Ethnic Speech and Ethnic Action as Ethnic Behavior: Part 2. Validation of the Brunel Ethnic Behavior Inventory

This study sought to validate the Brunel Ethnic Behavior Inventory (BEBI) as a measure of two aspects of “doing” (i.e., ethnic speech and ethnic action) among the “ways of ethnicity” identified by Verkuyten. It also evaluates the construct validity of the BEBI alongside the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure-Revised (MEIM-R) and evaluates the BEBI and the MEIM-R (the latter of which measures exploration as “thinking” and commitment as “feeling” among ways of ethnicity) regarding criterion-related validity. Across two samples (n = 120 for Sample 1 and n = 148 for Sample 2), the BEBI and the MEIM-R performed suitably with regard to construct validity. However, the BEBI arguably performed better with regard to criterion-related validity (i.e., in predicting scores on life satisfaction, flourishing, positive and negative moods, and positive and negative emotions). Implications for validation studies on ways of ethnicity are discussed.     

Ethnic Speech and Ethnic Action as Ethnic Behavior: Part 1. Construction of the Brunel Ethnic Behavior Inventory

This article reports the construction of a new survey—specifically, the Brunel Ethnic Behavior Inventory (BEBI)—designed to measure ethnic speech and ethnic action as separate, yet related, aspects of individuals’ ethnic behavior. Using Tajfel’s social identity theory as a conceptual frame of reference, this study sought an answer to the research question of how many factors actually are measured by the BEBI, and tested the hypothesis that a two-factor model (i.e., Ethnic Speech and Ethnic Action as two correlated factors) would provide significantly better goodness of fit to the correlational data than would a one-factor model (i.e., Ethnic Behavior as one undifferentiated factor). Across one pilot sample (n = 101) and two main samples (n = 120 for Sample 1, n = 148 for Sample 2), the study found that not only did the BEBI measure two factors at most (i.e., Ethnic Speech and Ethnic Action) but, consistent with the hypothesis, the two-factor model yielded better goodness of fit than did the one-factor model. Implications for the conceptualization and measurement of Verkuyten’s “ways of ethnicity” are discussed.