IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i14p1319-1327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social distance from the stigmatized : A test of two theories

Author

Listed:
  • Albrecht, Gary L.
  • Walker, Vivian G.
  • Levy, Judith A.

Abstract

Attribution of responsibility and disruption of social interaction are two explanations proposed in previous literature for the existence of differential social distance from individuals with various types of stigmas. This paper tests the relative merits of the theories in explaining perceived social distance that individuals in the study expressed from a wide range of stigmatized conditions representing two general stigma types: the disabled and deviants. The research is based on a sample of professionals and managers in key decision making positions. Perceived social distance was measured by a modified Bogardus Scale. Respondents expressed greater social distance from deviants such as alcoholics and drug addicts than from the disabled such as paraplegics and the blind. Little support was found for the contention that attribution of responsibility determines variations in social distance across or within the two major stigma types of disability and deviance. Rather, results suggest that differential rejection stems from the disruption a stigma causes in social interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Albrecht, Gary L. & Walker, Vivian G. & Levy, Judith A., 1982. "Social distance from the stigmatized : A test of two theories," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(14), pages 1319-1327, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:14:p:1319-1327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90027-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bove, Liliana L. & Pervan, Simon J., 2013. "Stigmatized labour: An overlooked service worker’s stress," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 259-263.
    2. Kee-Lee Chou & Ki-Yan Mak & Po-Kin Chung & David Chan & Kimmy Ho, 1996. "Attitudes Towards Mental Patients in Hong Kong," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 42(3), pages 213-219, September.
    3. McIntosh, Alison J., 2020. "The hidden side of travel: Epilepsy and tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Nobles, Jenna & Weintraub, Miranda Ritterman & Adler, Nancy E., 2013. "Subjective socioeconomic status and health: Relationships reconsidered," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 58-66.
    5. Dobransky, Kerry, 2009. "The good, the bad, and the severely mentally ill: Official and informal labels as organizational resources in community mental health services," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 722-728, September.
    6. Kai Wei & Daniel Jacobson López & Shiyou Wu, 2019. "The Role of Language in Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: What Can We Learn from Immigrants’ Historical Experiences?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Marcus Y.L. Chiu & Kenneth K.L. Chan, 2007. "Community Attitudes Towards Discriminatory Practice Against People with Severe Mental Illness in Hong Kong," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 53(2), pages 159-174, March.
    8. Wilson, Kate & Luker, Karen A, 2006. "At home in hospital? Interaction and stigma in people affected by cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1616-1627, April.
    9. Sabina Kołodziej, 2021. "Validation of the Polish version of the Motivational Postures (Toward Taxes) Questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Marjorie L. Baldwin, 1997. "Can the ADA Achieve its Employment Goals?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 549(1), pages 37-52, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:14:p:1319-1327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.