Abstract

Aim of the research is to find out the social distance among boys and girls arts and science college students. So investigator selected two groups one is boys’ and other is girls’ arts and science college students, both groups have 120 students. In each group has 60 boys other one groups has 60 girls arts and science college students. Data were collected from anand city. Scale was use for data collection is personal datasheet and Social distance scale developed by Asthana, K.dewedi, Bhatnagar (2012) was used, 2×2 factorial design was used and data were analysis by ‘F’ test. Result show, Gender had significant difference of social distance of boys and girls college students. There was no significant difference of social distance between arts and science college students. There was significant interaction effect of types of gender and faculty on social distance.

INTRODUCTION:

As It done with psychological distance, It determination classify social distances into basic types encompassing social relationships, which are status, power and class. But first a word about social distance. As part of their fields of expression, all participants in social interaction present a configuration of characteristics identifying their social backgrounds, role dispositions, class, and status. Income, home ownership, educational level and school, neighbourhood, occupation, organizational memberships, family, sex, age, race, and so on identify a person’s position in social space, his location within the web of social relationships. And the differences and similarities between people are then captured by their objective distance on these characteristics.

Social distance is a force underlying social relationships. To turn this around, relationships reflect distances. Clearly, social distance is the independent variable. Some, however, who also have seen a close connection between the two, have made distance dependent.

Social distances are but the most formal and general aspects of social relationships and social relationships are the results of social processes; social distance may therefore be defined as a condition produced by a social relationship in conjunction with other social relationships. In other words, any specific social distance is a resultant of at least two relationships of differing tendencies, and inasmuch as a social relationship is after all only a relatively stable state of association or dissociation among human beings brought about and maintained by one or more social processes, it is impossible to define the latter in terms of distance: any social process is a sequence of occurrences through which the distance prevailing between human beings, etc., is increased or decreased. The importance of distance as a sociological category thereby becomes apparent; it is the relatively stable equilibrium (of motions of approach and avoidance) produced by the dynamic interplay of social processes, and although the present system lays primary emphasis on social dynamics, it is a category of rank co-ordinate with social process. In distance we have the most abstract aspects of action pattern.

The difference between us as to which is the dependent variable is a matter of perspective. What is important is the agreement on the close association between social distance and social relationships. Some malfunctioning in the term social distance, because of its possible confusion with Bogardus’ well-known social distance concept. Unfortunately, since no other term so well fits the meaning of this distance, It Will uses it at the risk of ambiguity or miscommunication. But just to be clear, social distance means here the over-all distance between people in their sociological attributes, not their liking, attraction, or affinity.

Social distance as a term captures the idea of social differences and similarities between people, and of their relative location in social space. Of primary interest in understanding different kinds of social interaction, however, are the relative locations of people on the components of this space. Accordingly, I should bring out three subtypes of social distance: status, power, and class distances.

The first subtype, status-distance, People are differently located within patterns of deference and domination; each has a position within society’s stratification system; each is part of a “pecking order.” And where people sit in this order, their total status, is generally a function of their wealth, power, and prestige. Thus, the status-distance between people is their objective differences on these three components.

The second subtype is a subset of status-distance. Of special importance to understanding conflict and war are the configuration and distribution of power among people and their groups, the change in this configuration and distribution, and the role power plays in perception, expectations, and behaviour. For the moment it determination just pose power-distance as one of the three objective sociological distances of concern.

Aims of the study:

1. To study of the social distance among boys and girls college students.
2. To study of the social distance among arts and science college students.
3. To study of the effect of interaction on social distance among the type of gender and types of faculty.

Hypothesis:

1. There is no difference between the social distance of the boys and girls college students.
2. There is no difference between the social distance of the arts and science college students.
3. There is no interaction effect of the social distance in the types of gender and types of faculty.

METHODOLOGY:

Research design

This study was adopted 2×2 factorial designs with 2 types of gender (boys and girls) and 2 types of faculty (arts and science)

Sample

In this present study there is simple random sampling for this purpose Anand cities arts and science colleges were selected. Sample taken from various arts and science colleges of anand city among these study 60 students of arts faculty 30 boys and 30 girls randomly selected as well as 60 students of science faculty 30 boys and 30 girls selected. So in this study there are sample selected by simple random sampling method.

Tools used

The following tools were used in the present study:

 Personal Data sheet

Certain personal information about respondents included in the sample of research is useful and important for research. Here also, for collecting such important information, personal data sheet was prepared. With the help of this personal data sheet, the information about types of gender and types of faculty was collected.

In this research following tools are used:

Social distance scale                          

Social distance scale was developed by Asthana, K.dewedi and Bhatnagar (2012) was used. There are 12 statements in this scale.

Statistical Analysis

In this study ‘F’ test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Social distance with reference to gender and faculty:

The main objective was to study whether boys and girls arts and science college students of differ in social distance. In this context, 3 null hypotheses (no.01to03) were constructed. For this purpose 2×2 factorial design was framed. To examine these null hypothesis statistical techniques of two ways ANOVA was used. The results obtained are presented in table 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Table No.1 (N=120) Means and SDs of Social distance with reference to gender and faculty.

Table no.2 (N=120) ANOVA summary of Social distance with reference to gender and faculty.

Table No.3(N=160) Difference between mean score of Social distance with reference to gender and faculty.

Social distance with reference to gender:

When F test was applied to check the impact of sex on social distance among boys and girls college students, significant F value was found. The F value (Table No.5.2) is 7.324 which are statistically significant on level 0.01. Table 5.3 reveals that the mean score of social distance of boys and girls are 39.77 and 42.03 respectively and the difference of means (2.26) which is very high and not negligible. Hence the null hypothesis 1 was rejected and it was conclude that there was significant impact of gender of boys and girls college students on their social distance. So it was concluded that there was boys’ social distance is a high than the girls’ college students.

Social distance with reference to faculty:-

When F test was applied to check the impact of faculty on social distance among boys and girls college students, No significant F value was found. The F value (Table No.5.2) is 2.794 which are statistically not significant. Table no.5.3 reveals that the mean scores of social distance of arts and science college students are 40.20 and 41.60 respectively and the difference between two is 1.40 are remarkable at they were not statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis 2 was maintained and it was concluded that there was not any significant impact of arts and science college students on their social distance.

Social distance with reference to interaction effect of gender and types of faculty:-

When F test was applied to check the interaction effect of gender and faculty on social distance significant impact was found on level 0.05. The F value (Table No.5.2) is 4.967 which are statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis 3 was rejected and it was conclude that there was significant interaction effect of gender and faculty on social distance.

CONCLUSION:

1. Gender had significant impact on the social distance of arts and science college students. The boys’ social distance is a high than the girls’ arts and science college students.
2. Faculty had no impact on the social distance of college students.
3. The interaction between gender and faculty had significant impact on social distance of arts and science college students.