This article was downloaded by: [Western Kentucky University] On: 28 October 2014, At: 19:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions toward Persons with Disabilities a
Judy O. Berry & Warren H. Jones
b
a
Department of Psychology , University of Tulsa , USA b
Department of Psychology , University of Tennessee , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Judy O. Berry & Warren H. Jones (1991) Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions toward Persons with Disabilities, The Journal of Social Psychology, 131:5, 673-684, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1991.9924651 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924651
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology. 131(5), 673-684
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions Toward Persons With Disabilities JUDY 0. BERRY Department of Psychology University of Tulsa WARREN H. JONES Department of Psychology University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT. The situational and dispositional components of reactions toward disabled persons were investigated in a hypothetical format. Initially, a sample of American college students (n = 194) indicated the level of anticipated emotional arousal to 70 brief descriptions of situations in which contact with disabled people might occur on a college campus. Mean ratings were used to select nine situation descriptors representing a range of anticipated arousal levels. Subsequently, a sepvate sample of students (n = 164) completed the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) and were presented with one of the nine situation descriptors. Participants imagined themselves in the situation described (with a person with an immediately obvious disability) and indicated how they would feel and respond by completing various measures. Results indicated that emotional arousal and other reactions were attributable to main effects for both situational and attitudinal factors, whereas the statistical interactions between the two were not significant.
GOFFMAN (1963) AND WRIGHT (1983) suggested that nondisabled people respond negatively to people with disabilities, but there is little empirical evidence defining the response. Research has demonstrated that the typical reactions of nondisabled people are negative, avoidant, and prejudicial (cf. Barker, Wright, Meyerson, 8c Gonick, 1953; English, 1977; Siller, 1976). Most studies, however, have assessed attitudes of the nondisabled toward Requestsfor reprints should be sent to Judy 0. Berry, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104. 673
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
614
The Journal of Social Psychology
people with disabilities without regard to the context of the situation in which contact takes place. Very few studies have addressed the impact of situations involving disabled and nondisabled people, and none of these studies have used systematically selected situations. In contrast, normalization (living, working, and receiving educational and medical services in the community alongside nondisabled people) increasingly has become a goal in the United States for all people with disabilities and for those providing services for the disabled (Heward & Orlansky, 1988; Taylor, Biklen, & Knoll, 1987). Emphasis on normalization brings these two communities together more than was previously the case, suggesting the need for a better understanding of the dynamics underlying reactions to people with disabilities. There is a need, then, for (a) continued studies of the influence of attitudes and other dispositional factors (e.g., prior experience, expectations, etc.) on reactions to people with disabilities in the context of the currently higher frequency of contact and (b) studies of the differential impact of the type of situation in which disabled and nondisabled people might have contact with regard to reactions to disabilities. These needs are especially relevant to a college student population because, in many cases, the students have had only limited experience with people with disabilities before college, and yet in college they may encounter students who are their intellectual peers but who are limited physically. In this study, such reactions were examined in terms of both dispositional characteristics of nondisabled people (i.e., attitudes toward people with disabilities) as well as type of situation. Several authors have suggested that negative attitudes toward people with disabilities might be better understood through further study of situational contexts involving contact with the disabled (Suer, 1976, 1984a; Yuker, 1983). Support for the concept of situational differences in reactions of nondisabled people toward people with disabilities is plentiful in anecdotal reports by disabled people and their parents (Jones, 1983; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985); however, this area has received only limited research attention. On the other hand, available evidence generally suggests the importance of including situational dimensions in such studies. For example, helping behavior has been found to vary as a function of the presence or absence of visible disability of the target and intimacy of contacts (Doob & Ecker, 1970; Flora & Dybsky, 1976; Pomazal & Clore, 1973). Sloat and Frankel (1972) reported that among several factors, including type of disability and sex of target, situations (after subjects) contributed most in accounting for the total variance in attitudes toward the disabled. The Subject x Situation and Subject x Disability x Situation interactions also accounted for a significant proportion of the total variance. Also, respondents had the most approving attitudes in situations involving the greatest social distance.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Berry & Jones
675
Similarly, Grand, Bernier, and Strohmer (1982) assessed attitudes about members of four specific disability groups in three different situational contexts: work, dating, and marriage. Significant main effects for acceptance of disabled people were found for type of disability and for type of situation. The level of acceptance for disabled people was related to the intimacy of the situational context; the highest level of acceptance was associated with situations involving work, whereas the lowest level was associated with situations involving marriage. Also, a significant Type of Disability x Type of Situation interaction for acceptance was reported. The results of both these studies provide some support for the need to provide for situational diversity in studies of attitudes of reactions to the disabled. Although results of previous studies provide some support for assessing situational variation in responses to people with disabilities, many questions remain. Previous studies have focused on only two or three specific situations in which disabled and nondisabled people might have contact and interact. More important, situations used previously were selected on an ad hoc basis rather than systematically and empirically. As a consequence, it is not known whether results from these studies would generalize to unassessed situations. Also, researchers have tended to focus on singular reaction dimensions such as helping or acceptance, leaving unanswered questions regarding differential reactions in diverse domains of experience (e.g., affect, cognitions, behavior). Furthermore, American college students served as subjects in only two of the studies cited (Flora & Dybsky, 1976; Sloat & Frankel, 1972); a need exists for further information about how attitude and situation dimensions influence college students. Beyond reactions to disabled people, research on situational influences suggests that one approach to sampling situations systematically in a hypothetical format is latent in traditional methods of psychometric scaling. For example, in one series of studies, the situational contribution to the experience of loneliness was explored by scaling items that identify situations in which respondents reported feeling lonely (cf. Jones, Cavert, Snider, & Bruce, 1985). Subsequently, these items were used to examine the structure of the situational factors in loneliness as well as assessing situational versus dispositional contributions to the various components of feeling lonely. A similar strategy has been used with respect to assessing situations leading to social anxiety (e.g., Russell, Cutrona, & Jones, 1986). The purpose of this study was to use this strategy to select empirically situations involving contact between people with disabilities and nondisabled people. A second and broader purpose was to use this scale and other measures to address questions largely unresolved in the extant literature, including (a) What factors contribute to the negative emotional responses that occur on the part of nondisabled people toward people with disabilities?
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
616
The Journal of Social Psychology
and (b) What types of reactions are elicited by contact with people with disabilities? Is it the attitude that the person brings to the situation involving disabled people that results in the negative reactions documented in previous research, is it the situation itself, or is it an interaction between the attitude of the person and the situation? Furthermore, do the nondisabled react to people with disabilities with anxiety, hostility, or some other emotion, and what cognitive and judgmental processes are involved (thoughts of escaping, loss of predictability, etc.)? These questions assume particular importance for the college student population because the college environment includes a wide range of situations in which there might be contact between disabled people and nondisabled people and also because the college environment provides opportunities for fairly intimate contact between these two groups (such as dating and becoming roommates), sometimes with little opportunity for preparation on the part of either group.
METHOD
Situation Measure The first step in constructing the situation scale was compiling a list of realistic but brief descriptions of situations in which a disabled person and a nondisabled person might have contact and interact. Ideas for potential situation descriptions were gathered from the literature concerning attitudes toward the disabled and by interviewing disabled adults and parents of disabled children. Seventy distinct situational ideas were selected as relevant and were converted to brief phrases such as “being a co-worker of a disabled person,” and “being assigned to be the dorm roommate of a disabled person.” The items referred to situations in which interactions between disabled and nondisabled people often take place without prior arrangement or warning. The situations were presented to a sample of 194 male and female college undergraduates who were instructed to respond to each situation on a 7-point rating scale, verbally anchored at the endpoints by the terms nervous, upset, and uncomfortable, and feeling calm, relaxed, and at ease. Mean ratings (representing levels of potential arousal) and standard deviations were calculated for each situation; higher means reflected more negative reactions. In addition, the data were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. Thirteen factors met the criterion for retention (with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater). However, the first two factors accounted for 46.5% of the total variance. Consequently, only items with loadings of .40or greater on these two factors were retained for interpretation and use in the final version of the scale. The items for the final scale were selected to represent the full range of means (i.e., 1.57 to 6.09), and intervals
Berry & Jones
677
were spaced between situation items as equally as possible. These procedures resulted in the 9-item situation scale presented in Table 1.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Procedure Participants in the study were 164 nondisabled college undergraduate students (66 male, 98 female) ranging in age from 17 to 23 years. None were involved in the development of the situation measure. They were asked to complete the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP, Form A; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1%6), a 30-item instrument that assesses attitudes regarding the presumed differences between disabled and nondisabled people as well as attitudes toward disabled people in general. The ATDP elicits responses in a 6point Likert-type, forcedchoice format. Previous internal reliability estimates have varied from .75 to 35, and good convergence has been shown between scores on the ATDP and measures of rejecting and prejudicial attitudes toward other stigmatized groups (e.g., minority groups, the mentally ill, etc.), and the ATDP is not unduly contaminated by response set (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1970). Participants were then presented with one of the nine scaled hypothetical situations. Respondents were instructed individually
TABLE 1 Situation Scale Items and Ratings Rating Item Staying in the same hotel as a disabled person Attending a college class with a disabled person Attending a party where a disabled person is also a guest Using a public restroom while a disabled person is present in the restroom Being a coworker of a disabled person Being assigned to work on a college class project with a disabled person Signing up for a trip and finding out your assigned roommate is a disabled person Being assigned to be the dorm roommate of a disabled person Agreeing to a date (arranged by someone else) with a person who turns out to be disabled
M
SD
1.58 2.21 2.67
0.97 1.22 1.41
3.21
1.54
3.68 4.08
1.53 1.57
4.95
1.56
5.20
1.42
5.92
I .40
Note. These items are based on the responses of 194 college students. A copy of the complete set of situations and ratings is available from the first author.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
678
The Journal of Social Psychology
to imagine themselves in the situation described by the item involving a college student with an immediately obvious disability. Participants were instructed to indicate how they would respond to each situation by completing the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL, Today Form; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965), which consists of 132 adjectives and partitions responses into the three domains of anxiety, depression, and hostility; extensive reliability and validity data have been reported (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965). In addition, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire designed specifically for the study to assess reaction dimensions anticipated in the situations as follows: expectations of behavior change; avoidance of the situation; the extent to which one’s reactions would be different from those of others; thoughts of escaping; four dimensions of control (i.e., responsibility for one’s own feelings and actions, and responsibility for the disabled person’s feelings and actions). These items were included to explore potential differences in perceptions and anticipated reactions associated either with attitudes or situations. In an attempt to delineate further the kind of emotional arousal influenced by attitude, situation, or both, subjects were asked to respond, using a 7-point Likert scale, to a list of 46 bipolar adjective pairs descriptive of situations (e.g., common-uncommon, easy-difficult, good-bad, fair-unfair, pleasant-unpleasant, predictable-unpredictable, etc.) RESULTS Participants were divided into positive and negative attitude groups based on a median split of responses to the ATDP (Mdn = 119.0); the situations were divided into high, middle, and low threat based on mean negative ratings obtained from the initial sample. The data were then analyzed in a series of 2 x 3 (Attitude x Situation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The means for situation were as follows: low-level threat, 1.58 to 2.67; middlelevel threat, 3.21 to 4.08; high-level threat, 4.95 to 5.92. Analyses were performed on the three MAACL variables and the six variables obtained from the additional questionnaire. As indicated in Table 2, participants with negative attitudes reported more anxiety and more depression than those with more positive attitudes. Participants who responded to higher threat situations reported more anxiety than those who responded to lower threat situations. Hostility was not related to either attitude or situation, and in no case was the interaction term significant. Results for anticipated reaction variables assessed with the additional questionnaire indicated that respondents with more negative attitudes, in comparison with participants with more positive attitudes, reported anticipating greater change from usual behavior; greater desire to avoid or escape from the situation, greater control over how often the situation happens,
Berry& Jones
679
TABLE 2 ANOVAs of Affective and Reaction Variables by Attitude and Situation
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Variable
W C L Anxiety Depression Hostility Reactions to experiencing the situation described Change from usual behavior Differences from behavior and feelings of others Avoidance of situation Escape from situation Control of when the situation happens Control of how often the situation happens Control of feelings and actions Control of disabled person’s feelings and actions Responsibility for feelings and actions Responsibility for disabled person’s feelings and actions *p
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions toward Persons with Disabilities a
Judy O. Berry & Warren H. Jones
b
a
Department of Psychology , University of Tulsa , USA b
Department of Psychology , University of Tennessee , USA Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Judy O. Berry & Warren H. Jones (1991) Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions toward Persons with Disabilities, The Journal of Social Psychology, 131:5, 673-684, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1991.9924651 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924651
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology. 131(5), 673-684
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Situational and Dispositional Components of Reactions Toward Persons With Disabilities JUDY 0. BERRY Department of Psychology University of Tulsa WARREN H. JONES Department of Psychology University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT. The situational and dispositional components of reactions toward disabled persons were investigated in a hypothetical format. Initially, a sample of American college students (n = 194) indicated the level of anticipated emotional arousal to 70 brief descriptions of situations in which contact with disabled people might occur on a college campus. Mean ratings were used to select nine situation descriptors representing a range of anticipated arousal levels. Subsequently, a sepvate sample of students (n = 164) completed the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) and were presented with one of the nine situation descriptors. Participants imagined themselves in the situation described (with a person with an immediately obvious disability) and indicated how they would feel and respond by completing various measures. Results indicated that emotional arousal and other reactions were attributable to main effects for both situational and attitudinal factors, whereas the statistical interactions between the two were not significant.
GOFFMAN (1963) AND WRIGHT (1983) suggested that nondisabled people respond negatively to people with disabilities, but there is little empirical evidence defining the response. Research has demonstrated that the typical reactions of nondisabled people are negative, avoidant, and prejudicial (cf. Barker, Wright, Meyerson, 8c Gonick, 1953; English, 1977; Siller, 1976). Most studies, however, have assessed attitudes of the nondisabled toward Requestsfor reprints should be sent to Judy 0. Berry, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104. 673
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
614
The Journal of Social Psychology
people with disabilities without regard to the context of the situation in which contact takes place. Very few studies have addressed the impact of situations involving disabled and nondisabled people, and none of these studies have used systematically selected situations. In contrast, normalization (living, working, and receiving educational and medical services in the community alongside nondisabled people) increasingly has become a goal in the United States for all people with disabilities and for those providing services for the disabled (Heward & Orlansky, 1988; Taylor, Biklen, & Knoll, 1987). Emphasis on normalization brings these two communities together more than was previously the case, suggesting the need for a better understanding of the dynamics underlying reactions to people with disabilities. There is a need, then, for (a) continued studies of the influence of attitudes and other dispositional factors (e.g., prior experience, expectations, etc.) on reactions to people with disabilities in the context of the currently higher frequency of contact and (b) studies of the differential impact of the type of situation in which disabled and nondisabled people might have contact with regard to reactions to disabilities. These needs are especially relevant to a college student population because, in many cases, the students have had only limited experience with people with disabilities before college, and yet in college they may encounter students who are their intellectual peers but who are limited physically. In this study, such reactions were examined in terms of both dispositional characteristics of nondisabled people (i.e., attitudes toward people with disabilities) as well as type of situation. Several authors have suggested that negative attitudes toward people with disabilities might be better understood through further study of situational contexts involving contact with the disabled (Suer, 1976, 1984a; Yuker, 1983). Support for the concept of situational differences in reactions of nondisabled people toward people with disabilities is plentiful in anecdotal reports by disabled people and their parents (Jones, 1983; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1985); however, this area has received only limited research attention. On the other hand, available evidence generally suggests the importance of including situational dimensions in such studies. For example, helping behavior has been found to vary as a function of the presence or absence of visible disability of the target and intimacy of contacts (Doob & Ecker, 1970; Flora & Dybsky, 1976; Pomazal & Clore, 1973). Sloat and Frankel (1972) reported that among several factors, including type of disability and sex of target, situations (after subjects) contributed most in accounting for the total variance in attitudes toward the disabled. The Subject x Situation and Subject x Disability x Situation interactions also accounted for a significant proportion of the total variance. Also, respondents had the most approving attitudes in situations involving the greatest social distance.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Berry & Jones
675
Similarly, Grand, Bernier, and Strohmer (1982) assessed attitudes about members of four specific disability groups in three different situational contexts: work, dating, and marriage. Significant main effects for acceptance of disabled people were found for type of disability and for type of situation. The level of acceptance for disabled people was related to the intimacy of the situational context; the highest level of acceptance was associated with situations involving work, whereas the lowest level was associated with situations involving marriage. Also, a significant Type of Disability x Type of Situation interaction for acceptance was reported. The results of both these studies provide some support for the need to provide for situational diversity in studies of attitudes of reactions to the disabled. Although results of previous studies provide some support for assessing situational variation in responses to people with disabilities, many questions remain. Previous studies have focused on only two or three specific situations in which disabled and nondisabled people might have contact and interact. More important, situations used previously were selected on an ad hoc basis rather than systematically and empirically. As a consequence, it is not known whether results from these studies would generalize to unassessed situations. Also, researchers have tended to focus on singular reaction dimensions such as helping or acceptance, leaving unanswered questions regarding differential reactions in diverse domains of experience (e.g., affect, cognitions, behavior). Furthermore, American college students served as subjects in only two of the studies cited (Flora & Dybsky, 1976; Sloat & Frankel, 1972); a need exists for further information about how attitude and situation dimensions influence college students. Beyond reactions to disabled people, research on situational influences suggests that one approach to sampling situations systematically in a hypothetical format is latent in traditional methods of psychometric scaling. For example, in one series of studies, the situational contribution to the experience of loneliness was explored by scaling items that identify situations in which respondents reported feeling lonely (cf. Jones, Cavert, Snider, & Bruce, 1985). Subsequently, these items were used to examine the structure of the situational factors in loneliness as well as assessing situational versus dispositional contributions to the various components of feeling lonely. A similar strategy has been used with respect to assessing situations leading to social anxiety (e.g., Russell, Cutrona, & Jones, 1986). The purpose of this study was to use this strategy to select empirically situations involving contact between people with disabilities and nondisabled people. A second and broader purpose was to use this scale and other measures to address questions largely unresolved in the extant literature, including (a) What factors contribute to the negative emotional responses that occur on the part of nondisabled people toward people with disabilities?
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
616
The Journal of Social Psychology
and (b) What types of reactions are elicited by contact with people with disabilities? Is it the attitude that the person brings to the situation involving disabled people that results in the negative reactions documented in previous research, is it the situation itself, or is it an interaction between the attitude of the person and the situation? Furthermore, do the nondisabled react to people with disabilities with anxiety, hostility, or some other emotion, and what cognitive and judgmental processes are involved (thoughts of escaping, loss of predictability, etc.)? These questions assume particular importance for the college student population because the college environment includes a wide range of situations in which there might be contact between disabled people and nondisabled people and also because the college environment provides opportunities for fairly intimate contact between these two groups (such as dating and becoming roommates), sometimes with little opportunity for preparation on the part of either group.
METHOD
Situation Measure The first step in constructing the situation scale was compiling a list of realistic but brief descriptions of situations in which a disabled person and a nondisabled person might have contact and interact. Ideas for potential situation descriptions were gathered from the literature concerning attitudes toward the disabled and by interviewing disabled adults and parents of disabled children. Seventy distinct situational ideas were selected as relevant and were converted to brief phrases such as “being a co-worker of a disabled person,” and “being assigned to be the dorm roommate of a disabled person.” The items referred to situations in which interactions between disabled and nondisabled people often take place without prior arrangement or warning. The situations were presented to a sample of 194 male and female college undergraduates who were instructed to respond to each situation on a 7-point rating scale, verbally anchored at the endpoints by the terms nervous, upset, and uncomfortable, and feeling calm, relaxed, and at ease. Mean ratings (representing levels of potential arousal) and standard deviations were calculated for each situation; higher means reflected more negative reactions. In addition, the data were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. Thirteen factors met the criterion for retention (with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater). However, the first two factors accounted for 46.5% of the total variance. Consequently, only items with loadings of .40or greater on these two factors were retained for interpretation and use in the final version of the scale. The items for the final scale were selected to represent the full range of means (i.e., 1.57 to 6.09), and intervals
Berry & Jones
677
were spaced between situation items as equally as possible. These procedures resulted in the 9-item situation scale presented in Table 1.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Procedure Participants in the study were 164 nondisabled college undergraduate students (66 male, 98 female) ranging in age from 17 to 23 years. None were involved in the development of the situation measure. They were asked to complete the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP, Form A; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1%6), a 30-item instrument that assesses attitudes regarding the presumed differences between disabled and nondisabled people as well as attitudes toward disabled people in general. The ATDP elicits responses in a 6point Likert-type, forcedchoice format. Previous internal reliability estimates have varied from .75 to 35, and good convergence has been shown between scores on the ATDP and measures of rejecting and prejudicial attitudes toward other stigmatized groups (e.g., minority groups, the mentally ill, etc.), and the ATDP is not unduly contaminated by response set (Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1970). Participants were then presented with one of the nine scaled hypothetical situations. Respondents were instructed individually
TABLE 1 Situation Scale Items and Ratings Rating Item Staying in the same hotel as a disabled person Attending a college class with a disabled person Attending a party where a disabled person is also a guest Using a public restroom while a disabled person is present in the restroom Being a coworker of a disabled person Being assigned to work on a college class project with a disabled person Signing up for a trip and finding out your assigned roommate is a disabled person Being assigned to be the dorm roommate of a disabled person Agreeing to a date (arranged by someone else) with a person who turns out to be disabled
M
SD
1.58 2.21 2.67
0.97 1.22 1.41
3.21
1.54
3.68 4.08
1.53 1.57
4.95
1.56
5.20
1.42
5.92
I .40
Note. These items are based on the responses of 194 college students. A copy of the complete set of situations and ratings is available from the first author.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
678
The Journal of Social Psychology
to imagine themselves in the situation described by the item involving a college student with an immediately obvious disability. Participants were instructed to indicate how they would respond to each situation by completing the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL, Today Form; Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965), which consists of 132 adjectives and partitions responses into the three domains of anxiety, depression, and hostility; extensive reliability and validity data have been reported (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965). In addition, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire designed specifically for the study to assess reaction dimensions anticipated in the situations as follows: expectations of behavior change; avoidance of the situation; the extent to which one’s reactions would be different from those of others; thoughts of escaping; four dimensions of control (i.e., responsibility for one’s own feelings and actions, and responsibility for the disabled person’s feelings and actions). These items were included to explore potential differences in perceptions and anticipated reactions associated either with attitudes or situations. In an attempt to delineate further the kind of emotional arousal influenced by attitude, situation, or both, subjects were asked to respond, using a 7-point Likert scale, to a list of 46 bipolar adjective pairs descriptive of situations (e.g., common-uncommon, easy-difficult, good-bad, fair-unfair, pleasant-unpleasant, predictable-unpredictable, etc.) RESULTS Participants were divided into positive and negative attitude groups based on a median split of responses to the ATDP (Mdn = 119.0); the situations were divided into high, middle, and low threat based on mean negative ratings obtained from the initial sample. The data were then analyzed in a series of 2 x 3 (Attitude x Situation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The means for situation were as follows: low-level threat, 1.58 to 2.67; middlelevel threat, 3.21 to 4.08; high-level threat, 4.95 to 5.92. Analyses were performed on the three MAACL variables and the six variables obtained from the additional questionnaire. As indicated in Table 2, participants with negative attitudes reported more anxiety and more depression than those with more positive attitudes. Participants who responded to higher threat situations reported more anxiety than those who responded to lower threat situations. Hostility was not related to either attitude or situation, and in no case was the interaction term significant. Results for anticipated reaction variables assessed with the additional questionnaire indicated that respondents with more negative attitudes, in comparison with participants with more positive attitudes, reported anticipating greater change from usual behavior; greater desire to avoid or escape from the situation, greater control over how often the situation happens,
Berry& Jones
679
TABLE 2 ANOVAs of Affective and Reaction Variables by Attitude and Situation
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 19:22 28 October 2014
Variable
W C L Anxiety Depression Hostility Reactions to experiencing the situation described Change from usual behavior Differences from behavior and feelings of others Avoidance of situation Escape from situation Control of when the situation happens Control of how often the situation happens Control of feelings and actions Control of disabled person’s feelings and actions Responsibility for feelings and actions Responsibility for disabled person’s feelings and actions *p
