This article deals with the phenomenon of social distance as a social-psychological dimension of intergroup relationships. We discuss the concept of social distance and the research associated with it, pointing to some shortcomings in the theoretical thinking associated with this concept. We adopt an analytic framework that views the varieties of social distance as collective phenomena, reflecting the structure of resource interdependence between groups. The data set at our disposal enabled us to apply this framework to two reciprocal dyadic relationships in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict: Israeli Jews vis-à-vis Israeli Arabs (Palestinians), and Israeli Jews vis-à-vis Egyptian Arabs. The empirical findings indicate that while the Israelis are unwilling to have the same degree of close relations with the Palestinians that the Palestinians desire with the Israelis, the Egyptians are unwilling to have as close a relationship with the Israelis as the Israelis would like to have with the Egyptians. Both patterns of social distance are those expected in the light of the proposed resource-dependency perspective, as alternative theoretical views seem incapable of adequately explaining them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AL-MASHAT, A. M. (1983) “Egyptian attitudes toward the peace process: views of an `alert elite'.”The Middle East J.37: 394-411.
2.
BLALOCK, H. M. (1972) Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
BOGARDUS, E. S. (1925) “Social distance and its origins.”Sociology and Social Research9: 216-225.
4.
BOGARDUS, E. S. (1933) “A social distance scale.”Sociology and Social Research22: 265-271.
5.
BOGARDUS, E. S. (1947) “Changes in racial distance.”Int. J. of Attitudes and Opinion Research1: 55-62.
6.
BOGARDUS, E. S. (1958) “Racial distance changes in the United States during the past thirty years.”Sociology and Social Research43: 127-135.
7.
BOGARDUS, E. S. (1967) A Forty-Year Racial Distance Study. Los Angeles: Univ. of Southern California Press.
8.
BYRNE, D. and T. J. WONG (1962) “Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes.”J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology65: 246-253.
9.
CAMPBELL, P. T. (1967) “Stereotypes and the perception of group differences.”Amer. Psychologist22: 817-929.
10.
DAVIDSON, A. R. and E. THOMSON (1980) “Cross-cultural studies of attitudes and beliefs,” pp. 25-72 in Harry C. Triandis and Richard W. Brislin (eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Volume 5). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
11.
EVANS, P. B. and M. TIMBERLAKE (1980) “Dependence, inequality, and growth in less developed countries.”Amer. Soc. Rev.45: 531-552.
12.
GUTTMAN, L. (1959) “A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action.”Amer. Soc. Rev.24: 318-328.
13.
HENDRICK, C. , V. E. BIXENSTINE and G. HAWKINS (1971) “Race versus belief similarity as determinants of attraction: a search for a fair test.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology17: 250-258.
14.
HOFMAN, J. E. (1972) “Readiness for social relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel.”J. of Conflict Resolution16: 241-252.
15.
HOFMAN, J. E. (1982) “Social identity and the readiness for social relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel.”Human Relations35: 727-741.
16.
HOFMAN, J. E. and B. BEIT-HALLACHMI (1977) “The Palestinian identity and Israel's Arabs.”Peace Research9: 13-23.
17.
INBAR, M. and E. YUCHTMAN-YAAR (1985) “Some cognitive dimensions of the Israeli-Arab conflict.”J. of Conflict Resolution29, 4; 699-725.
18.
IRVINE, S. D. and W. K. CARROLL (1980) “Testing and assessment across cultures: issues in methodology and training,” pp. 181-244 in Harry C. Triandis and Richard W. Brislin (eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Volume 2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
JONES, E. E. and J. W. THIBAUT (1958) “Interaction goals as bases of inference in interpersonal perception,” in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (eds.) Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
20.
KLINEBERG, O. (1950) Tensions Affecting International Understanding. New York: Social Science Research Council Bulletin 62.
21.
KLINEBERG, O. (1964) Human Dimension in International Relations. New York: Wiley.
22.
NIE, N. H. , C. H. HULL, J. G. JENKINS, K. STEINBRENNER, and D. H. BERT (1975) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
OWEN, C. A. , H. C. EISNER, and R. M. TOMAS (1981) “A half-century of social distance research: national replication of the Bogardus studies.”Sociology and Social Research66: 80-98.
24.
PARK, R. (1924) “The concept of social distance.”J. of Applied Sociology8: 339-344.
25.
PELED, Z. and D. BAR-GAL (1983) Intervention Activities in Arab-Jewish Relations: Conceptualizations, Classification and Evaluation. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem. (publication no. TP/885/E.)
26.
PFEFFER, J. and G. R. SALANCIK (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
27.
ROKEACH, M. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.
28.
ROKEACH, M. (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
ROKEACH, M. and L. MEZEI (1966) “Race and shared belief as factors in social choice.”Science151: 167-172.
30.
SHERIF, M. and C. W. SHERIF (1969) Social Psychology. New York: Harper and Row.
31.
SIMPSON, G. E. and J. M. YINGER (1965) Racial and Cultural Minorities. New York: Harper and Row.
32.
SMOOHA, S. (1976) “Arabs and Jews in Israel: minority-majority group relations.”Megamot22: 397-423 (Hebrew).
33.
SMOOHA, S. (1982) “The Arabs in Israel.”J. of Conflict Resolution26: 451-484.
34.
SMOOHA, S. (1984) “The orientation and politization of Arab minority in Israel.”Monograph Series on the Middle East, no. 2. Haifa: University of Haifa.
35.
STEIN, P. D. (1966) “The influence of belief system in interpersonal preferences: a validation study of Rokeach's theory of prejudice.”Psych. Monographs80: 1-29.
36.
TAJFEL, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
37.
THOMPSON, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.
TRIANDIS, H. C. (1961) “A note on Rokeach's theory of prejudice.”J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology62: 184-186.
39.
TRIANDIS, H. C. and E. E. DAVIS (1965) “Race and belief as determinants of behavior intentions.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology2: 715-725.
40.
TRIANDIS, H. C. and L. M. TRIANDIS (1965) “Some studies of social distance,” pp. 207-216 in I. Steiner and M. Fishbein (eds.) Current Studies in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
41.
TRIANDIS, H. C. , E. E. DAVIS and S. I. TAKEZAWA (1965) “Some determinants of social distance among Americans, Germans and Japanese students.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology2: 540-551.
42.
TRIANDIS, H. C. and V. VASSILIOU (1967) “Frequency of contact and stereotyping.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology7: 316-323.
43.
TRIANDIS, H. C. , V. VASSILIOU, G. VASSILIOU, Y. TANAKA and A. V. SHANMUGAM (1971) The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: J. Wiley.
44.
VASSILIOU, V. , H. C. TRIANDIS, G. VASSILIOU and H. McGUIRE (1971) “Interpersonal contact and stereotyping,” pp. 89-115 in H. C. Triandis (ed.) The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: Wiley.
45.
WAGLEY, C. and H. HARRIS (1958) Minorities in the New World. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
46.
WESTIE, L. R. (1953) “A technique for the measurement of race attitudes.”Amer. Soc. Rev.18: 73-78.
47.
WESTIE, L. R. (1959) “Social distance scales: a tool for the study of stratification.”Sociology and Social Research43: 251-258.
48.
YUCHTMAN, E. and S. E. SEASHORE (1967) “A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness.”Amer. Soc. Rev.32: 891-903.
49.
ZEMACH, M. (1980) The Attitudes of the Jewish Majority in Israel towards the Arab Minority. The Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation Series 2. (Hebrew).
