Social Distance Scale

1.
Introduction
The distance between different groups in society and is opposed to locational distance
which includes differences such as social class, race, ethnicity, gender or sexuality, but also the
fact that the different groups mix less than members of the same group.Bogardus conducted the
first study in 1926 and the second study in 1946. Except the change of 1926 in social distance
towards Japanese and Chinese in 1946 (because of Second World War) they maintained the same
position of 1926 towards all the other nations.
Sociologist R.E. Park (1923) coined the term social distance for the first time while
describing the observed fact that the kinds of situations in which contact occurs between a
dominant group and subordinates vary in their degree of intimacy like, from Kinship by
marriage, residence in the same neighborhood, work in the same occupation to absolutely no
contact.
Affective social distance:
One widespread conception of social distance focuses on affectivity. According to this

approach, 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.
Normative social distance:
A second approach views social distance as a normative category. It refers to the widely
accepted and often consciously expressed norms about who should be considered as an insider
and who an outsider/foreigner. In other words, specify the distinctions between us, and them. So,
normative social distance is different from affective social distance, because it conceives social
distance is conceived as a non-subjective, structural aspect of social relations.
Interactive social distance:
A third conceptualization of social distance focuses on the frequency and intensity of

interactions between two groups, claiming that the more the members of two groups interact, the
1
closer they are socially. This conception is similar to the approach in sociological network
theory, where the frequency of interaction between two parties is used as measure of the
strength, of the social ties between them.
To view these different conceptions as dimensions of social distance, that does 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. So, interactive, normative and affective
dimensions of social distance might not be associated.
Sherif and Sherif(1969) “Social distance is a dimension of interaction between members

of different groups, ranging from intimacy to complete separation. It is defined by norms
governing the situation in which interaction with members of the out group is permissible.
(K. Young) The idea of gradation of one’s own group and its values with respect to those
of another group, which symbolize avoidance on the one hand and friendliness and close concept
on other hand.
2. Purpose
The main purpose of this study is to check the social distance scale of the Nepali youth subjects .
3. Methods
Survey method was used to collect the required data. Booklet of social distance scale was
distributed to the participants and the required information was collected to see the social
distance of the subjects. The questionnaire contained 12 questions. The highest obtainable score
for each dimension of TKI in handling conflict is 12 and if the participant scores 6 or more than
6, in any conflict handling style, that particular style is taken as participant’s conflict handling
style in conflicting situations.
The research was conducted with the youths of Kathmandu valley, being all of their
occupation as the student. 10 participants were taken being 5 male and 5 female participants and
all of them were below 25. All the participants were different age groups and different caste as
well.
2
I) Materials Used
 Pen/pencil
 Questionnaire of social distance scale
II) Procedures
Subjects were made to seat comfortably. After initial rapport build up the instruction were
provided. Then questionnaires and pens were distributed and the purpose of the test was
explained. They were left to do the task without any disturbance. Encouragement was provided
during the test. Queries were answered during the task and the participants took nearly 15
minutes to complete the test.
III) Instructions
The participants were told that it is a social distance scale test, and that it would be fun for them
filling out and then the questionnaire was provided. They were asked to answer all the questions
as quickly as possible with the first thought that comes to their mind. They were requested to fill-
out all the twelve statements with or without multiple marking in the same line. There was no
time limit, but the subjects were asked to complete the test as quickly as they can.
4. Results
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of South Africa of all subjects
3
Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social
Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Desis Aryal >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Binod Ojha +0.16 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
Saroj Pyakurel >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Sanjit Luitel +0.29 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
Femal Hartachhetang Rai -0.47 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
e
Phoebe Aryal +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Aashika Lama +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Upashana Devkota +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Radhika Timilsina -0.85 E Above Average Social Distance
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of United States of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota -0.34 D Moderate Social Distance/ Intimacy
Desis Aryal +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Saroj Pyakurel +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Sanjit Luitel +1.83 B High Social Intimacy
Femal Hartachhetang Rai +0.47 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
e
Radhika Timilsina +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of United Kingdom of all subjects
4
Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota -0.34 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
Desis Aryal +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Saroj Pyakurel +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Sanjit Luitel -0.6 E Above Average Social Distance
Femal Hartachhetang Rai >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
e
Phoebe Aryal +1.44 B High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Ghana of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +0.07 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
Binod Ojha >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Saroj Pyakurel >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Sanjit Luitel -0.6 E Above Average Social Distance
Femal Hartachhetang Rai >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
e
Aashika Lama -0.47 D Moderate Social Intimacy/ Distance
Radhika Timilsina >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Laos of all subjects

5
Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +1.06 C Above Average Social Intimacy
Binod Ojha >-2.01 G Extremely High Social Distance
Saroj Pyakurel <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Sanjit Luitel +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Femal Hartachhetang Rai <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Phoebe Aryal <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Aashika Lama +2.08 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Upashana Devkota <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Radhika Timilsina <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Lamjung district of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Desis Aryal <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Binod Ojha <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Saroj Pyakurel +1.7 B High Social Intimacy
Sanjit Luitel <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Femal Hartachhetang Rai +1.96 B High Social Intimacy
e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Dolpa district of all subjects
6
Name
r Score Distance
Saroj Pyakurel +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Aashika Lama <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Upashana Devkota +2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Jhapa district of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +1.7 B High Social Intimacy
Desis Aryal +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Binod Ojha +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Upashana Devkota +2.47 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Radhika Timilsina -1.62 F High Social Distance
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Morang district of all subjects
7
Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +1.7 B High Social Intimacy
e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Sunsari district of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Okhaldhunga district of all subjects
8
Name
r Score Distance
Desis Aryal +1.19 C Above Average Intimacy
Saroj Pyakurel +2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Femal Hartachhetang Rai +2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Ramechhap district of all subjects

Name
r Score Distance
Male Sajit Sapkota +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Desis Aryal +2.47 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
e
Upashana Devkota +1.83 A High Social Intimacy
9
From the above tables, subject typically felt social intimacy to the people of almost all the
district, except for one participant who showed high social intimacy towards US and high social
distance was directed towards Ghana.
Discussion and Conclusions
In context of Nepal, as we know we have seventy five different districts having each
district’ own identity and culture of their own and it is obvious that it would be very difficult to
cope among people from other districts though we agreed to be in next level of generation, but
even then, the study showed otherwise.
Hartley (1946) and Spoerl (1951). It is thus concluded that persons irrespective of their
occupation, education, income and race have the same pattern of social distance and the most
striking aspect of the response of the respondents is their remarkable correspondence.
Wark and Galliher (2007) attempt to show, for example, that "the invention of the
Bogardus Social Distance Scale was the result of a unique convergence of biographical and
historical circumstances.
So, the study shows that level of intimacy and social distance depends on a situation on
certain cases and only one subject has high social distance where it would be difficult to live in
cordially with other people and maintain the distance while other participants showed no
biasness towards other people from other districts.
Reference
Manual of social distance scale
Bogardus, E. S. (1947). ‘‘Measurement of Personal-Group Relations,’’ Sociometry, 10: 4: 306–

311
10
Sharma, Rajendra, Sharma, Rachana (1972). Social Psychology. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers
and distributors
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.
Britt, S. R. (1958). 'Social Psychology of Modern Life'. Rinehart and Co. Inc. N.4
11

Social Distance Scale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Distance Scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

Affective social distance:

One widespread conception of social distance focuses on affectivity. According to this

Normative social distance:

Interactive social distance:

A third conceptualization of social distance focuses on the frequency and intensity of

Sherif and Sherif(1969) “Social distance is a dimension of interaction between members

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Ghana of all subjects

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Laos of all subjects

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social

Discussion and Conclusions

Manual of social distance scale

Bogardus, E. S. (1947). ‘‘Measurement of Personal-Group Relations,’’ Sociometry, 10: 4: 306–

You might also like