{"doi":"10.1177/13684302221133715","title":"Pandemic and prejudice: Revisiting Bogardus’s social distance concept in a time of COVID-19","abstract":"<jats:p>This study examined when the realistic threat of COVID-19 leads to prejudicial social distancing. American participants reported social distancing preferences from Chinese or Italian people (out-group target) after viewing increasing or decreasing COVID-19 case numbers (threat level) in China or Italy (threat relevance). On the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, there was support for a disease avoidance hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed under higher than under lower relevant threats. Responses on a bespoke COVID-19 Social Distance Scale, however, supported an a priori prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward a Chinese than toward an Italian out-group. Moreover, responses on a separate bespoke Modern Social Distance Scale supported a complex prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward Chinese than toward Italian out-groups under higher than under lower threat, regardless of threat relevance. These findings suggest that the threat of COVID-19 may enable prejudice expression accompanied by the rationale of disease avoidance.</jats:p>","journal":"Group Processes &amp; Intergroup Relations","year":2024,"id":629982,"datarank":0.38474240361923057,"base_score":2.5649493574615367,"endowment":2.5649493574615367,"self_citation_contribution":0.38474240361923057,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.38474240361923057,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":12,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1631843,"name":"Michael J. Platow","orcid":"0000-0002-1721-0827","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1631844,"name":"Daniel Bar-Tal","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1631845,"name":"Martha Augoustinos","orcid":null,"position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1631847,"name":"Russell Spears","orcid":null,"position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1631848,"name":"Dirk Van Rooy","orcid":null,"position":5,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1631841,"name":"Ellen Shi","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Pandemic and prejudice: Revisiting Bogardus’s social distance concept in a time of COVID-19","abstract":"<jats:p>This study examined when the realistic threat of COVID-19 leads to prejudicial social distancing. American participants reported social distancing preferences from Chinese or Italian people (out-group target) after viewing increasing or decreasing COVID-19 case numbers (threat level) in China or Italy (threat relevance). On the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, there was support for a disease avoidance hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed under higher than under lower relevant threats. Responses on a bespoke COVID-19 Social Distance Scale, however, supported an a priori prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward a Chinese than toward an Italian out-group. Moreover, responses on a separate bespoke Modern Social Distance Scale supported a complex prejudice hypothesis: greater social distancing preferences were expressed toward Chinese than toward Italian out-groups under higher than under lower threat, regardless of threat relevance. These findings suggest that the threat of COVID-19 may enable prejudice expression accompanied by the rationale of disease avoidance.</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":2.4849066497880004,"endowment":2.4849066497880004,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"19767382","pmcid":"PMC9659698","openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W4308651111","authors":[],"funders":[{"funder_name":"Australian Research Council","grant_id":"DP160101157","title":"Discovery Projects - Grant ID: DP160101157"}],"total_grants":1,"fwci":0.9292,"citation_percentile":0.7114406,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[{"year":2024,"count":6},{"year":2025,"count":3},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"oa_status":"green","license":"other-oa","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/1777c586-c183-4b01-a618-275934810466","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/1777c586-c183-4b01-a618-275934810466","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13684302221133715","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full-xml/10.1177/13684302221133715","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221133715","host_type":"journal"},{"url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/9659698","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://hdl.handle.net/11370/1777c586-c183-4b01-a618-275934810466","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1920920151162165141","host_type":""}],"fields_of_study":["Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment","Social and Intergroup Psychology","Cultural Differences and Values","05 social sciences","0501 psychology and cognitive sciences"],"mesh_terms":[],"keywords":["Social distance","Prejudice (legal term)","Bespoke","Social psychology","Psychology","Pandemic","Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)","Scale (ratio)","Distancing","Social isolation","Relevance (law)","Construal level theory","Disease","Political science","Medicine","Prejudice","Realistic Threat"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":3,"sdg_label":"3. Good health"},{"sdg_number":5,"sdg_label":"5. Gender equality"},{"sdg_number":8,"sdg_label":"8. Economic growth"},{"sdg_number":16,"sdg_label":"16. Peace & justice"},{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Reduced inequalities"}],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-05T20:11:19.661888Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}