"Assesing the Existence of Social Distance" - читать интересную книгу автора (Nix)
Assessing the Existence of Social Distance and
Factors that Affect its Magnitude at a Southern University
By Jerry Vincent Nix, May
1993
University of Mississippi
Introduction
Robert E. Park first defined the term and concept of "social distance" while serving as a Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago. The "American Negro" problem, and the strife caused by the "yellow devils" from the Orient led many social scientists to begin the study of prejudice and racial attitudes. The Negro began to dislike "his place" in society, and Asian immigrants were just beginning to compete for scarce resources in society. Dr. Park defined social distance as, "the grades and degrees of understanding and intimacy which characterize personal and social relations generally" (Park, 1924).
Dr. Emory S. Bogardus, professor at the University of Southern California, developed the first scale widely accepted as a reliable indicator of social distance. Bogardus' scale was scrutinized by 100 academia, who rated sixty statements that expressed social distance. The judges ranked each statement on a scale from one to seven, one being the least social distance, and seven being the most social distance. Scores for each statement were added, and the arithmetic mean of each statement was recorded. The statement receiving a mean closest to one was judged to express the least social distance. The statement with the mean closest to the value of two was judged to express the next level of social distance, and so on (Bogardus, 1936).
Bogardus used the scale throughout his distinguished career as an aid in valuable research. His most widely read studies were conducted at ten-year intervals. The results of these studies (no study was carried out in 1936 because Dr. Bogardus was out of the country) indicated that studies were decreasing over time. These studies also revealed that the relative positions of distinct ethnic groups were stable.
Dr. Bogardus' death in 1973 threatened to end a distinct line of research in American sociological history. Fortunately several sociologists, and social-psychologists have continued Dr. Bogardus' studies. A 1975 study found a higher overall social distance score than Dr. Bogardus' last study (Crull and Bruton, 1976). Another study in 1977 found that social distance scores were relatively stable (Owens, et. al, 1978). The overall social distance score means and standard deviations for the Bogardus and the Owens, et al. studies are presented in table 1.
| Table 1 | |||||||||
| Social Distance as a Function of Time | |||||||||
| Year of Study | |||||||||
| Statistics | 1926 | 1946 | 1956 | 1966 | 1976 | ||||
| M | 2.14 | 2.12 | 2.08 | 1.92 | 1.91 | ||||
| SD | 2.85 | 2.57 | 1.75 | 1.56 | 1.48 | ||||
Studies on social distance in other countries have demonstrated Americans to be less prejudiced than those countries' citizens. Perhaps this trend can be explained by the increasing diversity in the United States (Sell, 1989; Hraba, Hagendoorn, and Hagendoorn, 1989; Goldberg and Kirschenbaum, 1989; McAllister and Moore, 1991; Netting, 1991).
An interesting trend that has surfaced is that social distance tends to be a function of worldly events. Bogardus (1926, 1946, 1956, and 1966) found that this trend continued over time. In his 1926 study, the Turks were the most outcast of all groups surveyed. This was attributed to the national and worldly headlines, detailing the Turks' atrocities toward the Armenians. Bogardus' 1946 research had the Japanese at the bottom of the list, probably due to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the 1956 study. the Japanese rose dramatically, and Bogardus attributed this to the newly democratized Japan, under U.S. occupation (Bogardus, 1968). In the 1966 survey, Koreans were at the bottom, while "negroes" began their upward move in the rankings (Owen, et al, 1978). In the same 1978 study, Owen, et al, found that Southeastern Asians occupied most of the lower rankings on the social distance scale.
In a study conducted in Texas (Dyer, Vedlitz, and Worchel, 1986) concluded that minorities place more social distance between themselves and other minorities, than between themselves and whites. This study claimed that minorities might possibly model their behavior after the members of the majority, since the majority constitutes a powerful model in our society. Prejudice seems to be one of the behaviors that might be modelled. This same study also found that social distance decreased as educational level increased, particularly among minority groups. Similar results had been noted in a study at Syracuse University (Ames and Sakuma, 1969).
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) assumes several factors play important roles in whether or not people's actions are based on what they have learned. According to this theory, important factors in learning are cross-cultural awareness, culture, language, socialization, roles, attitudes, rules, and behavior (or modelling). The Social Learning theory is unique as a learning theory, since it claims behavior can be reinforced by one's self, as well as by others that might desire a certain behavior of an individual. This reinforcement can be immediate, or delayed. Humans are unique then, as a species, since they are able to plan actions based on what they have learned will be the consequences for certain behaviors or actions (Heydari, 1988). My research was interested in what (if any) effect some of the variables of the Social Learning theory had on social distance.
The hypotheses formulated for this study, based on the Social Learning Theory are:
1) individuals who have had close contact with persons of a different ethnic background should place less social distance between themselves and the out-group than persons who have had limited or no cross-cultural experience;
1b) Persons from an urban background should have had more opportunities to interact with other ethnic groups. Following from hypothesis #1, they should place less social distance between themselves and the out-group, than people from a rural background.
2) Females are socialized to be more caring and nurturing than males are. Women have traditionally been discriminated against and should be more empathetic to minority groups than men are. Women are not criticized for being emotionally involved, as men frequently are. Perhaps women band together to secure equality in the work-place, this should produce less social distance than men place between themselves and out-groups.
3) Religious persons are usually in close contact with people who share the same beliefs. Religions are not noted for being overly accepting of other religious groups. Religious organizations are generally stratified along racial lines. Persons who attend religious services frequently should place more social distance between themselves and out-groups.
4) Individuals who are highly educated have had a greater chance to associate with other ethnic groups. They should have less social distance than less-educated persons. Furthermore, since parents constitute powerful role models, respondents with highly educated parents should also place less social distance between themselves and out-groups. 5) Liberal Arts' majors should have a more diverse curriculum and training, so should be even less prejudiced than other college students or graduates.
6) Members of the majority make up powerful role models for minority groups. Following from this, prejudice should be a modelled behavior. Minority groups should place more social distance between themselves and other minorities than between themselves and whites. 7) This researcher was particularly interested in whether direct interaction between international students would decrease social distance from international students. In a residence hall with a majority of its population international students, social distance scores for international students should be lower than at residence halls that have less international students to interact with. The staff in residence halls are generally more liberal. They also constitute powerful role models for the students who live in the halls. Therefore it was hypothesized that the social distance should decrease as the time one lives in a residence hall increases.
This study also investigated findings of other social distance research. The null hypothesis that Americans would place equal overall social distance between themselves and outgroups was tested. This study also assessed the significance of current worldly events to effect social distance.
Method
Subjects
The subjects in this experiment were drawn from a non-random sample. The sample was purposive due mainly to time constraints of this experiment. The subjects were drawn from three primary groups. Group one, was taken from a graduate resident hall (Grant Hall), of which the experimenter is the director. This hall had a population of roughly 65% international students. Group two was drawn from a male residence hall with a population of 30% international students. Group three consisted of female Resident Advisors, currently employed by the Department of Student Housing and Residence Life. The first group was chosen simply for convenience. The second group was chosen for its close proximity to the experimenter's residence (next door.) The third group was added when it became apparent that the sample would consist of mainly males. The Ss were divided into two groups: "Grant Hall" and "other". Total Ss for this experiment were 131. 56 of the Ss came from Grant Hall and 75 came from other halls on the campus. 106 Ss were U.S. citizens, and 25 were international students. 21 Ss were married and 109 were single. One of the Ss did not answer the question on marital status. There were 60 females and 71 males in the total sample. 68 of the Ss were Liberal Arts majors, and 63 were majoring in another field. Three ethnic groups were represented: African, Asian, and European. Approximately 25 surveys were not used in the experiment because the Ss were from multiple ethnic backgrounds that did not make up a substantial groups of responses. 109 of the Ss were aged 29 years or less, 22 were 30 or more years of age. Ss received nothing for their participation other than a heartfelt "thank-you" from the experimenter.
Procedure
200 surveys (see appendix) were distributed. 100 in Grant Hall and 100 to the other halls. Of the surveys received in time to be counted, 56 came from Grant Hall and 75 from other halls on campus. The surveys were distributed by hand to residents in Grant hall. The experimenter delivered surveys to other hall directors on campus. The other hall directors then distributed the surveys to residents in their respective halls.
After the surveys were collected, the experimenter and his spouse entered the data into a mainframe computer using the statistical package SPSS-X. Social Distance as a dependent variable was computed by adding all social distance scores given to all groups named on the survey and dividing by the number of groups (48). This procedure has been used in all experiments reviewed by this experimenter. It was possible to compute several dependent variables using these data. The main dependent variable used in analyzing data from this experiment was "social distance from international students." For hypothesis number six, a different dependent variable was used, "social distance for nonwhites." Table 2 gives an overall view of the different "social distances" that were computed from this data, and their scores.
| Table 2 |
| Social Distance as a Function of Ethnic, Religious, or Racial Group |
| Ethnic Background of Respondent | |||||
| Social Distance | African | Asian | European | ||
| Overall | |||||
| M | 2.47 | 3.13 | 2.19 | ||
| SD | 1.45 | 1.67 | 1.14 | ||
| Whites | |||||
| M | 2.33 | 2.91 | 1.72 | ||
| SD | 1.19 | 1.60 | 0.79 | ||
| Non-Whites | |||||
| M | 2.53 | 3.18 | 2.42 | ||
| SD | 1.13 | 1.65 | 1.33 | ||
| Africans | |||||
| M | 1.88 | 3.00 | 2.31 | ||
| SD | 0.81 | 1.82 | 1.36 | ||
| Asians | |||||
| M | 2.51 | 2.87 | 2.22 | ||
| SD | 1.13 | 1.63 | 1.34 | ||
| Religions | |||||
| M | 2.81 | 3.19 | 2.57 | ||
| SD | 1.45 | 1.87 | 1.42 | ||
| Europeans | |||||
| M | 2.41 | 2.99 | 1.91 | ||
| SD | 1.27 | 1.65 | 0.96 | ||
| International Students | |||||
| M | 2.54 | 3.13 | 2.29 | ||
| SD | 1.22 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
Analysis of variance was used to determine whether or not the independent variables had any significant effect on the social distance scores obtained. It has been shown that Analysis of variance is one of the most powerful statistical tools, especially when two or more independent variables are being examined (Runyon in Heydari, 1988). This technique avoids the ambiguity of assessing differences in variances using multiple comparisons.
Results
So that the analyses of this experiment may be compared to most other social distance studies, results are reported in arithmetic means. The overall social distance score for the 48 ethnic/racial/religious groups was 2.43 (SD = 1.29). The social distance scores for international students was 2.50 (SD = 1.31).
Further analyses of the data revealed which independent variables affected the dependent variable "social distance for international students." Closer looks at each research hypothesis revealed the following results:
1) Social Distance is a function of previous contact with other ethnic groups. The social distances reported generally decreased as respondents' contacts with other ethnic groups increased. There was a marked increase in social distance responses from people who claimed their neighbors were all from the same ethnic group as themselves. Table 3 gives an overall view of social distance in relation to this variable.
| Table 3 |
| Social Distance as a Function of Respondents' Neighbors' Ethnicity |
| Proportion of Neighbors with Same Ethnicity | |||||
| Statistics | All | Most | Some | None | |
| M | 3.09 | 2.05 | 2.21 | 2.21 | |
| SD | 1.36 | 0.94 | 1.50 | 1.08 | |
| n | 51 | 49 | 14 | 13 | |
2) The home-size of the respondent did affect social distance scores obtained. Once the population of the Ss' home communities reached 40,000, there was a dramatic decrease in social distance. Table 4 reveals the dispersion of social distance means.
| Table 4 |
| Social Distance Scores by Respondents' Home Sizes |
Statistics |
|||||
| Home size | n | M | SD | ||
| Less than 1,000 | 8 | 2.58 | 1.92 | ||
| 1,000-5,000 | 12 | 2.44 | 1.03 | ||
| 5,001-10,000 | 14 | 2.24 | 1.00 | ||
| 10,001-20,000 | 14 | 2.68 | 0.97 | ||
| 20,001-30,000 | 14 | 3.65 | 1.15 | ||
| 30,001-40,000 | 13 | 2.79 | 1.55 | ||
| 40,001-50,000 | 7 | 2.21 | 1.04 | ||
| 50,000 or More | 46 | 2.13 | 1.31 | ||
3) Although males did place more social distance between themselves and the out-groups, as hypothesized, the results were not significant at the .05 significance level. The mean social distance given by males was 2.50 (SD =1.30). Female data yielded a social distance mean of 2.30 (SD = 1.28).
4) Educational level of the respondent did influence social distance scores. The mean social distance gradually decreased from freshmen Ss to senior Ss. The social distance mean for graduate students was very low. Table 5 details these results. Educational level of Ss' parents did not significantly affect social distance. In fact, educational level of Ss' mothers seemingly had no effect whatsoever on social distance scores.
| Table 5 |
| Social Distance Scores Educational Level of Respondent |
Statistics |
|||||
| Educational Level | na | M | SD | ||
| Freshman | 9 | 3.45 | 0.56 | ||
| Sophomore | 15 | 3.16 | 1.11 | ||
| Junior | 23 | 2.74 | 1.21 | ||
| Senior | 31 | 2.47 | 1.48 | ||
| Graduate | 51 | 1.88 | 1.09 | ||
a One subject was not included because she was not currently a student.
5) Liberal Arts majors were slightly more accepting than Ss who were majoring in other areas. The social distance mean of Liberal Arts majors was 2.294 (SD = 1.22). Mean social distance for all other majors' Ss was 2.71 (SD = 1.39). This difference was not significant.
6) There was no significant difference in social distance for non-whites obtained. Minorities seemingly place the same social distance between themselves and other minorities as themselves and whites.
7) Ss who were housed in Grant Hall were less ethno-centric than respondents housed in other halls. The mean social distance obtained by Grant Hall residents was 2.23 (SD = 1.22). The group consisting of residents housed in various different halls yielded a mean of 2.67 (SD = 1.34). These results were not significant at the .05 level. Length of stay in a residence hall did significantly affect social distance for Grant Hall and the other Ss as well. Table 6 provides a detailed look.
| Table 6 | |||||
| Social Distance Scores by Length of Stay in a Residence Hall | |||||
Statistics |
|||||
| Months | n | M | SD | ||
| 0-6 | 40 | 2.72 | 1.58 | ||
| 7-12 | 18 | 3.10 | 0.92 | ||
| 13-18 | 14 | 2.42 | 1.33 | ||
| 19-24 | 17 | 2.50 | 1.19 | ||
| 25 or more | 34 | 1.92 | 1.03 | ||
The data from this research supports studies mentioned above in that Americans seem far less prejudiced than citizens from other countries. The overall social distance score given by U.S. citizens was 2.25 (SD = 1.13). For internationals the social distance score given was 3.19 (SD = 1.67). Analysis of variance revealed a significant effect, F(1,126) = 10.02, p=.002.
Analyses of variances reveals exactly which of the independent variables of this study's research significantly affected social distance scores. The results of the Anovas are shown in Table 7.
| Table 7 | |||||||||||||
| Anova Results of the Social Distance Survey Data | |||||||||||||
| Statistics | |||||||||||||
| Independent Variable | F | df | p | ||||||||||
| Ethnicity of Neighbors | 4.914 | 4 | .001 | ||||||||||
| Home-size of Respondent | 2.542 | 7 | .018 | ||||||||||
| Gender | 0.657 | 1 | .419 | ||||||||||
| Religiosity | 0.927 | 8 | .500 | ||||||||||
| Educational Level of Respondent | 5.341 | 4 | .001 | ||||||||||
| Mother's Educational Level | 0.886 | 4 | 0.84 | ||||||||||
| Father's Educational Level | 2.105 | 4 | 0.84 | ||||||||||
| School | 3.296 | 1 | 0.72 | ||||||||||
| Ethnicity | 2.629 | 2 | 0.76 | ||||||||||
| Residence Hall Assignment | 3.374 | 1 | 0.69 | ||||||||||
| Length of Stay in Residence Hall | 2.883 | 4 | 0.25 | ||||||||||
This research clearly indicates that social distance is a function of worldly events. The out-groups receiving the highest social distance scores were the Iraqis (M = 3.47, SD = 2.14) and Iranians (M = 3.34, SD = 2.03). Overall, every group from the region we call the "Mid-East" was ranked very low. Table 8 lists all social distance scores obtained.
| Table 8 | |||||||||||||||
| Social Distance for each Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Group | |||||||||||||||
| Statistics | |||||||||||||||
| Group | M | SD | |||||||||||||
| African-Americans | 2.08 | 1.33 |
| Anglo-Americans | 1.63 | 1.11 |
| Asian Americans | 2.21 | 1.36 |
| Africans | 2.35 | 1.46 |
| Buddhist | 2.61 | 1.59 |
| Bulgarian | 2.45 | 1.52 |
| Canadian | 1.92 | 1.29 |
| Chinese | 2.37 | 1.50 |
| Croatian | 2.55 | 1.56 |
| Cuban | 2.60 | 1.70 |
| Dutch | 2.12 | 1.36 |
| English | 1.78 | 1.19 |
| French | 2.01 | 1.32 |
| Filipino | 2.47 | 1.48 |
| German | 2.17 | 1.34 |
| Greek | 2.17 | 1.34 |
| Haitian | 2.57 | 1.65 |
| Hispanic-American | 2.37 | 1.57 |
| Hindu | 2.75 | 1.60 |
| Hungarian | 2.45 | 1.54 |
| HongKonger | 2.51 | 1.60 |
| Indian | 2.53 | 1.54 |
| Iranian | 3.34 | 2.03 |
| Iraqi | 3.47 | 2.14 |
| Irish | 2.10 | 1.38 |
| Israeli | 2.88 | 1.76 |
| Italian | 2.28 | 1.39 |
| Japanese | 2.21 | 1.37 |
| Jewish | 2.48 | 1.46 |
| Korean | 2.36 | 1.39 |
| Lebanese | 2.75 | 1.71 |
| Malaysian | 2.30 | 1.43 |
| Mexican | 2.47 | 1.59 |
| Muslim | 2.82 | 1.67 |
| Norwegian | 2.28 | 1.43 |
| Pakistani | 2.89 | 1.66 |
| Palestinian | 2.95 | 1.71 |
| Portuguese | 2.44 | 1.46 |
| Polish | 2.37 | 1.42 |
| Rumanian | 2.53 | 1.53 |
| Russian | 2.45 | 1.55 |
| Serbian | 2.63 | 1.64 |
| Scottish | 2.12 | 1.30 |
| Spanish | 2.14 | 1.33 |
| Swedish | 1.99 | 1.31 |
| Taiwanese | 2.44 | 1.53 |
| Turkish | 2.62 | 1.57 |
| Vietnamese | 2.61 | 1.59 |
Discussion
This research has added to the long list of experiments carried out in an attempt to analyze social distance. Hopefully it has been a beneficial addition.
Overall the social distance scores obtained in this experiment were somewhat higher than expected. The results were especially discouraging when considering that the sample was supposedly liberally biased.
The study does lend moderate support to the Social Learning Theory as a predictor of social distance scores. This experiment also makes it apparent that a more diverse model, possibly combining elements from functional, conflict, and balance theories might be a stronger predictor. This is strongly evident in the hypothesis for home-size of the respondent. The social distance scores generally decrease as home-size increases. The glaring exception is for home-sizes in the 20,001-30,000 population range. The extremely high social distance mean for this group defies explanation. It is possible that many suburbs have populations in this range. Perhaps suburbs are very segregated. This would tend to increase social distance. This particular area in itself justifies further research.
One thing the study failed to do was reinforce the belief that social distance is continuing to decrease in our society, simply as a function of time. Perhaps the high social distance means are due to the study being undertaken in the deep South. It could be that the study has reinforced the belief that social distance is a function of worldly events. The university involved in this experiment has certainly had its share of racial tensions recently. These tensions seem to be increasing daily, rather than subsiding.
The main objective of this study was to determine whether or not social distance existed between international and american students. It was determined that social distance exists between these two groups. Encouraging findings of the study include the suggestion that more education decreases social distances. The implication is to get people in school and keep them there. This study had very severe limitations. Time limit was the most pronounced, and as a result of that the sample was rather small to draw serious inferences from. If this study sparks interest in others to continue the research began by Dr. Bogardus nearly 70 years ago, the experimenter will consider it a success.
References
Ames, Richard G. & Sakuma, Arline F. (1969). Criteria for evaluating others: A re-examination of the Bogardus social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 54,(October), 5-24.
Bandura, Albert. (Ed.). 1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1925). Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216-225.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308
Bogardus, Emory S. (1928). Immigration and race attitudes. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, (January-February), 265-271.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1936). Introduction to social research. Los Angeles: Suttonhouse Ltd.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1958). Racial distance changes in the United States during the past thirty years. Sociology and Social Research, 43, (2), 127-135.
Crull, Sue R., & Bruton, Brent T. (1976). Bogardus social distance in the 1970s. Sociology and Social Research, 63, (4), 771-783.
Dyer, James, Vedlitz, Arnold, & Worchel, Stephen. (1989). Social distance among racial and ethnic groups in Texas: Some demographic correlates. Social Science Quarterly. 70, (3), 607-616.
Goldberg, Albert I., & Kirschenbaum, Alan. (1989). Black newcomers to Israel: Contact situations and social distance.Sociology and Social Research, 74, (1), 52-57.
Heydari, Ahmad. (1988). An empirical test of two conceptual models concerning american students' social distance from international students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 8823752.
McAllister, Ian, & Moore, Rhonda. (1991). Social distance among Australian ethnic groups. Sociology and Social Research. 75, (2), 95-100.
Netting, Nancy S. (1991). Chinese aloofness from other groups: Social distance data from a city in British Columbia. Sociology and Social Research. 75, (2), 101-104.
Owen, Carolyn A., Eisner, Howard C., & McFaul, Thomas R. (1977). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus' studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66, (1), 80-98.
Park, Robert E. (1924). The concept of social distance: As applied to the study of racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, (July-August), 339-334.
Author's Notes
This research would not have been possible without the assistance received from the residence hall directors at the University of Mississippi. I wish to thank Mr. Lloyd Holmes, Mrs. Ann Juniker, Mrs. Joyce Hobson, Mrs. Doreen Langley, MS. Anna Dendy, MS. Sherry Lusk, and MS. Susan Sharp. I also wish to thank MS. Bonnie Reid, Associate Director for Student Housing and Residence Life, for allowing me access to all residence halls.
This study relied on Dr. Heydari's study as a reference tool very heavily. While it was not a replication of his study, credit is due Dr. Heydari for defining several variables. Most of the Survey in the Appendix was taken directly from the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Ahmad Heydari.
I also wish to thank my wife, Kyoko Miyamura-Nix, who helped code the data and enter it into the computer. She also offered invaluable insight into a possible understanding of international student's attitudes. Without her willing assistance this research would still be in its early stages.
APPENDIX
No. Date
The following information is being collected for statistical purposes only. These
data are being used to satisfy a senior-undergraduate research assignment. These data will
be used only to infer how various people view their social environment. The answers you
give will not be shared with any other person. No one will ever know who filled out this
particular survey. Please be as honest as possible while answering these questions.
Please record the number that matches your answer in the space provided to the left of
the question.
1. Gender: 1. Male 2. Female
2. What is your current educational level?
1. Freshman
2. Sophomore
3. Junior
4. Senior
5. Graduate Student or Post-Graduate
3. What is your school/division?
1. Liberal Arts 2. Business
3. Pharmacy 4. Law
5. Engineering 6. Education
7. Other
4. What is the main source of funds for your education?
1. Family resources 2. Spouse
3. Scholarship 4. Grants
5. Work-study 6. Full-time job
1. under 1,000 2. 1,000- 5,000
3. 5,001-10,000 4. 10,001-20,000
5. 20,001-30,000 6. 30,001-40,000
7. 40,001-50,000 8. 50,001 +
6. My home community is in: (country)
(state, province, prefecture)
(city, town, community)
7. Marital Status: 1. Married 2. Single
8. Are you a member of any Church?
1. Yes 2. No
9. If you answered yes to the previous question, how often do you attend church?
1. Once a week, or more
2. Twice a month
3. Once a month
4. Less than once a month
5. Never
10. Which statement best describes your belief in God, or a
Supreme Being?
1. Pray, ask guidance every day
2. Firm belief, important part of my life
3. Belief, but not really important to me
4. I am not sure
5. I do not believe in a Supreme Being
11. Do you believe there are major cultural barriers between American and International Students?
1. Yes 2. No
12. If you answered "yes" to question #11, what do you feel is the primary barrier?
1. Religion
2. Student Attitudes
3. Clothing
4. Language
5. Norms and values
13. What is your ethnic heritage background?
1. African 2. Asian
3. European 4. Middle Eastern
5. Native American 6. Other
14. Think of your home community. What proportion of your neighbors were of the same ethnic background as you?
1. My neighbors were of my ethnic background
2. Most neighbors were of my ethnicity
3. Some of my neighbors were of my ethnicity
4. Most neighbors were a different ethnicity
5. None of my neighbors were of my ethnicity
15. How much contact have you had in your lifetime with persons of a different racial or ethnic background than your own.
1. A great deal of contact
2. Some contact
3. Very little contact
4. No contact
16. What is the highest level of education completed by your father, or male guardian?
1. Grade school or less
2. Some High school
3. High school graduate
4. Some beyond high school
5. College graduate
6. Graduate/Professional school after college
17. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother, or female guardian?
1. Grade school or less
2. Some high school
3. High school graduate
4. Some beyond high school
5. College graduate
6. Graduate/professional school after college
18. How would you describe your father's occupation?
1. Blue collar
2. White collar
3. Actual occupation
19. How would you describe your mother's occupation?
1. Blue collar
2. White collar
3. Actual occupation
20. How would you rate your cross-cultural experiences at (Insert your University here, originally it was Ole Miss.)?
1. Extremely positive
2. Generally positive
3. Somewhat positive
4. Somewhat negative
5. Generally negative
6. Extremely negative
21. Are you a member of any student organization at (Your school?)
1. Yes 2. No
22. If yes to question # 21, how often do you attend?
1. Regularly
2. Irregularly
3. Never
23. Are any of your friends international students?
1. Yes 2. No
24. If yes to the previous question, how often do you have interaction with your international friends?
1. Often
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
25. Are you an international Student?
1. Yes 2. No
26. If yes to question number 25, do you have any friends who are American students?
1. Yes 2. No
27. How often do you have interaction with your American friends?
1. Often
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
4. I do not have any American friends
28. As of your last birthday, what is your age?
....29. I have lived in Guess Hall for years, months.
If you lived in another hall at this university, please tell which hall and how long you lived there :
30. After completing your degree, where will you work?
1. In the U.S.A
2. Outside the U.S.A
3. Wherever a job is offered
Please follow the Instructions carefully:
According to my first feelings (reactions), I would willingly admit members of each ethnic or racial group into the following classifications (please think of each group as a whole, and not of the best representative, nor the worst representative of that group you have known):
1. close kinship by marriage
2. very close friends
3. as my neighbors
4. into my work group
5. as a speaking acquaintance only
6. as visitors only to my country
7. exclude from my country.
Please write the number of the one statement above that corresponds to your feeling in the space provided to the left of each group name:
African-American
Anglo-American
Asian-American
African
Buddhist
Canadian
Chinese
Croatian
Cuban
Dutch
English
French
Filipino
German
Greek
Haitian
Hispanic-American
Hindu
Hongkonger
Indian
Iranian
Iraqi
Irish
Israeli
Italian
Japanese
Jewish
Korean
Lebanese
Malaysian
Mexican
Muslim
Norwegian
Pakistani
Palestinian
Portuguese
Polish
Rumanian
Russian
Serbian
Scottish
Spanish
Swedish
Taiwanese
Turkish
Vietnamese
(c) Jerry Vincent Nix
| MAIN | INDEX | SEARCH | LINKS | Mailing List | Frames Version |
Assessing the Existence of Social Distance and
Factors that Affect its Magnitude at a Southern University
By Jerry Vincent Nix, May
1993
University of Mississippi
Introduction
Robert E. Park first defined the term and concept of "social distance" while serving as a Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago. The "American Negro" problem, and the strife caused by the "yellow devils" from the Orient led many social scientists to begin the study of prejudice and racial attitudes. The Negro began to dislike "his place" in society, and Asian immigrants were just beginning to compete for scarce resources in society. Dr. Park defined social distance as, "the grades and degrees of understanding and intimacy which characterize personal and social relations generally" (Park, 1924).
Dr. Emory S. Bogardus, professor at the University of Southern California, developed the first scale widely accepted as a reliable indicator of social distance. Bogardus' scale was scrutinized by 100 academia, who rated sixty statements that expressed social distance. The judges ranked each statement on a scale from one to seven, one being the least social distance, and seven being the most social distance. Scores for each statement were added, and the arithmetic mean of each statement was recorded. The statement receiving a mean closest to one was judged to express the least social distance. The statement with the mean closest to the value of two was judged to express the next level of social distance, and so on (Bogardus, 1936).
Bogardus used the scale throughout his distinguished career as an aid in valuable research. His most widely read studies were conducted at ten-year intervals. The results of these studies (no study was carried out in 1936 because Dr. Bogardus was out of the country) indicated that studies were decreasing over time. These studies also revealed that the relative positions of distinct ethnic groups were stable.
Dr. Bogardus' death in 1973 threatened to end a distinct line of research in American sociological history. Fortunately several sociologists, and social-psychologists have continued Dr. Bogardus' studies. A 1975 study found a higher overall social distance score than Dr. Bogardus' last study (Crull and Bruton, 1976). Another study in 1977 found that social distance scores were relatively stable (Owens, et. al, 1978). The overall social distance score means and standard deviations for the Bogardus and the Owens, et al. studies are presented in table 1.
| Table 1 | |||||||||
| Social Distance as a Function of Time | |||||||||
| Year of Study | |||||||||
| Statistics | 1926 | 1946 | 1956 | 1966 | 1976 | ||||
| M | 2.14 | 2.12 | 2.08 | 1.92 | 1.91 | ||||
| SD | 2.85 | 2.57 | 1.75 | 1.56 | 1.48 | ||||
Studies on social distance in other countries have demonstrated Americans to be less prejudiced than those countries' citizens. Perhaps this trend can be explained by the increasing diversity in the United States (Sell, 1989; Hraba, Hagendoorn, and Hagendoorn, 1989; Goldberg and Kirschenbaum, 1989; McAllister and Moore, 1991; Netting, 1991).
An interesting trend that has surfaced is that social distance tends to be a function of worldly events. Bogardus (1926, 1946, 1956, and 1966) found that this trend continued over time. In his 1926 study, the Turks were the most outcast of all groups surveyed. This was attributed to the national and worldly headlines, detailing the Turks' atrocities toward the Armenians. Bogardus' 1946 research had the Japanese at the bottom of the list, probably due to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the 1956 study. the Japanese rose dramatically, and Bogardus attributed this to the newly democratized Japan, under U.S. occupation (Bogardus, 1968). In the 1966 survey, Koreans were at the bottom, while "negroes" began their upward move in the rankings (Owen, et al, 1978). In the same 1978 study, Owen, et al, found that Southeastern Asians occupied most of the lower rankings on the social distance scale.
In a study conducted in Texas (Dyer, Vedlitz, and Worchel, 1986) concluded that minorities place more social distance between themselves and other minorities, than between themselves and whites. This study claimed that minorities might possibly model their behavior after the members of the majority, since the majority constitutes a powerful model in our society. Prejudice seems to be one of the behaviors that might be modelled. This same study also found that social distance decreased as educational level increased, particularly among minority groups. Similar results had been noted in a study at Syracuse University (Ames and Sakuma, 1969).
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) assumes several factors play important roles in whether or not people's actions are based on what they have learned. According to this theory, important factors in learning are cross-cultural awareness, culture, language, socialization, roles, attitudes, rules, and behavior (or modelling). The Social Learning theory is unique as a learning theory, since it claims behavior can be reinforced by one's self, as well as by others that might desire a certain behavior of an individual. This reinforcement can be immediate, or delayed. Humans are unique then, as a species, since they are able to plan actions based on what they have learned will be the consequences for certain behaviors or actions (Heydari, 1988). My research was interested in what (if any) effect some of the variables of the Social Learning theory had on social distance.
The hypotheses formulated for this study, based on the Social Learning Theory are:
1) individuals who have had close contact with persons of a different ethnic background should place less social distance between themselves and the out-group than persons who have had limited or no cross-cultural experience;
1b) Persons from an urban background should have had more opportunities to interact with other ethnic groups. Following from hypothesis #1, they should place less social distance between themselves and the out-group, than people from a rural background.
2) Females are socialized to be more caring and nurturing than males are. Women have traditionally been discriminated against and should be more empathetic to minority groups than men are. Women are not criticized for being emotionally involved, as men frequently are. Perhaps women band together to secure equality in the work-place, this should produce less social distance than men place between themselves and out-groups.
3) Religious persons are usually in close contact with people who share the same beliefs. Religions are not noted for being overly accepting of other religious groups. Religious organizations are generally stratified along racial lines. Persons who attend religious services frequently should place more social distance between themselves and out-groups.
4) Individuals who are highly educated have had a greater chance to associate with other ethnic groups. They should have less social distance than less-educated persons. Furthermore, since parents constitute powerful role models, respondents with highly educated parents should also place less social distance between themselves and out-groups. 5) Liberal Arts' majors should have a more diverse curriculum and training, so should be even less prejudiced than other college students or graduates.
6) Members of the majority make up powerful role models for minority groups. Following from this, prejudice should be a modelled behavior. Minority groups should place more social distance between themselves and other minorities than between themselves and whites. 7) This researcher was particularly interested in whether direct interaction between international students would decrease social distance from international students. In a residence hall with a majority of its population international students, social distance scores for international students should be lower than at residence halls that have less international students to interact with. The staff in residence halls are generally more liberal. They also constitute powerful role models for the students who live in the halls. Therefore it was hypothesized that the social distance should decrease as the time one lives in a residence hall increases.
This study also investigated findings of other social distance research. The null hypothesis that Americans would place equal overall social distance between themselves and outgroups was tested. This study also assessed the significance of current worldly events to effect social distance.
Method
Subjects
The subjects in this experiment were drawn from a non-random sample. The sample was purposive due mainly to time constraints of this experiment. The subjects were drawn from three primary groups. Group one, was taken from a graduate resident hall (Grant Hall), of which the experimenter is the director. This hall had a population of roughly 65% international students. Group two was drawn from a male residence hall with a population of 30% international students. Group three consisted of female Resident Advisors, currently employed by the Department of Student Housing and Residence Life. The first group was chosen simply for convenience. The second group was chosen for its close proximity to the experimenter's residence (next door.) The third group was added when it became apparent that the sample would consist of mainly males. The Ss were divided into two groups: "Grant Hall" and "other". Total Ss for this experiment were 131. 56 of the Ss came from Grant Hall and 75 came from other halls on the campus. 106 Ss were U.S. citizens, and 25 were international students. 21 Ss were married and 109 were single. One of the Ss did not answer the question on marital status. There were 60 females and 71 males in the total sample. 68 of the Ss were Liberal Arts majors, and 63 were majoring in another field. Three ethnic groups were represented: African, Asian, and European. Approximately 25 surveys were not used in the experiment because the Ss were from multiple ethnic backgrounds that did not make up a substantial groups of responses. 109 of the Ss were aged 29 years or less, 22 were 30 or more years of age. Ss received nothing for their participation other than a heartfelt "thank-you" from the experimenter.
Procedure
200 surveys (see appendix) were distributed. 100 in Grant Hall and 100 to the other halls. Of the surveys received in time to be counted, 56 came from Grant Hall and 75 from other halls on campus. The surveys were distributed by hand to residents in Grant hall. The experimenter delivered surveys to other hall directors on campus. The other hall directors then distributed the surveys to residents in their respective halls.
After the surveys were collected, the experimenter and his spouse entered the data into a mainframe computer using the statistical package SPSS-X. Social Distance as a dependent variable was computed by adding all social distance scores given to all groups named on the survey and dividing by the number of groups (48). This procedure has been used in all experiments reviewed by this experimenter. It was possible to compute several dependent variables using these data. The main dependent variable used in analyzing data from this experiment was "social distance from international students." For hypothesis number six, a different dependent variable was used, "social distance for nonwhites." Table 2 gives an overall view of the different "social distances" that were computed from this data, and their scores.
| Table 2 |
| Social Distance as a Function of Ethnic, Religious, or Racial Group |
| Ethnic Background of Respondent | |||||
| Social Distance | African | Asian | European | ||
| Overall | |||||
| M | 2.47 | 3.13 | 2.19 | ||
| SD | 1.45 | 1.67 | 1.14 | ||
| Whites | |||||
| M | 2.33 | 2.91 | 1.72 | ||
| SD | 1.19 | 1.60 | 0.79 | ||
| Non-Whites | |||||
| M | 2.53 | 3.18 | 2.42 | ||
| SD | 1.13 | 1.65 | 1.33 | ||
| Africans | |||||
| M | 1.88 | 3.00 | 2.31 | ||
| SD | 0.81 | 1.82 | 1.36 | ||
| Asians | |||||
| M | 2.51 | 2.87 | 2.22 | ||
| SD | 1.13 | 1.63 | 1.34 | ||
| Religions | |||||
| M | 2.81 | 3.19 | 2.57 | ||
| SD | 1.45 | 1.87 | 1.42 | ||
| Europeans | |||||
| M | 2.41 | 2.99 | 1.91 | ||
| SD | 1.27 | 1.65 | 0.96 | ||
| International Students | |||||
| M | 2.54 | 3.13 | 2.29 | ||
| SD | 1.22 | 1.57 | 1.21 |
Analysis of variance was used to determine whether or not the independent variables had any significant effect on the social distance scores obtained. It has been shown that Analysis of variance is one of the most powerful statistical tools, especially when two or more independent variables are being examined (Runyon in Heydari, 1988). This technique avoids the ambiguity of assessing differences in variances using multiple comparisons.
Results
So that the analyses of this experiment may be compared to most other social distance studies, results are reported in arithmetic means. The overall social distance score for the 48 ethnic/racial/religious groups was 2.43 (SD = 1.29). The social distance scores for international students was 2.50 (SD = 1.31).
Further analyses of the data revealed which independent variables affected the dependent variable "social distance for international students." Closer looks at each research hypothesis revealed the following results:
1) Social Distance is a function of previous contact with other ethnic groups. The social distances reported generally decreased as respondents' contacts with other ethnic groups increased. There was a marked increase in social distance responses from people who claimed their neighbors were all from the same ethnic group as themselves. Table 3 gives an overall view of social distance in relation to this variable.
| Table 3 |
| Social Distance as a Function of Respondents' Neighbors' Ethnicity |
| Proportion of Neighbors with Same Ethnicity | |||||
| Statistics | All | Most | Some | None | |
| M | 3.09 | 2.05 | 2.21 | 2.21 | |
| SD | 1.36 | 0.94 | 1.50 | 1.08 | |
| n | 51 | 49 | 14 | 13 | |
2) The home-size of the respondent did affect social distance scores obtained. Once the population of the Ss' home communities reached 40,000, there was a dramatic decrease in social distance. Table 4 reveals the dispersion of social distance means.
| Table 4 |
| Social Distance Scores by Respondents' Home Sizes |
Statistics |
|||||
| Home size | n | M | SD | ||
| Less than 1,000 | 8 | 2.58 | 1.92 | ||
| 1,000-5,000 | 12 | 2.44 | 1.03 | ||
| 5,001-10,000 | 14 | 2.24 | 1.00 | ||
| 10,001-20,000 | 14 | 2.68 | 0.97 | ||
| 20,001-30,000 | 14 | 3.65 | 1.15 | ||
| 30,001-40,000 | 13 | 2.79 | 1.55 | ||
| 40,001-50,000 | 7 | 2.21 | 1.04 | ||
| 50,000 or More | 46 | 2.13 | 1.31 | ||
3) Although males did place more social distance between themselves and the out-groups, as hypothesized, the results were not significant at the .05 significance level. The mean social distance given by males was 2.50 (SD =1.30). Female data yielded a social distance mean of 2.30 (SD = 1.28).
4) Educational level of the respondent did influence social distance scores. The mean social distance gradually decreased from freshmen Ss to senior Ss. The social distance mean for graduate students was very low. Table 5 details these results. Educational level of Ss' parents did not significantly affect social distance. In fact, educational level of Ss' mothers seemingly had no effect whatsoever on social distance scores.
| Table 5 |
| Social Distance Scores Educational Level of Respondent |
Statistics |
|||||
| Educational Level | na | M | SD | ||
| Freshman | 9 | 3.45 | 0.56 | ||
| Sophomore | 15 | 3.16 | 1.11 | ||
| Junior | 23 | 2.74 | 1.21 | ||
| Senior | 31 | 2.47 | 1.48 | ||
| Graduate | 51 | 1.88 | 1.09 | ||
a One subject was not included because she was not currently a student.
5) Liberal Arts majors were slightly more accepting than Ss who were majoring in other areas. The social distance mean of Liberal Arts majors was 2.294 (SD = 1.22). Mean social distance for all other majors' Ss was 2.71 (SD = 1.39). This difference was not significant.
6) There was no significant difference in social distance for non-whites obtained. Minorities seemingly place the same social distance between themselves and other minorities as themselves and whites.
7) Ss who were housed in Grant Hall were less ethno-centric than respondents housed in other halls. The mean social distance obtained by Grant Hall residents was 2.23 (SD = 1.22). The group consisting of residents housed in various different halls yielded a mean of 2.67 (SD = 1.34). These results were not significant at the .05 level. Length of stay in a residence hall did significantly affect social distance for Grant Hall and the other Ss as well. Table 6 provides a detailed look.
| Table 6 | |||||
| Social Distance Scores by Length of Stay in a Residence Hall | |||||
Statistics |
|||||
| Months | n | M | SD | ||
| 0-6 | 40 | 2.72 | 1.58 | ||
| 7-12 | 18 | 3.10 | 0.92 | ||
| 13-18 | 14 | 2.42 | 1.33 | ||
| 19-24 | 17 | 2.50 | 1.19 | ||
| 25 or more | 34 | 1.92 | 1.03 | ||
The data from this research supports studies mentioned above in that Americans seem far less prejudiced than citizens from other countries. The overall social distance score given by U.S. citizens was 2.25 (SD = 1.13). For internationals the social distance score given was 3.19 (SD = 1.67). Analysis of variance revealed a significant effect, F(1,126) = 10.02, p=.002.
Analyses of variances reveals exactly which of the independent variables of this study's research significantly affected social distance scores. The results of the Anovas are shown in Table 7.
| Table 7 | |||||||||||||
| Anova Results of the Social Distance Survey Data | |||||||||||||
| Statistics | |||||||||||||
| Independent Variable | F | df | p | ||||||||||
| Ethnicity of Neighbors | 4.914 | 4 | .001 | ||||||||||
| Home-size of Respondent | 2.542 | 7 | .018 | ||||||||||
| Gender | 0.657 | 1 | .419 | ||||||||||
| Religiosity | 0.927 | 8 | .500 | ||||||||||
| Educational Level of Respondent | 5.341 | 4 | .001 | ||||||||||
| Mother's Educational Level | 0.886 | 4 | 0.84 | ||||||||||
| Father's Educational Level | 2.105 | 4 | 0.84 | ||||||||||
| School | 3.296 | 1 | 0.72 | ||||||||||
| Ethnicity | 2.629 | 2 | 0.76 | ||||||||||
| Residence Hall Assignment | 3.374 | 1 | 0.69 | ||||||||||
| Length of Stay in Residence Hall | 2.883 | 4 | 0.25 | ||||||||||
This research clearly indicates that social distance is a function of worldly events. The out-groups receiving the highest social distance scores were the Iraqis (M = 3.47, SD = 2.14) and Iranians (M = 3.34, SD = 2.03). Overall, every group from the region we call the "Mid-East" was ranked very low. Table 8 lists all social distance scores obtained.
| Table 8 | |||||||||||||||
| Social Distance for each Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Group | |||||||||||||||
| Statistics | |||||||||||||||
| Group | M | SD | |||||||||||||
| African-Americans | 2.08 | 1.33 |
| Anglo-Americans | 1.63 | 1.11 |
| Asian Americans | 2.21 | 1.36 |
| Africans | 2.35 | 1.46 |
| Buddhist | 2.61 | 1.59 |
| Bulgarian | 2.45 | 1.52 |
| Canadian | 1.92 | 1.29 |
| Chinese | 2.37 | 1.50 |
| Croatian | 2.55 | 1.56 |
| Cuban | 2.60 | 1.70 |
| Dutch | 2.12 | 1.36 |
| English | 1.78 | 1.19 |
| French | 2.01 | 1.32 |
| Filipino | 2.47 | 1.48 |
| German | 2.17 | 1.34 |
| Greek | 2.17 | 1.34 |
| Haitian | 2.57 | 1.65 |
| Hispanic-American | 2.37 | 1.57 |
| Hindu | 2.75 | 1.60 |
| Hungarian | 2.45 | 1.54 |
| HongKonger | 2.51 | 1.60 |
| Indian | 2.53 | 1.54 |
| Iranian | 3.34 | 2.03 |
| Iraqi | 3.47 | 2.14 |
| Irish | 2.10 | 1.38 |
| Israeli | 2.88 | 1.76 |
| Italian | 2.28 | 1.39 |
| Japanese | 2.21 | 1.37 |
| Jewish | 2.48 | 1.46 |
| Korean | 2.36 | 1.39 |
| Lebanese | 2.75 | 1.71 |
| Malaysian | 2.30 | 1.43 |
| Mexican | 2.47 | 1.59 |
| Muslim | 2.82 | 1.67 |
| Norwegian | 2.28 | 1.43 |
| Pakistani | 2.89 | 1.66 |
| Palestinian | 2.95 | 1.71 |
| Portuguese | 2.44 | 1.46 |
| Polish | 2.37 | 1.42 |
| Rumanian | 2.53 | 1.53 |
| Russian | 2.45 | 1.55 |
| Serbian | 2.63 | 1.64 |
| Scottish | 2.12 | 1.30 |
| Spanish | 2.14 | 1.33 |
| Swedish | 1.99 | 1.31 |
| Taiwanese | 2.44 | 1.53 |
| Turkish | 2.62 | 1.57 |
| Vietnamese | 2.61 | 1.59 |
Discussion
This research has added to the long list of experiments carried out in an attempt to analyze social distance. Hopefully it has been a beneficial addition.
Overall the social distance scores obtained in this experiment were somewhat higher than expected. The results were especially discouraging when considering that the sample was supposedly liberally biased.
The study does lend moderate support to the Social Learning Theory as a predictor of social distance scores. This experiment also makes it apparent that a more diverse model, possibly combining elements from functional, conflict, and balance theories might be a stronger predictor. This is strongly evident in the hypothesis for home-size of the respondent. The social distance scores generally decrease as home-size increases. The glaring exception is for home-sizes in the 20,001-30,000 population range. The extremely high social distance mean for this group defies explanation. It is possible that many suburbs have populations in this range. Perhaps suburbs are very segregated. This would tend to increase social distance. This particular area in itself justifies further research.
One thing the study failed to do was reinforce the belief that social distance is continuing to decrease in our society, simply as a function of time. Perhaps the high social distance means are due to the study being undertaken in the deep South. It could be that the study has reinforced the belief that social distance is a function of worldly events. The university involved in this experiment has certainly had its share of racial tensions recently. These tensions seem to be increasing daily, rather than subsiding.
The main objective of this study was to determine whether or not social distance existed between international and american students. It was determined that social distance exists between these two groups. Encouraging findings of the study include the suggestion that more education decreases social distances. The implication is to get people in school and keep them there. This study had very severe limitations. Time limit was the most pronounced, and as a result of that the sample was rather small to draw serious inferences from. If this study sparks interest in others to continue the research began by Dr. Bogardus nearly 70 years ago, the experimenter will consider it a success.
References
Ames, Richard G. & Sakuma, Arline F. (1969). Criteria for evaluating others: A re-examination of the Bogardus social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 54,(October), 5-24.
Bandura, Albert. (Ed.). 1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1925). Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216-225.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308
Bogardus, Emory S. (1928). Immigration and race attitudes. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, (January-February), 265-271.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1936). Introduction to social research. Los Angeles: Suttonhouse Ltd.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1958). Racial distance changes in the United States during the past thirty years. Sociology and Social Research, 43, (2), 127-135.
Crull, Sue R., & Bruton, Brent T. (1976). Bogardus social distance in the 1970s. Sociology and Social Research, 63, (4), 771-783.
Dyer, James, Vedlitz, Arnold, & Worchel, Stephen. (1989). Social distance among racial and ethnic groups in Texas: Some demographic correlates. Social Science Quarterly. 70, (3), 607-616.
Goldberg, Albert I., & Kirschenbaum, Alan. (1989). Black newcomers to Israel: Contact situations and social distance.Sociology and Social Research, 74, (1), 52-57.
Heydari, Ahmad. (1988). An empirical test of two conceptual models concerning american students' social distance from international students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 8823752.
McAllister, Ian, & Moore, Rhonda. (1991). Social distance among Australian ethnic groups. Sociology and Social Research. 75, (2), 95-100.
Netting, Nancy S. (1991). Chinese aloofness from other groups: Social distance data from a city in British Columbia. Sociology and Social Research. 75, (2), 101-104.
Owen, Carolyn A., Eisner, Howard C., & McFaul, Thomas R. (1977). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus' studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66, (1), 80-98.
Park, Robert E. (1924). The concept of social distance: As applied to the study of racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, (July-August), 339-334.
Author's Notes
This research would not have been possible without the assistance received from the residence hall directors at the University of Mississippi. I wish to thank Mr. Lloyd Holmes, Mrs. Ann Juniker, Mrs. Joyce Hobson, Mrs. Doreen Langley, MS. Anna Dendy, MS. Sherry Lusk, and MS. Susan Sharp. I also wish to thank MS. Bonnie Reid, Associate Director for Student Housing and Residence Life, for allowing me access to all residence halls.
This study relied on Dr. Heydari's study as a reference tool very heavily. While it was not a replication of his study, credit is due Dr. Heydari for defining several variables. Most of the Survey in the Appendix was taken directly from the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Ahmad Heydari.
I also wish to thank my wife, Kyoko Miyamura-Nix, who helped code the data and enter it into the computer. She also offered invaluable insight into a possible understanding of international student's attitudes. Without her willing assistance this research would still be in its early stages.
APPENDIX
No. Date
The following information is being collected for statistical purposes only. These
data are being used to satisfy a senior-undergraduate research assignment. These data will
be used only to infer how various people view their social environment. The answers you
give will not be shared with any other person. No one will ever know who filled out this
particular survey. Please be as honest as possible while answering these questions.
Please record the number that matches your answer in the space provided to the left of
the question.
1. Gender: 1. Male 2. Female
2. What is your current educational level?
1. Freshman
2. Sophomore
3. Junior
4. Senior
5. Graduate Student or Post-Graduate
3. What is your school/division?
1. Liberal Arts 2. Business
3. Pharmacy 4. Law
5. Engineering 6. Education
7. Other
4. What is the main source of funds for your education?
1. Family resources 2. Spouse
3. Scholarship 4. Grants
5. Work-study 6. Full-time job
5. How large is your home community?
1. under 1,000 2. 1,000- 5,000
3. 5,001-10,000 4. 10,001-20,000
5. 20,001-30,000 6. 30,001-40,000
7. 40,001-50,000 8. 50,001 +
6. My home community is in: (country)
(state, province, prefecture)
(city, town, community)
7. Marital Status: 1. Married 2. Single
8. Are you a member of any Church?
1. Yes 2. No
9. If you answered yes to the previous question, how often do you attend church?
1. Once a week, or more
2. Twice a month
3. Once a month
4. Less than once a month
5. Never
10. Which statement best describes your belief in God, or a
Supreme Being?
1. Pray, ask guidance every day
2. Firm belief, important part of my life
3. Belief, but not really important to me
4. I am not sure
5. I do not believe in a Supreme Being
11. Do you believe there are major cultural barriers between American and International
Students?
1. Yes 2. No
12. If you answered "yes" to question #11, what do you feel is the primary
barrier?
1. Religion
2. Student Attitudes
3. Clothing
4. Language
5. Norms and values
13. What is your ethnic heritage background?
1. African 2. Asian
3. European 4. Middle Eastern
5. Native American 6. Other
14. Think of your home community. What proportion of your neighbors were of the same
ethnic background as you?
1. My neighbors were of my ethnic background
2. Most neighbors were of my ethnicity
3. Some of my neighbors were of my ethnicity
4. Most neighbors were a different ethnicity
5. None of my neighbors were of my ethnicity
15. How much contact have you had in your lifetime with persons of a different racial
or ethnic background than your own.
1. A great deal of contact
2. Some contact
3. Very little contact
4. No contact
16. What is the highest level of education completed by your father, or male guardian?
1. Grade school or less
2. Some High school
3. High school graduate
4. Some beyond high school
5. College graduate
6. Graduate/Professional school after college
17. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother, or female guardian?
1. Grade school or less
2. Some high school
3. High school graduate
4. Some beyond high school
5. College graduate
6. Graduate/professional school after college
18. How would you describe your father's occupation?
1. Blue collar
2. White collar
3. Actual occupation
19. How would you describe your mother's occupation?
1. Blue collar
2. White collar
3. Actual occupation
20. How would you rate your cross-cultural experiences at (Insert your University here,
originally it was Ole Miss.)?
1. Extremely positive
2. Generally positive
3. Somewhat positive
4. Somewhat negative
5. Generally negative
6. Extremely negative
21. Are you a member of any student organization at (Your school?)
1. Yes 2. No
22. If yes to question # 21, how often do you attend?
1. Regularly
2. Irregularly
3. Never
23. Are any of your friends international students?
1. Yes 2. No
24. If yes to the previous question, how often do you have interaction with your
international friends?
1. Often
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
25. Are you an international Student?
1. Yes 2. No
26. If yes to question number 25, do you have any friends who are American students?
1. Yes 2. No
27. How often do you have interaction with your American friends?
1. Often
2. Occasionally
3. Rarely
4. I do not have any American friends
28. As of your last birthday, what is your age?
....29. I have lived in Guess Hall for years, months.
If you lived in another hall at this university, please tell which hall and how long
you lived there :
30. After completing your degree, where will you work?
1. In the U.S.A
2. Outside the U.S.A
3. Wherever a job is offered
Please follow the Instructions carefully:
According to my first feelings (reactions), I would willingly admit members of each
ethnic or racial group into the following classifications (please think of each group as a
whole, and not of the best representative, nor the worst representative of that group you
have known):
1. close kinship by marriage
2. very close friends
3. as my neighbors
4. into my work group
5. as a speaking acquaintance only
6. as visitors only to my country
7. exclude from my country.
Please write the number of the one statement above that corresponds to your feeling
in the space provided to the left of each group name:
African-American
Anglo-American
Asian-American
African
Buddhist
Canadian
Chinese
Croatian
Cuban
Dutch
English
French
Filipino
German
Greek
Haitian
Hispanic-American
Hindu
Hongkonger
Indian
Iranian
Iraqi
Irish
Israeli
Italian
Japanese
Jewish
Korean
Lebanese
Malaysian
Mexican
Muslim
Norwegian
Pakistani
Palestinian
Portuguese
Polish
Rumanian
Russian
Serbian
Scottish
Spanish
Swedish
Taiwanese
Turkish
Vietnamese
(c) Jerry Vincent Nix
| MAIN | INDEX
| SEARCH | LINKS | Mailing List | Frames
Version |
| © 2025 Библиотека RealLib.org (support [a t] reallib.org) |