ED 117-

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 081 251

AUTHOR Stodden, Robert,A.; Ianacone, Robert N.: The Use of S"mantic Differential to Assess the '

Perceptions and Attitudes.._of PresersiceimdAdvanced ____* cptionalities._ -7.11 ed.. in; ,. - aeahllm az wt. aortmmeetr. S 111

--- PUB Nov, i75 --

tNOT7Y

e

lup-: Paper prem4,1+Ati at the rap_tornla FducationalResearch 'Association (54th, San' go4 California, .

il,

----yo-ve---10-----12.--1-3-,--- 1-9/5-if --*--$;-re----17-1-r.-45-s-,'-- .-y---,iii-'preAkee----:---- :-------7------

poorly

EDRS PRICE MP -$0.83 HC-$1.67 Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS -* Attitudes; Exceptional. Child ResearcA; *Handicapped

Children; *Higher 3ducation;' *Perception; .PostSecondary Education;. Semantic Differential; StudentAttitudes

ABSTRACTThe perceptions ophree groups (n=30) of bachelor

level special education majors and doctoral candidates in educationtoward the mentally retarded and various other excelYtionalities weremeasured after exposure to three tyges of treatment: Of the threegroups, the control group received no treatment, experimental group Ireceived negative treatment consisting of a 10-minute slide-tapepresentation of various syndromes associated-with profoundretardation, and experimental group II received positive treatmentconsisting of a 10-minute presentation of selections recorded by amusically superior groupareducable mentally retarded students.Among the findings frog pre- and'posttests-on semantic differentialscales were that the attitudes and perceptions of the advanced degree

. Ss were significantly more' positive than t4Oge of'pfetetVide Spe-tiaIeducation Ss, and that the libel sifted was viewed most positive ofall labels while severely retardidwas viewed most negative. (CL)

.

************************************************************************ Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished ** materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort *

1

* to obtain the best copy available. Nemertheless, items of marginal *

*.reproducibility are'often encountered and, this affects-the quality*..of the microfiche and hardcopy re:productions ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC Docuimett Reproduction 'Service (EDRS). EDRS is not *

responsible for the quality of, the original document. ReprOduciions **__supplied- by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. '*

*************************t********************************************

f

Cr%CO

IN"

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION -THIS DOCUMENT yAs SEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSABILy ITESRE,SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFECK/ A T

THE USE OF SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

TO ASSESS' THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF PiVESERVICE

AND ADVANCED DEGREE CANDIDATES TOWARD VARIOUS EXCEPTIONALITIES

By

Robert A. Stodden

Robert N. Ianacone

Deliartment'of Special Education

University of Florida.1

Gainesvillei Florida,'

A Paper Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the

California Educational Research Assogi'aticin,

ovember 12 -13,. 1975, sah.Diego, Calikarnia. .

it -=

r ,

fit

6

4

(

4STRUDucTION

Perceptions and attitudes towards various exceptionalities have

been 'associated; throughout the literature, with the affects of degree

of contact and the measurement of connotative meaning. The first di

mension, the affect of increased contact with individuals about whrch

negative group stereotypes exist, has been frequently hypothesized as

an effective means to foster more favorable attitudes (Jaffe, 1967).

A review of related literature has indicated mixed or conflict-.

ing results in comparing degree of contact and change in perceptions

toward various exceptionalities. Roeher J1961) and Yuker, Block,

and Campbell (1960) reported contact to be related to expressions

of kaVorable attitudes while a similar study by Granofsky (1955)

found no such changes'resulting from induced contact.

Warren and Turner (1966) reporting on attitudes of different'

professional and adolescent groOPS towards seven forms of exception-:

alities: related that the less the individual knew about a certain.:

form of exceptionality the lower he ranked the condition.. Lazar,

Gensley and Gowan (1971) also supported this contention'by relat

increased knowledge with more positive perceptions. Although

Warren and Turner (1966) were abieto positively correlate owledge

and ranking, the 'study failed,to-reveal-differences in perceived

Meaning of the condept as a function of training and experience.

Clel,and and Chambers (1959) .found,that a tour of ihr3nstitutiop,fortY

the mentally:retarded produced both positive inslhagative.expressiohs

1r

.

of attitudesby students. This research appears to be --inconolusiv

is

2

in -rela attitudes -to- degree-and kind-of-contact-yr-I-Ur stereo--

--

There seems to exist a need to cqmpare and contrast groups

receiving organized positive and negative intervention in a con-

trolled setting. This can be accomplished by contro 'ing the nature

of thecontact situations -the measuring instruments and the indivi-

A second dimension,, that of-the level of connotative meaning,

can be associated with the relationship between verbal ,l els and

perceptual meaning. Although disabi.ity labels have different

denotative meaningS, i.e., meanings associated with the objective

definitional aspects of a label, they may evoke similar connotative

responies, i.e., association with emotive reactions to encoding and

decoding of labels (Semmel & 1966- Thusly, the individual

maf cognitively be aware of and be able to ress differences in_ ;

exceptionalities while effectively responding in a similar nature

to all excepCionalities. Over a period of time with contact and

knowledge, ildividuals may change their perceptions favorably, or

assimilaterfavorable

group or person, yet

traits into their perceptions of a handicapped

maintain a consistency in their feelings toward

that group-of:persons (Jaffe,1967).

. Although a multidimensional conceptualizatiotof attitudes has

LI

r ,

i been proposed by numerous investigators (Nunnally, 1961; Triandis, ///-

1. -

\.

1964) connotative measurement of.attitudes may suggest unidimension-

ality a exceptionalities.-_ k. _ -

., '.

-4

3

.The_proposition that attitudes are multic imensional,may be _useful7

as an explanation-for the contradictory findin in the-lit ture--

with regard to the effect of experience, orimantactimc

1967). Measures of attitude which are effectively weighted, e.g., on

evaluation and potency factors of the semantic differential teChnigue,

may less readily show change in the groups having experience or contact,

whereas cognitive measures may have the opposite effect. Jaffe (1967)

suggests two areas worthy of investigation. These areas include (a)P

the effects of different types of contact on attitudinal dimensions

and (b) the effect of severity of retardation on attitudes toward

mentally retarded persons.tql

The major purpose of this research is to determine the r. elation-

ship between degree and kind of experience (in the form of stipulated

intervention in mental retardation) and perceptions arid- attitudes

towards

(1) the mentally retarded (mildly and severely retarded, and

(2) various exceptionalities (emotionally disturbed, learning

disabled, physically disabl

1

and gifted).

3.

V..

MUMMIES

I

"-§Ub'ects

A total N of 30 consisted of 15 special education majors involved

in bachelor's lev 1 introductory coursework and 15 doctoral.candidates

in education. rough random selection the variety of the sample con-

cerning age, sex, interest, and educational background, provided

Adequate variation frOm the population of subjects associated with

the field of education. Each group of 15:students was randomly

assigned into three groupings, i.e., control group with no treatment,

experimental group I given positive treatment and experimental group

II givengiven negative treatment.

E Measures o& Attitude

. ..

.

The semantic differential technique (OsgoOd, Mici, & Tannenbaum,

. ,

.1951) has found an important place in educational research methodolOy."

!

The semantic differentiAl consist of several bipolar adjectiye scales

to measure,the semantic space of the. desired concepts, physical dis-

abledc learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, mildLy/retarded,

gifted, and severely retarded. The delielopment of the semantic'

differential initially involves the selection of concepts or stimuli

e

be'rated-through scales of bipolar adjectives. As discussed by',=

Xerlinger (1967) the concepts selected for study must'be relevant

'5

to the research problethrat hand, must be familiar to and.capable of

eliciting varied p5pOnaeqfrom the population sampled and also must

rcover thesires semantic space as defined, by the selection of

representative bipolar adjectives. The s ection bf relevant semantic

scales concerned the' measurement of tweltpominnt factoreopoward the

concepts physically disabled, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed,

mildly retarded, gfted, and severely retarded. These two factors\'

were evaluation and\rtency; each having three bipolar adjective

'2

scales represen'ativiof the semantic space measured. The distance,

. between each end of th, bipolar adjective scalps was diVided into,

,

seven equal iftervals,teach labeled with a number. .An odd numbei

ofintervals.is necessa

intervals has ptoven) to

to have a distinct middle position. Seven

1e best for response discrimination and

judgment by the average a lilt (Osgood et al., 1957). The order and'

polar orientation of the ale was presented'inthe same manner for

each subject, but care was' aken to alternate polar direction to

prvveili formation of a post fiiw e set.

Treatment

.;

ol the three groupg, the ontrol group did not receive tr

ment. Experimental group I rived negative. treatment ich con-:

Sisted of a ten minute tape anti slitleTresenta icin of varicals-'',

syndromes which-result in prp#pund re dation. Eper ental group

II received positive treatment isted of a prepared ten

I.r

.

minute presentation an

6

4

play ng of selectiOne-1.6;;;ittkwit by a'musically

superior group of educable mentally retarded. stuSents from_ a state

BEdbri- group was tested immeAle-t.-ey_ip-drare_ and- after.,

'

.

treatment on semantic differential scales for the concepts)physicallyf

%I ' edisabled, edpning disabled; emotionally disturbed, gifted, ,mildly .

ak . ,

tetar4ed and severely retarded. .+4.,1,. , A, t

,

Results

. .A

6

,,,,

1,.

Statistical analysis, BMD 08V analysis of variance, revealed:,,

% - ,-,

,

". -three dreas of 'significance':.

.-

.,

. ..

P (1) Attitudes -and'perceptions, es measured by the semantic

o

differential scale on advanced degree candidates ware significantly.a:

more positive than that of pre-service candidates in special educe-

tion. Thig is a pdssible display of the affect of experience and '

training.

(2) Connotative response to'the verbal labels physically

dtmcih ed, mNACIly dhiltirlwd, huirtiltiq dindbled, gfeted,mildly,)

.. .,

1p .

ret d, and severely retarded,sfiowed significance as indicated>in ,i;.-

.. .1.- ,.

/Table 1: Tukey' s 'Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Post.hoc

test was used tb determim levels of significance.fi

1. ..,

(a) Gifted were significantly' different from eachof;t6

Other five groups. Greatest differences were 0:th

severely tetarded and emotionany,disturbed.

(b) Each Of the five areas were significantly different

from emotionally disturbed,and:Severely retarded.

(b) There were no sigificarit differences between other

areas.?

4"

p

/ 2 , '.

.z.::;.k. - ^

.

v , ..,, -,, -:: :3 ."'. I'ii.:-. ..,, ;,-,,; ,1

';'/' .' ".

Signifjpant,differencea*were found,at the label gifted' which Was

_ viewed host ,:t;14sitive_oall_Jabels and _severely_retard whichas,

ewed_mc_si__negatiye of all Zabels. Further significant negative,re-

- _ -,sponses included the verbal. label emotionally disturbed. The remaining

'4abeis did not vary significantly: It was interesting to notStliat a ,'

,.,distinction was made by the subjects in their responses to mildly and

, A,. , ,. ,

? . ;... - :' (31 Interaction between various treatment groups on pre and post

, '*, , 1 , .

- , ..-. .

. .

idasur OS. exhibited . salmi icance. Analysis through :simple effects and.-

- , , ,

- . severely retarded.

. ,

Posh0C .teets' indicated a' significantly more,POsitive response on the

,;',A.','

.

post test Eqr.the positive treatment groups A'Group II), a significantly

, ..

,..;'more,ne05.tive,response on the post test fOr- the negative treatment

o.groups and udr,44nificaht difference between pre and post tests for

.- - the control groups. These resUlts, imply that there is a significant -.

,

e,, .; .,

....

''.,-'..j.': .:' : ': f

1-

--.----;',:,

0 .", .

.

' ;,, .1,,,,:c

Arcippete correlation between kind of contaci'and change in attitudes

(Table 2)-

r .

-

Diwninnion =-,,.:,:- ,,-.A,/; ''::P.:- .',.7.. e. ..

',-, \ , t .`.4`,, .This studk. clearly Ophasizes the effect, b6th negatively an. ..

1 ,,

, , ,. .,,,, . - ...-, , ,

.. ,., , i po*itively,.,Of contact on perceptions and attitudes towards groups

about which prediSmirmutly negative stereotypes _exiet. Although ,,""-",:,"i't'. ,-A. ''';''. -

1:,,,:';',,',;:..,:.'"';'?. ,',:',.'1'1:- ,-."'

pretest measures, inaicatd three groups of response, i.e., positive

the verbal labeifted, slightly negative response/--- , -

,towardi the verbal labels physically disabled, Iearning disabled and

te',;:,,,'' ;7..!:. ,. , i: '" :' .,z,,.//.

mildly, retarded and 'greater negative 'response towards the ,verbal, ,,, ' . ,;,-;'

'labels emotionally disturbed' and severely retarded,. posttest measures.

s

9.. a.

:

) . /

indicated a. generalized .more positive or more'negative response,to

o

1

4

- ;

ail` labels d endent upon tyPe of intervention. These findings are. ,

t' gimilar and 'SPrronpland nirkglon (1966) ton-,

corning the -relationship between COntaCt and:attitudes towards mentally,

/ retarded children and connotative'reacticiWof college,studehtssto

dlNility labels, respectively.On"geileral, contact may change the

cognitive dimension of attitude while the affective dimension may

remain relatively unaffected or,Stable. :The results of.this study

indicatean "all encompaselmq" perceptual effect, i.e., a general trend

of across the beard perceptions of various exceptionalities, which for

all exceptionalities is similarly influenced by the degree and quality

of contact.

While generalizations from this study are specific to the parti-

.

cular method and, subjects used, several considerations for further

research in this area are worthy of mention:

(1). A. similar. studX might measure the long range effect of

positive and 'negative conhaci upon. perceptions and

attitudes towards varying exceptionalities.,

.,44' T ', `-ai ' . ..

(2) An additional conceptof "normal:" may help establish a

t %

,

,

baSeline from which attitudes

.

and perceptions may be .

compared.2.

'

(3) A definition cf,each.cencepts, e.g., physically disabled,.

mentallAetarded, etc., max be given to fhrther test

, -..

and the denotative meaning toward each exCep-i,

tionality:

/

(4) pLcomparivn.of varying.populations with assorted Contact,

rr

--

.

- .'.

.

.

. , e

.,,

..-..

, . ,,f ,

.

expeiiences may further substantiate tile _effect of contact4 - -

_

-4

on connotative responsq.

Finally, the authors suggest a replication of this study with

.

.

.

,

. ,

,

.

..-

.

t

.

/

.

.

/

.

increased sample size and expanded semantic measurement.

.

,

,

.

..

,.

i

.'. .

.

. . .

.

,.

.

.

,

..

,

-_

.

'. /.

,

. .

. ,

.

,!.

.

..

0

.. -,. .

(

,

1

..,

.

.

.

.

, 5

.,..

.

.

...,-:

.

,

,

,

p/

1'

1

.

t,

r

,

,,.

4*

,

.

' I .1.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Chipind, C. C.', & Chambers, . R. Experimental modificatiOh of attitudes' as a function of an in titutiiinal-tour. American Journal of Mental

Deficiency, 1959; 64, 124-130. .

Granofsky, J. Modification of attitUdes *toward the visably disabled.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva University; 1955

,

Jaffd, J. Attitudes and interpersonal contact the men ally retardedand dimensions of attitude. Journal of Cbunselin3 Psychology, 1967,14(5), 482 -484.

Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations in behavior research. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1973:

Lazar, A., Gensley,,J., & Gowan, J.Ithrough curriculum lanning forChild Quarterly, Sp g, 1971.

Developing Positive attitudesyoung gifted children. The Gifted

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J.,.& Tali enbaum, P: H. The measurement of ' .

meaning. Uwipana, Illinois: U ersity Of Illinois Press, 1957.

Roeher, G. A. The significance of public attitudeof the disabled. Rehabilitation Literature, j961,

the rehabilitation66-72.

ternmel, M. I., & Dickson,,S. Connotative reactlonsAdcollege s uto disability labels ExceiftionalChildren,-1?66., 31.

Ylikt.r, II. M., Iflook, r., h cdmpbedl,W. A ficdItt to,Moasure att4toward disabled persons. Human Resources Stud No. . Alber

Aq.Y.: Human Resources eoundation 117.6-0, 5, 14.

Warren, A., & Turner, D. .. Attitudes of professidinals andtoward exceptional ildreh. Training School Bulletin, 1(4), 136-144.

deson,

tudents66, 62

0

.. .

Th

f

e Table I

.

4

A Comparison of Connotative Response Between Concepts

Concepts Ll L2 L3 L4 L5 L6

Ll'

L2

L3

L4

14

Gifted

Learning Disabled

Mildly Retarded

Physically

EmotionallyDisturbed

4.43* 4.60*

.17

__,__

4.92*

.49to

.32 40

, 7 .

6:83*

2!40*

2.23*

1.91*

9.30*

4.87*

4.70*

14.38*

-2.44

L6 Severely Retarded

. .-0.11t1

. ,

..

Trikey's Honestly Significant ifference (HSD) post hoc test. was used to,

icance (Tukeyts R.S.D. .-.' 1.78).t

determine levels of sign

(I)

4

41.

i

..e

13\

11.

\r-a..-.

s.`

1.

0.

II

,Negative Treatment Group

Positive Treatment Group

Table 2

Group ComparisOn

Pretest

-.7167

-.9500

-1.9167.

14

12'

'.`

4

Po'sttest

-.3.2833*

. 1.8000*

-2.2167..