Date post: | 13-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | carmen-slatton |
View: | 33 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Running Head: Theories of Cognitive of Encountering a Disabled Person
Understanding The Cognitive Processes of Encountering a Disabled Individual Critical Literature Review
Mary Baldwin College
Views Towards Disabled Persons 1
Abstract
This article will discuss the different perceptions, and different theories that
involve disabled individuals. The article will also discuss the possible causes of such reactions
towards the disabled culture and what can be done to dispel such myths. This article will
continue to discuss the characteristics of persons with disabilities and their integration into
society. Suggestions for further education and further studies are included.
Views Towards Disabled Persons 2
It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans have some sort of physical disability
(Cubbage & Thomas, 1989). Negative attitudes towards people with disabilities have generally
been automatic, unconscious continual developments in society (Pruett & Chan, 2006). This
article will discuss the different cognitive processes that a nondisabled person might experience
when encountering a person with a disability. Such theories we will discuss are the spread effect,
the terror management theory the attachment theory, the kindness norm and the sympathy bias.
This thesis will discuss the characteristics of persons with disabilities and how they adapt to
negative stereotypes, biases, and attitudes.
Common perceptions about persons with disabilities that this article will
explore is the belief that disabled individuals are different in their likes and dislikes, self-
evaluations, and do not wish to be included into the non-disabled community (Fichten, Robillard,
Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). This article will discuss the present research on persons with
disabilities and there integration into society, I will discuss the strengths and criticisms of each
article that I present in this article. Finally, this article will make suggestions for areas of
improvements and future research on how to successfully improve the interactions between
persons with disabilities and the non-disabled population.
Attributions and Attitudes
Different attributions are commonly made against disabled individuals, these
attributions can affect the way an individual views or judges the individual. Research shows that
internal attributions are viewed less favorably then external attributions (Kovera, 2006; Gouvier,
Systma-Jordan & Mayville, 2003). Internal attributes are believed to be that the person with a
Views Towards Disabled Persons 3
disability was a victim of circumstances whereas external attributes the raters believed that they
only had themselves to blame for the disability (Gouvier, et al., 2003). In a study done by
Gouvier and colleagues, they asked participants to rate the job applicants and it was consistently
shown among the raters that applicants with internally perceived disabilities were rated less
favorably than applicants with externally perceived disabilities (Gouvier, et al., 2003).
Limitations of this study include using a hypothetical written situation versus a real-life situation
and the researchers relied on self-report of the raters to gather the statistics. Using this type of
study may be economical but it is not reliable on its own, relying on self-report on a hypothetical
situation is not the most valid way of collecting data. Gathering data based on a real-life situation
would have been a much better way of going about this study.
Many times attitudes about physical disabilities exist that are same as the
attitudes towards substance abuse (American Psychologist, 2002). Most of the literature
researching attitudes on disabilities have showed that there is indeed a negative evaluation and
prejudices held against persons with disabilities (Dunn et al., 2013;Louvet, 2007;). However,
there is also literature reporting positive evaluations of persons with disabilities (Louvet, 2007).
The Spread Effect; What it is and what affect does it have on the disabled
population?
There is a false assumption that is known as the spread effect (American
Psychologist, 2002) that assumes if an individual has one area of impairment (e.g. hearing,
blindness ) that it affects the other senses, such as a deaf person would also be mentally
handicapped. People will direct questions to the disabled person’s companion assuming that the
disabled person cannot respond (Weinberg, 1976). Often time’s people with a disability are
Views Towards Disabled Persons 4
assigned additional characteristics. In a study that involved non-disabled and disabled college
students it was found that the non-disabled college students attributed opposite characteristics to
the disabled students such as awkwardness in social situations. In a study done by Fichten et al.
showed that both disabled and non-disabled individuals can function appropriately in social
situations (Fichten, Robillard, Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). The study consisted of 127
nondisabled persons with and, 17 visually impaired, 10 hearing-impaired and 19 wheelchair
users (Fichten et al., 1991). There were 62 males and 111 females in this study (Fichten et al.,
1991). The nondisabled sample was a convience sample taken from four colleges, the disabled
sample was volunteers (Fichten et al., 1991). They all took surveys asking questions about what
they thought an encounter would be like with disabled (by category) and non-disabled persons
(Fichten et al., 1991). This study used the General Information Form, the Cognitive Role-Taking
Tasks, and the Comfort Interacting Scale (Fichten et al., 1991). The subjects were asked to
imagine they were in ascenario with a non-disabled and a person with a disability in the
Cognitive Role-Taking Tasks form and then report their comfort in the imagined scenario in the
Comfort Interacting Scale, on a 6 point scale (Fichten et al., 1991). The non-disabled students
reported feeling the most at ease with their able bodied peers wheelchair users, the non-disabled
student rated the wheelchair users the most uncomfortable to be around, the hearing impaired
persons were rated slightly below their able bodied peers and slightly above the visually
impaired population (Fichten et al., 1991). The visually impaired population reported being more
comfortable with other visually impaired persons than with their able bodied peers, they were not
tested against the hearing impaired and wheelchair user population (Fichten et al., 1991). The
hearing impaired population reported being the most comfortable around their hearing impaired
peers, they were not tested against the visually impaired population or the wheelchair user
Views Towards Disabled Persons 5
population (Fichten et al., 1991). Unexpectedly, the wheelhair user population reported their
comfort level being higher around their able bodied peers than there comfort level with other
wheelchair users (Fichten et al., 1991). It seems that both visually impaired and hearing impaired
population prefferred to be in groups with the same disability. Non-disabled persons preffered to
be with their non-disabled peers, it is interesting to note that the wheelchair users were the only
group that noted not being the most comfortable around other wheelchair users, instead they
rated their comfort level being higher around their able bodied peers. The findings in the hearing
disabled and visually disabled categories suggested a “us vs. them” mentality towards their peers
(Fichten et al., 1991). Suggestions for why the wheelchair user population did not seem to show
this mentality may be due to the fact that many of the wheelchair users may have recently been
apart of the non-disabled community (Fichten et al., 1991). Some of the notable limitations of
this study that may have inflenced the findings are that they used a considerable larger amout of
non-disabled students than they used in the disabled category. Also, these findings were not
based on real-life interactions but rather they were based on surveys taken from imagined
scenarios. Gender may have been a factor but it is not known, the limitation is that they used
almost twice as many females as they had males participate in this study. The sample was a
convience sample taken from college students it may not be representitive of the entire
population (Fichten et al., 1991).
Borderi’s and colleague’s research showed that attractiveness was found to be
linked with positive perceptions, “what is beautiful is good” (Borderi, Sotolongo & Wilson,
1983). Borderi’s et al’s research also showed that Epilepsy was significantly linked with
unattractiveness (Borderi, Sotolongo, & Wilson, 1983). Nondisabled people can assume that not
only does the disabled person not able to interact in group activities but they do not want to
Views Towards Disabled Persons 6
(Fichten, Schipper, & Cutler, 2005). These perceptions can greatly hinder the disabled
populations’ ability to integrate into society effectively (Dunn et al., 2013;Fichten et al., 2005).
The limitations of this study are also its strengths they were not able to manipulate many
variables as other studies because they studied an actual ongoing volunteer program, they did not
use a simulated study (Fichten et al., 2005).
The Terror Management Theory; What Is It and What Causes It?
For many people dealing with a person with a disability can be a terrifying
experience on an emotional level because it reminds them of how fragile life can be
(Hirschberger, Florian & Mikulincer, 2005; Naim, Aviv, & Hirschberger 2008). Reminders of
death can lead to a strained interaction and can cause the person with a disability to be viewed
negatively (Ben-Naim, Aviv, & Hirschberger, 2008; Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005).
Others have suggested that non-disabled people will avoid persons with disabilities to avoid their
own internal guilt for being able bodied (Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005).
Some studies have suggested that having contact with a person with a
disability can be harmful to ones self-esteem by reminding them of their own vulnerability and
therefore inducing distancing (Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005). These findings
indicate that persons with disabilities can pose a threat to two terror management mechanisms—
the cultural worldview validation and self-esteem maintenance therefore distancing the disabled
and non-disabled (Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005). In the study by Hirschberger men
were found on average to show significantly lower compassion responses (Nabors & Lehmkuhl,
2005; Naim et al, 2008) due to the mortality salience (Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer,
2005). One of the limitations of this study was that they could not be certain whether these
Views Towards Disabled Persons 7
gender differences were due to the participant or the person with the disability (Hirschberger,
Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005). This thesis will attempt to determine the most valid theory that a
nondisabled person goes through when meeting a nondisabled person and if the gender of the
nondisabled person plays any part in determining the most valid theory?
Associating with a disabled individual can remind an individual of their own
mortality (i.e, mortality salience; Hirschberger, 2005). Research has shown that people will often
terminate contact with depressed persons and rate it as more negative and uncomfortable (Elliot,
MacNair, Yoder, & Byrne, 1991). In the study done Elliot and his colleagues they used three
undergraduates students to act disabled in independent variable as being depressed and one
behaving is a socially acceptable way, both in a wheelchair while being videotaped. The results
showed that people consistently rated the depressed variable as more unpleasant to be around
(Elliot, et al., 1991). One of the main limitations of this study is that they chose to use healthy
undergraduate students instead of actual persons with disabilities to act disabled and to pretend to
be disabled in one independent variable (Elliot, et al. 1991). It is possible that this influenced the
results.
In both the Nabors and Hirschberger studies found that women had more
compassionate responses towards people with disabilities than men on an average (Hirschberger,
Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005; Nabors & Lehmkuhl, 2005). Women have been found to hold more
positive thoughts toward disabled individuals then men (Ben-Naim, 2008; Hirschberger et al,
2005 & Nabors et al). In the study done Nabors and Lehmkuhl reactions were significantly less
favorable towards children with cerebral palsy when compared to healthy children (Nabors &
Lehmkuhl, 2005). Lack of knowledge and understanding about disabilities was found to be a
factor in the level of compassion shown in the study done by Nabors and Lehmkuhl (Nabors et
Views Towards Disabled Persons 8
al., 2005). Understanding that a lack of knowledge can cause discomfort is a great strength in
this study because it shows what can be done to improve comfort around persons with
disabilities. Educating people about people with disabilities can greatly improve interactions
between the disabled and the non-disabled population. Some of the limitations reported in the
Nabors study are that they did not use real world situations instead opting to use video tapes and
measure the responses of the participants. The sample sizes were limited and possibly narrowed
further by using college students that were mostly Caucasian, this may not represent the general
population correctly (Nabors et al., 2005). Some of the limitations of the study done by
Hirschberger are that they relied on self-reports of level of comfort when interacting with
persons with disabilities, and they only measured the initial reactions (Hirschberger, et al., 2005).
Relying on self-report as the main way of gathering data can be unreliable and the fact that they
only measured initial reactions is a serious limitation, it would have been better had they take
two sets of measurements; an initial reaction and a second meeting and compared them. Also,
there were gender differences found in studies 1 and 2 but it was unknown if the differences
were because of the interaction, the participant, or the person with a disability (Hirschberger,et
al., 2005). They recommend using short films of the interaction with a person with a disability
and replicating their findings using behavioral and psychological measures (Hirschberger,
Florian, & Mikulincer, 2005).
The Attachment Theory Explored
The attachment theory is another cause of discomfort around persons with
disabilities (Vilchinsky, Findler & Werner, 2010). According to a study done by Vilchinsky,
Findler and Werner examining the possibility of the attachment theory being related to negative
evaluations of persons with disabilities using the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Towards
Views Towards Disabled Persons 9
Persons With Disabilities (MAS) and the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR)
(Vilchinsky, et al., 2010) their findings supported the possibility of the attachment theory being
related to negative evaluations of persons with disabilities (Vilchinsky, et al., 2010). The
limitations of the Vilchinsky study are they did not use real world experiences but instead the
study consisted of having participants read about an encounter with a person with a disability
(Vilchinsky, et al., 2010). This can be a very big limitation of the study that seems to be a
common theme among many studies, having the person read about what they think it may be like
to encounter a person with a disability is very different than actually encountering a person with
a disability. Other limitations are that sample size only consisted of college students using self-
report (Vilchinsky, et al., 2010). Self-report is not always the best method for gathering data, it
can be biased to fit social conventions (e.g. people may not say what they are really thinking or
feeling for fear of being looked at critically by society). Possible research in the future should
use a more variable sample from different age groups, genders, and background characteristics
(Vilchinsky, et al., 2010).
What Is The Kindness Norm And How Does It Affect Persons With
Disabilities?
The kindness norm may be reported in the studies (Elliot, MacNair, Yoder, &
Byrne, 1991), an overly positive view towards the disabled. Evidence suggests the “kindness
norm” may not be valid (Elliot, et al., 1991). The results in Elliot’s et al’s study reporting the
actions of non-disabled individuals towards a confederate soldier and a non-disabled person, the
same actor, there seemed to be no bias towards the physical condition alone, but rather on his
behavior depressed; stereo-typed or non-depressed; non-stereotyped (Elliot, et al., 1991). The
limitations of Elliot’s study are that they used actors and not real life situations which may not
Views Towards Disabled Persons 10
represent real life. They also used actors in the study which also may not have been
representative of real life situations. The individuals may have reacted to the actors’ reaction in
the videotaped interview (Elliot, et al., 1991). The final criticism is that the actor was non-
disabled pretending to be disabled, this may have influenced how he acted (Elliot, et al., 1991).
Pretending to act depressed and disabled can be a serious limitation to the study given that these
were students and not professional actors their performance may have greatly influenced the
comfort of the participant. Future research does need to account for the kindness norm when
interpreting overly positive results.
Does The Comfort Level Vary When Interacting With A Person With A
Disability Versus A Non-Disabled Person?
The comfort level of the non-disabled population is a problem, this thesis will
attempt to understand some of the factors that contribute the discomfort of the non-disabled
party. One reason is that the non-disabled party can feel many negative emotions including fear
around the disabled individual along with stress, anxiety, mixed with fear and compassion
(Hirschberger, et al., 2005). Hirschberger’s et al’s results state that a likely reason that non-
disabled individuals will avoid contact with disabled individuals is because the disability can
remind the non-disabled individual of their own vulnerability and can lead to thoughts of death,
this decreases the amount of compassion felt or shown towards the disabled individual
(Hirschberger, et al., 2005).
Studies have shown that difficulties in intergroup interactions can happen
when one group is socially stigmatized or another holds more social power (Santuzzi, 2011). In
the study done by Santuzzi it was shown that self-esteem of the non-disabled party was directly
Views Towards Disabled Persons 11
related to the level of comfort or discomfort experienced by the non-disabled individual. Positive
self-esteem was associated with more positive evaluations of the interaction and negative self-
esteem levels were associated with negative evaluations of the interaction (Santuzzi, 2011).
Limitations of the study done by Santuzzi include a possible large sampling error which could
account for the unexpected results that the self-esteem of the participant was higher or the
expected interaction was less time. It cannot be said for sure what caused these results.
Well-meaning associations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act can
make it more uncomfortable and provide concerns about showing a negative reaction towards a
disabled individual (Santuzzi, 2011). Santuzzi’s studies have compelling evidence that such a
negative bias is present in the American society and can be harmful to the disabled population.
There are some criticisms and possible downfalls of these studies. One example is that in the
study done by Fichten, it was done using hypothetical situations, participants also used
questionnaires to evaluate their reactions; it was not a natural interaction that could be observed
(Fichten, Robillard, Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). Another possible downfall is that good amount
of studies use questionnaires in evaluating the situations, although economically effective they
may not be the most accurate for several reasons such as they are prone to self-bias-or can be
distorted.
The comfort level around disabled individuals versus non-disabled individuals
is a common factor in the perceptions of the disabled ( Ben-Naim et al, 2008; Somerville, 1979;
Fichten, 1991; Gordon, Minnes & Holden, 1990; Hirschberger et al, 2005). Unexpectedly, the
participants in a study done by Santuzzi the participants showed a weak positive relationship
between self-esteem and negative effect when they interacted in a brief interaction but a
moderate negative relationship when expecting to interact for an extended time period (Santuzzi,
Views Towards Disabled Persons 12
2011). Such large differences in the numbers in the positive direction could suggest that these
were not people’s true feelings but that they felt they could not be honest; this could be due to
social conventions, and the stigma that you must be nice to those with disabilities. Other possible
explanations for the unexpected results could be attributed to a large sampling error or
unexplained validity (Santuzzi, 2011). It is also possible that the participants fell victim to the
social desirability pressure to not report honestly about negative feelings about the interactions
with the disabled (Santuzzi, 2011). It is not known for sure what caused these numbers and that
is a limitation of this study.
These findings could represent the sympathy bias, consistent with these
findings in a study performed by Cacciapaglia, Beauchamp and Howells, the results showed that
people were more willing to interact with a person with a visible disability than without a visible
disability (Cacciapaglia, Beauchamp & Howells, 2004). The study consisted of pedestrians
interacting with an amputee and with a seemingly non-disabled person. In the nondisabled
condition the disabled person, a 24 year old woman wore jeans to cover her prosthesis; in the
disabled condition she wore shorts that showed the prosthesis (Cacciapaglia, et al., 2004).
Surprisingly, the findings showed that on average the pedestrians were more willing to interact in
the disabled condition, 67% were willing to interact in the disabled condition versus 47% in the
nondisabled condition (Cacciapaglia, et al., 2004). These results could be a result of the
sympathy bias, a societal norm that would have made it socially unacceptable to not interact
(Cacciapaglia, et al., 2004), or the idea that people without disabilities may appreciate the
successes on disabled individuals (Cacciapaglia, et al., 2004). Possible limitations of this study
are the difference between the scenarios was multiple; the clothing of the experimenter and the
visibility of the prosthesis, revealing more of the experimenter’s body could have led to the
Views Towards Disabled Persons 13
willingness of the pedestrians to help. Using male and female experimenters would have led to
broader results (Cacciapaglia, et al., 2004). Other limitations of the study are that these were not
real life situations, they were set up for the experiment, this may have impacted the
experimenters own actions.
Factors involving job discrimination
With job discrimination still widely integrated into to hiring process the
disabled population is finding it harder than the average person to find a job to support
themselves and their families (Dunn et al., 2013; Gouvier, Systma-Jordan, & Mayville, 2003).
There is a sufficient amount of research that shows that people with disabilities are chosen less
for jobs requiring public contact than are their nondisabled peers and that the nondisabled
persons interview lasts longer that a person with disability which would suggest discomfort on
the part of the interviewer given previous research. The literature states that the visibility of the
disability has been found to be related to the likelihood that the individual would be chosen for a
position involving public contact (Gouvier, et al., 2003). In past studies the employers were
asked to rate the job applicant without an obligation to hire, discrimination was inferred across
the means (Gouvier, et al., 2003). The present study was designed by asking undergraduate
students to rate four resumes for different jobs, including low contact (janitor at night time) and
high contact jobs (phone operator during business hours). The results were compiled using the
Principal-components analysis (PCA), the results supported the initial hypothesis that persons
with disabilities are consistently chosen less than their non-disabled counterpart. When forced
comparisons were rated the raters consistently favored persons with physical disabilities over
those with mental disabilities (Gouvier, et al., 2003). The limitations of this study are the study
was in an analogue design using undergraduate business students instead of actual employers,
Views Towards Disabled Persons 14
secondly, the students were given information (i.e. description of the disability) not usually on a
resume or discussed in an interview (Gouvier, et al., 2003). The fact that the students were given
this information about the possible job candidates’ disability is a big factor because they had
information that the employer would not have. These findings suggest that job discrimination is
still active in today’s workforce more than 20 years after the American Disability Act (ADA)
was enacted in 1990 (Gouvier, et al., 2003). More research is definitely needed in this area to
inform possible employers and employees about the stereotypes that face disabled individuals so
that they can be aware of them. It has been found that knowledge about disabilities can result in a
more positive interaction, for this reason it would be helpful to introduce training and increase
exposure with persons with disabilities ( (Dunn et al., 2013; Fichten, et al., 2005).
Things that can be done to increase awareness about common perceptions
about persons with disabilities
It has been documented that nondisabled people tend to rate the disability as
the main problem whereas the disabled party have rated the attitudes of other people as the main
problem (American Psychologist, 2002).Understanding how the nondisabled form perceptions
about contact on an interpersonal level is critical to reducing tension during these interactions
(Dunn et al., 2013; Santuzzi, 2011). It is important to tell professionals and trainees in the fields
working with special needs children about the stereotypes that affect them and have knowledge
about positive attitudes that can affect them (Nabors & Lehmkuhl, 2005). Volunteering with
children with disabilities increased ease and comfort while decreasing social distance (Fichten, et
al., 2005). In the pretest according to the Fichten’s and her colleagues study the close social
distance decreased for a person with a physical disability and also for interactions with a hearing
impaired person (Fichten, et al., 2005). Ease for people interacting with physically disabled
Views Towards Disabled Persons 15
persons increased and the hearing impaired test ease increased (Fichten, et al., 2005). Negative
stereotyping also decreased from concerning physically disabled individuals (Fichten, et al.,
2005). It also decreased from concerning hearing impaired individuals (Fichten, et al., 2005).
Positive stereotyping decreased in both scenarios involving physically disabled persons and
involving hearing impaired persons (Fichten, et al., 2005). The results showed that volunteering
with children had an overall positive effect on the way interactions occurred between
nondisabled adults and disabled adults. The limitations of this study were no control groups;
there was a very small sample size only 10 people completed the pre- and post-volunteering
measures (Fichten, et al., 2005). Volunteers were able to select which group of children with
disabilities they wanted to work with, selecting the hearing impaired group suggested sign
language abilities which suggested having previous contact with hearing impaired individuals.
Limitations of Multiple Studies
Conflicting results and human error can result in limitations of studies. For
example, there have been numerous studies citing that women have more positive attitudes and
compassion towards the disabled than men display (Nabors et al, 2005; Ben-Naim, 2008;
Hirschberger et al, 2005). However, in a study done by Somerville in 1979 the results showed
that there was no significant difference between men and women’s reactions to the disabled
interviewer. They had hypothesized based on previous research that women would be more
favorable in their ratings but this was not the case (Somerville, Veeder, Graw, and Sechovee,
1979). Other limitations are limited sample sizes (Fichten, 1991; Nabors et al, 2005; Pruett and
Chan, 2006). Using convenience samples can be another limitation of research (Pruett et al.,
2006). Some studies such as the one done by Fichten in 1991 reported the results from a study
where the participants reported reactions in hypothetical situations (Fichten, Robillard,
Views Towards Disabled Persons 16
Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). Many studies use questionnaires and surveys and while a useful tool
it cannot represent real-life situations as accurately (Elliot, et al., 1991; Fichten, et al., 1991).
Participants may feel pressure from social desirability to not answer honestly about negative
interactions (Santuzzi, 2011). Many of the studies used self-report this could potentially be a
serious downfall as it may not be accurate. Another limitation of many of the studies is that the
sample size was limited to the use of college students this may not represent the population as a
whole. Using actors pretending to be a person with a disability was a limitation of multiple
studies; this may not give the best representation of an actual person with a disability. Other
limitations of the studies included the use of surveys, and hypothesized situations. In the future it
would be good to see more real-life situations observed. It would also be more useful to use
actual persons with disabilities from various backgrounds and gender versus actors. Avoiding
imagined scenarios would be helpful as well as expanding the sample sizes to include more than
college students. In multiple studies the non-disabled party has been categorized into (e.g.)
genders, and age groups but the disabled party has not been categorized or has been categorized
by disability alone.
Current measuring methods of attitudes about the disabled
There are current tests and surveys that are used to measure the attitudes about
the disabled. The Disability Attitude Implication Test (DA-IAT), Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (MCSDS), Internal Motivation to Respond without Prejudice Toward People
with Disabilities (IMS), External Motivation to Respond without Prejudice Toward People with
Disabilities (EMS), Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDPS), Attitudes Towards Disabled
Persons Scale (ADTP), and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale are the testing methods
commonly used (Pruett & Chan, 2006). The Multidimensional Attitudes Towards Persons with
Views Towards Disabled Persons 17
Disabilities (MAS) and the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR) (Vilchinsky,
Findler, & Werner, 2010). The DA-IAT has the potential to become the most powerful testing
method to date (Pruett & Chan, 2006).
One of the most common questions asked about these tests is “Do they tell the
truth?” (Pruett et al., 2006). A common problem is that subjects or participants often mirror
social acceptability (Pruett et al.,, 2006). The ADTP has been widely used since the 1960’s
through the 1990’s and still into this decade (Pruett et al., 2006). The major problem in such a
direct measure in the social desirability factor (Pruett et al., 2006). More indirect methods such
as the study consisting of the confederate with a disability in the chair and then without and
obvious disability have been useful in bypassing the response bias validity threat (Pruett et al.,
2006). However, they have been criticized for a lack of reliability and psychometric validation
(Pruett et al., 2006). To date one of the most popular testing methods is the IAT developed by
Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (Pruett et al., 2006). The IAT measures the time spent on
classifying words or pictures into subordinate categories (Pruett et al., 2006). These tests are a
great way to measure the social attitudes towards the disabled and they hold a promising way to
advance research in this area.
Understanding Key Characteristics of Persons with Disabilities
Educating the public about persons with disabilities seems to be the key to
increasing the comfort level between persons with disabilities and the non-disabled population. It
is important to note and to emphasize to the non-disabled population that being disabled is not
the same as being a victim; many persons with disabilities take pride in their disability as part of
their identity (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013). In many cases a person with a disability links their
Views Towards Disabled Persons 18
disability as a positive experience (e.g. something that they have overcome or a part of them that
has made them stronger) (Dunn et al, 2013). When asked if they would take away or cure their
disability many of the people in Dunn and Burcaw’s study said that they would not; it was a part
of their identity and they believed it had gave them many positive characteristics (Dunn et al,
2013). The literature shows that many times living with a disability is seen as a positive
experience, something that persons with disabilities take pride in (Dunn et al, 2013).
Many persons with disabilities have a part of their identity that is linked to
their disability (i.e., disability identity) (Dunn et al, 2013). The disability identity does not
supersede other primary identities (e.g. parent, husband, wife, sister, and brother) (Dunn et al;
2013). Having an affirmation of the disability is a positive characteristic that many persons with
disabilities possess as a means of personal experiences or beliefs; this is the desire to be
integrated into the community, to have the same rights and responsibilities as their peers (Dunn
et al, 2013). Although, not all have taken a positive stance on their disability, this is known as the
“denial of disability” (Dunn et al, 2013). These people may be newly disabled or may not have to
terms with their disability yet, they may later obtain the affirmation of disability. Having an
affirmation of disability is a way that persons with disabilities can deal with being discrimated
against, being social outcasts, a social minority (Dunn, 2013). The affirmation of disability can
also help the person with a disability see things in a more favorable aspects, such as seeing
enviromental factors as a part of the enviroment instead of a physical limitation (e.g., people in
wheelchairs often have to deal with narrow doorways, lack of ramps and/or elevators) (Dunn et
al, 2013). Involving persons with disabilites in the commuintiy can improve their self-worth;
having a strong self-worth can help persons with disabilities overcome the stigma of having a
disability (Dunn et al., 2013). Finding personal meaning is an important part of the disability
Views Towards Disabled Persons 19
idenity, personal meaning can provide a positive look on the disability (Dunn., 2013). Personal
meaning can be anything from searching for significance, to finding benefits associated with
disability (Dunn et al., 2013). Being involved in the disabled community can help provide
persons with disabilities a sense of personal meaning and pride (Dunn et al., 2013; Fichten et al.,
1991).
Pride is another important aspect in a person’s idenity and for persons with
disabilities it includes recognizing the fact of having a socially devalued quality such as a
disability and approaching it positivley and/or taking pride in the disability itself (Dunn et al.,
2013). Pride can provide a sense of belonging within the disability community and can help
offset the negative effects of discrimination (Dunn et al., 2013). Discrimination is a part of daily
life for many persons with disabilities; it is the lack of awareness about persons with disabilities
(Dunn et al., 2013 ;Fichten, et al., 2005). Discrimination is the attitudes that people usually have
concerning disabled individuals, more often than not the are negative attitudes (e.g. biases,
stereotypes, and negative evauluations) (Dunn et al., 2013). Short term negative effects of these
harming assumpitions can be “invisable barriers” and in the long long run they can continue to
be a part of everyday life for persons with disabilities (Dunn et al., 2013).These discriminations
can provide social and eonomical barriers for the disabled population. Some possible causes of
these discriminations are the lack of sensitization training among professionals and the lack of
meaningful personal relationships with persons with disabilities (Dunn et al., 2013).
Topics and areas where further research is needed
These findings suggest that increasing contact between and nondisabled
individuals and disabled individuals along with educating non-disabled individuals about the
Views Towards Disabled Persons 20
stereotypes that are presently facing the disabled population will help to further improve negative
encounters. Research is needed where the studies categorize the disabled the same as the non-
disabled instead of the current research where the studies only categorize the disabled population
by their disability. It would be interesting to see a study done among disabled individuals that
was categorized by (e.g.) age, gender, income level and how they related to the general public.
There has been a small amount of research done where they have evaluated the non-disabled and
the disabled in the same social hierarchy (e.g.) college students vs. employee and employer or
the disabled person asking for help. It would be helpful to further evaluate the validity of the
assumption that wheelchair users receive more positive ratings than individuals with facial
disfigurement (Louvet, 2007). Factors that influence close social distance should be researched
in the future (Fichten, et al., 2005). More experimental research is needed using actual
interactions involving real people to test the interaction is suggested (Vilchinsky, et al., 2010).
Looking at people that have experience with disabilities (e.g.; people that have a sibling with a
disability) would be useful to limit the negative emotions effect (Vilchinsky, et al., 2010). More
research is needed using multiple targets with disabilities and investigating the individuals with
disabilities point of view or reaction to nondisabled individuals. There is limited research from
this angle to date.
General Discussion
The studies have shown that indeed attachment theory, terror management
theory, and mortality salience and spread all exist and are a part of our society. The kindness
norm was not validated in the study done by Elliot and his colleagues but it is still being
researched (Elliot, et al., 1991). Many of these theories are attributed to a lack of knowledge and
assuming information on the part of the person with disability. The literature has shown across
Views Towards Disabled Persons 21
multiple settings that people without disabilities prefer to interact with nondisabled people, and
when given the chance to avoid interaction without social repercussions will do so. In multiple
studies it has been shown that on an average nondisabled people spend less time with their
disabled peers than their non-disabled peers. It is interesting to note that in all of the studies
listed more women were involved than men; this may be due to the fact that many of these
studies were volunteered based which would suggest that more women were comfortable in
interacting with persons with disabilities than the men. It would be interesting if this number
difference could be attributed to a biological or societal factor that accounts for women
seemingly being comfortable around disabled individuals, or if women are more comfortable
around people in general. Another limitation of all of the studies is that the ratio of non-disabled
peers to disabled peers is grossly unequal. It would be good to see a larger number of persons
with disabilities included in the sample size.
There are conflicting findings regarding positive attitudes and negative
attitudes facing the disabled population. Most of the positive evaluations have been attributed to
a social desirability factor or a sympathy bias. There is an unwritten rule in our society that states
we should be nice to the disabled, or feel sorry for them, that they are victims or unlike us in
many ways. These evaluations occur because often unknowingly we are making it harder for
them to integrate into society and to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. Assuming persons with
disabilities are different than us is harmful to their integration into society; the spread effect has
been attributed to this factor (American Psychologist, 2002).
Assumptions and stereotypes about persons with disabilities are often negative
and can include biases and prejudices, this is often largely due to a lack of integration between
the disabled community and the non-disabled community (Dunn et al., 2013; Fichten et al.,
Views Towards Disabled Persons 22
2005). Providing resources for integration between the disabled population and the non-disabled
population seems to be a key factor in decreasing negative stereotypes and prejudices (Dunn et
al., 2013; Fichten et al., 2005). Educating the public and human resources about persons with
disabilites seems to be a way for positive change, such education could come by way of classes,
volunteering with persons with disabilities and sensitization training (Dunn et al., 2013; Fichten
et al., 2005).
Views Towards Disabled Persons 23
Works CitedAmerican Psychologist. (2002). Can People With Disabilities Be Parents. American Psychologist, 988-989.
Ben-Naim, S., Aviv, G., & Hirschberger, G. (2008). Strained Interaction: Evidence That Interpersonal Contact Moderates the Death-Disability Rejection Link. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 53, No.4, 464-470.
Borderi, J. E., Sotolongo, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Physical Attractiveness and Attributions for Disability. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol.28, No. 4, 207-215.
Cacciapaglia, H. M., Beauchamp, K. L., & Howells, G. N. (2004). Visibility of Disibility: Effect on Willingness to Interact. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, 180-182.
Cubbage, M. E., & Thomas, K. R. (1989). Freud and Dissability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 160-173.
Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability Idenity: Exploring Narrative Accounts of Disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1-10.
Elliot, T. R., MacNair, R. R., Yoder, B., & Byrne, C. A. (1991). Interperson Behavior Moderates"Kindness Norm" Effects on Cognitive and Effective Reactions to Physical Disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 36, No.1, 57-66.
Fichten, C. S., Robillard, K., Tagalakis, V., & Amsel, R. (1991). Casual Interaction Between College Students with Various Disabilities and Their Non-disabled Peers; The Internal Dialogue. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 36, No.1, 1-20.
Fichten, C. S., Schipper, F., & Cutler, N. (2005). Does Volunteering with Children Affect Attitudes Towards Adults with Disabilities? A Prospective Study of Unequal Contact. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol.50, No.2, 164-173.
Gordon, E. D., Minnes, P. M., & Holden, R. R. (1990). The Structure of Attitudes Towards Persons with a Disability, When Specfic Disability and Context are Considered. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, 79-90.
Gouvier, W. D., Systma-Jordan, S., & Mayville, S. (2003). Patterns of Discrimination in Hiring Job Applicants With Disabilities: The Role of Disability Type, Job Complexity, and Public Contact. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol. 48, No. 3, 175-181.
Hirschberger, G., Florian, V., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Fear and Compassion:A Terror Management Analysis of Emotional Reactions to Physical Disability. Rehabiltation Psychology, Vol.50, No.3, 246-257.
Views Towards Disabled Persons 24
Louvet, E. (2007). Social Judgment Towards Job Applicants. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol. 53, No. 3, 297-303.
Mitchell, T. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2006, December). The Effects of Attribution of Responsibility and Work History on Perceptions of Reasonable Accomadations. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 6, 733-748.
Nabors, L. A., & Lehmkuhl, H. D. (2005). Young Adults' Perceptions of Children with Cerebal Palsey. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol.50, No. 3, 292-296.
Pruett, S. R., & Chan, F. (2006). The Development and Psychometric Validation of the Disability Implicit Association Test. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol. 51. No.3, 202-213.
Santuzzi, A. M. (2011). Anticipating Evaluative Social Interactions Involving Persons with Disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 3, 231-242.
Somervill, J. W., Veeder, M. M., Graw, D. T., & Sechovee, M. (1979). The Stigma Hypothesis: The Sex Variable in Face to Face Interactions with the Physically Disabled. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol. 26 No. 1, 11-17.
Vilchinsky, N., Findler, L., & Werner, S. (2010). Attitudes Towards People With Disabilities: The Perspective of Attachment Theory. Rehabilitation Psychology Vol.55, No. 3, 298-306.
Weinberg, N. (1976). Social Stereotyping of the Physically Handicapped. Rehabilitation Psychology, 115-124.