369:
children-in-law, with the effect that a respondent may envision him/herself being less bothered on a daily basis by having a disfavored group member as a relative-in-law than s/he would by having that individual as a co-worker or neighbor. In addition, a respondent who prefers not to associate with members of certain groups but respects others' freedom of association may accept a close relative's choice of a disfavored group member as a spouse even when that respondent would refuse to consider choosing the group member to be one of his or her own close friends.
105:
351:" have suggested with respect to the U.S.), a significant number of persons may interact more with their co-workers than with their physical neighbors, and for these people a disfavored group member's presence in the same workplace may be more objectionable than that member's residence on the same street would be.
394:
For example, if a respondent considers the difference in social distance between "3" and "4" to be more or less than the difference between "5" and "6," it would likely be inaccurate to infer that a disfavored group at level "6" is twice as distant as a disfavored group at level "3," and even if two
86:
For
Bogardus, social distance is a function of affective distance between the members of two groups: ‘‘n social distance studies the center of attention is on the feeling reactions of persons toward other persons and toward groups of people.’’ Thus, for him, social distance is essentially a measure
224:
For example, given a respondent's personal history of differing power relationships with different types of close family members, a respondent might consider him/herself bound to accept a divorced or widowed parent's choice to marry a member of a disfavored group while being indifferent toward the
82:
Research by
Bogardus first in 1925 and then repeated in 1946, 1956, and 1966 shows that the extent of social distancing in the US is decreasing slightly and fewer distinctions are being made among groups. The study was also replicated in 2005. The results supported the existence of this tendency,
417:
Bogardus’s conceptualization is not the only one in the sociological literature. Several sociologists have pointed out that social distance can also be conceptualized on the basis of other parameters such as the frequency of interaction between different groups or the normative distinctions in a
293:
For example, an individual who is estranged from his or her close family members may care less about whom they marry than about who is in his or her circle of close friends, and a respondent whose poor social skills and/or social anxiety limit the respondent's ability to initiate friendships may
421:
The scale has been criticized as oversimplified because social interactions and attitudes in close familial or friendship-type relationships may for at least some persons be qualitatively different from social interactions with and attitudes toward relationships with far-away contacts such as
368:
Likewise, especially for younger generations, whose members are on average more geographically mobile than were their elders at a comparable age, a significant number of persons may interact more with their friends, co-workers, and/or neighbors than with their siblings-, parents-, and/or
382:
Third, the assumption of an equal difference in quantitative social distance between the various options complicates any effort at generalization and/or comparison, whether in intrapersonal or interpersonal comparisons and whether for time-specific, longitudinal, or intervalic
311:
The larger the number of persons who place these items in different orders, the less strongly representative of the community is the ordering favored by a majority or plurality of surveyed individuals. This problem includes but is not limited to the
331:
The longer the time interval between surveys in a series, the more vulnerable cross-temporal surveys are to changes in the ordering that constitutes the metric used to evaluate a given survey's results and the changes between successive
262:
Second, the cumulative status of the scale as presented is vulnerable to individual, subcultural, and cultural differences in the relative positions of these items, as well as to changes in those orderings since the scale's
238:
In addition, differing levels of attachment to different immediate-family members may prompt different responses: A respondent who believes associating with members of a given group to be detrimental might simultaneously
316:" multicultural scenario in which subsets of a given overall community are internally relatively homogeneous but retain characteristics that distinguish them from other subsets of that overall community.
408:
This difficulty is compounded when different individuals assign different absolute levels of distance to, and with them different absolute amounts of difference between, given options in the scale.
202:
The assumption of a universally applicable ordering of options and, with it, the assumption of its implication that rankings are interpersonally comparable lead to the following potential problems:
347:
For example, in cultures in which average social interaction between members of the same geographic community has decreased since the scale's development (as studies such as Robert Putnam's "
395:
respondents agree on the quantitative level of distance associated with each option, it would be inaccurate to average a "2" response from one and a "6" response from the other as a "4."
251:) welcome the supposed harm that the respondent anticipates that marriage to that group member will inflict on an immediate family member toward whom the respondent bears animosity.
34:
to empirically measure people's willingness to participate in social contacts of varying degrees of closeness with members of diverse social groups, such as racial and
122:
213:, with the effect that a respondent's ordering of options may be different for different subtypes of one or more options presented as undifferentiated.
41:
The scale asks people the extent to which they would be accepting of each group (a score of 1.00 for a group is taken to indicate no social distance):
247:) be indifferent to or grudgingly accept that group member's marriage to an immediate family member with whom the respondent has little contact, and
169:
141:
243:) object to the prospect of a group member's marriage to an immediate family member for whom the respondent retains strong affection,
148:
590:
188:
225:
prospect of a sibling's marrying a member of that group and objecting to the prospect of a child's marrying a member of that group.
155:
126:
482:
Parrillo, Vincent N.; Donoghue, Christopher (2005). "Updating the
Bogardus social distance studies: a new national survey".
137:
294:
welcome anyone who comes the respondent's way despite that person's membership in a group disfavored by the respondent.
624:
313:
115:
629:
275:
162:
27:
432:
83:
showing that the mean level of social distance has been decreasing comparing with the previous studies.
24:
452:
534:
499:
609:
586:
568:
31:
526:
491:
68:
457:
447:
618:
503:
437:
348:
76:
35:
442:
495:
578:
462:
210:
104:
79:), because agreement with any item implies agreement with all preceding items.
16:
Scale measuring a person's willingness to engage with various types of people
88:
595:
Karakayali, Nedim. 2009. "Social
Distance and Affective Orientations."
551:
Karakayali, Nedim. 2009. "Social
Distance and Affective Orientations."
538:
129: in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
530:
517:
Bogardus, E. S. (1947). "Measurement of
Personal-Group Relations".
418:
society about who should be considered an "insider" or "outsider."
573:
Proceedings and
Publications of the American Sociological Society
98:
610:
http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bogardus/Bogardus_1926.html
75:
The
Bogardus social distance scale is a cumulative scale (a
274:
Differences in the ordering of these items decrease the
49:, as the legal spouse of a close relative) (score 1.00)
278:
of any individual survey conducted at a given time.
585:, 10th edition, Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc.,
209:First, individual options within the scale may be
91:the members of a group feel for another group.
8:
64:As non-citizen visitors in my country (6.00)
58:As co-workers in the same occupation (4.00)
189:Learn how and when to remove this message
599:, vol. 23, n.3, pp. 538–562, 2009.
474:
422:citizens or visitors in one's country.
55:As neighbors on the same street (3.00)
7:
127:adding citations to reliable sources
52:As my close personal friends (2.00)
555:, vol. 23, n.3, pp. 538–562, 2009.
14:
71:from entry into my country (7.00)
138:"Bogardus social distance scale"
103:
61:As citizens in my country (5.00)
45:As close relatives by marriage (
583:The Practice of Social Research
571:, Social Distance in the City.
114:needs additional citations for
21:Bogardus social distance scale
1:
496:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.011
646:
484:The Social Science Journal
276:inter-rater reliability
433:Minimal group paradigm
211:insufficiently refined
87:of how much or little
25:psychological testing
453:Diamond of opposites
123:improve this article
597:Sociological Forum
575:. 20, 1926, 40–46.
569:Bogardus, Emory S.
553:Sociological Forum
625:Personality tests
199:
198:
191:
173:
32:Emory S. Bogardus
637:
630:Social rejection
556:
549:
543:
542:
514:
508:
507:
479:
194:
187:
183:
180:
174:
172:
131:
107:
99:
645:
644:
640:
639:
638:
636:
635:
634:
615:
614:
606:
565:
560:
559:
550:
546:
531:10.2307/2785570
516:
515:
511:
481:
480:
476:
471:
458:Social distance
448:Thurstone scale
429:
195:
184:
178:
175:
132:
130:
120:
108:
97:
17:
12:
11:
5:
643:
641:
633:
632:
627:
617:
616:
613:
612:
605:
604:External links
602:
601:
600:
593:
576:
564:
561:
558:
557:
544:
525:(4): 306–311.
509:
490:(2): 257–271.
473:
472:
470:
467:
466:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
440:
435:
428:
425:
424:
423:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
387:
386:
385:
384:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
267:
266:
265:
264:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
217:
216:
215:
214:
204:
203:
197:
196:
111:
109:
102:
96:
93:
73:
72:
65:
62:
59:
56:
53:
50:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
642:
631:
628:
626:
623:
622:
620:
611:
608:
607:
603:
598:
594:
592:
591:0-534-62029-9
588:
584:
580:
577:
574:
570:
567:
566:
562:
554:
548:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
513:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
478:
475:
468:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
438:Guttman scale
436:
434:
431:
430:
426:
420:
416:
415:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
381:
380:
379:
378:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
350:
349:Bowling Alone
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
261:
260:
259:
258:
250:
246:
242:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
200:
193:
190:
182:
179:December 2019
171:
168:
164:
161:
157:
154:
150:
147:
143:
140: –
139:
135:
134:Find sources:
128:
124:
118:
117:
112:This section
110:
106:
101:
100:
94:
92:
90:
84:
80:
78:
77:Guttman scale
70:
66:
63:
60:
57:
54:
51:
48:
44:
43:
42:
39:
37:
36:ethnic groups
33:
29:
26:
22:
596:
582:
572:
552:
547:
522:
518:
512:
487:
483:
477:
443:Likert scale
263:development.
248:
244:
240:
185:
176:
166:
159:
152:
145:
133:
121:Please help
116:verification
113:
85:
81:
74:
46:
40:
20:
18:
463:Pyrevarians
30:created by
619:Categories
579:Babbie, E.
563:References
519:Sociometry
314:salad bowl
149:newspapers
95:Criticisms
504:145665603
427:See also
383:surveys.
332:surveys.
89:sympathy
539:2785570
163:scholar
69:exclude
589:
537:
502:
165:
158:
151:
144:
136:
67:Would
535:JSTOR
500:S2CID
469:Notes
170:JSTOR
156:books
28:scale
23:is a
587:ISBN
142:news
47:i.e.
19:The
527:doi
492:doi
125:by
621::
581:,
533:.
523:10
521:.
498:.
488:42
486:.
38:.
541:.
529::
506:.
494::
312:"
249:c
245:b
241:a
192:)
186:(
181:)
177:(
167:·
160:·
153:·
146:·
119:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
