Senior Thesis paper

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.


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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,


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.,


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).


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.


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.

Senior Thesis paper

Documents

Transcript of Senior Thesis paper