Prejudice Theory: Bogardus and the Social Distance Scale

The following article provides a summary of the work of sociologist Emory Bogardus, focusing on his contributions to the study of race relations and racial prejudice. Although Bogardus made many contributions to the field in general—he began an academic journal and a student honor society, for example—he is best known for the development of the social distance scale. The social and historical origins of the scale, its technical development, and its application to the study of early twentieth-century race relations are discussed. Recent research using the scale is also introduced, as are some of the philosophical and methodological critiques.

Keywords Attitudes; Prejudice; Race; Racial Distance; Social Distance; Social Distance Scale

Prejudice Theory: Bogardus & the Social Distance Scale

Overview

Emory Bogardus's contribution to sociology was immense. In 1911, after graduating with his doctorate from the University of Chicago, Bogardus accepted a teaching position at the University of Southern California. Just four years later, he was asked to found and chair the department of sociology. He continued to lead the department for over thirty years and served as a full-time faculty member for forty-two years. But Bogardus was a leader outside USC as well; in 1916, he created and became editor of the second sociological journal, Sociological Monographs, which today is known as the Journal of Applied Sociology. He founded Alpha Kappa Delta, a sociological honor society whose aim was to identify undergraduate and graduate students who demonstrated promise in the social sciences (Bogardus, 1956). None of these achievements, however, brought him as much notoriety as his contribution to the study of race relations. It was his interest in the relationship between social groups, particularly social groups of different ethnic and language origins, and his accompanying development of the social distance scale for which he became well-known.

Bogardus first developed the social distance scale in 1925 as part of a larger cooperative study of race relations, led by colleague Robert Park. The impact of the scale was due in part to the fact that Bogardus continued to use it beyond its original intent. With the help of over 25 professors at various universities across the country, Bogardus administered the scale every ten years, from 1926 to 1966, making it one of the first longitudinal studies of "America's experience with diversity and difference" (Wark & Galliher, 2007). In addition, Bogardus's social distance scale was one of the first scales developed to measure attitudes. Campbell (1952) writes, "Only the Harper test of liberalism-conservatism is older among attitude tests that have been used beyond the research in which they were originally presented" (as cited in Wark & Galliher, 2007, p. 391). Bogardus (1947) described competing measurements this way: "Many so-called attitude tests are not much more than personal opinion tests. But [social distance] measures something more deep-seated than a person's opinions—if not his attitudes then something very similar to attitudes" (p. 309). The social distance scale continues to be used today in a variety of academic disciplines, including education, psychology, political science, and sociology, and with a variety of different social groups, such as individuals with disabilities, occupational groups, religious sects, and ethnic groups. As Wark and Galliher (2007) conclude, "the Social Distance Scale has…had a profound influence on the landscape of American sociology" (p. 393).

Development of the Social Distance Scale

Before taking a closer look at the scale itself, it might be worthwhile to pause and investigate the contexts—both Bogardus's personal experiences as well as the broader academic and cultural landscape—in which the scale was developed. 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" (p. 393). First and foremost, around the same time Bogardus was being educated and starting to teach, America was beginning to pay more attention to race relations. African Americans were migrating north in larger numbers, and while they did not face the same legal barriers there as in the South, they were not treated on equal terms with whites either. In addition, a second wave of immigrants flooded the country, and unlike their predecessors, they were largely non-Protestant and/or Asian. In 1913, for example, just after Bogardus joined USC, California passed a law prohibiting Chinese and Japanese people from land ownership. In his own words, Bogardus (1931) explains, "There was not much cooperative research in the social-science fields on the Pacific Coast before 1923. In that year, however, culture conflicts between Orientals and Americans reached a climax of intensity up and down the Coast. It was this conflict that gave the setting for an extensive piece of [cooperative race-relations research]" (p. 563).

America's increasing interest in race was also shared by academics. Prior to this time, scholars paid the subject little attention; if race was studied, it was typically in an attempt to validate the different mental abilities of people of varying ethnic backgrounds. Indeed, "at the beginning of the 20th century the flagship journal of the profession was the American Journal of Sociology. It published only one article per year on [race] issues. For this generation of sociologists, racial conflict was considered inevitable" (Wark & Galliher, 2007, p. 386). At the University of Chicago, where Bogardus earned his doctorate, scholars began questioning the idea that mental abilities varied by race and started studying attitudes and prejudices toward racial and ethnic groups instead. Written evidence of Bogardus's personal interest in race relations can be found in his 1922 publication A History of Social Thought, predating the development of the scale. He identified race relations as one of the major social problems confronting Americans (Wark & Galliher, 2007). Bogardus's interest in race, however, was not purely academic. He was motivated to use his knowledge to improve social conditions for all Americans.

Bogardus's interest in social reform fit well with the prevailing mindset of early 20th-century sociologists. The discipline's interest in reform, however, came at the expense of its academic reputation. Specifically, sociology was viewed as unscientific and subjective (Wark & Galliher, 2007). As Bogardus entered the profession, it was making a concerted effort to reshape itself into a social science, with a focus on objectivity and research. As Bannister (1987) writes, Bogardus's social distance scale was one manifestation of the "1920s craze for measurement" (as cited in Wark & Galliher, 2007, p. 388).

The Social Distance Scale

Specifically, the early twentieth-century relations between the immigrant Japanese and West Coast Caucasian Americans set the stage for the development of the social distance scale. Bogardus (1931) explains, "While a number of Americans were openly expressing prejudice against the Orientals, there were other Americans who felt that the Japanese were being unjustifiably insulted. [The latter] urged that an investigation of the problem be made, feeling that a scientific inquiry would undermine much of the unfair tactics of those opposed to the Japanese" (p. 563). The Institute of Social and Religious Research in New York City hired Dr. Robert Park of the University of Chicago to head the study; he in turn hired Bogardus for the specific purpose of developing a quantitative measure of racial attitudes. Bogardus explained that they used the generic title "race relations survey," with specific inclusion of the term "survey," for conventional reasons and to present a face of objectivity and scientific methodology. More surreptitiously, he had "undertaken the tabooed procedure of penetrating hidden subjective fields of experience and their resultant attitudes…and attempted to make those attitudes … measurable" (p. 567).

Thus, it was important to Bogardus to make a distinction between "thinking" and "feeling" and to keep the goal of "attitude measurement" in the forefront of his mind as he developed the social distance scale (Bogardus, 1947). Social distance, he argued, focuses on the feeling reactions of people toward another individual or group of people. Feelings, he explained, are "spontaneous expressions of the autonomic nervous system to whatever is happening in the organism. They are expressions in part of the urge for security" (p. 306). Importantly, Bogardus (1947) believed that feelings were indicative of attitudes and that they might shed more light on attitudes than anything except actual behavior, hence their predictive power. The challenge in the implementation of the scale was to capture the respondent's "first feeling reaction." In other words, Bogardus asked respondents to complete the scale "without thinking." "Feeling reactions," he wrote, "indicate how a person would express himself toward his fellows if he acted 'without thinking,' 'just the way he feels,' and without regard to politeness, social amenities, or his own status" (Bogardus, 1947, p. 307).

Before jumping into the nuances of how the scale was administered, however, its development should be discussed first. Bogardus asked 100 people—faculty members and graduate and undergraduate students— to rate 60 statements according to the social distance each statement described. The types of relationships described by the statements—"all of which were heard in ordinary conversations where a person was expressing himself about other persons," Bogardus explained—included contacts with family members, political groups, occupational groups, and recreational groups (Bogardus, 1933, p. 265). Some sample statements were:

• Would have as chums;

• Would have as my pastor, or religious guide;

• Would invite to my home;

• Would take as guests on automobile trips;

• Would dance with in public regularly.

Each person was asked to place each statement into one of seven social distance categories, with 1 representing the least amount of social distance and 7 representing the greatest amount of social distance. Bogardus computed means for each statement; those having means nearest the whole numbers from 1 to 7 were selected to represent the seven nearly equidistant social distance situations. The final seven social distance categories were:

1. Would marry.
2. Would have as regular friends.
3. Would work beside in an office.
4. Would have several families in my neighborhood.
5. Would have merely as speaking acquaintances.
6. Would have live outside my neighborhood.
7. Would have live outside my country.

In his first administration of the scale, Bogardus (1933) asked 110 businessmen and public school teachers to rate 40 different ethnic groups, 30 occupations, and 30 religious groups using the social distance scale. Both businessmen and public school teachers gave Canadians the lowest social distance score, indicating the highest level of social contact, and persons of Turkish descent the highest social distance score, indicating the lowest level of social contact. African Americans received the second-highest social distance score. In a follow-up study, Bogardus (1925) attempted to determine "just how and why these grades of understanding and intimacy vary" (p. 216). He asked each student to "describe in detail the circumstances as nearly as he could recall them under which this dislike [for a particular group] originated and developed" (Bogardus, 1925, p. 219). Even though students were explicitly asked to describe experiences, as opposed to secondhand evidence or hearsay, the vast majority were unable to do so. Bogardus (1925) concluded that "it is clear after reading the data that hearsay evidence coming from both one's personal friends and from relative strangers in one's own 'universe of discourse' who possess prestige in one's own eyes are widely influential in creating social distance" (p. 219).

Bogardus spent as much time brainstorming solutions for reducing racial prejudice and tension as he did studying it. He made particular effort, without much success, to discredit the notion of race altogether. Specifically, Bogardus (1954) argued that "the term race . . . is a misnomer" because "there are no pure races" (p. 317). In response, Sellew (1950) wrote, "Bogardus appears to complicate the problem unnecessarily. What is important is the reaction to these evident traits, not an attempt to prove that a racial nature does not exist" (p. 272). Whether race exists or not, Bogardus believed prejudices could be eliminated through increased social contact between groups. Importantly, however, he believed such contact had to occur in the absence of competition for resources. "When the competition is removed," he wrote, "then race prejudice will be alleviated" (Bogardus, 1954, p. 329). In an article titled "Reducing Racial Tension," Bogardus outlines nine processes that might help alleviate "antagonism between racial groups" (Sellew, 1950, p. 271). These include commonsense suggestions such as legislation, elimination of stereotypes, and full participation in the democratic process across racial groups.

Applications

As previously mentioned, the social distance scale continues to be used in research today. Even as its application has expanded to other disciplines and types of social groups, it remains a popular tool for the study of race relations. The following section will serve as a brief introduction to recent research on racial prejudice using Bogardus's scale.

In a study titled "As the World Turns: Ethno-racial Distances after 70 Years," Kleg and Yamamoto (1998) attempted to replicate Bogardus's original study. Like Bogardus, Kleg and Yamamoto sampled public school teachers and asked them to complete a nearly identical social distance scale using 24 of the original 40 ethnic groups. Their results suggest that "the majority of Americans today may not only (a) hold attitudes that are more socially accepting (the mean distances being 3.82 in 1925 and 1.43 in 1993, t = 8.05, d.f. = 46, p <.001), but also (b) express them more uniformly (the standard deviations being, respectively, 1.43 and.28)" (Kleg & Yamamoto, 1998, p. 185). Although such results were encouraging and suggest less social distance between various ethnic groups today than in the past, the authors provided one caveat. The sequential ordering of social distance from the 24 ethnic groups mirrored the ordering of the 1925 results. Thus, "those who had earlier enjoyed a higher level of permissible intimacy stayed the more preferred. In the same vein, those who had been more distanced in the 1920s"—such as "Arabs, Turks, Orientals, Mexicans, and African-Americans"—"were still the less preferred in the 1990s," (Kleg & Yamamoto, 1998, p. 185). On the basis of these mixed results, they concluded that they could not respond to the question of whether ethno-racial attitudes in the United States had improved over the past seventy years "in an unequivocally affirmative manner" (p. 185).

In another example, Morgan (1996) used a modified version of the social distance scale to investigate friendship preferences among black and white students in Georgia public schools. He was particularly interested in understanding how different public policies and school practices might influence the degree of social contact among racial groups. He found that white students generally reported greater social distance than black students and that "social distance was least in the lowest grades and progressed as children progressed through the grades" (Morgan, 1996). Citing Gary Orfield, director of Harvard University's Project on School Desegregation, Morgan (1996) explained these findings as partial outcome of the fact that "1995 marked the first time in 40 years that black children and white children in the south became less likely to go to school together than their older brothers and sisters had been" (p. 4). Furthermore, Morgan argues that desegregation—attending the same school—is qualitatively different from integration. Integration, which suggests interaction among social groups, is more likely to lead to improved attitudes. Practices such as tracking, however, keep ethnic groups largely separate, even in desegregated schools. Thus, "the longer children in this study remained in desegregated [as opposed to integrated] school environments, the less likely they were to value interracial friendships" (Morgan, 1996, p. 5).

Cover (1995) tested the relationship between social contact and social distance more directly. Using a small sample of college students in an introductory sociology course, Cover (1995) asked respondents to complete the social distance scale with respect to 11 different groups and also asked them to indicate whether they had had any interactions with any members of the 11 groups. In support of his hypothesis, results demonstrated that "noncontact groups reported having higher average social distance than contact groups." He also found social distance ratings to be similar across all 11 groups for those who indicated higher levels of contact. Like Bogardus, however, Cover (1995) qualified these findings by arguing that social contact in and of itself is not enough to lower social distance. Rather, lack of competition is necessary as well. "If social distance is to be lessened by contact, the groups involved should not be competitors, and their status must be relatively equal" (Cover, 1995, p. 404).

Randall and Delbridge (2005) investigated the relationship between social contact and social distance using members of a fast-growing and increasingly diverse southern community as their sample. Their research provides an important contribution to the literature in this area; whereas past studies looked at social distance largely from the perspective of white Americans, Randall and Delbridge (2005) studied social distance from the perspective of Latinos and African Americans as well. More specifically, they were interested in knowing whether groups with greater interaction and greater knowledge of one another culturally were likely to report greater social intimacy, and therefore less social distance. They found that African Americans and whites report less social distance from each other than from any other racial or ethnic group. They also found that African Americans express greater social distance from Mexicans than whites. Delbridge and Randall (2005) provided a two-fold explanation of these results: Mexicans were a new subpopulation within the community and therefore had had less social contact with other groups, and Mexicans and African Americans were competing at the time for economic resources.

Viewpoints

Despite the popularity of the social distance scale and its continued use across a variety of academic disciplines, there are scholars who take issue with it on both methodological and philosophical grounds. Lee, Sapp, and Ray (1996), for example, argue that social distance between two groups should be measured from the perspective of the minority group, rather than the perspective of the majority group, as Bogardus's original scale does. They write, "The social distance between a minority group and the majority group…has been postulated by the present authors to be based on the minority group's reaction to its perceived rejection or acceptance by the majority group, rather than on the majority group's reaction to the minority group" (Lee, Sapp & Ray, 1996, p. 17). Lee et. al (1996) modified the questions from the original scale—changing "Would have as a neighbor" to "Do they mind you living in their neighborhood," for example—and administered the scale to African Americans, Hispanics, and students identified as "other." African American students perceived a greater distance between themselves and Caucasian Americans than either of the other two groups. Findings such as these, Lee et. al. (1996) argue, provide a more complete picture of the relationship between social groups. The Randall and Delbridge (2005) study described above is another example of how the use of the scale has been extended in this manner.

Weinfurt and Moghaddam (2001) also take issue with the social distance scale, but for methodological reasons rather than philosophical ones. Specifically, they argue that the meaningfulness of the scale depends on the assumption that respondents view the social distance between categories—neighbor and friend, for example—in the same way as those who developed the scale. Weinfurt and Moghaddam (2001) write, "A number of cross-cultural researchers have asserted, often explicitly, that research methods and instruments are themselves cultural products. An implication is that the methods and instruments developed by researchers who share a particular culture may involve assumptions that are not valid in other cultures" (p. 102). People from non-Western societies in which collectivism is typically emphasized over individualism, for example, may interact with very few people outside their immediate and extended families, while people from Western societies interact with strangers frequently and have less contact with extended families. All of this may impact how particular people view social categories such as "friend," "neighbor," and "family member." Indeed, Weinfurt and Moghaddam (2001) found that Indian, Algerian, and Greek participants exhibited response patterns least consistent with the assumptions of the instrument designers; compared to other ethnic groups included in their study, their respective cultures were most dissimilar from the Western culture Bogardus's inhabited.

Despite these criticisms, the impact of the social distance scale is undeniable. Bahr, Johnson, and Seitz (1971), in a publication titled "Influential Scholars and Works in the Sociology of Race and Minority Relations," identified Bogardus as one of the heavyweights in the field between 1944 and 1968. Of twenty-eight authors whose work was most frequently cited, Bogardus was listed in the top five. Perhaps more significantly, the scale continues to be used by scholars today, even though it was first conceived in 1925.

Terms & Concepts

Attitudes: In developing the social distance scale, Bogardus was making an attempt to measure attitudes. He encouraged respondents to complete the scale "without thinking," relying instead on their first feeling reaction. This feeling reaction, which he described as involuntary and automatic, was more representative of underlying attitudes than a "thinking response," which he believed would be a more socially desirable, less accurate one.

Prejudice: As Bogardus entered the field of sociology, prejudice was currently being defined as the "more or less instinctive and spontaneous disposition to maintain social distances from other groups" (Wark & Galliher, 2007, p. 390). Bogardus believed that every person possessed racial prejudices but that they could be eradicated if competition for resources was also removed.

Race: According to Bogardus, the concept of "race" was a misnomer. Because there are no pure racial types and people have multiple racial/ethnic origins, he argued, individuals should not categorize each other into distinct groups. He recognized the existence of racial prejudice, however, and believed that increased social contact and the absence of competition would help eradicate it.

Racial Distance: Bogardus's social distance scale measures perceived distance/intimacy between members of two groups. Because it can be applied to any type of social group, including ethnic groups, occupational groups, and religious groups, the scale was given the generic title "social distance." However, it was originally developed to measure distance between racial groups and thus is sometimes referred to as a racial distance scale.

Social Distance: Bogardus borrowed his definition of social distance from colleague Robert Park, who defined it as "the grades and degrees of understanding and intimacy which characterize pre-social and social relations generally" (Bogardus, 1925, p. 216). For Bogardus more specifically, social distance is indicative of underlying attitudes and prejudices.

Bibliography

Ani, C., Ola, B. A., & Coker, R. (2011). School children's stigmatising attitude towards peers with epilepsy in Nigeria. Vulnerable Children & Youth Studies, 6, 330–338. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74639201&site=ehost-live

Bahr, H.M., Johnson, T.J., & Seitz, M.R. (1971). Influential scholars and works in the sociology of race and minority relations, 1944-1968. The American Sociologist, 6 , 296-298.

Bogardus, E.S. (1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from The Mead Project Source Page, http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bogardus/Bogardus&#x005F;1925c.html

Bogardus, E.S. (1925). Social distance and its origin. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216-226. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from The Mead Project Source Page, http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bogardus/Bogardus&#x005F;1925b.html

Bogardus, E.S. (1929). Public opinion as a social force: Race reactions. Social Forces, 8, 102-105. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13517581&site=ehost-live

Bogardus, E.S. (1931). Cooperative research on the Pacific Coast. Journal of Educational Sociology, 4 , 563-568. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15903911&site=ehost-live

Bogardus, E.S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265-271. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from The Mead Project Source Page, http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Bogardus/Bogardus&#x005F;1933.html

Bogardus, E. S. (1947). Measurement of personal-group relations. Sociometry, 10, 306-310. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17904643&site=ehost-live

Bogardus, E. S. (1954). Sociology. New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.

Bogardus, E.S. (1956). The aim of Alpha Kappa Delta. Alpha Kappa Deltan, 27, 18-19. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=23139319&site=ehost-live

Cover, J.D. (1995). The effects of social contact on prejudice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 403-405. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9509274662&site=ehost-live

Kleg, M., & Yamamoto, K. (1998). As the world turns: Ethno-racial distances after 70 years. Social Science Journal, 35, 183-190. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=672218&site=ehost-live

Lee, M. Y., Sapp, S. G., & Ray, M.C. (1996). The reverse social distance scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 17-24. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7199644&site=ehost-live

Morgan, H. (1996, April). Social distance and race in public schools: Grades five through twelve. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from Education Resources Information Center: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content&#x005F;storage&#x005F;01/0000019b/80/16/d0/d0.pdf

Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2013). The national social distance study: Ten years later. Sociological Forum, 28, 597–614. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89888320&site=ehost-live

Potdar, R., & Elliott, D. (2011). Online education and the promotion of diversity: Using the Bogardus scale to measure student attitudes. Conference Papers—American Sociological Association, 1435. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85658963&site=ehost-live

Randall, N.H., & Delbridge, S. (2005). Perceptions of social distance in an ethnically fluid community. Sociological Spectrum, 25, 103-122. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15740680&site=ehost-live

Sellew, G. (1950). Reducing racial tension. American Catholic Sociological Review, 11, 271-273. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17168830&site=ehost-live

Wark, C., & Galliher, J.F. (2007). Emory Bogardus and the origins of the social distance scale. American Sociologist, 38, 383-395. Retrieved August 1, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28382226&site=ehost-live

Weinfurt, K. P., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2001). Culture and social distance: A case study of methodological cautions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 101-110. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4274689&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bogardus, E. S. (1923). Essentials of social psychology. Los Angeles, CA: The press of Jesse Ray Miller.

Bogardus, E.S. (1926). The new social research. Los Angeles, CA: The press of Jesse Ray Miller.

Bogardus, E.S. (1928). Teaching and social distance. Journal of Educational Sociology, 1, 595-598. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15850731&site=ehost-live

Bogardus, E.S. (1930). Social-distance changes in educational procedure. Journal of Educational Sociology, 3, 497-502. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15903723&site=ehost-live

Bogardus, E. S. (1931). Contemporary sociology: A companion volume to history of social thought. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Press.

Bogardus, E. S. (1960). The development of social thought. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Company.

Fee, H. R., & Nusbaumer, M. R. (2012). Social distance and the formerly obese: Does the stigma of obesity linger? Sociological Inquiry, 82, 356–377. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77510222&site=ehost-live

Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82329251&site=ehost-live

Neumeyer, M.H. (1974). A tribute to Dr. Emory S. Bogardus. Sociological Inquiry, 44, 3-5. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13744556&site=ehost-live