social distance


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

social distance

Psychology A zone of space in which most social interactions occur; SDs may be 1. Close–2.5 m–12-25 feet, which corresponds to informal situations, in which one–or more persons are 'in control', as in a teacher talking to students in a classroom, or a manager addressing subordinate and 2. Far–> 8m or >25 feet, which corresponds to 'formal' distances, such as in lectures, political rallies, etc. See Proxemics. Cf Intimate distance, Personal distance, Public distance.

social

pertaining to living in a community.

social behavior
behavior of an animal to others in its social group of herd, flock, neighbors. See also social behavior.
social benefits
the benefits to a community that cannot be measured by material values, better social justice, freedom from fear, improvement in educational facilities. The fundamental parameter in a cost-benefit analysis.
social costs
the costs incurred by society as a whole rather than by individuals. Used in the estimation of benefit-cost analysis.
social distance
average distance between animals in a community. An expression of the concentration of the animals in the environment.
social dominance heirarchy
social order.
social order
the ranking in which a group of animals establishes itself with the most dominant one in the number one position and the most retiring one in the last position. The order is maintained unless new animals are introduced.
social organization
an aggregation of individual animals into an integrated group based on the interdependence of the animals and their responses to each other.
social stress
thought to be a common cause of illness in domestic pets and to a less extent in pigs, e.g. in esophagogastric ulcer.
References in periodicals archive ?
To determine the social distance of others, participants were asked to complete the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), in which the overlap of two circles reflects the social distance between self and others, by filling in the name or initials of their closest other and their most distant other (separately).
Figure 2 shows the median proportion shared as a function of social distance at both reward magnitudes for American (top) and Japanese (bottom) participants.
Social distance thus affects receptivity to and support for new ideas, but especially within closed systems of strong ties and restricted flows of novel information that may blind one to alternative possibilities (Granovetter 1973).
Similarly, there was a significant relationship between disability scores and social participation restrictions, a tendency of keeping a social distance and negative attitudes from the community member.
The new composite factors represented each of the following scales: social distance, negative attribution, help-seeking attitude, knowledge on sociological and biological factors, and misconceptions of schizophrenia.
For example, according to the study on temporal distance, increase of temporal distance will make the subjects feel farther social distance (Stephan, 2010).
Out of the three particles, lah and leh can be used to perform both the functions of reducing as well as increasing social distance.
Recognizing the unique nature of our case study, we hypothesized that social distance would play a significant role in predicting participants' biased perceptions regarding the influence of ISIS propaganda on specific targets.
From Bogardus's (1933) early work demonstrating that the Chinese was among the top 10 cultural groups in terms of social distance and antipathy to the periodic resurgence of anti-Chinese attitudes in the United States, these sentiments are likely to negatively affect Chinese immigrants at the societal level.
Variables like social distance (Scollon and Scollon 1995) and affect (Spencer-Oatey 2000) were considered as potential factors impacting both on the use of impoliteness types and on the linguistic devices used to convey each type.
The Likert scale items used in Social Distance Scale are--definitely willing = 0, probably willing = 1 probably unwilling = 2 and definitely unwilling = 3 while in the Dangerous Scale items used are Strongly agree = 7,6,5, No opinion = 4 and Strongly disagree = 3,2,1.
From a survey completed by participants, the sender's and recipient's gender, social distance, and status were assessed to determine whether these features impacted the sender's choice of request strategy.