Social distance

Last updated

In sociology, social distance describes the distance between individuals or social groups in society, including dimensions such as social class, race/ethnicity, gender or sexuality. Members of different groups mix less than members of the same group. It is the measure of nearness or intimacy that an individual or group feels towards another individual or group in a social network or the level of trust one group has for another and the extent of perceived likeness of beliefs. [1] [2]

Contents

History

Modern research into social distance is primarily attributed to work by sociologist Georg Simmel. [3] [4] Simmel's conceptualization of social distance was represented in his writings about a hypothetical stranger that was simultaneously near and far from contact with his social group. [3] [5]

Simmel's lectures on the topic were attended by Robert Park, [6] [5] who later extended Simmel's ideas to the study of relations across racial/ethnic groups. [6] [3] [4] At the time, racial tensions in the US at the time had brought intergroup relations to the forefront of academic interest. [6] [3] [4] Robert Park tasked his student, Emory Bogardus, to create a quantifiable measure of social distance. [5] Bogardus' creation of the first Social Distance Scale played a large role in popularizing Park's and Bogardus conceptualization of social distance, which had some significant differences from Simmel's original ideas. [3] [5] [4]

Contemporary studies of social distance do exhibit some features of a cohesive body of literature, but the definitions and frameworks sometimes show significant variations across researchers and disciplines. [3] [4]

Dimensions

Nedim Karakayali put forth a framework that described four dimensions of social distance: [4] [7]

  1. Affective social distance: One widespread view of social distance is affectivity. Social distance is associated with affective distance, i.e. how much sympathy the members of a group feel for another group. Emory Bogardus, the creator of "Bogardus social distance scale" was typically basing his scale on this subjective-affective conception of social distance: "[i]n social distance studies the center of attention is on the feeling reactions of persons toward other persons and toward groups of people." [8]
  2. Normative social distance: A second approach views social distance as a normative category. Normative social distance refers to the widely accepted and often consciously expressed norms about who should be considered as an "insider" and who an "outsider/foreigner". Such norms, in other words, specify the distinctions between "us" and "them". Therefore, normative social distance differs from affective social distance, because it conceives social distance is conceived as a non-subjective, structural aspect of social relations. Examples of this conception can be found in some of the works of sociologists such as Georg Simmel, Emile Durkheim and to some extent Robert Park.
  3. Interactive social distance: Focuses on the frequency and intensity of interactions between two groups, claiming that the more the members of two groups interact, the closer they are socially. This conception is similar to the approaches in sociological network theory, where the frequency of interaction between two parties is used as a measure of the "strength" of the social ties between them.
  4. Cultural and habitual distance: Focuses cultural and habitual which is proposed by Bourdieu (1990). This type of distance is influenced by the "capital" people possess.

It is possible to view these different conceptions as "dimensions" of social distance, that do not necessarily overlap. The members of two groups might interact with each other quite frequently, but this does not always mean that they will feel "close" to each other or that normatively they will consider each other as the members of the same group. In other words, interactive, normative and affective dimensions of social distance might not be linearly associated. [7]

Measurement

Some ways social distance can be measured include: direct observation of people interacting, questionnaires, speeded decision making tasks, route planning exercises, or other social drawing tasks (see sociogram).

Bogardus Social Distance Scale and its variations remain the most popular measure of social distance. [5] [6] In questionnaires based on Bogardus' scale, respondents are typically asked members of which groups they would accept in particular relationships. For example, to check whether or not they would accept a member of each group as a neighbor, as a fellow worker as a marriage partner. The social distance questionnaires may not accurately measure what people actually would do if a member of another group sought to become a friend or neighbour. The social distance scale is only an attempt to measure one's feeling of unwillingness to associate equally with a group. What a person will actually do in a situation also depends upon the circumstances of the situation. [9]

Theoretical implications

Psychological distance

Some researchers have examined social distance as a form of psychological distance. [10] [11] [12] Research in this vein has drawn connections between social distance, other kinds of psychological distance (such as temporal distance). [13] [11] This type of work also examined the effect of social distance on construal levels, suggesting that greater social distance promotes high-level and increase cognitive abstraction. [13] [11]

In speeded decision making tasks, studies have suggested a systematic relationship between social distance and physical distance. When asked to either indicate the spatial location of a presented word or verify a word's presence, people respond more quickly when "we" was displayed in a spatially proximate versus spatially distant location and when "others" was displayed in a spatially distant versus a spatially proximate location. [14] This suggests that social distance and physical distance are conceptually related.

Route planning exercises have also hinted at a conceptual link between social distance and physical distance. When asked to draw a route on a map, people tend to draw routes closer to friends they pass along the way and further away from strangers. [15] This effect is robust even after controlling for how easy it is for the people passing one another to communicate.

There is some evidence that reasoning about social distance and physical distance draw on shared processing resources in the human parietal cortex. [16]

Practical implications

Prejudice

Social distance can emerge between groups that differ on a variety of dimensions, including culture, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic class. [17] Construal level theory suggests that greater social distance can contribute to a reliance on stereotypes when evaluating socially distant individuals/groups. [18]

The relationship between social distance and prejudice is documented in studies of attitudes towards individuals who suffer from a mental illness. [19] Distance from the mentally ill and the desire to maintain it depends on the diagnosis, and varies across age groups and nationalities. [19] The desire to maintain social distance is reduced with exposure to/familiarity with mental illness, [19] and increased with perceptions that mentally ill individuals are dangerous. [20] [19]

Generosity

Social distance has been incorporated in economic decision making experiments using the ultimatum game and the dictator game. In this line of work, researchers increase social distance by anonymizing economic decisions. This work finds that social distance reduces altruistic behavior. [21] [22] [23] A similar line of work aimed to reduce social distance by increasing social cues, or by incorporating minimal forms of interaction. These manipulations showed that decreasing social distance increases generosity. [24] [22] [25]

Power

Research on the relationship between power and social distance suggests that powerful individuals have a greater perception of distance from others. [12] [26] [27] Based on construal level theory, this means that powerful individuals are more likely to engage in high-level construals. [12] [27] This connection between power, social distance, and construal level has been used to explain other features of cognitions and behaviors related to power, including findings that powerful individuals are less likely to be influenced by others [#45], and more likely to engage in stereotyping. [12] [27] This work also has important implications given that greater social distance reduces generosity. [26]

Media influence

Social distance has also been examined in the context of third-person effects. [28] [29] [30] [10] The third-person effect describes individuals' tendency to assume that media messages have a greater influence on those other than themselves. [29] Some work has shown that this effect increases the greater the distance from the self; in other words, the greater the social distance between an individual and a hypothetical target, the greater the perceived influence of the media message on the target. [28] [29] [30] [10] This phenomenon has been dubbed the social distance corollary. [28] [10]

Housing

Social periphery is a term often used in conjunction with social distance. It refers to people being 'distant' with regard to social relations. It is often implied that it is measured from the dominant city élite. The social periphery of a city is often located in the centre.

Locational periphery in contrast is used to describe places physically distant from the heart of the city. These places often include suburbs which are socially close to the core of the city. In some cases the locational periphery overlaps with the social periphery, such as in Paris' banlieues .

In 1991, Geoff Mulgan stated that "The centres of two cities are often for practical purposes closer to each other than to their own peripheries." [31] This reference to social distance is especially true for global cities.

See also

Related Research Articles

A social norm is a shared standard of acceptable behavior by a group. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Georg Simmel</span> German sociologist and philosopher (1858–1918)

Georg Simmel was a German sociologist, philosopher, and critic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social structure</span> Aggregate of patterned social arrangements in society

In the social sciences, social structure is the aggregate of patterned social arrangements in society that are both emergent from and determinant of the actions of individuals. Likewise, society is believed to be grouped into structurally related groups or sets of roles, with different functions, meanings, or purposes. Examples of social structure include family, religion, law, economy, and class. It contrasts with "social system", which refers to the parent structure in which these various structures are embedded. Thus, social structures significantly influence larger systems, such as economic systems, legal systems, political systems, cultural systems, etc. Social structure can also be said to be the framework upon which a society is established. It determines the norms and patterns of relations between the various institutions of the society.

Similarity refers to the psychological degree of identity of two mental representations. It is fundamental to human cognition since it provides the basis for categorization of entities into kinds and for various other cognitive processes. It underpins our ability to interact with unknown entities by predicting how they will behave based on their similarity to entities we are familiar with. Research in cognitive psychology has taken a number of approaches to the concept of similarity. Each of them is related to a particular set of assumptions about knowledge representation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emory S. Bogardus</span> American sociologist (1882–1973)

Emory Stephen Bogardus was an American sociologist. He founded one of the first sociology departments at an American university, at the University of Southern California in 1915.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social stigma</span> Type of discrimination or disapproval

Stigma, originally referring to the visible marking of people considered inferior, has evolved in modern society into a social concept that applies to different groups or individuals based on certain characteristics such as socioeconomic status, culture, gender, race, religion or health status. Social stigma can take different forms and depends on the specific time and place in which it arises. Once a person is stigmatized, they are often associated with stereotypes that lead to discrimination, marginalization, and psychological problems.

The Bogardus social distance scale is a psychological testing scale created by Emory S. Bogardus 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 ethnic groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social psychology (sociology)</span> Relationship between the individual and society

In sociology, social psychology studies the relationship between the individual and society. Although studying many of the same substantive topics as its counterpart in the field of psychology, sociological social psychology places relatively more emphasis on the influence of social structure and culture on individual outcomes, such as personality, behavior, and one's position in social hierarchies. Researchers broadly focus on higher levels of analysis, directing attention mainly to groups and the arrangement of relationships among people. This subfield of sociology is broadly recognized as having three major perspectives: Symbolic interactionism, social structure and personality, and structural social psychology.

Stuart Carter Dodd (1900-1975) was an American sociologist and an educator, who published research on the Middle East and on mathematical sociology, and was a proponent of scientific polling.

Distancing is a concept arising from the work of developmental psychologists Heinz Werner and Bernard Kaplan. Distancing describes the process by which psychologists help a person establish their own individuality through understanding their separateness from everything around them. This understanding of one's identity is considered an essential phase in coming to terms with symbols, which in turn forms the foundation for full cognition and language. Recently, work has been done in psychological distancing in terms of development, personality and behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of emotions</span> Branch of sociology

The Sociology of emotions applies a sociological lens to the topic of emotions. The discipline of Sociology, which falls within the social sciences, is focused on understanding both the mind and society, studying the dynamics of the self, interaction, social structure, and culture. While the topic of emotions can be found in early classic sociological theories, sociologists began a more systematic study of emotions in the 1970s when scholars in the discipline were particularly interested in how emotions influenced the self, how they shaped the flow of interactions, how people developed emotional attachments to social structures and cultural symbols, and how social structures and cultural symbols constrained the experience and expression of emotions. Sociologists have focused on how emotions are present in the creation of social structures and systems of cultural symbols, and how they can also play a role in deconstructing social structures and challenging cultural traditions. In this case, in order to understand the mind, affect and rational thought must be considered since humans find motivation among non-rational factors such as levels of emotional commitment to norms, values, and beliefs. Within sociology, emotions can be seen as social constructs that are fabricated by interaction and collaboration between human beings. Emotions are a part of the human experience, and they gain their meaning from a given society's forms of knowledge.

Affect measures are used in the study of human affect, and refer to measures obtained from self-report studies asking participants to quantify their current feelings or average feelings over a longer period of time. Even though some affect measures contain variations that allow assessment of basic predispositions to experience a certain emotion, tests for such stable traits are usually considered to be personality tests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agency (sociology)</span> Refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices

In social science, agency is the capacity of individuals to have the power and resources to fulfill their potential. Social structure consists of those factors of influence that determine or limit agents and their decisions. The influences from structure and agency are debated—it is unclear to what extent a person's actions are constrained by social systems.

Construal level theory (CLT) is a theory in social psychology that describes the relation between psychological distance and the extent to which people's thinking is abstract or concrete. The core idea of CLT is that the more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of, while the closer the object is, the more concretely it will be thought of. In CLT, psychological distance is defined on several dimensions—temporal, spatial, social and hypothetical distance being considered most important, though there is some debate among social psychologists about further dimensions like informational, experiential or affective distance. The theory was developed by the Israeli social psychologists Nira Liberman and the American psychologist Yaacov Trope.

In cognitive psychology, spatial cognition is the acquisition, organization, utilization, and revision of knowledge about spatial environments. It is most about how animals, including humans, behave within space and the knowledge they built around it, rather than space itself. These capabilities enable individuals to manage basic and high-level cognitive tasks in everyday life. Numerous disciplines work together to understand spatial cognition in different species, especially in humans. Thereby, spatial cognition studies also have helped to link cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Scientists in both fields work together to figure out what role spatial cognition plays in the brain as well as to determine the surrounding neurobiological infrastructure.

Mobilities is a contemporary paradigm in the social sciences that explores the movement of people, ideas and things (transport), as well as the broader social implications of those movements. Mobility can also be thought as the movement of people through social classes, social mobility or income, income mobility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social network</span> Social structure made up of a set of social actors

A social network is a social structure consisting of a set of social actors, sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics. For instance, social network analysis has been used in studying the spread of misinformation on social media platforms or analyzing the influence of key figures in social networks.

Sex differences in cognition are widely studied in the current scientific literature. Biological and genetic differences in combination with environment and culture have resulted in the cognitive differences among males and females. Among biological factors, hormones such as testosterone and estrogen may play some role mediating these differences. Among differences of diverse mental and cognitive abilities, the largest or most well known are those relating to spatial abilities, social cognition and verbal skills and abilities.

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a self-report questionnaire that consists of two 10-item scales to measure both positive and negative affect. Each item is rated on a 5-point verbal frequency scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The measure has been used mainly as a research tool in group studies, but can be utilized within clinical and non-clinical populations as well. Shortened, elongated, and children's versions of the PANAS have been developed, taking approximately 5–10 minutes to complete. Clinical and non-clinical studies have found the PANAS to be a reliable and valid instrument in the assessment of positive and negative affect.

Psychological distance is the degree to which people feel removed from a phenomenon. Distance in this case is not limited to the physical surroundings, rather it could also be abstract. Distance can be defined as the separation between the self and other instances like persons, events, knowledge, or time. Psychological distance was first defined in Trope and Liberman's Construal Level Theory (CLT). However, Trope and Liberman only identified temporal distance as a separator. This has since been revised to include four categories of distance: spatial, social, hypothetical, and informational distances. Further studies have concluded that all four are strongly and systemically correlated with each other.

References

  1. ↑ Boguna, Marian, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, Albert Díaz-Guilera, and Alex Arenas (2004). Models of social networks based on social distance attachment. Physical Review, 70, 1–8.
  2. ↑ Helfgott, Jacqueline B. & Gunnison, Elaine (2008). The influence of social distance on community corrections officer perceptions of offender reentry needs. Federal Probation, 72(1), 2–12.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Levine, Donald N.; Carter, Ellwood B.; Gorman, Eleanor Miller (January 1976). "Simmel's Influence on American Sociology. I". American Journal of Sociology. 81 (4): 813–845. doi:10.1086/226143. ISSN   0002-9602. S2CID   144041956.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bligh, Michelle C. (2012-09-10). Bligh, Michelle C; Riggio, Ronald E (eds.). Exploring Distance in Leader-Follower Relationships. doi:10.4324/9780203120637. ISBN   9780203120637.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Ethington, Philip J. (1997-09-16). "The Intellectual Construction of "Social Distance": Toward a Recovery of Georg Simmel's Social Geometry". Cybergeo. doi: 10.4000/cybergeo.227 . ISSN   1278-3366.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Wark, Colin; Galliher, John F. (December 2007). "Emory Bogardus and the Origins of the Social Distance Scale". The American Sociologist. 38 (4): 383–395. doi:10.1007/s12108-007-9023-9. ISSN   0003-1232. S2CID   144049507.
  7. 1 2 Karakayali, Nedim. 2009. "Social Distance and Affective Orientations." Sociological Forum, vol. 23, n.3, pp. 538–562.
  8. ↑ Bogardus, E. S. 1947. Measurement of Personal-Group Relations,Sociometry, 10: 4: 306–311.
  9. ↑ "Social Distance, Basic Concepts of Sociology Guide".
  10. 1 2 3 4 David, Prabu; Morrison, Glenda; Johnson, Melissa A.; Ross, Felecia (June 2002). "Body Image, Race, and Fashion Models". Communication Research. 29 (3): 270–294. doi:10.1177/0093650202029003003. ISSN   0093-6502. S2CID   45017362.
  11. 1 2 3 Stephan, Elena; Liberman, Nira; Trope, Yaacov (2010). "Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 98 (2): 268–280. doi:10.1037/a0016960. ISSN   1939-1315. PMC   3193988 . PMID   20085400.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Magee, Joe C.; Smith, Pamela K. (2013-01-24). "The Social Distance Theory of Power". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17 (2): 158–186. doi:10.1177/1088868312472732. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   23348983. S2CID   40262039.
  13. 1 2 Stephan, Elena; Liberman, Nira; Trope, Yaacov (March 2011). "The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47 (2): 397–402. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.001. ISSN   0022-1031. PMC   3153444 . PMID   21836728.
  14. ↑ Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Algom, D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 610–622.
  15. ↑ Matthews, J.L. & Matlock, T. (2011). Understanding the link between spatial distance and social distance. Social Psychology, 42, 185–192. doi : 10.1027/1864-9335/a000062
  16. ↑ Yamakawa, Y., Kanai, R., Matsumura, M., & Naito, E. (2009). Social distance evaluation in human parietal cortex. PLoS ONE, 4(2): e4360. doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0004360
  17. ↑ Hipp, John R.; Perrin, Andrew J. (March 2009). "The Simultaneous Effect of Social Distance and Physical Distance on the Formation of Neighborhood Ties". City & Community. 8 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01267.x. ISSN   1535-6841. S2CID   54556334.
  18. ↑ Kim, Kyeongheui; Zhang, Meng; Li, Xiuping (December 2008). "Effects of Temporal and Social Distance on Consumer Evaluations: Table 1". Journal of Consumer Research. 35 (4): 706–713. doi:10.1086/592131. ISSN   0093-5301.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Jorm, Anthony F.; Oh, Elizabeth (January 2009). "Desire for Social Distance from People with Mental Disorders". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 43 (3): 183–200. doi:10.1080/00048670802653349. ISSN   0004-8674. PMID   19221907. S2CID   9651718.
  20. ↑ Angermeyer, M. C.; Matschinger, H. (2003-09-02). "The stigma of mental illness: effects of labelling on public attitudes towards people with mental disorder". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 108 (4): 304–309. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00150.x. ISSN   0001-690X. PMID   12956832. S2CID   18917348.
  21. ↑ Charness, Gary; Gneezy, Uri (October 2008). "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 68 (1): 29–35. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2008.03.001. ISSN   0167-2681.
  22. 1 2 Rigdon, Mary; Ishii, Keiko; Watabe, Motoki; Kitayama, Shinobu (June 2009). "Minimal social cues in the dictator game". Journal of Economic Psychology. 30 (3): 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.002. ISSN   0167-4870.
  23. ↑ Buchan, Nancy R.; Johnson, Eric J.; Croson, Rachel T.A. (July 2006). "Let's get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 60 (3): 373–398. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.017. ISSN   0167-2681. S2CID   17776294.
  24. ↑ Ahmed, Ali M. (June 2007). "Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias". Journal of Economic Psychology. 28 (3): 324–337. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.01.007. ISSN   0167-4870.
  25. ↑ Wu, Yin; Leliveld, Marijke C.; Zhou, Xiaolin (December 2011). "Social distance modulates recipient's fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study". Biological Psychology. 88 (2–3): 253–262. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.08.009. ISSN   0301-0511. PMID   21889968. S2CID   36863397.
  26. 1 2 Lammers, Joris; Galinsky, Adam D.; Gordijn, Ernestine H.; Otten, Sabine (2011-08-15). "Power Increases Social Distance". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 3 (3): 282–290. doi:10.1177/1948550611418679. hdl: 11370/e2b19157-95c1-460b-a321-2734b593e79b . ISSN   1948-5506. S2CID   143377272.
  27. 1 2 3 Galinsky, Adam D.; Rucker, Derek D.; Magee, Joe C. (2015), "Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions.", APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations., Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 421–460, doi:10.1037/14344-016, ISBN   978-1-4338-1703-8 , retrieved 2020-11-30
  28. 1 2 3 Meirick, Patrick C. (December 2005). "Rethinking the Target Corollary". Communication Research. 32 (6): 822–843. doi:10.1177/0093650205281059. hdl: 11244/24931 . ISSN   0093-6502. S2CID   28533150.
  29. 1 2 3 Meirick, Patrick C. (April 2004). "Topic-Relevant Reference Groups and Dimensions of Distance". Communication Research. 31 (2): 234–255. doi:10.1177/0093650203261514. hdl: 11244/24930 . ISSN   0093-6502. S2CID   42962482.
  30. 1 2 Jensen, Jakob D.; Hurley, Ryan J. (2005-06-01). "Third-Person Effects and the Environment: Social Distance, Social Desirability, and Presumed Behavior". Journal of Communication. 55 (2): 242–256. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02670.x. ISSN   0021-9916.
  31. ↑ Mulgan G (1991) Communications and Control: Networks and the New Economics of Communication (Polity, Cambridge)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.