Dual analyses of two social-distance checklists yielded contradictory results. Direct factor analysis of social distance items replicated the structures reported by Triandis. Inverse factor analysis of Ss failed to reproduce similar structures of behavioral intentions. Examination of the content of the behaviors defined by the different modes of analysis suggested new hypotheses based on the behavioral implications of prescriptive versus proscriptive norms of social distance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BogardusE. S.Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 1925, 9, 299–308.
2.
BogardusE. S.Social distance. Los Angeles: Author, 1959.
3.
EhrlichH. J.Van TubergenN.Exploring the components of ethnic stereotype assignments. Paper presented to the Midwestern Sociological Society, April 21, 1967.
4.
FishbeinM.Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In FishbeinM. (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 477–492.
5.
HarmanH.Modern factor analysis. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1960.
6.
ParkR. E.The concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 1924, 8, 339–344.
7.
PreissJ. J.EhrlichH. J.An examination of role theory. Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1966.
8.
StephensonW.The study of behavior. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1953.
9.
TriandisH. C.Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral componenr of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 420–430.
10.
TriandisH. C.Toward an analysis of the components of interpersonal attitudes. In SherifC. W.SherifM. (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 227–270.
