Social distance

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.

History

Modern research into social distance is primarily attributed to work by sociologist Georg Simmel. 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.

Simmel's lectures on the topic were attended by Robert Park, who later extended Simmel's ideas to the study of relations across racial/ethnic groups. At the time, racial tensions in the US at the time had brought intergroup relations to the forefront of academic interest. Robert Park tasked his student, Emory Bogardus, to create a quantifiable measure of social distance. 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.

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.

Dimensions

Nedim Karakayali put forth a framework that described four dimensions of social distance:

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."
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.

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. 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.

Theoretical implications

Psychological distance

Some researchers have examined social distance as a form of psychological distance. Research in this vein has drawn connections between social distance, other kinds of psychological distance (such as temporal distance). 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.

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. 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. 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.

Practical implications

Prejudice

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

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

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. 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.

Power

Research on the relationship between power and social distance suggests that powerful individuals have a greater perception of distance from others. Based on construal level theory, this means that powerful individuals are more likely to engage in high-level construals. 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. This work also has important implications given that greater social distance reduces generosity.

Media influence

Social distance has also been examined in the context of third-person effects. The third-person effect describes individuals' tendency to assume that media messages have a greater influence on those other than themselves. 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. This phenomenon has been dubbed the social distance corollary.

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." This reference to social distance is especially true for global cities.

See also

• Bogardus Social Distance Scale
• Social Distance Corollary

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)