1997) from his
review of various documents concluded that: (i) Ethiopia is multilingual nation whose languages
are used as procedures of ethnic identification. (ii) The ethnic groups, naturally identified and
grouped along ethnic lines, form group psychology. (iii) Ethnic groups have got a long history of
interaction.

2.4 Intercultural Sensitivity

Intercultural Sensitivity has been proposed as an important construct for successful, intercultural
interactions with people from different cultural background. It is increasingly recognized as a
critical ability to decrease ethnocentrism and to be fitted in multicultural environments
(Coffey et al.,2013) Thus, in this section the concept and model of intercultural sensitivity are
also reviewed.

2.4.1 Concept of Intercultural Sensitivity

Intercultural sensitivity has been defined in a number of ways. It is, for example, defined as an
"individual‘s ability to develop a positive emotion towards understanding and appreciating
cultural differences that promotes an appropriate and effective behavior in intercultural
communication." (Chen, & Starosta, 1997. p. 6)
According to Chen & Starosta, (2003) intercultural sensitivity is emotional readiness in
intercultural interactions combined with understanding, respect, and tolerance. They further
stated that intercultural sensitivity is the core quality in intercultural competence, while other

19
characteristics are peripheral indicators. Cultural awareness provides the foundation for
intercultural communication sensitivity, which in turn, leads to intercultural communication.
Chen, (2010) contended that to be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other
cultures, be sensitive enough to become aware of cultural differences, and then also be willing to
adjust their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures.

Similarly Bennett (1986) defines intercultural sensitivity as a developmental process, in which

individuals are able to change themselves from the ethnocentric stage to ethno relative stage.
The developmental process of intercultural sensitivity as posited by Bennett (1998) is found
suitable to guide a study in intercultural environment as described below.

2.4.2 Theoretical model of Intercultural Sensitivity

The Bennett‘s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural sensitivity provides structured
developmental sequences in which intercultural sensitivity and communication competency are
attained. The DMIS describes how people see, thinks about, and interpret events happening
around them from an intercultural-difference perspective. The model demonstrates how
encounters with diverse individuals help to increase one‘s intercultural competence. It identifies
the underlying cognitive orientations individuals use to understand cultural difference.
The DMIS stages reveal increasing sensitivity to cultural difference. More specifically, each
stage expresses a particular cognitive orientation that is expressed through culture related
attitudes and behavior.

The basic assumption of the model is that as intercultural challenges cause one‘s experiences of
cultural difference to become more complex, ones competence in intercultural relations increases
(Bennett, 1998). That is to say, the development of intercultural sensitivity, Bennett believes, is
closely connected to one‘s subjective intercultural experience and intercultural competence. The
model also helps to identify appropriate training, teaching, or coaching for developing
intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1986). The DMIS consists of six stages with two general levels.
It is not assumed that progression through the stages is unidirectional or permanent. Thus, the
qualitative differences among the ‗‗stages‘‘ are their defining characteristics (Bennett, 1998).
The proposed steps are three for ethnocentrism as: denial of differences, defense of differences,

20
minimization of differences, and three for ethno-relativism as: acceptance of differences,
adaption to cultural differences, and integration into cultural differences (Bennett, 1993)

Stage 1 is ‗‗denial of difference,‘‘ in which one‘s own culture is experienced as the only real one.
Other cultures are either not discriminated at all, or they are construed in rather vague ways. As a
result, cultural difference is either not experienced at all, or it is experienced as associated with a
kind of undifferentiated other individuals with a denial world view. Generally they are
disinterested in cultural difference when it is brought to their attention.

Stage 2, ‗‗defense against difference,‘‘ is characterized by recognition and negative evaluation of

cultural difference. They adopt an ―us or them‖ mentality during this stage and feel that the
group to which they belong is superior to others. People at this position are more openly
threatened by cultural difference and more likely to be acting aggressively against it.

‗‗Minimization of difference‘‘ is the third and final ethnocentric stage. In the minimization stage,
the individual emphasizes similarities among human beings while only recognizing superficial
cultural differences. People at this position are likely to assume that they are no longer
ethnocentric, and they tend to overestimate their tolerance while underestimating the effect (e.g.
―privilege‖) of their own culture. People at this stage believe that the behaviors of others should
match their cultural expectations. These three stages are ethnocentric as one sees his own culture
as central to reality. Unlike these ethnocentric views the last three stages are included in the
ethno relative level meaning that one‘s own culture is experienced in the context of other
cultures (Bennett, 1993).

Stage 4, ‗‗acceptance of difference,‘‘ is thus the first ethno relative stage .Here, the individual
recognizes, appreciates, and is respectful toward cultural differences. People at this position
accept the existence of culturally different ways of organizing human existence, although they do
not necessarily like or agree with every way. They can identify how culture affects a wide range
of human experience and they have a framework for organizing observations of cultural
difference, but at this stage some cultural difference may be judged negatively.

21
Stage 5 is ‗‗adaptation to difference,‘‘ which is characterized by effective use of empathy or
frame of reference shifting, to understand and be understood across cultural boundaries.
Individuals at this position are able to look at a situation through a different cultural lens.
Because they can shift their frame of reference, individuals at this position are more effective
at interacting with people from other cultures.

The last and final stage of DMIS is ‗‗integration of difference.‘‘. People at this position have a
definition of self that is ―marginal‖ (not central) to any particular culture, allowing this
individual to shift rather smoothly from one cultural worldview to another. The individual can
evaluate situations and events in a cultural context. Overall the above six stages perspectives
provide a structure for understanding how individuals see, think about, and interpret events
happening around them from an intercultural-difference perspective.

2.5 Conceptualizing Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is popular concept across a variety disciplines including anthropology, sociology,
psychology, political science, philosophy and education. One of the earliest definition as offered
by Sumner cited in (Bizumic, 2012) ethnocentrism: as ―the technical name for this view of things
in which one‘s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with
reference to it‖ (p. 13). It also conceived another definition given by Todorov (1993) cited in
(Bizumic, 2012) conceptualizes ethnocentrism as an uncritical belief that one‘s cultural values
are the only valid ones and that these should be relevant everywhere. It involves preference for
the ethnic group over others, belief in group superiority, readiness to exploit other groups for the
sake of the in-group, and demand for ethnic purity (Bizumic, 2015). Hollister and Boivin cited
in Demewoz (1997) added that ethnocentrism denotes variety beliefs ranging from the
notion that one‘s ethnic group is culturally and biologically superior to all others in most
important aspects to the tendency to project cultural stereotypes and stigmas upon ethnic
background in overtly hostile manner. According to them, ethnocentrism was defined as
unwillingness to engage in social interactions with other ethnic groups to the same extent as with
own ethnic group. According to Fowers & Davidov (2006) ethnocentrism is associated with the
nature of the ―we - they‖ attitude associated and it constitutes a general rejection of all out
groups and an over evaluation of one‘s own ethnic group.

22
These descriptions clarify that both positive and negative attributes exist in the concept of
ethnocentrism. For example, sports teams, families, and even academic fields may fall within a
broad conceptualization of ethnocentrism as it relates to team-building, or in-group development.
On another hand, for people that have differing cultural or ethnic backgrounds, and that come in
contact with one another, the struggles of ethnocentrism are great. From this, the communication
of ideas and meanings of messages are often, proverbially, lost in translation (Justen, 2009).
Sumner (1906) also compared ethnocentrism with patriotism, as he said, ―ethnocentrism leads a
people to exaggerate and intensify everything in their own culture which is peculiar and which
differentiates them from others; it therefore strengthens the culture‖ (p. 13). As a human
universal reality, ethnocentrism is said to be more pronounced in modern world than in pre-
literate ―tribes‖ (Justen, 2009).

2.5.1 Theories of Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is generally viewed as lacking acceptance of cultural diversity and intolerance for
out-groups (Donald & Cindy, 2010). This lack of acceptance of cultural diversity has a strong
tendency to lead to negative stereotypes toward other cultural/ethnic groups, negative
prejudice and negative behaviors against these group members. Such an attitude might form the
bases for interethnic conflict. Different authors forwarded various causes for ethnocentrism.
These may be personality characteristics, stereotypic belief, motivational factors,
sociological/socio-cultural factors, status, majority-minority status, socially desirable response,
intimacy, the attitude- behavior gap and the like.

Personality traits: is considered to be responsible for ethnocentrism. Hewstone (1985) reported

that a person who is unable to love self is also unable to love others. Stephan (1978) asserted that
more positive attitudes towards in-group than out-group members supports the contention of
authoritarian personality theorists that prejudiced individuals tend to have generalized prejudices
that are directed towards all out-groups.

Stereotypic belief: also serves as categorization function (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992). Such results
may be due to cultural stereotypes of the out group (Collins & Arthur, 2010). In line with this,
there is an over evaluation of one‘s ethnic group as culturally and biologically superior to all
others in most important aspects (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992).

23
Socio-cultural characteristics: the social environment determines or at least structures what
people do, feel, and think (Verkuyten, 2005). With regard to socio-cultural influences (Heine
2008) reported that both sociological and cultural factors may be associated with ethnic
prejudice.

Status: sometimes unequal status in every aspect may result in ethnocentric attitude. For
instance, ― unequal status contact‖ where in the Americans look down the Greeks because the
Greeks are considered as less successful in reaching shared cultural goals in USA (Triandis,
1977). Sharma (1992) also implied that low achieving students were found to be more likely to
have high ethnic biases. As well senior level college students were found significantly less
ethnocentric than freshman, the explanation that educational status is likely to have a significant
impact on ethnocentric attitude (Hollsiter and Boivin, 1987). On other hand over-representation
in the university may contribute for positive intergroup differentiation, students of ethnic
minority may be more ethnocentric than those of the majority students (Hewstone and Ward,
1985).

Motivational factors: motivation is also an important determinant for inter-ethnic attitude. This
may be because of strong interest in linguistic, economic and cultural domination. These
interests pointed out as sources of major conflict in many areas of the world (Wolff, 2006).
Particularly scarce resources initiate such an attitude and practice as well.

Socially desirable response: in relation to this, social desirability effects in rating have its own
impact on ethnocentric attitude (e. g. The way African Americans rated by university students)
(Hollsiter and Boivin, 1987). In study conducted by Hewstone (1985), Chinese community
given their security and status in that multicultural society (USA) and overrepresentation in the
university and in big business perhaps makes them felt no need for positive intergroup
differentiate.

In general the in-group favoritism may come as a result of many factors and which in turn has a
strong tendency to lead to negative stereotypes toward other culture/ethnic groups, negative
prejudice and negative behaviors against other group members. Such an attitude might form
the bases for interethnic conflicts on.

24
 CHAPTER THREE
3. METHODS
3.1 Research Design
A descriptive survey research design was employed on the ground that it was found to be helpful
to obtain reliable and relevant information on perceptions from a variety of groups at the time of
the study (Kumar, 1996). Borg and Gall (1989) noted that descriptive survey research design is
intended to produce information about the prevalence of a phenomenon, circumstance to
problem of attitude or issue that interest a researcher by taking cross section of the population.
According to Ezeh (2005) descriptive survey design is a plan of study, which allows researchers
to make use of reliable techniques for the collection of data from a systematically selected
segment of the population to determine the perception of the population.

3.2 Study Sites

The study was carried out in private College settings namely Unity University, Alkan Bio
Medical College and Rift Valley University in Addis Ababa. These sites are chosen purposely
due to the researcher‘s informal assessment about the sites (which is, these colleges have
students from different ethnic background), personal interest and financial matters. Singleton
(1993) noted that the ideal setting for any study should be easily accessible to the researcher and
should be that which permits instant rapport with the informants. Accordingly, this study was
conducted in the three private colleges owing to the concern of time, money and other
constraints and because the colleges are accessible to the researcher.
3.3 Population and Sample Size
The target population of the study comprised of undergraduate students with diverse ethnic
composition drawn from three private university colleges, Alkan Bio Medical College, Rift
Valley and Unity Universities. At the time of this study, 2017/18 academic year, the total number
of undergraduate students in these colleges were 9,343, ranging from first year to fourth year.
This official enrolment information served for determining the sample Size. The sample size of
this research is determined based on Yamane‘s formula as cited in Israel (2013), the formula is
given by equation:

25
Were, n = sample size,
N = population and e = 0.05 which is level of precision with 95% confidence interval.
Hence since the total number of the source population of this study is known (9,343),
using this formula with significance level p = 0.05 and population size N = 9,343 yields
= = =384

Therefore, the sample size n for this research is 384.

3.4 Sampling Procedure

For this study the combinations of purposive sampling and stratified random sampling, and
simple random sampling procedures were employed to select the required sample size. The
purposive sampling technique was initially, employed to select the private college, and
universities. This is so because the nature of the topics is potentially sensitive, the researcher‘s
interest due to his informal assessment and it required the full cooperation of the institutions.
The departments from each university were identified through simple random sampling
procedure. The identified Schools/departments were Schools/departments of health, School of
commerce and School of Science and Technology.
Stratified sampling technique was then employed to determine the proportion of students for
inclusion in the study. The stratification was done by students‘ year level and sex because there
is a need for comparing each variable among students by students‘ year level and sex (see Table
1).Once the proportion of female and male students from each batch was determined, the
required numbers of students from each batch were selected using simple random method
considering their department.
Table.1 Total population and Selected sample by sex and academic status
University / College Target Population Sample
M F T M F T
Alkan Biomedical 131 524 655 5 22 27
Rift valley 1603 1348 2951 66 55 121
Unity 2725 2766 5491 117 119 236
Total 4459 4638 9343 188 196 384
First year 1818 1645 3463 75 67 142
second year 1288 1595 2883 53 66 119
Third year 969 1148 2117 40 47 87
Forth year 512 368 880 21 15 36

26
3.5 Instruments
The data gathering instrument in this study was a self-administered questionnaire which
comprised of four sections. The first part of the questionnaire contained demographic questions
such as age, gender, participants' ethnic background, batch (years in college), religion, as well as
parents ethnic identity status. The other sub-sections contained instruments to measure Ethnic
identity, intercultural Sensitivity, and ethnocentrism respectively (See Appendix A).
A. Measure of Ethnic Identity
To assess respondents‘ level of ethnic identity, the multigroup ethnic identity measure (MEIM R)
Scale (Phinney, 1992) was adopted. The MEIM is a 12 item scale which could assess ethnic
identity across diverse ethnic groups since the content of the measure did not reflect cultural
values and beliefs specific to particular groups (Phinney & Ong, 2007). The scale is designed to
assess three components of ethnic identity: affirmation and belonging (five items); ethnic
identity achievement (seven items, four for ethnic identity exploration and three for
commitment.)

The 12 item scale statements include such items as "I have a clear sense of my ethnic background
and what it means to me." and ‖I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group‖. The
response options are on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree),
so that high scores indicate strong ethnic identity.

The MEIM has been validated across several contexts and ethnicities (Phinney, 1992; Worrell,
2000; Worrell et al.2006). In 2007, it was revised resulting in the MEIM-R, a psychometrically
strengthened version of the original (Brown et al., 2014; Phinney & Ong, 2007). The MEIM-R
has been found to have high levels of internal consistency with Cronbach‘s Alpha ranging from
.81 to .91 for the whole scale ( Phinney & Ong, 2007;Worrell et al.,2006). In Ethiopian context
the scale has also been adapted for use in ethnic identity research and it has been found reliable
and applicable to young adult respondents (Ashebir, 2015; Habtamu, Hallahmi & Abbink 2001)
which make it appropriate for this study.

27
B. Measure of Intercultural Sensitivity
Intercultural sensitivity was assessed via Chen and Starosta‘s (2000)
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale. The ICSS is a 24-item scale developed for the assessment of
individuals‘ feelings about interacting with people who have different cultural backgrounds
(Chen & Starosta, 2000).The measurement consists of sub-scales: interaction engagement,
respect of cultural differences, intercultural confidence, interaction enjoyment, and intercultural
attentiveness. The original scale comprises nine items with reverse scored and the response
options are on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). An
example of the items is ―I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures‖.

According to Chen and Starosta (2000), ―higher scores of this measure are suggestive of being
more intercultural sensitive‖ (p. 10).Since its development, the instrument has been tested for
its reliability and validity across cultures (Greenholtz, 2005;Petrović, et al., 2015).In a Serbian
study, a modified 15-item version of ICSS has been proved capable of measuring intercultural
sensitivity (Petrović, et al., 2015). In Ethiopian context the scale has also been adapted in to 14
items and used by Ashebir ( 2015).The instrument has been found to have high levels of internal
consistency with Cronbach‘s alpha ranging from .83 and .89 (Chen & Starosta, 2000; Dong
Day & Collaço,2009). In previous research in Ethiopia, the adapted scale has been reported
being with Cronbach‘s alpha reliability coefficient of .802 (Ashebir. 2015). Because of their
relevance as well as their promising psychometric properties, fourteen items from the Amharic
version of ICSS (Ashebir, 2015) were taken for this study; the measurement was further checked
for its validity by panel of experts. The scale has been judged being applicable for the use of this
study.

B. Measure of Ethnocentrism

The ethnocentrism scale was adapted from the revised Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale (GES),
which was originally developed by Neuliep and McCroskey (1997). The internal consistency of
Cronbach‘s alpha reliability coefficients of the original scale ranged from 0.80 to 0.90; its
validity was checked by Neuliep (2002).This scale is designed to assess people‘s feelings
regarding their culture and ethnic group on a five-point Likert response format 1 (strongly
disagree), to 5( strongly agree).Samples of the items in the scale included: ―Most other ethnic
groups cultures are backward compared to my culture‖, ―My ethnic group culture should be the
28
role model for other cultures‖, and ―Other cultures should try to be more like my culture‖. The
original scale contained 22 items in which some of the items were included to balance the scale
and other items were worded negatively so as to control automatic response. Its validity was
checked by panel of experts and based on experts comments seven items were dropped for
redundancy; so in order to reduce such unnecessary repetition and fatigue in filing the scale with
other measures included the scale was modified to include 15 items measuring ethnocentric
attitude about one's own culture and other ethnic group(see appendix A).

3.5.1 Validating and Determining the Reliability of the Survey Instruments

Validating the survey Instruments
As noted earlier in order to meet the objectives of the study, the Multi-group Ethnic Identity
Measure (MEIM), Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism scales were identified and
adopted for this study. They were deliberately selected because of relevance as well as their
promising psychometric properties, concise formation and accessibility. Also, they are preferable
to construct new measure for the purpose of this study. To validate the instruments, the
researcher sought opinion of four experts who had MA in Psychology, and Sociology from
Addis Ababa University. Accordingly, they were kindly requested to examine the initial draft of
items, the relevance and appropriateness of the instruments. The comments and observations of
these experts were used for modifications of the instrument.

They advised that some items in scales be dropped as they are redundant and conceptual
similarity with the some of the items in intercultural sensitivity scale. The English version of the
scales was translated into the Amharic version with the help of two experts who were bilinguals
with Master‘s Degree. They translated the scales into Amharic version independently. This
version was subsequently translated back to English by translators together with the author. The
back translated document showed sufficient similarity to the original questionnaire. The quality
of the final draft of the questionnaire was further evaluated by instructor who had PhD in
psychology.
The descriptive statistics of the rating scores of respondents including mean percentage, mean
and standard deviation are used below. It should be noted that high score on the ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism the scales show high level of ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentric attitude.
29
Determining the reliability of the survey Instruments
Crano and Brewer (2005) cited at Pallant (2005) defined reliability of a research instrument as its
level of internal consistency or stability over time. A reliable instrument therefore is one that
constantly produces the expected results when used more than once to collect data from two
samples randomly drawn from the same population. The reliability coefficient reflects the extent
to which items measure the same characteristics (Pallant, 2005). To ensure the consistency of the
survey instruments Cronbach Alpha coefficient which is an appropriate tool for summative scale
was used to test reliability.

3.6 Pilot Test

Prior to administration of the questionnaire pre- test of the Amharic version instruments was
carried out with a randomly drawn 65 undergraduate university students from Nursing,
pharmacology and computer science departments in Alkan Biomedical college, Rift Valley and
Unity Universities. Because of need for caring out the pilot test with sample drawn from some
departments while keeping reaming for actual study and because of managing the subsequent
pilot testing,

Purposive sampling procedure was employed to select the three departments, which were not
included in the actual study. The purpose of the pilot test was to refine the items. The pilot
testing also enabled the researcher familiarized himself with the administration of the instrument.
The data were then analyzed by using SPSS 20 version and the values of reliability measure
Cronback alpha were obtained for each scale. According to value of the Cronback alpha
coefficient for Ethnic identity scale is .829 for ICS scale α= .709 and for ethnocentrism scale
is α= 0.89.

Lessons Learned from the Pilot Study

(i) One of the significant lessons learned from the pilot study was the realization of the
feasibility of the problem and research questions.
(ii) The other lesson was the importance of refining and rearrangement of the survey
questionnaire and some interview discussion guideline questions. Certain items have
been found to be lengthy, redundant or many in number that could create boredom
and affect comprehending the theme of the questionnaire items.
30
 (iii) It was also learnt from the pilot study procedures that care has to be taken in subject
selection process.

3.7 Data Collection Procedure

The distribution of the questionnaires was made by using simple random method through the 6
(six) well trained collaborative work of researcher (data collectors), subject teacher and class
representative. Prior to the administration of data gathering instruments, training for data
collectors was given on the questionnaire and data collection techniques.
Procedurally, permit to carry out research was granted from the Unity University, Alkan Bio
Medical College and Rift Valley University .The researcher contacted seven lecturers for their
approval of collecting primary data in their class rooms. Data collection took place during the
second semester (April) of the 2017-2018 academic years. Copies of the questionnaire packet
were administered to students during normal class time at the university, in their respective
classrooms. The participants were given the questionnaire packet at the same time and were
instructed on how to correctly complete the questionnaire by the researcher and course instructor.
Then after completion of the questionnaire in private the completed questionnaires were
collected with the help of class representatives and class teachers. Out of the total three hundred
eighty four (384) students involved in the study, 346 students filled the questionnaires which
accounts for 90.1% of response rate and 38 of them did not provide their responses to the
questionnaire.

3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation

The data was analyzed using SPSS 20 version. The data analyses techniques used in this research
were descriptive statistics such as mean, percentage, standard deviation, and independent
samples t- test, one way ANOVA. Mean and standard deviation was employed to measure the
level of each variable ethnic identity intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism and demographic
variables.

One way ANOVA technique was used to determine whether there are significant differences in
the level of ethnic identity intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism, due to demographic
variables such as gender, ethnic background and students‘ year level. Regression technique was

31
also used to determine whether the predictor variables of ethnic identity and intercultural
sensitivity significantly predict the dependent variable ethnocentrism.

3.9 Ethical Consideration

Ethical consideration is concerned with the planning of a research project of involving human
participants in keeping with the ethical guidelines designed to protect the participants
(APA2010;Best & Kahn ,999). In line with the ethical issues suggested by APA (2010) and Best
& Kahn (1999) for this study, to collect data from participants of the study, permissions were
secured from all concerned bodies hierarchically. The respondents were clearly informed about
the purpose of the research and their consent was asked. Every research participants in this
research work is based on their full willingness and interest in the process of providing valuable
information for this research. Further the confidentiality of the information what they provide for
this research is highly kept secret and full respect would be given for the participants. Moreover,
no false promises were made to the study participants.

32
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Data
This study sought to examine the status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and
ethnocentrism, and ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity‘s contribution to ethnocentrism
among students of private colleges in Addis Ababa. This chapter presents the data, makes
analysis and then discusses the findings. The data are presented according to the order of the
research questions.
In presenting the findings descriptive statistics in form of frequencies, means, standard
deviations and percentages have been used while inferential statistics in form of Pearson
product moment correlation, one-way ANOVA and independent samples t-test were used to
answer the research questions. All tests of significance were at P<0.05.

4.1. Demographic Background of the Participants

Summary of the demographical data of the 246 participants in this study is presented in Table 2
below. Gender, age, level of year in the University, religion, and ethnicity are displayed in the
table.

Among346 respondents, 169 (48.8%) were male and 177 (51.2%) were females. The
participants are an average age of 21.69 years old with the youngest being 18 and the oldest
being 28 years. In reference to classification age in range, 172 (49.7%) of them were in between
18 to 21 years old while the remaining 155 (44.8%) and 19 (5. 5%) of them were found between
22 to 25 and 26 to 28 years old respectively.

In focusing on the year in college, freshmen formed the majority of the participants, accounting
130 ( 37 .6% ), followed by second year with 100 (28.9 %) and third year with 80 (23.1%),
whereas the remaining 36 (10%) were fourth year. Most of the participants were from the
Nursing major with about 97 (28%) followed by Accounting with 55 (15.9%) of the participants.
While the total number of students from Computer science, Business management, Medical
laboratory, Public Health and Pharmacology accounts for 50 (14.5 %), 48 (13.9 %), 38 (11%),
32 (9.2%), 26 (7.5%) and 21(6.06%) respectively.

31
A further breakdown of religion distribution of the study participants demonstrates that most
respondents 157 (45.4 %) were belonged to Orthodox Christians while Protestants and Muslims
accounts for 112 (32.4%) and 69 (19.9%) of the total respondents respectively. Other religion
mentioned was Catholic 8(2.3%).In terms of ethnic composition one hundred fifty six ( 45.1
%) of the respondents identified themselves as Amhara ethnic group while 142 (41 %) of them
belongs to Oromo ethnic group. 36 (10.4 %) and 12 (3.5%) identified themselves as Tigrie and
Gurage ethnic groups respectively. Similarly, 205 (59.2 %) of the respondents reported they
were from single (mono) ethnic background whereas 141 (40.8%) of them said they were from
mixed ethnic group i.e. their parents were from different ethnic background.
Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N=346)

Characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 169 48.8
Female 177 51.2
Age in range 18 21 176 50.9
22-25 138 39.9
26-28 32 9.2
Level of year in university 1st year 130 37.6
2nd year 100 28.9
3rd year 80 23.1
4th year 36 10.4
Religion Orthodox 157 45.4
protestant 112 32.4
Catholic 8 2.3
Muslims 69 19.9
Field of specialization Nursing 97 28
Accounting 55 15.9
Computer science 50 14.5
Business management 48 13.9
Medical laboratory 38 11
Public Health 32 9.2
Pharmacology 26 7.5

Self-identified Ethnicity Amhara 156 45.1

Oromo 142 41
Tigrie 36 10.4
Gurage 12 3.5
Ethnic background / Mono 205 59.2
Mixed 141 40.8

32
4.2. The Status of Ethnic identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism
of the Participants
One of the purposes of this study has been to examine the status of ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity, ethnocentrism of university students in private university in Addis Ababa.
Accordingly participants' scores on each measuring scale are summarized in this sub-section.
The descriptive statistics of the rating scores of respondents including mean percentage, mean
and standard deviation are used below. It should be noted that high score on the ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism the scales show high level of ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentric attitude.

4.2.1 The Status of Ethnic Identity

In order to better understand the data, it is necessary to look the descriptive statistics of the
rating scores of respondents. Table3 provides summary of Mean, SD and Range of the MEIM
scale. The descriptive analysis presented in Table 3 suggests mean score of 40. 56 (SD = 8.507)
on a possible range of 12-60. This indicates that mean ethnic identity score is somewhat far
from the expected average (36). But this value alone was not particularly informative since the
intent of the study was to examine the ethnic identity status of university students in accordance
with Phinney‘s theoretical framework. Specifically, as mentioned earlier in the methodology
section, the response options were measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). And respondents‘ scores could range from 12 to 60 on the 12-item MEIM scale.

Hence, in order to classify the participants of the study into higher, medium and lower level of
ethnic identity, possible groupings were derived based on the cutoff value on ethnic identity
measuring scale. The cutoffs that resulted in groups in which the mean scores on normal curve
below 25th percentile score stand for low status, while the mean scores above 75th percentile
scores signify the highest status. The mean scores between the 25th and 75th percentile scores
denotes medium level of ethnic identity. In other word to explore the status of ethnic identity
the cutoff value on ethnic identity scale was utilized where a score value 60 would
represent a highest ethnic identity achievement , a score of 36 would be indicative moratorium
status whilst a score 12 would correspond to lower ethnic identity attainment or unexamined
ethnic identity status. Table 3 provides summary of distribution of the level of ethnic identity
33
 scores in percentage or number of participants who have the expected high/,48-60/ ,moderate/
25-47/ and low level scores /12-24/ as well as the descriptive statistics (Mean, SD and Range)
of the measurement MEIM.
Table 3 Summary of Distribution of the Level of Ethnic Identity Scores
Level of score Participants scoring in the No of MEAN SD MMin Max Range
given level n=346 Items
F % percentile scores 12 40.56 8..527 22 54 32
25th 50th 75th
High /48-60/ 87 25.1 36 43 48
Moderate/ 25-47/ 248 71.7
low /12-24/. 11 3.2

As shown in Table 3, eighty seven (25.1) % of the participants' scores are above 47 point
whilst the majority of the university students scored 25to 47 points out of 60 on ethnic identity
measure. Only 11 (3.2 %) of participants have low score at or below 24 point out of 60 points.
A one sample t-test was also computed to compare the mean score on ethnic identity of
students with the expected mean value 36 and the analysis (see Appendix III) indicates that
there is significant difference for Ethnic Identity score between the mean score of the students
and the expected mean value(t (345) = 10.131, p = 0.000).

The descriptive summary of the observed mean ethnic identity score depicted in the above table
shows the overall sample mean is 40.56 (SD=8.527) which is slightly greater than the
expected cut off value of 36 point and the 50th percentile scores (43) is higher than the
expected average .

As it can be seen in the table the 75th percentile scores (48) is above the expected average,
Whereas the 25th percentile scores is at the expected cut off value of 36 point on the ethnic
identity measure. Overall the distribution of scores indicated that only 3.2 % of the sample
reported low scores on the measurement indicating unexamined /explored status and (25.1 %) of
the individuals scored above the 47 with a maximum score of 57 on the measure a results
compatible with the construct achieved ethnic identity. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the
34
 participants 248 (71.7%) reported that medium values on the scale between the 25th and 75th
percentile scores, which matched the criteria for moratorium.

4.2.2. The status of intercultural sensitivity of the participants

To answer the research question similarly descriptive statistics such as percentage, mean and
standard deviation are used below. It should be noted that high score on the scale shows high
level of intercultural sensitivity. Table 4 is a summary of distribution of the level of
intercultural sensitivity scores in percentage or number of participants who have the expected
high/56 -70/ , moderate/ 29-55/ and low level scores /14-28/ as well as the descriptive statistics
(Mean, SD and Range) of the measurement.

Table 4 Summary of Distribution of The level of Intercultural Sensitivity Scores

Level of score Participants scoring in the No of MEAN SD MMin Max Range

given level n=346 Items
F % Percentile scores 14 50.71 9.117 19 67 48
th th th
25 50 75
High /56-70/ 128 37 46 54 57
Moderate/29- 55/ 217 62.8
Low /14-28/. 1 0.2

Table 4 shows, 128 (37 %) of participants scored 56 and above point out of 70 point on
intercultural sensitivity measuring scale, and 217 (62.8) % of them score between 59 and 55
point while one participant ( 0.2 %) have a score below 29 on the scale. As stated earlier high
score on the scale shows high level of intercultural sensitivity and low score on the scale shows
low level of intercultural sensitivity, so that these above scores shows the majority of the
participants of the research have high level of intercultural sensitivity. That is at least 128
participants (37 %) have a rating score above 56 point out of 70 point .The 25th and 50th
percentile scores of the participants are also above the expected average value (42).

Moreover, a one sample t-test was further computed to compare the mean score on
intercultural sensitivity with the expected mean value 42 and the analysis (see Appendix III)

35
 indicates that there is significant difference for intercultural sensitivity score between the mean
score of the students and the expected mean value (t (345) = 17.761, p = 0.000).
Hence the scale is taken as suggesting high level of intercultural sensitivity. The mean score of
the measure of intercultural sensitivity supports this value. As can be seen from the table given
above, the mean score of 346 participants is 50.71 (SD = 9.117) with maximum score of 67,
which means participants‘ score above the expected average score of 42 out of 70 possible
points. This show the participants of the study have high level of intercultural sensitivity.
Therefore, the overall result is indicative of the existence of high level of intercultural sensitivity
among the participants of the study.

4.2.3 The Status of Ethnocentrism of the Participants

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 5 below is used to explore the status of
ethnocentrism of the participants. It should be noted that the determination of the status is
relied on the 15 item measuring scale on five choices ranging 1 strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The minimum the rating score of 15 which in turn stand for lowest individuals'
ethnocentric attitude status. Similarly, the mean scores for the rating scores is 45 which
stands for middle level where as the highest expected scores on , ethnocentrism scale is 75
suggesting for the highest status of ethnocentric attitude of the participants.
Table 5 Summary of Distribution of the Level of Ethnocentrism Scores
Level of score Participants scoring in the No of MEAN SD MMin Max Range
given level n=346 Items
F % Percentile scores 15 28.64 10.33 15 59 44
25th 50th 75th
High /61-75/ 0 0 19 27 35
Moderate/ 31- 60/ 124 35.9
Low /15-30/. 222 64.1

As stated earlier high score on the scale shows high level of ethnocentric attitude and low score
on the scale shows low level of ethnocentric attitude .It can be seen in Table 5 that none of the
participants of the study has score above 60 point out of 75 point on ethnocentric attitude

36
measuring scale, whilst 124 (35.9 %) of them score between 31 and 60 point and the majority
of the participants 222 ( 64.1 %) have a score below 31 on the scale.
Similarly, the mean rating score of the participants of this study is 28.64 (SD = 10.33) with
maximum score of 59 ; it means most of the participants score below the expected average
score of 45 out of 75 possible points.
The result on one sample t-test (see Appendix III) indicates that there is significant difference
between the mean score of the students on ethnocentric attitude measure and the expected
mean value (t(345) = -29.427, p = 0.000).The analysis shows that university students who
participated in the study have low level of ethnocentric attitude. Therefore, result shows that
most of the participants of the study are less ethnocentric and sensitive to others culture.

4.3 Analysis of Group Differences in the Degree of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural

Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism as a Function of Demographic Variables
The literature suggests the possibility of group differences in the status of ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism. Hence this study sought to investigate whether there
were significant group differences in ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentrism
among university students depending on demographic variables including gender, ethnic
background, age, and level of year in university. The results obtained from group comparisons
are presented in this subsection.
4.3.1 Ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism measures of male and
Female Participants
To investigate the possible sex differences between male and female participants in ethnic
identity intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores , Independent samples t-tests were
performed .The results are given in Table 6,7 and 8 .

Table 6 Mean& SD and Independent t-test of ethnic identity for Male and Female
Participants
DV Sex N Mean SD T P
Ethnic Male 169 42.18 9.66 3.504 001
Identity
Female 177 39.02. 6.921
Significant at, p < 0.05

37
Table 6 above shows the mean and standard deviation of ethnic identity score for male and
female participants. An inspection of the mean scores shown in the table , the mean ethnic
identity score of female participants is 39.02 (SD = 6.921) with maximum score of 51 and of
the males is M=42.18 (SD=9.66) with maximum score of 57.
The results obtained from independent t- test analysis as shown in Table 6 reveals that the
ethnic identity score provides significant sex difference T (344) = 3.504, p=0.001 . The
magnitude of the differences in means was small (eta squared =0.035).
In general the result reveals that males have higher level of ethnic identity than female
participants of this study.
Table 7. Mean & SD and Independent t- test of intercultural sensitivity for Male and
Female Participants
DV Sex N Mean SD T P

Intercultural sensitivity Male 169 49.31 9.254 -2.814 .005

Female 177 52.04 8.805
Significant at, p < 0.05

Table 7 above shows the mean score, standard deviation and t-value of male and female
participants on the measure of intercultural sensitivity. From the table it is shown that the mean
score of the measure of intercultural sensitivity of male participants is 49.31 (SD = 9.254) with
maximum score of 63 while mean score of female participants is 52.04 (SD = 8.805) with
maximum score of 67. From the comparison of these two mean scores of male and female
participants, it is simply observed that mean score of intercultural sensitivity measure of the
female participants is somewhat higher than the mean score of the male. To test whether this
difference is significant, a comparison was made, using independent t-test which found
statistically significant differences between males and females on intercultural sensitivity score
with (t (344) = -2.8 14, p = 0.005). The magnitude of differences in the means was very small
(eta squared=.023).
Similarly, a comparative analysis was made to investigate the possible sex differences the
between male and female participants in the ethnocentrism score. Accordingly the mean and
standard deviation and t- value of ethnocentrism measure for both male and female participants
are provided in Table 8 below.

38
It is indicated in the table that the mean score of male participants on ethnocentrism measuring
scale is 30.20 (SD =11.018) with maximum score of 59, whereas the mean score of those female
participants is 27.14 (SD = 9. 424) with maximum score of 52. These two mean values of both
male and female participants of the study shows there is some difference on their ethnocentrism
measure that is male participants scored slightly higher level on ethnocentric orientation scale
than female participants. When a comparison made on ethnocentrism level of male and female
students using independent t-test the result also shows statistical significant difference between
males and females on ethnocentric orientation with (t (344) = 2.780, p = 0.006). These suggest
that gender tend to have significant impact on the level of ethnocentric attitude of participants.
Table 8 Mean & SD and Independent t- Test of Ethnocentric Attitude for Male and Female
Participants
DV Sex N Mean SD T P

Ethnocentric Attitude Male 169 30.20 11.018 2.780 0.006

Female 177 27.14 9.424
Significant at, p < 0.05
4.3.2 Differences in Status of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism
Based On Ethnic Background
To investigate the differences in the status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and
ethnocentrism scores between participants from single/mono and mixed ethnic background
Independent samples t-tests were computed. The results are given in Table 9.Table 9 Mean,
Standard Deviations and Independent t-test of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, and
Ethnocentrism Scores by ethnic Background Factors
Table 9 Mean ,Standard Deviations And Independent t- test of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural
Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism Scores by ethnic Background Factors
DV Ethnic N Mean SD T P
Background
Ethnic Identity Mono 205 43.25 8.263 7.358 .0005
Mixed 141 36.86 7.439
Ethnocentrism Mono 205 28.67 10.141 .126 .899
Mixed 141 28.52 10.708
Intercultural Sensitivity Mono 205 50.90 8.772 .473 637
Mixed 141 50.43 9.621
Significant at, p < 0.05
39
The result on the Independent samples t-test (Table 9 )shows there is significant difference for
Ethnic Identity score between university students from single/mono and mixed ethnic
background(t (344) = 6.391, p < 0.05). In particular university students from single/mono ethnic
group background reported higher mean scores (M = 43.25, SD = 8.26) on ethnic identity than
from mixed ethnic group background (M = 36.86, SD =7.439).The magnitude of the differences
in means was moderate (eta squared=.157). Over all this result indicates that university students
from single/mono ethnic background have better ethnic identity achievement than the mixed
ones.

On the other hand, unlike to the status of ethnic identity , the mean scores given in the Table 9
brief that participants from mono ethnic group background scored almost equally high level of
mean score on intercultural sensitivity M = 42.89, SD = 10.70) and reported nearly equally low
level of mean score on ethnocentric attitude scale compared with those from mixed ones ( M
= 42.89, SD = 10.70).

The comparative analyses on the levels of intercultural Sensitivity and ethnocentrism did not
reveal any significant differences between single/mono and mixed ethnic backgrounds in
intercultural Sensitivity score(t(344)= .472 p > 0.05) and in ethnocentrism measure (344) = .143
p > 0.05).In general participants from mono and mixed ethnic group backgrounds do not differ in
their levels of intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentric orientation. Therefore this implies that
ethnic group background has no significant impact on their levels of intercultural sensitivity, and
ethnocentric orientation of the participants of the study.

4.3.3 Analysis of Differences in Ethnic Identity Intercultural Sensitivity And Ethnocentrism

Measures Based on Level of Year In University And on Age
As mentioned earlier one of the objectives of this study has been to investigate whether or not
there is significant difference in among university students in ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity, ethnocentrism scores as a function of years of stay in university and age.
Accordingly different data analysis techniques including mean, standard deviation and one way
ANOVA have been computed and the information is given in this sub-section. A descriptive
summary of the mean, standard deviation and values of one way ANOVA based on participants
year level is provided in Table 9, 10 and11.

40
Differences in Ethnic identity Based on Level of Year in University
The mean score depicted in Table 9 below shows that the mean value for ethnic identity
measure for year one participant is 43 .30 (SD = 8.358), for the year two participants is 38.94
(SD=7.977) whilst the mean value of ethnic identity measure for year three participants is
39.5(SD=8.24) and year four participants is 38.33 (SD=9,118). This shows the existence of
slight variation on the level of ethnic identity measure among the four batches. Still in this stage
it is not possible to say the difference is significant unless ANOVA test is used.
Table10 Mean& SD & One Way ANOVA Test ethnic identity based on Student Year Level

DV IV N Mean SD F P
BATCHS 1st Year 130 43.30 8.357 6.808 .000
nd
EI 2 Year 100 38.94 7.977
rd
3 Year 80 39.50 8.240
4th Year 36 38.33 9.118
Total 346 40.64 8.527
Dependent Variable: ethnic identity F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

ANOVA test is carried out to check whether there were significant differences among 1st, 2nd,
3rd and 4th year participants in the level of their ethnic identity measure. The result revealed
that there is a statistically significant difference between different years in university/batches on
ethnic identity with f- value given as the (F (3, 342) = 6.808), p < 0.05). The effect size
calculated using eta squared was .05.

A Post Hoc analysis using Tukey‘s procedure was made to check the significant differences
among different batches .The results obtained from multiple comparisons have shown that
first year students scored (M=43.30, SD=8.357) higher than the other batches whilst the
remaining three batches did not significantly differ from one another in their scores(see
Appendix III) .

41
Difference in intercultural sensitivity Based on Level of Years In University
A second One-Way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there were significant
differences among the four batches in the intercultural sensitivity measure. The result of
comparative analysis is given in Table 11.

Table 11 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test intercultural sensitivity Based on Student
Year Level
DV IV N Mean SD F P
ICS BATCH 1st Year 130 48.34 9.217 10.041 .0005
2nd Year 100 54.52 8.013
3rd Year 80 50.66 8.712
4th Year 36 48.75 9.324
Total 346 50.71 9.117
Dependent Variable: Intercultural Sensitivity F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

An examination of the mean score on intercultural sensitivity indicated in Table 11 reveals that
the first year students are with a mean of 48.34 and standard deviation of 9.217 and the
second year students are with a mean of 54.52 (SD=8.013) while the mean values for third
year and fourth year participants are 50.66 (SD = 8.712) and 48.75(SD=9.324) respectively.
The result of the one way between groups analysis of variance shows that there was
statistical significance difference at p < .05 level in intercultural sensitivity scores for the
four batches (F (3, 342) = 10 .041, p < 0.05). The effect size, calculated using eta squared
was.08.

Post hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD tests were made to examine the significant differences
in intercultural sensitivity scores across the four batches. The result have shown that the mean
score for the second year students ( M =54.52 ,SD=8.013 ) was statistically different from the
first year group (M= 48.34 ,SD= 9.217) , from the third year (M=50.66 ,SD = 8.712 ) and
from those of the fourth year group (M= 48.75,SD=9.324).The other three groups did not
differ in the level of intercultural sensitivity from one another. In other word, the second year

42
university students have higher intercultural sensitivity score than the three batches (see
Appendix III).

Differences in Ethnocentrism Based on Level of Year in University

A further One-Way ANOVA was conducted on to examine whether there were significant
differences in Ethnocentrism scores across four batches. The mean value, standard deviation
and F-values of the ethnocentrism measure of the participants based on their year level are
presented in Table 12.
Table 12 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test ethnocentric attitude based on Student
Year Level

DV IV N Mean SD F P
EA 1st Year 130 31.51 11.222 10.041 .0005
nd
2 Year 100 26.57 8.912
3rd Year 80 26.50 9.319
4th Year 36 28.50 10.953
Total 346 28.61 10.361
Dependent Variable: Ethnocentric Attitude F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

As shown in the table for ethnocentrism scale had the first year students with a mean of
31.51(SD=11.222) and second year students with a mean of 26.57(SD=8.912) whereas the third
year students with a mean of 26.50(SD=9.319) and fourth year students with a mean of
28.50(SD=10.953). The mean of the first year students is slightly higher than the other batches.
However, in this stage it is not possible to say the difference is significant unless ANOVA test is
used. Thus ANOVA test was carried out to explore the impact of year of stay in university on
the levels of ethnocentrism. There was a statistically significant difference at p < 0.05level in
ethnocentrism scores for the four groups/batches (F (3,342)= 6.043 p=.001). The effect size
calculated using eta squared was .05.

Post hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD tests indicated that the mean score for the first year
group (M=31.51, SD=11.222 ) was significantly different from the second year
(M=26.57,SD=8.912) and from those of the third ( M=26.50,SD=9.319)and fourth year batches

43
(M=28,50,SD=10.953) respectively. The remaining three batches did not significantly differ
from one another in their scores (see Appendix III)

Differences in Ethnic identity Based on Level of age

Table 13 Mean & SD and One Way ANOVA Test Ethnic Identity Based On Age

DV IV N Mean SD F P
EI Age 18-21 172 42.23 8.368 6.384 .002
group 22-24 140 39.33 8.071
25 and above 34 38.06 9.782
Total 346 40.64 8.527
Dependent Variable: Ethnic Identity F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

Table 12 above shows the mean value, standard deviation and F-value of ethnic identity
measure of participants based on participants age level. Participants were divided into three
groups according to their age ( Group 1: 21 or less; Group 2:22 to 24,and Group 3: 25 and
above)A One-Way ANOVA was conducted to explore whether there were significant
differences in mean scores on ethnic identity across the three age groups This analysis
revealed significant differences in the level of ethnic identity scores for the three age groups at
p < 0.05 [F (2, 343) = 6.384 , p < 0.002] ). The effect size, calculated using eta squared was
.04.

Post hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD tests were made to examine the significant differences
in scores across the three age groups. The analysis indicated that the mean score for Group 1
(42.23, SD = 8.368) was statistically different from Group 3 (38.06, SD = 9.782) Group2 (39.33,
SD= 8.071) did not statistically differ from other Group 1 or 3. In general, the mean score of the
younger age group (18-21) is higher than the older group.

44
Differences in Intercultural Sensitivity Based on Level of Age

Similarly in terms of intercultural sensitivity difference among participants based on age

difference, a one way ANOVA technique was also carried out and the value of the analysis are
given in table 14.

Table14 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test of Intercultural Sensitivity Based on Age

DV IV N Mean SD F P
ICS Age 18-21 172 50.53 9.041 1.009 .366
group 22-24 140 51.34 9.125
25 and above 34 48.94 9.464
Total 346 50.71 9.117
Dependent Variable: intercultural sensitivity F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

Table 14 above show the mean value, standard deviation and F-value of intercultural sensitivity
measure of the participants based on their age level. A second One-Way ANOVA was
conducted to explore whether there were significant differences in mean scores intercultural
sensitivity across the three age groups which found no significant differences in intercultural
sensitivity score (F (2, 343) = .1.00 9 p > 0.05). This means all the three age groups of the
participants have equal level of intercultural sensitivity regardless of their age difference.

Differences in Ethnocentrism Based on Level of Age

Table 15 Mean & SD & One Way ANOVA Test of Ethnocentrism Based on age
DV IV N Mean SD F P
EA Age 18-21 172 30.22 10.878 5.275 .006
group 22-24 140 26.46 9. 239
25 and above 34 29.32 10.770
Total 346 28.61 10.361
Dependent Variable: Ethnocentric Attitude F- is Significant at, p < 0.05

45
Table 15 above show the mean value, standard deviation and F-value of the ethnocentrism
measure of the participants based on their age level. As noted earlier high score indicated high
level of ethnocentric attitude.

From the table given above the mean value for age group between18 to 21 years old is 30.22.
(SD=10.876) and for the participants whose age range 22 to 24 years old is 26.46 (SD=9.236)
and for the old age group of participants 25 and above is 29.32 (SD= 10.77). These three mean
values of the ethnocentrism measure of the participants show the existence of slight but not
uniform variation on the measure of their ethnocentrism but still it is not appropriate to say the
difference is significant at this stage only using this descriptive statistics test alone. Hence
ANOVA test was carried out in order to confirm the finding with more appropriate and reliable
method. Accordingly the F-value obtained using one way ANOVA techniques as given in the
above table shows significant differences in the level of ethnocentrism score across the three
age groups (F (2, 343) = 5.275 , p < 0.05). Despite reaching statistical significance the actual
difference was small. The effect size using eta square was .02. Post hoc comparisons using
Tukey HSD tests indicated that the mean score for Group 1 (30.22, SD = 10.876 ) did not
statistically differ from Group 3 ( 29.32 ,SD = 10.77) whilst mean score for Group 2 students
whose age ranging from 22 to 24 years old (26.46,SD = 9.239) was significantly different
from both Group 1 and 3.

4.4. Interrelationships among ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and

Ethnocentrism
The other objective of the study was to examine whether university students‘ ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity, ethnocentrism scores are correlated or not. To measure the strengths of
these relationships between the variables, Bivariate correlations were conducted .The analysis
reveals that some of the variables are significantly correlated and some are not correlated. Table
16 provides summary of the correlation matrix.

46
Table16 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Interrelationships
among Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism and Demographic
variables
Variables 1 2 3 4
1 Ethnic Identity _ _ _ _
2 Ethnocentrism .121* _ _ _
3 Intercultural Sensitivity -.059 - _ _
.419**
4 Year Stay In University -.203** - .051 _
.153**
5 Sex .196** .146** - -.016
.150**

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed
Table 16 above shows the Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients for criterion variable
ethnocentrism and predictor variables ethnic Identity and intercultural sensitivity.
As depicted in the table ,the Pearson Correlations reveal that ethnic identity score positively
correlated with ethnocentrism score (r= .121n=,336 P, =.024) but there was no statistically
significant relationship between ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity (r=.-.059 n=336, P
=.274) .

The data analyses also reveals that intercultural sensitivity is negatively correlated with
ethnocentrism (r=- -.419 n=336, P <0.01)And Ethnocentrism is significantly correlated with
both ethnic identity (r= .121 n=,336 P, =.024 ) and intercultural sensitivity (r=- -.419 n=336, P
<0.01).The negative correlation between intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism indicated
that as the level of intercultural sensitivity of the participants‗ increase the level of their
ethnocentrism will decrease and vice versa. It confirms the argument that students with good
intercultural sensitivity and multicultural orientation will be less ethnocentric.

4.5 Predicting Ethnocentrism from ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity

The fourth major research question of this study was that of examining the degree of variation
contributed for dependent variable ethnocentrism by each independent variable: ethnic identity
and intercultural sensitivity. Before conducting simultaneous multiple linear regressions,
47
preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of assumptions of normality,
linearity, multicollinearity and homescedasiticity. The results are summarized in Table 17.
Table 17 Regression Analysis results for Predicting Ethnocentrism from Ethnic Identity
and Intercultural Sensitivity

Independent B Standard error Beta T Sig

Variables (standardized)
Constant 47.658 3.845 12.396 .000
Ethnic identity .118 .059 .097 1.986 .048
Intercultural -.470
.055 -.414 -8.472 .000
Sensitivity

Note: R2 = .185; F (2, 343) = 38.988*p<.05; **p<.01, n=346

Based on the pattern of relationships described above, simultaneous multiple regressions was
carried to determine the best linear combination of ethnic identity, and intercultural sensitivity
scores for predicting ethnocentrism score.
Both predictors: ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity are assumed to be related to the
concept of ethnocentrism and are therefore included together in the analysis, according to the
simultaneous procedure.

Simultaneous multiple regression analysis shows that these combination of variables

significantly predict ethnocentrism, F(2, 343)= 38.988 p<.05 with the two variables significantly
contributing to the prediction. The R squared value was .185. This indicates that the two
variables together account for 18.5% of the variance in ethnocentrism.
Of these two variables intercultural sensitivity (β = -. 414, P<.05), made the largest unique
contribution (β = -. 414, P<.01), although ethnic identity also made a statistically significant
contribution (β = .097 P<.05).

48
4.6 Discussion
The main purpose of this study has been to examine the status of ethnic identity, intercultural
sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity‘s contribution to
ethnocentrism among students of private colleges in Addis Ababa. Moreover, the interactions of
demographic variables such as age, gender, year of stay in the university/batch and ethnic
background with the main variables have also been treated under this study. Therefore, all such
points which were answered in the analysis part are now discussed in relation to the reviewed
literature review.

The status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism:

The findings suggest that the current sample reports moderate degree of ethnic identity.
For example, the distribution of scores indicated that a large proportion of the participants
(71.7%) reported scores falling under the middle level of ethnic identity scale /between
disagree and agree/.The mean score of the total participants is 40.56 (SD = 8.507) with
maximum possible score of 60 on the scale. Therefore, this is an indication of modest level of
ethnic identity, a result compatible with the construct the moratorium ethnic identity status.
Phinney‘s theoretical model conceptualizes ethnic identity formation as a three-stage progression
from an unexplored ethnic identity through an exploration period toward an achieved identity.

The diffused status is characterized by an absence of exploration of the meaning of one‘s

ethnicity. Individuals who are in the diffused status are said showing no interest in actively
searching for the meaning and importance of their ethnicity in their day-to-day functioning nor
are they committed to any particular identity (Sneed, Schwartz & Cross, 2006; Phinney, 1993).
When individuals are described as being in the foreclosed status, they have defined what their
ethnicity means, but the definition is influenced by individuals in the person's life and not by the
individual‘s own exploration.

The moratorium status is a stage characterized by an active ethnic identity search. Individuals in
this stage are said to be more interested in discussions with adults, ethnic literatures and
participate in cultural ceremonies. The beginning to search for one's ethnic identity is usually
triggered by personal experience with prejudice by an incident or event such as a significant

49
world event related to the ethnic group or the death of an elderly family member (Ashebir, 2015).
They may not yet be committed to their ethnic identity.
After a period of exploration individuals are said to have reached an achieved status. Phinney
stresses that the meaning of achieved is different for different people and for different groups.
An individual in this status has a secure sense of themselves as a member of an ethnic group.
They identify and incorporate some acceptable values of the dominant culture and stand against
the oppressive ones. An achieved ethnic identity status is also associated with acceptance and
internalization of one‘s ethnicity (Phinney, 1993).

Thus, the results of the analysis suggested that 86 (24.8 %) of the individuals could be classified
in the high ethnic identity status which is compatible with the construct achieved ethnic identity
and a large proportion of the participants 249 (72%) tends to be in moratorium ethnic identity
status whilst 11(3.2) individuals' scores indicates unexamined /explored status. The result of the
analysis is also consistent with previous research (Ashebir 2015, Persson 2016).
In terms of the statuses of intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism the mean score of the
participants' on intercultural sensitivity measure (M50.71 ,SD = 9.117) is found to be higher
than expected average score of 42 out of 70 possible points.

The overall results show that the existence of high level of intercultural sensitivity and low
degree of ethnocentrism among the participants of the study. The mean score of the participants '
on intercultural sensitivity measure is found to be higher than expected average. The mean
score of 346 participants is 50.71 (SD = 9.117) with maximum score of 67, it means each
participants score above the expected average score of 42 out of 70 possible points. The data
obtained from ethnocentrism scale also reveal lower mean score than the expected average.
Hence, the majority of the participants are at low ethnocentrism status and high status on
intercultural sensitivity.

50
Differences in Ethnic identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism Scores based on
sex
In this study statistically significant mean difference is evident between males and females in
their ethnic identity status. This suggests that male students are better in their ethnic attainment
than female counterparts. This result is in agreement with the local study made by Ashebir
(2015) on government university students in Ethiopia. He reports that men scored higher than
women in their identity achievement. However the finding is inconsistent with the previous
studies (i.e Habtamu. Halahami & Abbinik, 2001, Phinney, 1992).

In terms of intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism measure evidence from this study further
reveals statistically significant mean differences between females and males. Overall upon
examination of the mean scores the finding indicate female college students ate notably better in
their intercultural sensitivity and less ethnocentric than males.

The finding is partially consistent with the report of Ashebir (2015) that among government
university students in Ethiopia, males scored significantly higher than females. Similarly among
Japanese and American students Neuliep, and McCroskey (2001) also report that men scored
higher in ethnocentrism than women.

A plausible explanation for such difference may be due to the empathetic nature of girls and the
differential cumulative socialization experiences of children as male and female in Ethiopia
(Ashebir, 2015). Thus compared with boys/men if girls are on average more experienced in
taking the perspective others and are aware of cultural differences then they are better in showing
sensitivity to other cultures and ethnicity.

Concerning sex difference in ethnocentrism Neullep et al (2001) argued that females are likely to
be more trusting and open than men. Hence this conceptualization may account the difference in
ethnocentrism.

51
Differences in Ethnic identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism Scores Across
Batches

As noted in the review of related literature earlier, exposure to university program and
interactions among peoples with diverse background in the college campuses would promote
positive changes in attitude towards out groups enhanced knowledge about
others(Adamu,2013,Eller & Abrhams hertz- Lazarowctz 2004).As such ,one may assume that as
a result of such exposure and relational experience during stay in campus in part , scores on
ethnic identity , intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism would vary among first, second ,
third, and fourth year students. Accordingly this study examined whether or not there were
differences in the three dependent variables across the four batches.

In terms of ethnic identity the results from group comparisons indicate that first- year students
scored higher on ethnic identity measure than the remaining batches. An explanation for the
group difference may be because freshmen students more exploring the cultural stuff belongs to
their ethnic groups and strongly identifies with their own group.

Unlike ethnic identity, freshmen students scored lower than second year students on intercultural
sensitivity but exhibited equally high mean score with those of third and fourth year students.

Similarly results from group comparisons on ethnocentrism scores among first, second, third,
and fourth year students revealed non- significant difference which suggest that compared with
senior class freshmen students exhibited equally low level on ethnocentrism scale.

This result is different from the study made by Ashebir (2015) in four public universities, who
found that freshmen students were more ethnocentric than senior batches. Also Hollister and
Bolvin (1987) reported that senior class university students were less ethnocentric than freshmen
students. Overall the results of the present study may suggest that exposure and relational
experience derived during stay in campuses may affect the sensitivity of students towards each
other.

52
Differences in Ethnic identity, Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism Scores as a
function of age and ethnic background

The literature on ethnic identity development reviewed earlier identifies ethnic aspect of
identity formation as a central developmental process that occurs during adolescence
simultaneously with the development of ego identity and attitudes towards groups other than
one‘s own (Phinney & Chaval, 1987). According to Phinney (1989) in ethnic identity formation
an achieved ethnic identity is result from process of exploration and commitment.

In terms of age related trends due to increasing and a wide range of live experiences ,older
individuals are more likely to be in an achieved ethnic identity status than younger ones
(Phinney& Chaval,1987; Roberts et al,1999). On the base of Phinney‘s developmental model it
would be expected that with increase age participants are more likely to be at an achieved
ethnic identity status.

Contrary to this assumption, in this study the older participant did not show the expected higher
levels in ethnic achievement than the younger ones. A possible reason for inability to detect age
difference may be the fact that this study involved college age sample with mixed ethnic
background participants. The narrow age range covered in this study also restricts the detection
of age differences.

In terms of age differences in intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores univariate

ANOVA tests showed non-significant difference across age levels. This result is inconsistent
with previous study made by Ashebir (2015) who found that younger university students were
better in intercultural sensitivity than older groups.

The second objective of this study was also to investigate whether or not there were significant
differences in ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores between mixed
and mono ethnic background participants. It has been posited that mixed ethnic individuals are
likely to have close contacts with two cultures (Ashebir, 2015). Their bicultural socialization
would help them recognize similarity and difference rather than exaggerating differences and
reduce intergroup bias (Adamu, 2013, Stephen &Stephen, 1992); mixed ethnic identity may
facilitate the appreciation of diversity (Phinnney& Alipuria, 1996; Stephen & Stephen, 1991).
Students from mixed ethnic background may thus be less ethnocentric than mono ethnic
53
background (Ashebir, 2013; & Stephen, 1992). However the results of this study partially
support this assumption.

Individuals the more identify with their ethnicity often to the exclusion of others the greater
biases they demonstrate in favors of their groups at the expense of out groups or heightens
ethnocentrism (Ashebir, 2015, Hogg & Rigeway, 2003; Mounsey, 2007) .The evidence from this
study shows significant positive association between ethnic identity and but no correlation
between ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity. On the other hand shows significant
negative association between intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores.

The result on the independent samples t-test shows there is significant difference for Ethnic
Identity score between university students from single/mono and mixed ethnic background. In
particular university students from single/mono ethnic group background reported higher mean
scores on ethnic identity than from mixed ethnic group background. The magnitude of the
differences in means was moderate. Over all this result indicates that university students from
single/mono ethnic background have better ethnic identity achievement than the mixed ones.

On the other hand, unlike to the status of ethnic identity , the mean scores given in the brief
that participants from mono ethnic group background scored almost equally high level of
mean score on intercultural sensitivity and reported nearly equally low level of mean score on
ethnocentric attitude scale compared with those from mixed ones.

The comparative analyses on the levels of intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism did not
reveal any significant differences between single/mono and mixed ethnic backgrounds. In
general participants from mono and mixed ethnic group backgrounds do not differ in their levels
of intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentric orientation. Therefore this implies that ethnic group
background has no significant impact on their levels of intercultural sensitivity, and ethnocentric
orientation of the participants of the study.

54
The Contribution of Ethnic Identity, and Intercultural Sensitivity in Reducing
Ethnocentrism

As noted in the review of related literature ethnic identity is a variable that is important in
diverse social context (Phinney, 1990) and is framed in response to other social groups
(Worell,et al,2006). It is created and recreated as people become aware of their own and other
ethnic group and of the differences among them and attempt to understand the meaning of their
own ethnicity with the larger setting (Phinney, 1990).

This is because the emphasis is ethnic distinction and ethnic identification occurs through the
development of in-group/out group bias or other in-group attitudes. It is assumed that while
identifying with their own ethnic group, participants can also became aware of the differences
between their own and other ethnic group‘s cultures. As such, from the individuals‘ in-group
perspectives the distinction between their own and other cultures still exists during the process of
exploring their ethnic identity. This awareness of cultural differences during the process of
searching ethnic identity may further contribute to the understanding of the distinct
characteristics of other cultures which in turn help the individuals interpret the behavior of the in
intercultural interactions (Phinney, 1990). The awareness also requires individuals to further find
out the distinct characteristics of other cultures in order to effectively interpret the behavior of
others in intercultural interactions. In this way because intercultural sensitivity involves the
desire to learn about other cultures, respect other cultures, and the ability to recognize cultural
differences and similarities (Chen & Starosta, 2003). The increased intercultural awareness and
the understanding of the distinct characteristics of one‘s own and other can be though as linked
with the improved intercultural sensitivity. However, ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity
were unrelated in this study. The lack of relation may be due to variation in the participants‘
levels of ethnic and intercultural developmental status.

In terms of the relation between ethnic identification and ethnocentrism, it was posited that
individuals the more identify with their ethnicity often to the exclusion of others the greater
biases they demonstrate in favor of their groups at the expense of out groups or heightens
ethnocentrism (Ashebir,2015, Hogg & Rigeway,2003).The evidence from this study shows
significant positive association between ethnic identity and but no correlation between ethnic

55
identity and intercultural sensitivity. On the other hand the result shows significant negative
association between intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores.

Over all the result from multiple regression analysis indicate that the ethnic identity and
intercultural sensitivity together account for 18.5% of the variance in ethnocentrism. While
ethnic identity score contributed to the rise of ethnocentrism, intercultural sensitivity contributes
to reduction of ethnocentrism.

56
 CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary
Exposure and interaction among members of diverse groups in the college campus is generally
believed promote inter-group friendships and positive changes in the perceptions of each other
and reduce ethnocentrism (Eller & Abrams, 2004). The university diversity-related programs
and activities would also enable `the development of intellectual framework for understanding
the historical, psychological, and sociological foundations of multiculturalism, prejudice, cultural
and interethnic conflicts (Phinney 1996).

However, evidence suggests existence of ethnic tensions and conflicts which have ethno-cultural,
ethno-political, and /or religious bases, among students of Ethiopian universities (Adamu, 2013;
Yirga & Bejitual, 2007).Thus understanding of the psychological factors responsible for such
ethnic based conflicts, tensions and misperceptions is helpful to effectively manage the campus
diversity. Accordingly, this study has sought to investigate the status of ethnic identity,
intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity‘s
contribution to ethnocentrism among students of private colleges in Addis Ababa. It was guided
by the following research questions.
1. What is the status of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity, ethnocentrism of students in
private colleges of Addis Ababa?
2. Are there significant mean differences in ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and
ethnocentrism scores among private college students in Addis Ababa by the sex, age,
ethnic background, and residence and students different year levels of college?
3. To what extent do ethnic identity and intercultural sensitivity independently and jointly
relate to ethnocentrism?

Phinney‘s Three-Stage Model of Ethnic Identity Formation and the existing theories on
intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism have provided the conceptual and the analytical
framework for answering the research question.
A descriptive survey research design was employed on the ground that it was found to be helpful
to obtain reliable and relevant information on perceptions from a variety of groups at the time of
the study.

57
The participants of the study were three hundred forty six undergraduate students drawn from
three private universities namely, Alkan Biomedical college, Rift Valley and Unity Universities.
They were recruited through stratified random sampling techniques since the population is not
homogenous in terms of year and gender.

Data were generated through self-administered questionnaire which included the Multigroup
Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), Intercultural Sensitivity and Ethnocentrism scales. The
generated data were then analyzed using both descriptive and inferential methods. In determining
the status a composite scores were used. The result was presented using table and APA style is
used to report the result of the data analysis.

5.2 Conclusions
Based on the summary of the findings made above, the researcher draws the following
conclusions, and their corresponding implications:
1. The current findings indicate that most of the university students who participated in this
study report a modest level of ethnic identity as measured by a revised 12-item version of the
MEIM. The sample of the study thus tends to be in moratorium ethnic identity status. The
Moratorium stage involves exploration of ethnic identity through active engagement issues
related to ethnicity (Phinney, 1993).Typically people in this stage actively participate in
cultural ceremonies, discussions with adults, read ethnic literatures about related to ethnicity.
2. The results of the present study also showed that the participants scored higher than
expected average on intercultural sensitivity measure .Hence the majority of the participants
are likely to be sensitive to other and aware of cultural differences.
3. The data obtained from ethnocentrism scale also reveals lower mean score than the
expected average. Hence, the majority of the participants are with at low ethnocentrism
status and high status on intercultural sensitivity.
4. The results of the examination of socio-demographic variables indicate significant mean
differences in ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism scores due to sex,
age and stay in university (batches). The result also reveals that multiethnic participants
scored lower than mono ones on ethnic identity measure. The study further highlights the

58
 importance of promoting intercultural sensitivity and multiculturalism as a possible measure
to overcome ethnocentrism.
Before concluding, several limitations of the study need to be mentioned. One major limitation is
related to the sample composition of the study. In that only undergraduate students drawn
from three private universities participated and the information generated may not represent the
situation of students from public universities and other higher education institutions. Hence this
limits the generalizability of the results beyond and below undergraduate college/university
students.

5.3 Recommendation
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are put forward. Intercultural
awareness respect of cultural differences and intercultural enjoyment are assumed to prevent
from cultural bias and wrong judgment toward other cultures (Sarwari & Abdul Wahab 2016)
and the results of this study highlight the importance of promoting intercultural sensitivity and
multiculturalism in overcoming ethnocentrism. Thus the study recommends that instructors,
university leaders, and students‘ guidance counselors should assess the current practices, verify
the gaps and promote intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. This could
be facilitated by providing curricular and extra-curricular activities that promote awareness of
issues of diversity and intercultural competence.

The attainment of an achieved ethnic identity is the ultimate outcome of ethnic identity
development (Phinney, 1992) and the evidence from this study suggest that the students‘ ethnic
identity is at ethnic identity search or exploration status and be improved from searching ethnic
identity development to achieved ethnic identity. Hence the study recommended that counseling
psychologists‘, university staffs and management should encourage and help to construct their
ethnic identity to reach the achieved status through providing opportunities for self-reflection and
ethnic studies courses. Moreover, the colleges are also should include experts in their staff and
resources to achieve the recommendation.

In terms of suggestions for future research, although this study focused on determining the status
of ethnic identity, intercultural sensitivity and ethnocentrism, and its contribution to
59
ethnocentrism among undergraduate students drawn from three private universities, it would
be valuable to further explore how socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, and
parental factors are related to ethnic identity preferably using a larger and more diverse sample
in high school settings through in-depth qualitative exploration method. Lastly, it is valuable to
assess the institutional (colleges) experiences in order to achieve students ethnic identity status,
promote intercultural sensitivity and reduce ethnocentrism

60
References
Abera, H. M. (2010). Ethnic identity and nations of Amhara, Oromo and Tigray students
at Addis Ababa University main campus (MA Thesis).InF. E. Stiftung, An Anthology
of Peace and Security Research(pp. 1-67). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University
Institute for Peace and Security Studies.
Abbink, J. (1997). ‗Ethnicity and Constitutionalism In Contemporary Ethiopia‖. Journal of
African Law, 41, 159-174.
Abera, T. (2010).The influence of inter-ethnic attitude on inter-ethnic quality of interaction
among AAU main campus Oromo, Amhara and Tigray students. Addis Ababa:
Unpublished MA Thesis.
Adams, D. L. (2001).Health issues for women of color: A cultural diversity perspective.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Approaches (2nd Edn.).London: SAGE Publications.
Adamu, A.Y. & Zellelew, B. T. (2007). Higher education institutions as pavilions of
diversity: Opportunities and challenges: The case of Bahir Dar university. Ethiopian
Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 49-68.
Adamu, A. Y. (2013). Intergroup Relations among Ethnically Diverse University Students in
Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Research, 3(2), 77-95.
Alemayehu, F. (2009). Conflict management in the Ethiopian multinational federation, MA in
Peace and Conflict Studies. Austria: European University Center for Peace Studies.
APA. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed).
Washington, DC: Author.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. Sumner, W. G. (1906).
Folkways. Boston, MA: Ginn.
Ashebir, D(2015). Ethnic identity and associated factors among university students in
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University.
Ashebir.(2007).Ethnicity and interethnic relations: the ‘Ethiopian experiment’ and the case of
the Guji and Gedeo. University of Tromso: Unpublished MA thesis submitted for the
Faculty of Social Sciences.

61
Asefa,F. (2009).On campus ‗unrest‘: Some preliminary observations. InU. Muller- Scholl,
Democracy and the social question. Some contributions to a dialogue in Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa: Freiedrich-Ebert-stiftung and Goeth-Institute.
Asnake, K. (2002). Federalism: Some trends of ethnic conflicts and their management in
Ethiopia. Retrieved 0121, 2014, fromhttp :// www. 1.un1.-
hamburg.de/ice2003politics.html.
Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-196.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett,
Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 1-34).
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethno relativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige, Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 123-188).
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., &Dasen, P. R. (2002).Cross-cultural
psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bhawuk, D. P., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of cultural sensitivity using the
Concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations , 16, 413-436.
Birhanu, G. (2007). Adolescents’ definitions of national and ethnic identities: The case of
adolescents of Amhara and Oromo ethnic groups. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
University, Unpublished MA Thesis.
Bizumić, B. (2012). Theories of Ethnocentrism and Their Implications for Peace building.
Peace Psychology Book Series, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-1948-8_3
Borg, R. W. and Gall M. D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York;
Longman Inc
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future
challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30, 745-778.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. Youth, Identity, and Digital Media ,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,. 1–24. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.001.

62
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Chen, G. M. (2010). The impact of intercultural sensitivity on ethnocentrism and intercultural
communication apprehension. Intercultural Communication Studies , 19(1), 1-9.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the international
communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication , 3, 2-14.
Chen, G. M., & Strosta, W. J. (2003). Intercultural awareness. In A. S. L, & R. E. Porter,
Intercultural communication: A reader (10th ed.) (pp. 344-353). Belmont, CA:
Cheryan, S., & Tsai, J. L. (2007).Ethnic identity. InLeong, Ebreo, Kinoshita, Inman,
Arpana, Yang, Hsin (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd Ed., pp.
125-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, S., & Arthur, N. (2010).Self-awareness and awareness of client cultural identities. In N.
Arthur, & S. Collins, Culture-Infused Counseling (pp. 67–102). Calgary, AB:
Counseling Concepts.
Cokley, K. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum
on the state of the field. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 54(3), 224-234.
Cram, F.(1988). Intergroup bias by defensive and offensive groups in majority and minority
conditions. Journal of personal and social psychology, 55,749-757
Cross, W. E. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the cross model. In J. C. J.
G.Ponterottoo, & Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 93-122).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, W. E. (1971). Negro to Black conversion experience. Black World , 20, 13-27.
Cross, W.(1978).The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A literature
review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4, 13-31
Demewoz, A. (2001). Ethnocentrism among four ethnic groups of students; implications and
future direction: the case of Dilla College of Teacher Education and Health Sciences.
Conflict in the Horn: Prevention and Resolution (pp. 25-28). Addis Ababa: OSSREA.
Demewoz, A. (1997). Ethnocentrism and peer relationship among University students: The case
of Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa University: Unpublished MA Thesis. Habtu,
A. (2003). State and ethnicity in Ethiopia. Retrieved March 2018, from
http//www.homepages.w.mich edu/.

63
Donald, R. K., & Cindy, D. K. (2010).Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American
opinion. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Ellis, P. H. (2004). White identity development at a two-year institution. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 745-761.
Eller,A.& Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pet igrew‗s
reformulated intergroup contact model and the common in-group identity model in
Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 34(3), 229-256.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1990). Hispanics in Ivy: Assessing identity and perceived threat. Sex
Roles, 22(7/8), 427-440.
Eze, D. N. (2005): What to Write and How to Write. A Step-by-Step Guide to Educational
Research Proposal and Report. Enugu. Pearls & Gold, Nigeria
FDRE. (1995). The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa:
FDRE.
French, S. E., Seidmean, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2006).The development of ethnic identity
during adolescence. Developmental Psychology , 42, 1-10.
Fowers, B. J., & Davidov, B. J. (2006). The virtue of multiculturalism: Personal transformation,
character, and openness to the other. American Psychologist , 61(6), 581–594.
Franzoi, S. L. (2000). Social psychology (2nd ed). Boston: Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Fritz, W., Möllenberg, A., & Braunschweig, T. (2000).Measuring intercultural sensitivity in
different cultural context. Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaften: ISBN 3-933628-33-4.
Grant, J. H (2008). The Relationship between Ethnic Identity and Psychological Health: A
Meta-Analytic Review Open Access Dissertations. 160.
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/160
Greenholtz, J. F. (2005). Does Intercultural Sensitivity Cross Cultures? Validity Issues in
Porting Instruments across Languages and Cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29, 73–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.010
Habtamu Wondimu (1998). Ethnicity, Displacement and National Integration: Three Pronged
Challenges to Ethiopia. IER Flambeau. Vol. 6, 1, 60-71.

64
Habtamu, W., Hallahmi, B. B., & Abbink, J. (2001).Psychological modernity and attitudes to
social change in Ethiopian young adults: The role of ethnic identity and stereotypes.
NIRP Research for Policy Series 9, Royal Tropical Institute KIT Publisher.
Harris, M. and Johnson, O. 2007. Cultural Anthropology. New York: Pearson Education.
Healey, J. F. (2010). Race, ethnicity, gender, and class (5th ed.). California: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Heine, S. J. (2008). Cultural psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.
Hogg, M. A., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Social identity: Sociological and social psychological
perspectives. Social Psychology Quarterly , 66, 97-100
Hewstone, M. W. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 48(3), 614-623.
Hollister, E. J., & Boivin, M. J. (1987).Ethnocentrism among free Methodist leaders and
students. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 15(1), 57-67.
Holley, L. C., Kulis, S., Marsiglia, F. F., & Keith, V. M. (2006). Ethnicity versus ethnic identity:
What predicts substance use norms and behaviors? Journal of Social Work Practice in the
Addictions, 6(3), 53-79.
Inman (2006). South Asian women: Identities and conflicts. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 12(2), 306-319.
Israel, D. G. (2013). Determining Sample Size, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Justen, J. R. (2009). Ethnocentrism, intercultural interaction and U.S. College students’
intercultural communicative behaviors: an exploration of relationships. University of
Tennessee - Knoxville: Masters Theses
Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodology: Step by step guide for beginners. London: SAGE
Publications
La Taillade, J. J. (2006). Considerations for treatment of African American couple
relationships. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 341-358.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology , 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence.In J. Adelson, Handbook of Adolescent Psychology
(pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley

65
Mamdani, M. (2005).Political identity, citizenship and ethnicity in postcolonial Africa’. A
keynote address in Arusha conference. Arusha : ―New Frontiers of Social Policy‖
Melkamu,D. and Ameyu, G. (2013).Interethnic relations among students of Jimma University,
Oromiya, Ethiopia. Int. J. Social. Anthropology, Vol. 5(5)
Mekonnen H. (2013)The Impacts of Ethnocentrism and Stereotype on Inter-Cultural Relations
of Ethiopian Higher Education Student; Volume: 3 – Issue: 4 – October - 2013
Missaye, M. (2013).Intergroup bias among Addis Ababa University students. International
Journal of Psychology and Counselling, Vol. 6(2), pp. 14-16..
Mulugeta, E. (1989). Issues in language policy and planning in present day Ethiopia. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, (p. Vol. 2).
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mustafa.Z (2018). Intercultural sensitivity and a study of pre-service English language teachers.
Erciyes University, Turkey.
Neuliep, J. W. (2002). Assessing the reliability and validity of the Generalized Ethnocentrism
Scale.Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 201-215.
Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J.C. (1997). Development of a US and Generalized Ethnocentrism
Scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 385-398. Communication Research
Reports , 14, 385-398
Osaghae, E. E. (2006). Ethnicity and the state in Africa. Afrasian center for Peace and
Development Studies, Ryukoku University.
Pallant, J, (2005) SPSS Survival Manual:a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version
12. Second edition, Open University press.
Parham, T. A. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence. The counseling psychologist , 17, 187-
226.
Petrovi,D Starčević,J,Chen,G. & Darko Komnenić,D (2015) Intercultural Sensitivity
Scale:Proposal for a Modified Serbian Version1
Phinney, J. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescence and adulthood: A review of research.
Psychological Bulletin , 108, 499–514.
Phinney, J. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M. E.
Bernal, & G. P. Knight, Ethnic identity: Formation and Transmission among Hispanics
and other Minorities (pp. 61-79). Albany: State University of New York Press.

66
Phinney, J. (1998). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. In P. Organista,
K. M. Chun, & G. Marin, Readings in Ethnic Psychology (pp. 73-99). New York:
Routledge.
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.
Phinney, J. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse
groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176.
Phinney, J. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity. American
Behavioral Scientist, 40, 143-152.
Phinney, J., & Alipuria, L. (1996). At the interface of culture: Multiethnic/multiracial high
school and college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 139–158.
Phinney, J., & Chavira, V. (1987). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: An exploratory longitudinal
study. Journal of Adolescence , 11, 23-38.
Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997).Variations in bicultural identification among African
American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 7,
3–32.
Phinney, J., Jacoby, B., & Silva, C. (2007). Positive intergroup attitudes: The role of ethnic
identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 31, 478-490. 200
Pizarro, M. & Vera, E. M. (2001). Chicana/o ethnic identity research: Lessons for researchers
and counselors, The Counseling Psychologist, 29(1), 91-117.
Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 259-270.
Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., & Romero, A.(1999).
The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethno cultural groups.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 19(3), 301-322.
Sarwari & Abdul Wahab, Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1310479
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1310479
Singleton, R.A. (1993). Approaches to Social Research. New York. Oxford University Press.
Sharma, P. (1992). Scientific aptitudes as a function of social groups and educational
status. Psycho Lingue, 22(2), 99-104.

67
Sneed, J. R., Schwartz, S. J., & Cross, W. E. (2006). A multicultural critique of identity status
theory and research: A call for integration. Identity. An International Journal of Theory
and Research, 6(1), 61-84.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1992). Intermarriage: Effects on personality, adjustment, and
intergroup relations in two samples of students. Journal of Marriage & the
Family, 53(1), 241-250.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different. New York: Wiley.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tafel,
Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press. 202
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986).The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.In S. Worchel,
& W. Austin, Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, O. L. (1990). Cross-cultural communication: As essential dimension of effective
education (Revised). The Mid. Atlantic Equity center.
Taylor, O. L. (1994). Cross-cultural communication: As essential dimension of effective
education.
Tesfaye, S. (2012).Intergroup relations among the Ethiopian youth effects of ethnicity, language,
and religious background. Journal of developing societies, Vol.28, pp.323.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Cross-cultural social and personality psychology. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 3, 143–158.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey: Brooks publishing company.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2002). Examining a model of ethnic identity development
among Mexican origin adolescents living in the U.S. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. Y. (2004).Developing the Ethnic
Identity Scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International
Journal of Theory and Research, Retrieved from: http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/doi:
10.1207/S1532706XID0401_2

68
Vaughan, S.(2003). Ethnicity and power in Ethiopia. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and
majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 88, 121-138.
Wolff, S. (2006). Ethnic conflict: A global perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
Worrell, F. C., Conyers, L. M., Mpofu, E., Beverly, E., & Vandiver, J. (2006). Multigroup ethnic
identity measure scores in a sample of adolescents from Zimbabwe. An International
Journal of Theory and Research , 6(1), 35–59.
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Cokley, K. O. (2007). Critical issues in the measurement of
ethnic and racial identity: A referendum on the state of the field. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54, 224–239
Wrench, J. S., Corrigan, M. W., McCroskey, J. C., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Religious
fundamentalism and intercultural communication: the relationships among ethnocentrism,
intercultural communication apprehension, religious fundamentalism, homo negativity,
and tolerance for religious disagreement. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research , 35, 23-44.
Yirga, A., & Bejitual, T. (2007). Higher Education Institutions as Pavilions of Diversity:
Opportunities and Challenges – the Case of Bahir Dar University. The Ethiopian
Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 49-67
Ziegler,M.(1972).Tribal stereotypes among Ethiopian students. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology , 3(2), 193-200.

69
 Appendices
Appendix I: English Version Student Questionnaire
Addis Ababa University
College of Education and Behavioral Studies
School of Psychology
Dear participants,
I cordially invite you to participate in this research study. The purpose of the study is to examine
the status of ethnic identity and its relation to intercultural sensitivity and how it contributes to
overcome people‘s ethnocentrism among university and college students in Addis Ababa
Ethiopia.
Accordingly, to achieve the above objective, this questionnaire is designed to collect data to the
issues raised. The information you provide will be very crucial to meet the purpose of the study.
If you agree to participate, you are kindly requested to respond to each of the question items
honestly and carefully.
Thank you in advance for your time!
The researcher
Instructions
 You do not need to write your name.
 You should give only one response for each item (For rating scales).
 You would face no problem in responding to this questionnaire.
 Please put a t
blank spaces.

70
 PART ONE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Dear participants the following are background information of the research. You are
kindly requested to fill in the gaps and (or) put the ― √ ‖ mark on the space provided.
1. Name of Your University or college……………
Faculty…………………………
Department……………………...
2.
3. Age …..
4. What year ( batch) of student in this university / college?

5. Religion

If others, please specify it……………………………..

6. What is your ethnicity (ethnic group)? …………………..
7. Are you from mixed ethnic group (parents from two or more different ethnic groups)?

71
A. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)
Please put a tick mark ( √ ) in the box under the alternative from the scales, which fits your
choice. NB: The alternatives are in scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
5= Strongly agree 3= Undecided
4= Agree 2= Disagree
1 =Strongly Disagree

Measuring Scale Scales

1 2 3 4 5

1 I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group,
such as its history, traditions and customs.
2 I am active in social organizations such as religious group,
political party etc… that include mostly members of my own
ethnic group
3 I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means
to me.
4 I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic
group membership.
5 I am very much happy that I am a member of the ethnic group I
belong to.
6 I have strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.

7 I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership

means to me.
8 In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often
talked to other people about my ethnic group.
9 I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group.
10 I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as
special food, music, or customs.
11 I feel as have a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.
12 I feel good about my cultural/ ethnic background.

72
 B. Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
Below is a series of statements concerning intercultural sensitivity. There is no right or wrong
answers. Please, work quickly and record your first impression by indicating the degree to which
you agree or disagree with the statement.
Please, put tick ― √ ‖ mark corresponding to your answer in the boxes. When you answer, please
take into account your ethnic group only.
5 = strongly agree 3 = undecided
4 = agree 2 = disagree
1 = strongly disagree

Measuring Scale Scales

1 2 3 4 5
1 I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures (ethnic groups).
2 I think people from other cultures (ethnic groups) are narrow-minded.
3 I am confident enough to interact with people from different cultures (ethnic
groups).
4 I find it very hard to talk in front of people from different cultures (ethnic groups).
5 I try to be sociable when interacting with people from different cultures (ethnic
groups).
6 I don‘t like to get together with people from different cultures (ethnic groups).
7 I get upset (emotional) easily when interacting with people from different cultures
(ethnic groups)

8 I often get discouraged when I am with people from different cultures (ethnic
groups).
9 I am open-minded (free) to people from different cultures (ethnic groups).

10 I often feel useless when interacting with people from different cultures (ethnic
groups).
11 I think my ethnic group culture is better than others.
12 I often give positive responses to a culturally (ethnically) different counterpart
during our interaction.
13 I often show my understanding of culturally (ethnically) distinct counterpart
through verbal or nonverbal cues.
14 I have a feeling of enjoyment towards differences between my culturally
(ethnically) distinct counterparts and me.

73
C. GENE (Generalized Ethnocentrism) Scale

Directions: The GENE Scale is composed of 15 statements, concerning your feelings about
your culture and other cultures. In the space provided to the left of each item, indicate the degree
to which the statement applies to you by marking whether you (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3)
are neutral, (2) disagree, or (1) strongly disagree with the statement. There are no right or wrong
answers. Some of the statements are similar. Remember, everyone experiences some degree of
ethnocentrism. Work quickly and record your first response.

Measuring Scale Scales

1 2 3 4 5
1 Most other cultures are backward compared to my culture.
2 My culture should be the role model for other cultures.
3 Lifestyles in other cultures are just as valid as those in my culture.
4 Other cultures should try to be more like my culture.
5 People in my culture could learn a lot from people of other cultures.
6 Most people from other cultures just don‘t know what‘s good for them
7 I respect the values and customs of other cultures.
8 Other cultures are smart to look up to our culture.
9 Most people would be happier if they lived like people in my culture.
10 People in my culture have just about the best lifestyles of anywhere
11 Lifestyles in other cultures are not as valid as those in my culture.
12 I do not cooperate with people who are different.
13 I do not trust people who are different.
14 I dislike interacting with people from different cultures.
15 I have little respect for the value and customs of other cultures.

74
 Appendix II: Amharic Version Student Questionnaire

በአዲስ አበባ ዩኒቨርሲቲ

የስነ-ትምህርት እና ባህሪ ጥናት ኮላጅ
የሳይኮልጂ ትምህርት ቤት
ሇዩኒቨርሲቲ ተማሪዎች የቀረበ መጠይቅ
ውድ የጥናቱ ተሳታፊዎች

በቅድሚያ በዚህ ጥናት እንድትሳተፍ/ፊ በአክብሮት እጋብዝሃሇሁ/ሻሇሁ፡፡ የዚህ ጥናት ዋና አሊማ

በአዲስ አበባ ከተማ በግሌ ከፍተኛ ትምህርት ተቋማት ውስጥ በመማር ሊይ ያለ ተማሪዎች የብሔር
ማንነት ፤ የባህሌና የአብሮነት ግንኙነት እና የብሔር ማንነትና ብሔር ሊይ የሇን አቋም ምን
እንደሚመስሌ ሇማጥናት ታስቦ የተዘጋጀ መጠይቅ ነው፡፡ ስሇሆነም እርስዎ የሚሰጡት መረጃ ሇጥናቱ
ዉጤት ታአማኒነትና ትክክሇኝነት እጅግ አስፈሊጊና ወሳኝ በመሆኑ እውነተኛ መረጃ በመስጠት ትብብር
እንዱያደርጉ በትህትና እጠይቃሇሁ፡፡ ከዚሁ ጋር በተያያዘም የሚሰጡት መረጃ ምስጢራዊነት
እንደሚጠበቅ ከወዲሁ እያረጋገጥኩኝ ከምንም አይነት ስጋት ነፃ ሆነዉ ትክክሇኛ መረጃ በመስጠት
የበኩልን አንዲወጡ እጠይቃሇሁ፡፡
መጠይቁን ሇመሙሊት ስሇሰጡኝ ጊዜ አስቀድሜ አመሰግናሇሁ!! አጥኚው

መግቢያ
 ስም መፃፍ አያስፈሌግም
 ሇእያንዳንዱ ጥያቄ አንድ መሌስብቻ ይሰጥ፣
 ይህን መጠይቅ በመሙሊትህ/ሽ የሚደርስብህ/ሽ ምንም ችግር አይኖርም፣
 በቀረቡት ባዶቦታዎች ሊይ ትክክሇኛውን መረጃ ጻፍ/ፊ ወይም የ ምሌክት
በመጠቀም መሌስ/ሽ/፣
ክፍሌ አንድ፡ የተሳታፊዎች አጠቃሊይ መረጃ
የሚከተለት ጥያቄዎች የጥናቱ አጠቃሊይ መረጃ የሚመከቱ ጥያቄዎች ናቸዉ፡፡ ስሇሆነም
መሌስዎን በባድ ቦታ ሊይ በመፃፍ ወይም የ"X"ምሌክት በመጠቀም ይመሌሱ፡፡
1/የምትማርበት /ሪበት ዩኒቨርሲቲ ስም ዲፓርትመንት
2/ጾታ 1ወንድ 2 ሴት
3/ ዕድሜ ዓመት
4 የስንተኛ አመት ተማሪነህ/ሽ?
1ኛዓመት ኛዓመት ኛ ዓመት ኛዓመት
5. ሏይማኖት
ኦርቶዶክስ ክርስቲያን ሙስሉም ካቶሉክ ፕሮቴስታንት
ከተጠቀሱት የተሇየ ከሆነ ባዶቦታው ሊይ ፃፍ/ፊ ___________
6. ብሔርህ /ብሔርሽ ምንድን ነዉ? ________________

/7.አባትህ ና እናት ህ/ሽ ከተሇያዩ ብሔረሰቦች ናቸው አዎ አይደሇም

75
ሀ. የብሔር ማንነት መሇኪያ (Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measuring Scale)
የሚከተለት ጥያቄዎች የአንተን/ቺን የብሔር ማንነት ሁኔታ የሚሇኩ ናቸው፡፡ በመሆኑም ወደ
ጎን በሚገኙ ትሳጥኖች ውስጥ ከቀረቡት አምስት አማራጮች መካከሌ የአንተን/ቺን ስሜት
የሚገሌጠውን/ሽን አንዱ ሊይ “√” ምሌከት በማድረግ አሳይ/ዪ፡፡
5 በጣም እስማማሇሁ 3 እርግጠኛ አይደሇሁም
4 እስማማሇሁ 2 አሌስማማም
1 በጣምአሌስማማም

መመዘኛ /ዓ.ነገሮች አማራጮች

1 2 3 4 5

1 ስሇራሴብሔር ማንነት፣ ታሪክ፣ባህሌ ፣ሌማዶች ሇማወቅ ጥረት

አደርጋሇሁ፡፡
2 በእኔ ብሔረሰብ በተደራጁ አደረጃጃቶችና ማህበራዊ ሥብሥቦች
ሇምሳላ የሃይማኖት፤ የፖሇቲካ አደረጃጃቶች ውስጥ የነቃ
ተሳትፎ አደርጋሇሁ
3 የእኔ ብሔረሰብ ሇኔ ምን ማሇት እንደሆነ ግሌጽ የሆነ ግንዛቤ
(ስሜት) አሇኝ፡፡
4 የእኔ ማንነት (ህይወቴ) በአብሊጫው በብሔረሰቤ ማንነት
ይወሰናሌ ብዬ በሰፊው አስባሇሁ፡፡
5 የብሔረሰቤ አባሌ በመሆኔ ከፍተኛ የሆነ ደስታይሰማኛሌ፡፡
6 የብሔረሰብ አካሌ ነኝ ብዬ የማምንበት ጠንካራ ስሜት
አሇኝ
7 የብሔረሰቤ አባሌ መሆኔ ሇኔ ምን ያህሌ አስፈሊጊ እንደሆነ
እገነዘባሇሁ፡፡
8 ስሇ ብሔረሰቤ ይበሌጥ ሇማወቅ ከተሇያዩ ሰዎች ጋር ስሇ
ብሔረሰቤ እወያያሇሁ (አወራሇሁ)፡፡
9 በእኔ ብሔረሰብ በጣም እኮራሇሁ
10 በብሔረሰቤ በሚከናወኑ ባህሊዊ ክንዋኔዎች ሇምሳላ ምግብ
ዝግጅት ፣ ሙዚቃ ፣ እንዲሁም የተሇያዩ ሌማዳዊ ክንውኖች
ሊይ እሳተፋሇሁ
11 ከራሴ ብሔረሰብ አባሊት ጋር የጠንከረ ግንኙነት እንዳሇኝ
ይሰማኛሌ፡፡
12 ስሇራሴ ብሔረሰብና ባህሊዊ ዳራ ጥሩየሆነ ስሜት አሇኝ፡፡

76
 ሇ. የእርስ በርስ የባህሌ ግንኙነት (ስሜት) መሇኪያ (Intercultural Sensitivity Scale)

ከዚህ በታች የተሇያየ ባህሌ የብሔረሰብ አባሊት መካከሌ ያሇን የእርስ በርስ ስሜት የሚመሇከቱ ዓ.ነገሮች
ቀርበዋሌ፡፡ ትክክሌ ወይም ስህተት የሚባሌ መሌስ የሇም፡፡ ስሇዚህ እባክህ/ሽ ዓ.ነገሩን በአግባቡ
ከአነበብክ/ሽ በኋሊ የተሰማህን/ሽን ስሜት በጣም ከእስማማሇሁ እስከ በጣም አሌስማማም ያለት
አማራጮች ሊይ የ “√√ ” ምሌክት በመጠቀም መሌስ (ሺ)፡፡ መሌሱን ስትመሌስ (ሺ) የራስህን (ሽን)
ብሔረሰብ ከግምት በማስገባት መሆኑ አይዘንጋ፡፡

5 በጣም አሌስማማም 4 አሌስማማም 3.መወሰን አሌችሌም 2እስማማሇሁ

1 በጣም እስማማሇሁ

ተ.ቁ መስፈርት አማራጮች

1 2 3 4 5
1 ከላልች ከእኔ የተሇ የባህሌ ካሊቸው ብሏሄረሰብ አባሊት ጋር ግንኙነት
ማድረግ (ማውራት፣መወያየት፣መስራት) ያስደስተኛሌ፡፡
2 ከኔ ብሔረሰብ የተሇየ ባህሌ ያሊቸው ብሔረሰብ አባሊት ጠባቦች እንደሆኑ
አስባሇሁ፡፡
3 ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው የብሔረሰሰብ አባሊት ጋር ሇመገናኘት
(ሇማውራት፣ሇመወያየት፣ሇመስራት) የራስ መተማመኔ ከፍተኛ ነው፡፡
4 ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ግሇሰቦች ፊት ቀርቦ መናገር ይከብደኛሌ፡፡
5 ከላልች ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ (ብሔር) ካሊቸው ሰዎች ጋር ስገናኝ በቀሊለ
ሇመግባባት ፣ ተገቢ ሇመሆን እሞክራሇሁ
6 ከላልች የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ሰዎች (ብሔረሰብአባሌ) ጋር መገናኘት
አሌፈሌግም፡፡
7 ከላልች ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ግሇሰቦች ጋር ስገናኝ (ስነጋገር
፣ስወያይ፣ ስሰራ) በቀሊለ እናደዳሇሁ፡፡
8 ከላልች ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው የብሔረሰብ አባሊትጋር ስሆን
አሌበረታታም
9 ሇላልች ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ሊሊቸው የብሔረሰብ አባሊት የተሇየ ስሜት
በአእምሮዬ አሌይዝም፡፡
10 ብዙ ጊዜ ከላልች ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ብሔረሰብ አባሊት ጋር ስገናኝ
ዋጋ እንደላሇኝ ይሰማኛሌ፡፡
11 የእኔ ብሔረሰብ ባህሌ ከላሊው የበሇጠ (የተሻሇ) እንደሆነ አስባሇሁ፡፡
12 ሁሌ ጊዜ ከእኔ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ብሔረሰ ብአባሊት ጋር ስገናኝ (ስነጋገር
፣ ስወያይ) ቀና የሆነ መሌስ እሰጣሇሁ፡፡
13 ከእኔ ብሔረሰብ የተሇየ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ሰዎች ጋር በማደርገው ውይይት
እንደተረዳኋቸው በቃሌ ወይም በምሌክት እገሌፅሊቸዋሇሁ፡፡
14 በእኔ ብሔረሰብ ባህሌ እና በላልች መካከሌ ባሇው ሌዩነት መጥፎ ሳይሆን
በጎ ስሜት ይፈጥርብኛሌ

77
 ሏ.የብሄር ማንነትና ባህሌ ሊይ ያሇን አቋም /አመሇካከት መመዘኛ መስፈርቶች
/Ethnocentrism items/
መመሪያ ስሇራስ. ብሔር ባህሌእና ስሇላልች ባህልች የሚሰማንና ያሇን አቋም/ አመሇካከ
ትየሚገሌፁ ዏ.ነገሮች መመዘኛ መስፈርቶች /Ethnocentrism items/ ቀጥል በሰንጠረዡ
ቀርበዋሌ፡፡ የቀረቡት ጥያቄዎች ትክክሌ ወይም ስህተት የሚባሌ መሌስ የሊቸውም፡፡ ስሇዚህ
በቀረቡት ሊይ ምን ያህሌ እንደም ትስማማ/ ሚ ወደ ጎን በሚገኙት ሳጥኖች ውስጥ ከቀረቡት
አምስት አማራጮች መካከሌ አንዱ ሊይ “√” ምሌከት በማድረግ አሳይ/ዪ
5 በጣም አሌስማማም 4 አሌስማማም 3.እርግጠኛ አይደሇሁም 2 እስማማሇሁ
1 በጣም እስማማሇሁ

ተ.ቁ መስፈርት/ ዓ.ነገሮች አማራጮች

1 2 3 4 5
1 አብዛኞቹ የላልች ባህሌና አኗኗር ዘይቤ ከእኔ ብሔር ባህሌና አኗኗር ዘይቤ
ጋር ሲወዳደር ኋሊቀር ናቸው፡፡
2 የእኔ ብሔር ባህለም ሆነ የአኗኗር ዘይቤው ሇላልች ብሔሮች መሪ/ አርዓያ/
ሉሆን ይገባሌ፡፡
3 የእኔ ብሔር ባህሌ እንደ ላልች ባህሌ ና የአኗኗር ዘይቤ ዉብና አስደሳች
ነው፡፡
4 ላልች ባህልች የኔን ብሔር ባህሌና አኗኗር ዘይቤ ሇመከተሌ መጣር
ይገባቸዋሌ፡፡
5 በእኔ ብሔር ባህሌ ያለ ሰዎች ከላልች ባህልች ሉማሩ የሚችሎቸው ብዙ
ነገሮች አሎቸው፡፡
6 አብዛኞቹ ከእኔ ብሔር ባህሌ ውጪ ያለ ሰዎች ሇራሳቸው የሚጠቅማቸውን
አያውቁም፡፡
7 የላልች ባህልችን ክስተቶች እና ሌዩነቶች አከብራሇሁ
8 የእኛን ብሔር ባህሇና የአኗኗር ዘይቤ የሚከተለ ላልች ብሔረሰቦች
ትክክሇኛና አዋቂ ናቸው፡፡
9 አብዛኞቹ ከእኔ ብሔር ውጪ ያለ ሰዎች የኔባህሌ ቢከተለ የበሇጠ ደስተኛ
ይሆናለ፡፡
10 በእኔ ባህሌ ውስጥ ያለ ሰዎች እንደማንኛውም ባህሌ በጥሩ የኑሮ ዘይቤ
ውስጥ ናቸው ያለት
11 የላልች ባህሌ የአኗኗር ዘይቤ የኔብሄር አያክሌም፡፡

12 ከእኔብሔረሰብ (ባህሌ) ውጭ ካለሰዎች ጋር መተባበር ይከብደኛሌ

(አሌተባበርም)፡፡
13 ባህሊቸው ከኔ የተሇዩ ሰዋችን አንደራሴ ብሄር ሰዎች አመኔታ
አሌጥሌባቸውም ፡፡
14 ሌዩ ባህሌ ካሊቸው ሰዎች ጋር መገናኘት/ መስተጋብር
አሌወድም/እጠሊሇሁ
15 ከእኔ ብሔረሰብ ውጭ ሊለ የብሔረሰብ አባሊት ሇወግና ሌማዳቸው
ያሇኝ ክብር አነስተኛ ነው፡፡

78
Appendix III

TABLE One-Sample Tests of Ethnic Identity, Intercultural Sensitivity, Ethnocentrism

Scores by the expected scores

Test t df Sig. (2- Mean 95% Confidence

Value tailed) Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Ethnic Identity 36 10.131 345 .000 4.645 3.74 5.55
InterculturalSensitivity 42 17.761 345 .000 8.705 7.74 9.67
Ethnocentrism 45 -29.427 345 .000 -16.390 -17.49 -15.29

Table Multiple Comparisons of Post Hoc Tukey HSD Tests of Year in University/Batch
Differences for the Dependent Variables

Dependent (I) Year Level (J) Year Level Mean Difference Std. Sig.
Variables (I-J) Error
ETHINIC 1 2 4.360* 1.105 .001
IDENTITY 3 3.800* 1.180 .008
4 4.967* 1.564 .009
2 1 -4.360* 1.105 .001
3 -.560 1.246 .970
4 .607 1.614 .982
3 1 -3.800* 1.180 .008
2 .560 1.246 .970
4 1.167 1.667 .897
4 1 -4.967* 1.564 .009
2 -.607 1.614 .982
3 -1.167 1.667 .897
ETHINOCENTR 1 2 4.938* 1.349 .002
ISM 3 5.008* 1.441 .003
4 3.008 1.910 .394
2 1 -4.938* 1.349 .002
3 .070 1.521 1.000
4 -1.930 1.971 .761
3 1 -5.008* 1.441 .003
2 -.070 1.521 1.000
4 -2.000 2.035 .759

79
 4 1 -3.008 1.910 .394
2 1.930 1.971 .761
3 2.000 2.035 .759
INTERCULURA 1 2 -6.182* 1.168 .000
L SENSITIVITY 3 -2.324 1.247 .246
4 -.412 1.653 .995
2 1 6.182* 1.168 .000
3 3.858* 1.317 .019
4 5.770* 1.706 .004
3 1 2.324 1.247 .246
2 -3.858* 1.317 .019
4 1.913 1.762 .699
4 1 .412 1.653 .995
2 -5.770* 1.706 .004
3 -1.913 1.762 .699
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

80
Appendix IV

Table Multiple Comparisons of Post Hoc Tukey HSD Tests of ) age 3groups in Differences for
the Dependent Variables

Dependent variables (I) age 3groups (J) age 3groups Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
(I-J)

Ethnic identity 18-21 22-24 2.898* .956 .007

*
25+ 4.168 1.576 .023
*
22-24 18-21 -2.898 .956 .007
25+ 1.270 1.606 .709
*
25+ 18-21 -4.168 1.576 .023
22-24 -1.270 1.606 .709
INTERCULURAL 18-21 22-24 -.808 1.038 .716
SENSITIVITY 25+ 1.594 1.711 .621
22-24 18-21 .808 1.038 .716
25+ 2.402 1.743 .354
25+ 18-21 -1.594 1.711 .621
22-24 -2.402 1.743 .354
ETHINOCENTERISM 18-21 22-24 3.751* 1.165 .004
25+ .892 1.921 .888
*
22-24 18-21 -3.751 1.165 .004
25+ -2.859 1.957 .311
25+ 18-21 -.892 1.921 .888
22-24 2.859 1.957 .311

81
Declaration

This thesis is my work, has not been presented for a degree in any
university and that all sources of material used for the thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name: Yonas Awol

Signature: ----------------------

Date ------------------------------

82