EDU 550 Lit Review

Changing Children’s Attitudes and Behaviors 1

Running head: CHANGING CHILDREN’S ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

Changing Children’s Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Disabilities:

A Literature Review

Kimberly Wengrovius

22 March 2004


Introduction

According to Census 2000, there are 49.7 million people, or 19.3 percent of the

population, with “some type of long lasting condition or disability” in the United States (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2003). This means that nearly one person in five is dealing with a disability in

this country. Moreover, non-disabled elementary school students may be in contact with disabled

elementary school students and other disabled members of society with considerable frequency

throughout their lives.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) states that “to the maximum

extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled;

and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children from the regular

educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that

education in regular classes with the use of supplemental aids and services cannot be achieved

satisfactorily” (34 C.F.R. Section 300.550, cited in Bateman & Bateman, 2002, para. 2).

Probably a result of this mandate, Wolery, Holcombe, Brookfield, Huffman, Schroeder, Martin,

Venn, Weits and Fleming (1993) report that programs including at least one disabled child

increased 37.2 percent from 1986 to 1990 (as cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999). Head Start has

been including disabled children in its program to meet the demands of the law since 1974 (as

cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999).

There is a large amount of research that promotes inclusion in the classroom. Bateman

and Bateman (2002) suggest that inclusion has benefits for both disabled and non-disabled

students. Peck, Carlson and Helmstetter (1992) report that the benefits for non-disabled students

include increased awareness of others’ needs, greater responsiveness to others’ needs and an

acceptance of diversity in others (as cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999). It also is suggested that


this educational model is preferred because the regular education classroom is where disabled

students’ peers are located, and it is assumed that the presence of disabled students in the regular

education classroom will increase the extent to which they are understood and accepted by their

peers.

However, studies and subsequent theories of intergroup behavior suggest that just placing

a disabled student in the regular education classroom is not likely to have the effect of favorable

reception (Hastings & Graham, 1995). Umerlik (1992) supports this idea, stating that placing

disabled students in “close proximity” with non-disabled students does not insure positive

acknowledgment (as cited in Andrews, 1998, p. 420). In fact, Guinagh (1980) found that when

disabled students were included into the regular education classroom, they did not make friends

as easily as those without disabilities, and in fact, experienced social isolation as a result (as cited

in Scherr, 2000).

There seems to be a disparity between the assumptions underlying the laws surrounding

the inclusion of disabled students and the reality of what happens socially when disabled students

are included in regular education classrooms. Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) state that there is

evidence that non-disabled children hold negative attitudes toward disabled children. Since

contemporary educational policies promote inclusion and diversity, the researchers warn that

educators need to be aware of children’s attitudes toward disabilities and plan programs to effect

positive changes and experiences for both disabled and non-disabled children (Nowicki &

Sandieson, 2002).

Problem Statement

Interacting with disabled elementary school students can be awkward for non-disabled

students, and interactions can take the form of discrimination against disabled students.


Research questions

This literature review will be guided by the following questions.

1. Is there discrimination shown toward disabled elementary school students by non-

disabled elementary school students? If so, what forms does this discrimination take?

2. Are elementary schools teaching about disabilities to foster awareness and sensitivity?

If so, what and how are they teaching about disabilities?

3. How effective is education about disabilities (as opposed to personal experience with

disabled people) at making non-disabled elementary school students feel more

comfortable interacting with disabled elementary school students?

Prior to uncovering these answers and their implications for future research and practice,

there are several terms that appear often in disability and attitude literature that should be defined

for the reader.

Key terms

The following terms are defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary OnLine (2004).

Attitude. A mental position with regard to a fact or state; a feeling or emotion toward a

fact or state.

Awareness. Having or showing realization, perception or knowledge; having special or

certain knowledge.

Discriminate. To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual

merit.

Discrimination. The act, practice or instance of discriminating categorically rather than

individually; prejudicial outlook, action or treatment.

Diverse. Composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=discriminating


Diversity. The condition of being diverse.

Sensitivity. Having awareness of the needs and emotions of others; delicately aware of the

attitudes and feelings of others.

The following terms are defined in the Glossary of Legal and Special Education Terms

and Acronyms compiled by Timothy E. Williams of the Washington School Law Academy

(Williams, 1994).

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This law provides for the protection

from discrimination of persons with disabilities and allows claims for compensatory and punitive

damages.

Disabled. Having a disability.

Disability. In Section 504 and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), defined as

impairment that substantially affects one or more major life activities; an individual who has a

record of having such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment; 2) In IDEA, a

physical, sensory, cognitive or affective impairment that causes the student to need special

education.

Education for All Handicapped Children (EHA). More commonly identified as

P.L. 94-142. It became effective in 1975 and has been significantly modified by

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1977.

Handicapped. Any person with any physical and/or mental disability who has difficulty

in doing certain tasks such as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, or

working. Federal law defines disabled children as those who are mentally retarded,

hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually disabled, seriously emotionally disturbed,

orthopedically impaired, other health impaired, blind, multidisabled, or as having specific


learning disabilities and who require special educational services because of these disabilities.

Often seen as pejorative.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Law that modifies and extends the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - The Civil Rights Act for the Handicapped. The act prohibits

discrimination on the basis of physical or mental handicap in all federally-assisted programs.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This law protects individuals with

disabilities from discrimination due to disability by recipients of federal financial

assistance. It stipulates that disabled people are entitled to: the same rights and benefits as non-

disabled applicants and employees, all medical services and medically-related instruction

available to the public, participate in vocational rehabilitation, senior citizen activities, day care

(for disabled children), or any other social service program receiving federal assistance on an

equal basis with non-disabled persons, and an appropriate elementary and secondary education

for physically or mentally disabled children.

Literature Review

Attitudes about Disabilities

Is there discrimination shown toward disabled people by non-disabled people? More

specifically, is there discrimination shown toward disabled elementary school students by non-

disabled elementary school students? For the purpose of this literature review, discrimination is

seen as a behavior and not just an attitude or point of view. Yet, Yuker (1994) states that most

research dealing with disability deals with attitudes, not behavior. Therefore, the author is

beginning by looking at the literature surrounding attitudes toward disabilities in the hopes of

finding a road map that leads to answers to the above questions.


Although society no longer sequesters disabled people in institutions located far from

population centers, negative attitudes remain strong (Farina, 1982; Fichten & Amsel, 1986;

Yuker, 1988; cited in Esses & Beaufoy, 1994). Many researchers suggest that these negative

attitudes are associated with the experience of threat to security, fear of the unknown and fear of

becoming the unknown (in this case, disabled) (Cohen, 1977; Evans, 1976; Livneh 1988; Wright,

1980, 1983; cited in Gething, 1994). In 1991, a national study conducted by Harris found that

when people encounter a seriously disabled person, 92 percent report that they feel admiration,

74 percent feel pity, 58 percent feel awkward or embarrassed and 25 percent feel anger or

resentment (as cited in Yuker, 1991). Though some of these responses seem more positive than

others (i.e., admiration versus anger), all are seen as negative to most disabled people, who want

to be viewed as having the same enjoyment of and plans for their lives as non-disabled people.

Though negative attitudes abound, recent research suggests that non-disabled people have

more favorable attitudes toward people with physical disabilities than those with mental

disabilities (Chan, Hedl, Parker, Lam, Chan & Yu, 1988; Furnham & Pendred, 1983; cited in

Esses & Beaufoy, 1994). This finding is in line with that of Bogdan and Taylor (1989). Their

study suggests that a mentally disabled person may be viewed less favorably because their mind

is seen to be damaged.

Additionally, studies have shown that physically disabled people with more severe effects

are viewed less favorably than those with fewer effects of their disabilities. According to Yuker

(1991), superficial characteristics of disabled people are important in initial contacts. A

psychological model that seems to fit this phenomenon is the notion of aesthetics (Hahn, 1993;

Livneh, 1982; Tringo, 1970; cited in Olkin & Howson, 1994). In this model, “the more a

physical disability causes a body to deviate from a total gestalt of the whole and beautiful body,


the lower it is ranked. It goes beyond visual pleasingness. It also includes the notion of a total

body in how it looks, moves, functions and communicates” (Olkin & Howson, 1994, p. 93).

Much of the research conducted with children support the findings of research conducted

on adults’ attitudes toward disabled people. In fact, Yuker and Block (1986) suggest that

demographics, such as age, have little to do with attitudes (as cited in Yuker, 1991). They report

that although attitudes seem to be related to development, they often have more to do with

education and personal experience, and the effects of age cease to exist when controlled

statistically (as cited in Yuker, 1991).

An early study of children’s attitudes toward mentally disabled children was conducted

by Johnson (1950, cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994). He used a sociometric

questionnaire and revealed that mentally disabled children were less accepted than their “typical”

classmates. These findings have been supported by studies with fourth- to sixth-grade children

(Baldwin, 1958; Miller & Gibbs, 1984; Reese-Dukes & Stokes, 1978; Siperstein & Gottlieb,

1977; cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994). Additionally, Townsend, Wilton and

Vakilirad (1993) also report that students with mental disabilities are less accepted than those

with physical disabilities (as cited in Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002).

Some studies, however, do not support the findings that mentally disabled children are

less favored than non-disabled children or even that they are less favored than physically

disabled children (Renz & Semensen, 1969; Wisely & Morgan, 1981; cited in Karnilowicz,

Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994). Gottlieb and Switsky (1982) used an adjective checklist with third-

to sixth-grade children and found that they were positive toward or rated evenly mentally

disabled children, not citing them as “unhappy” (as cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield,

1994, p. 67). In fact, Karnilowicz, Sparrow and Shinkfield (1994) state that there is not enough


evidence in the literature to suggest whether any groups of disabled children are stigmatized by

non-disabled children. They suggest that this is due to different methodologies and inadequate

theoretical bases for studying attitudes in children.

It is not surprising then that many researchers agree that findings concerning attitudes

toward physically disabled children are also uncertain (Billings, 1963; Titley & Viney, 1969;

Voeltz, 1980; Weinberg, 1978; Wisely & Morgan, 1981; cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow &

Shinkfield, 1994). Perhaps one reason is that attitudes toward physically disabled people may be

developmental. Though older children tend to be more positive toward physically disabled target

children in studies, younger children often prefer non-disabled target children (Jones & Sisk,

1966; Weinberg, 1978; cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994).

Roberts and Smith (1999) studied 188 non-disabled children between the ages of eight

and 12 in their attitudes toward disabled children. The results of their study suggest that non-

disabled children’s attitudes toward disabled children is directly connected to the amount of

control the non-disabled child perceives that he or she has in socially interacting with a disabled

child. The researchers explain that when a non-disabled child saw the relationship as not

requiring a lot of effort, he or she expressed an interest in forming a friendship with a disabled

child. If they saw the relationship as requiring a lot of effort or difficulty, however, then he or

she did not express interest in forming a friendship, even when he or she had a positive attitude

toward disabled students in general (Roberts & Smith, 1999).

Several studies also support gender differences in attitudes toward disabled people. Non-

disabled women are found to hold more favorable attitudes toward disabled people, including

children, whether they are male or female. Similarly, research has shown that girls are more

accepting and positive toward target children labeled as mentally disabled than boys (Siperstein,


Budoff & Bak, 1980; Voeltz, 1982; cited in Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994). Fonosch

and Schwab (1981) studied university faculty members’ attitudes toward disabled students and

inferred that women are more likely to view themselves as being similar to disabled people,

referred to as the “minority model” (as cited in Olkin & Howson, 1994, p. 93). However, Olkin

and Howson (1994) argue that the literature does not support this model, as members of other

minority groups do not necessarily hold more positives attitudes toward disability. Hastings and

Graham (1995) suggest that women are more interpersonal and act on this level when responding

to people. Typically, they choose the socially desirable response, as gender stereotyping

processes have taught them. It is important to note, however, that the nature of these gender

differences has not been studied in depth (Hastings & Graham, 1995).

There also are differences in the ways that different cultures view disability. Salas-

Provance, Erickson and Reed (2002) report that in most attitude studies, participants mostly have

been middle-class Anglo-Saxons from university communities, the education world or parents

(Cooper & Cooper, 1985; Crowe & Walton, 1981; Luckner, 1991; Ruscello, Lass & Brown,

1988; Scheuerle, Guilford & Garcia, 1982; cited in Salas-Provance, Erickson & Reed, 2002).

However, Hispanics represent the “fastest growing racial/ethnic minority group” in the United

States, according to the researchers (Salas-Provance, Erickson & Reed, 2002, p. 152). This

suggests that it is important to understand how this culture views disabilities in order to best

serve disabled children from this culture. In Mexican culture, which is based on Catholicism,

disability often is seen as reparation for mothers’ sins (Rodgers-Adkinson, Ochoa & Delgado,

2003). Another attribution is the placing of “evil eyes” on pregnant women. The researchers

point out that it is important not to generalize these findings to everyone that lives within this

culture, however. In some cases, they found that strongly religious families are accepting of


disabled members, almost to the detriment of the members’ progress in terms of education and

self-determination (Fewell, 1986; Friederich, Wilturner & Cohen, 1985; cited in Rodgers-

Adkinson, Ochoa & Delgado, 2003). Other researchers suggest that because Hispanics view

family as the most important institution, it is easier for members to adapt to their disabilities

(Madsen, 1974; Samora, 1963; Zaldivar, 1994; Alvarez, 1998; cited in Salas-Provance, Erickson

& Reed, 2002). On the other hand, they also report that “machismo (maleness, virility) may

contribute to denial of a disability,” and “aguantar (endure)” contributes to accepting hardship

because of disability (Salas-Provance, Erickson & Reed, 2002, p. 152). Salas-Provance, Erickson

and Reed (2002) report that their findings support the idea that low income, less educated and

older Hispanics attribute disability according to folk beliefs. However, they also report that well-

educated, younger members of this minority often use medical care and attribute disability to

biological causes.

Any attitude study should be regarded critically, as Yuker (1994) states that the general

quality of research surrounding attitudes toward disabilities is not always distinguished.

McConkey (1988) concurs by stating that many studies, “suffer from faults such as inadequate

sampling, the lack of adequate control groups, failure to randomly assign subjects to groups, the

lack of pretests or retrospective pretests, etc.” (as cited in Yuker, 1991, p. 4). Another important

note is the inconsistent use of the word “attitude” in the literature. Many ideas have been given

the imprecise label “attitude,” including acceptance, compassion, friendship, feelings, opinions,

thoughts and behaviors. Also, an array of measurement instruments has been used to measure

these concepts. Some of these instruments include Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned

Action, Siperstein’s Adjective Checklist and Guskin’s Adjective Pairs (Karnilowicz, Sparrow &

Shinkfield, 1994). Karnilowicz, Sparrow and Shinkfield (1994) suggest that if one instrument


was applied in all of the studies concerned with these varied concepts with uniform results, then

it might be possible to make a generalization about attitudes toward disabilities.

Other concerns with the validity of attitude and disability literature surround the

characteristics associated with the disabled populations used in studies. Though most studies

state whether the target population includes mentally or physically disabled people, as an

example, there is still a wide range of characteristics associated with cerebral palsy and spina

bifida, two of the most common physical disabilities. Finally, Heinemann (1990) suggests that

there is an, “affective-cognitive inconsistency” in attitude studies (as cited in Hastings &

Graham, 1995, para. 36). Although people report positive attitudes, their physiological responses

reflect anxiety in actual situations.

Discrimination and Disabilities

So, how do these attitudes affect behavior? Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) said that attitudes

predict behavior, but only when the concepts are related in terms of time and milieu (as cited in

Yuker, 1991). Several studies have shown that students with learning disabilities are at a higher

risk for victimization by bullies, as well as for other psychosocial difficulties (Martlew &

Hodson, 1991; Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993; Thompson, Whitney & Smith, 1994; Whitney,

Nabuzoka & Smith, 1992; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Lewandowski & Barlow, 2000; Margalit,

1998; Morrison & Cosden, 1997; cited in Mishna, 2003). Additionally, Llewellyn (1995) states

that physically disabled children are at higher risk for being bullied by classmates when included

in regular education classrooms (as cited in Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002).

Discrimination can take many forms. Katz, Hass and Bailey (1988) and Soder (1990)

suggest that sometimes attitudes toward disabled people reflect ambivalence rather than active

prejudice (as cited in Yuker, 1991). Ambivalence, or an indecisiveness of feelings, often can turn


into apathy, especially when there is no immediate need to make a decision. Newcomb (1956)

found that most people prefer to associate with people who are similar to themselves in

characteristics such as age, ethnicity, interests, occupation and socioeconomic status (as cited in

Yuker, 1991). Based on this research, one may infer that non-disabled people prefer to associate

with people who are non-disabled. Additionally, Fichten and Amsel (1986), Fichten, Compton

and Amsel (1985), Robillard and Fichten (1983) and Siller (1976) state that negative attitudes

and expectations about encounters with disabled people contribute to the avoidance of disabled

people (as cited in Scherr, 2000).

Sigelman, Miller and Whitworth (1986) found that in preschool, children start expressing

preferences for non-disabled children as playmates. The researchers suggest that by early

elementary years, children acquire a “schema of normality” (Sigelman, Miller & Whitworth,

(1986, p. 30). Kratzer and Nelson-LeGall (1990) further suggest that children assign other

children to broad categories, such as “like me” and “not like me” on the basis of disability. It is

not surprising then that children seen as dissimilar are avoided as playmates.

In a study conducted by Karnilowicz, Sparrow and Shinkfield (1994), 60 volunteer high

school students were selected to respond to a survey about interactions with disabled students.

The hypothesis was that high school students’ responses toward social behaviors with disabled

peers are influenced by the perceived level of intimacy, or closeness, required in the behavior.

The subjects were predominantly white, and most of them were members of families connected

to a university community.

Twenty-four students were asked to describe scenes of social interactions that could

occur between two hypothetical students, one being disabled and one being non-disabled. The

other 36 students were asked to rate the scenes using an intimacy scale developed for the study.


The researchers found that attitudes with the intention to interact socially with physically

disabled peers were more favorable than attitudes with the intention to interact socially with

mentally disabled peers. Additionally, responses to performing less intimate behaviors, such as

sharing classes, with mentally disabled peers were more favorable than responses to performing

high intimacy behaviors, such as forming ongoing friendships, with mentally disabled peers.

Karnilowicz, Sparrow and Shinkfield (1994) suggest that social interaction with

physically disabled peers is seen as socially desirable, and they offer the possible reason that

physical disabilities do not indicate lack of competence. On the other hand, mentally disabled

people are perceived to lack competence, both intellectually and socially. Beyond hypothetical

situations, it is suggested that key factors in performing social behaviors with disabled people are

based on non-disabled peoples’ perceptions of the social desirability of such behaviors and the

intellectual and social competence of disabled people. Though the sample size for this study was

small, its findings are supported by research conducted by Sigelman and McGrail (1985, cited in

Karnilowicz, Sparrow & Shinkfield, 1994). It also is supported by several researchers who have

shown that mentally disabled children often experience social neglect or active rejection by non-

disabled peers, as well as receive low evaluations on social skills by their teachers (Bear, Clever

& Proctor, 1991; Elliot & McKinnie, 1994; Haager & Vaughn, 1995; Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993;

Roberts & Zubrick, 1993; Santich & Kavanagh, 1997; cited in Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002).

Perceived competence of disabled people is important as long as it is in an area valued by

the non-disabled people involved in a situation. Hannah (1988) states that in school, academic

competence prompts positive attitudes in both teachers and students (as cited in Yuker, 1999).

Ability in athletic skills is another area valued by children (Geskie & Salasek, 1988; cited in

Yuker, 1999). With these results in mind, one may questions whether elementary schools are


teaching about disabilities to foster awareness and sensitivity. If so, what and how are they

teaching about disabilities?

Education and Disabilities

There has been increased interest in programs that include disabled students in regular

education classrooms. Many of these programs are based on Wolfensberger’s Normalization

Principle, which supports the idea that placing disabled students in regular education classrooms

increases their acceptance by non-disabled peers (Szivos, 1972; cited in Hastings & Graham,

1995). However, as mentioned earlier in this literature review, several studies suggest that the

placement of disabled students in the regular education classroom alone does not guarantee

social acceptance (Hastings & Graham, 1995).

Many researchers argue that the success of inclusion depends on classroom teachers and

their attitudes toward disabled students (Hudson, Reisberg & Wolf, 1983; Moisio, 1994; Stoler,

1992; cited in Andrews, 1998). Hannah (1988) states that teachers’ knowledge of disabilities,

personal experiences with disabilities, or disabled people, and confidence in effectively teaching

disabled students are among the most important factors found to be associated with students’

positive attitudes toward disabled students (as cited in Yuker, 1999). Furthermore, Kelly (1995)

and Stroud (1981) state that teachers need to assist all students in adjusting to the inclusion of

disabled students by providing guidance for positive interactions and creating atmospheres that

facilitate learning by all students (as cited in Andrews, 1998). However, in a study conducted by

Alghazo, Dodeen and Algaryouti (2003), the attitudes of pre-service teachers were found to be

negative in general. Their research is supported by D’Alonzo and Ledon (1992), who found that

most studies conducted on the integration of disabled students into regular education classrooms


concluded that teachers have negative attitudes (as cited in Alghazo, Dodeen & Algaryouti,

2003).

Interestingly, Stoler (1992) found that the more education a teacher has, the more

negative their attitudes are toward disabled students (as cited in Jobe, Rust & Brissie, 1996). On

the other hand, Jobe, Rust and Brissie (1996) studied a randomly selected national sample of 162

classroom teachers and found that attitudes were neutral with regard to the inclusion of disabled

students in the regular education classroom. They suggest that this is a positive result, since it

shows that teachers do not have strong negative feelings. However, they also stated that

unsolicited comments on the surveys indicate that the results may have been different had the

specific disabilities been noted on the survey.

Miller and Cordova (2002) examined the effectiveness of two college-level courses

designed to change the attitudes of non-disabled students toward disabled students. Course

content for each included information about the relationships between recreational activities and

disabilities. They found that students who were enrolled in the course that provided direct

education and opportunities for social interaction with disabled students had more positive

attitudes at the end of the course. Those who were enrolled in a strict sports psychology course

that did not offer direct education or interaction had no significant change of attitude toward

disabled students by the end of the course. The researchers suggest that partnering direct

education with contacts outside of the classroom is effective in changing attitudes toward

disabled students.

Shaver, Curtis, Jesunathadas and Strong (1987) conducted a study on the effects of

messages on attitudes toward disabled people (as cited in Yuker, 1991). They found that

persuasive messages are somewhat effective in changing attitudes, yielding a mean effect size


of .67 for 23 effect sizes. Several researchers have found that although increased and continued

personal contact affects the most change in attitude, brief but intensive programs that provide

information, as well as personal contact, work best (Fichten & Amsel, 1986; Rusalem, 1967;

Anthony, 1972; cited in Scherr, 2000). By itself, information only had a small mean effect of .29,

however. According to Yuker (1991), information may be necessary, but it may not be enough to

affect attitudes and behavior.

Nonetheless, the research conducted by Shaver et al. (1987) provides useful results. The

researchers found that messages about how disabled people interact socially have positive effects

on attitudes, possibly easing discomfort. They also found that messages about the similarities

between disabled people and non-disabled people can have negative effects on the attitudes of

non-disabled people, possibly because they feel vulnerable to becoming disabled themselves.

Weiner (1993) found that messages about the causes of disabilities can influence positive

attitudes (as cited in Yuker, 1991). Conversely, some studies have found that knowledge about

disabilities is either unrelated to or negatively affects attitudes toward disabled people, because it

emphasizes the absence of abilities, rather than the presence of different abilities. Researchers

argue that, in any case, knowledge about the type or severity of a disability does not provide

information about what a person is like on a personal level. Wright (1988) concurs, stating that,

“messages that focus on personal inadequacies and problems in coping lead to negative

attitudes” (as cited in Yuker, 1991, p. 6). Above all, most researchers support the idea that

personalizing information is important because it reduces stereotypes.

The author has found little evidence of formal programs to foster awareness and

sensitivity to disabilities in elementary schools. However, one program, Green Circle, is

designed to influence children’s attitudes toward the diversity in others in an integrated setting


(Houlette, Gaertner, Johnson, Banker, Riek & Dovidio, 2004). Houlette, Gaertner, Johnson,

Banker, Riek and Dovidio studied the program and found that, to some degree, it can affect

children’s attitudes concerning themselves and other groups of children. The researchers suggest

that the program may be effective because the period of life when children are in elementary

school is important for the development of “intergroup orientations” (p. 36). This is supported by

research that prejudices are formed during the early elementary school years and are relied upon

in making social judgments in later years (Aboud, 1988; Hirschfeld, 1995; Killen & Stangor,

2001; cited in Houlette, Gaertner, Johnson, Banker, Riek & Dovidio, 2004). Researchers suggest

that education during these early years can have significant impact on children’s intergroup

orientations later (Gurin, Nagda & Lopez, 2004; Nagda, Kim & Truelove, 2004; cited in

Houlette, Gaertner, Johnson, Banker, Riek & Dovidio, 2004).

Many educators use disability simulations to allow non-disabled students a chance to step

into the shoes of disabled students. However, Twelker (1976) found that the popularity of

simulations is often based on enjoyment rather than its effectiveness as a learning resource (as

cited in Herbert, 2000). French (1992) and Kiger (1992) argue against the use of disability

simulations (as cited in Yuker, 1991). Chard (1997) also states that empirical evidence does not

support the use of simulation (as cited in Herbert, 2000). In fact, many researchers have found

that students have negative reactions to engaging in simulations, such as embarrassment and

frustration, as well as feelings of being fortunate for not having disabilities (Glazzard, 1979;

Pfeiffer, 1989; Wurst & Wolford, 1994; cited in Herbert, 2000).

Supporting the arguments of these researchers, several studies have shown that

simulations do not foster positive attitudes and, in fact, do not even reduce negative attitudes

(Fichten, Compton & Amsel, 1985; Wright, 1978; cited in Scherr, 2000). On the other hand,


some researchers recommend engaging in simulations or role playing as an effective way to

change attitudes and behaviors of children toward disabilities (Donaldson, 1980; Evans, 1976;

Wright, 1980; cited in Andrews, 1998). At the least, some researchers suggest that the lack of

empirical evidence for simulations is based more on problems with research methodology,

sampling and statistics than on the simulations themselves (Kosciulek & Szymanski, 1993;

Clark, Foos & Faucher, 1995; Orlansky, 1979; Chard, 1997; Thatcher & Robinson, 1990;

Wiener, 1986; cited in Herbert, 2000)

Another possibly effective technique to foster positive attitudes toward disabled children

is the use of children’s disability literature. Many researchers have found that literature positively

affects attitudes, as well as increases awareness and sensitivity to disabilities (Brown &

Stephens, 1995; Lewis & Johnson, 1982; Stroud, 1981; Fein & Ginsberg, 1978; Heim, 1994;

Kelly, 1995; Radencich, 1986; Umerlik, 1992; cited in Andrews, 1998). Additionally, it has been

found to ease discomfort and lessen the stereotyping of disabled people (Dobo, 1982; Hopkins,

1980; Stroud, 1981; Wagoner, 1984; cited in Andrews, 1998). Monson and Shurtleff (1979)

report that the children who had the most positive changes in their attitudes toward disabled

people in their study had either read books about disabilities or had books about disabilities read

to them.

It is suggested by Reed (1988) that characters in books can help students to study

problems objectively and view a variety of situations from different perspectives, most notably

that of a disabled person (as cited in Andrews, 1998). This, in turn, helps them to identify their

own feelings about disabilities. Researchers see other benefits to reading disability literature,

such as learning how to solve problems and be more sensitive in all situations (Kelly, 1995;

Reed, 1988; cited in Andrews, 1998).


Even though it is more realistic than that published in the past, disability literature can

portray disabled characters unrealistically (Watson, 1982; cited in Andrews, 1998). Bogdan

(1977) concurs, stating that the following nine stereotypes can be found even in contemporary

literature (as cited in Andrews, 1998, p. 422):

1) characters are heroes;

2) characters are pathetic;

3) characters are self-defeating;

4) characters are ridiculous;

5) characters are a burden;

6) characters are objects of violence;

7) characters are sinister;

8) characters are enhancements to the story; and

9) characters are incapable of participating fully in everyday life.

It is important that disabled characters are seen to share the same types of experiences

that non-disabled readers do (Andrews, 1998). Therefore, researchers suggest that teachers use

the same scrutiny when choosing disability literature as they do when choosing any type of

literature for use in the classroom (Umerlik, 1992; Heim, 1992; Radencich, 1986; Stroud, 1981;

cited in Andrews, 1998). Andrews (1998) also states that it is necessary to look for accuracy in

the information presented about disabilities.

Radencich (1986) and Dobo (1982) recommend that the reading of disability literature be

paired with discussion and activities, including simulations that allow students to experience

what it is like to be disabled (as cited in Andrews, 1998). Concurring, Anthony (1972) and Horne

(1979) argue that the most positive effects are seen when a cognitive experience, like reading a


piece of disability literature, is followed with an affective experience, like a simulation (as cited

in Andrews, 1998). Orlansky (1979) also found that what he calls an “active learning approach,”

as opposed to a lecture-based approach, results in more positive attitudes toward disabled

students (as cited in Andrews, 1998). Active learning includes disability simulations, role-

playing, classroom discussions and activities that require problem solving. Other studies support

his findings (Leung, 1979; Westervelt & McKinney, 1980; cited in Andrews, 1998). These

results may lead one to wonder whether direct education about disabilities is more effective than

personal experience with disabled people outside of the classroom in fostering positive attitudes.

Education versus Experience

How effective is education about disabilities (rather than personal experience with

disabled people alone) at making non-disabled people feel more comfortable interacting with

disabled people? More specifically, how effective is education about disabilities at making non-

disabled elementary school students feel more comfortable interacting with disabled elementary

school students? Shaver, Curtis, Jesunathadas and Strong (1989) have found that the data to date

do not reveal what techniques or materials are most effective in changing attitudes toward

disabled people (as cited in Yuker, 1991). However, Favazza and Odom (1997) studied

kindergarteners’ attitudes toward disabled people after participating in an intervention program

that used children’s literature, guided discussion, home activities and structured opportunities to

play with disabled children (as cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999). Based on the Acceptance Scale

for Kindergartners, they found that this group of children became more positive by the end of the

program.

Scherr (2000) studied the effects of personal experience, with an emphasis on previous

contact, on behavior. Her hypothesis, that previous contact would influence positive behaviors,


was supported by the results of her study. Other researchers support her findings as well. Many

argue that previous contact may decrease stereotyping of disabled people (Emerton & Rothman,

1978; Fichten & Amsel, 1986; Fichten, Compton & Amsel, 1985; Amsel & Fichten, 1988;

Anthony, 1972; Anthony & Carkhuff, 1970; Antonak, 1981; Bender, 1981; English, 1971;

Robillard & Fichten, 1983; Semmel & Dickson, 1966; cited in Scherr, 2000). Additionally,

Amsel and Fichten (1988) suggest that increased personal experience may increase the comfort

of non-disabled people in interactions with disabled people (as cited in Scherr, 2000).

The Social Identity Theory defines stereotypes as, “characteristics that are thought to

apply to all members of a particular social category” (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 1981; cited

in Hastings & Graham, 1995, para. 4). Researchers suggest that if contact between members of

different social categories is made only at the intergroup level, then negative attitudes are not

likely to change, as people still are perceived stereotypically at this level. However, if contact

between members is made at an interpersonal--and more intimate--level, then positive attitudes

may be formed, as stereotypes have more of a chance of breaking down at this level (Brewer &

Miller, 1984; cited in Hastings & Graham, 1995). Concurrently, Fichten and Amsel (1986) state

that uncovering the falsehood of both positive and negative stereotypes of disabled people,

creating opportunities for disabled and non-disabled children to cooperate and focusing on

different abilities, rather than disabilities, may prove useful in changing attitudes toward disabled

children (as cited in Scherr, 2000, p. 28).

Based on Robert Gagne’s types of learning, direct education about disabilities falls under

the category of attitude learning. Cognitive, affective and behavioral components interact to

affect this type of learning (Smith & Ragan, 1999). According to Gagne, an attitude is “a mental


state that predisposes a learner to choose to behave in a certain way” (R. Raysbrook, personal

communication, February 7, 2004).

McGuire (1985) states that when educating non-disabled people about disabilities,

resources that are perceived to be credible, as well as holding a position of power, are more

influential than those that are not (as cited in Yuker, 1991). It can be inferred that information

provided by teachers, family members, friends and others in authoritative positions will be

influential in attitude formation. Supporting this idea, Bailey states that both parents and teachers

influence children’s attitudes toward other children (1997; cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999). In

fact, some researchers state that teachers impart positive beliefs when they are honest in

answering questions and providing direct education about diversity, including disabilities

(Lieber, Capell, Sandall, Wolfberg, Horn & Beckman, 1998; cited in Innes & Diamond, 1999).

Scherr (2000) agrees, stating that the “tendency to comply to authoritative demands and a

desire for social acceptance makes students promising targets for reform with disabled/non-

disabled relationships” (p. 28). This is true not only for the college students she studied, but also

for intermediate elementary school students. Knight and Vallacher (1981) also have found that

the prospect of interacting with a disabled person motivates a non-disabled person to focus on

the disabled person’s positive characteristics (as cited in Scherr, 2000).

Curran (1979) supports the social skills deficit theory (as cited in Scherr, 2000). Curran

explains that researchers have shown that training in social skills assists people in what they

perceive to be angst-ridden situations (as cited in Scherr, 2000). Scherr (2000) states that this

method may work well for people who have never learned how to interact socially with peers or

who have learned inappropriate responses to certain situations. Elementary school students are

prime targets for this type of training, because they are at an age when people learn how to


appropriately respond in social situations, especially with regard to manners, conflict and

friendships.

Fichten and Bourdon (1986) added to the data surrounding social skills deficit theory

with findings that led to a theory dubbed the Response Inhibition Model (Scherr, 2000). Along

with other researchers, they found that anxiety mixed with negative expectations about

encounters with disabled people led to poor interactions between disabled and non-disabled

people (Curran & Wessberg, 1981; Fichten & Bourdon, 1986; Schwartz & Gottman, 1976, cited

in Scherr, 2000). Gross (1988) suggests that basic anxiety surrounding dealing with the

unknown--namely disabilities--may be reduced by increased and continued exposure to

disabilities (as cited in Hastings & Graham, 1995).

Conclusion

Based on this literature review, there does seem to be a discrepancy between the theories

behind the laws mandating inclusion of disabled students into regular education classrooms and

the reality of what happens on a daily basis in those classrooms, both academically and socially.

Academically, because research shows that there still are many teachers who exhibit negative

attitudes toward disabled students in assorted ways, including assessing the social skills of these

students negatively and lacking the techniques to teach effectively in a diverse classroom.

Socially, because studies indicate that, to a degree, there is discrimination shown toward disabled

students by non-disabled students, whether this discrimination takes the form of apathy,

avoidance or active rejection.

Implications for further research include rigorous and high-quality studies on larger and

more diverse sample populations, especially with children, that remove the inconsistencies in

instrumentation, methodologies and use of important terms. Such terms include “attitude” and


“discrimination.” These studies would provide more accurate information on the nature of

attitudes of non-disabled people toward disabled people, as well as on the types of

discrimination, if any, that are faced by the disabled population. Also, increased research with

children hopefully would provide appropriate theoretical bases for continued studies of attitudes

in children.

Additionally, researchers would benefit from more specialized studies that honor the

diversity within the disabled population. Studies suggest that future research should identify

individual disabilities within a sample population, rather than simply state whether the

disabilities are mental or physical. Specific information gained in these studies may be more

effective in guiding practice in changing attitudes toward disabled people.

Educators would profit from more studies that research programs or techniques that effect

a change in attitudes toward disabled people. Implications for future practice include

implementing programs that address the negative attitudes non-disabled students have toward

disabled students. College courses also need to be implemented to address the negative attitudes

pre-service and in-service teachers have toward disabled students.

Much of the literature reviewed agrees that interactions between disabled and non-

disabled students can be problematic. Although there are no clear indications of what techniques

are fail-safe in changing negative attitudes toward disabled people, there seems to be some hope

in a combination of direct education about disabilities and opportunities for social interaction

with disabled students. Also promising is the use of children’s disability literature, as long as it is

of high quality and accurate in its depiction of disabilities and disabled people. Research has

shown that it can be effective in easing discomfort and lessening the stereotyping of disabled


people, especially when paired with affective learning. Affective learning includes disability

simulations and classroom discussions.

Although there were no formal programs found that focused on education about

disabilities at the elementary school level, there is evidence that direct education can be more

effective than personal experience and contact with disabled people in changing negative

expectations about interacting socially with members of this population. Whereas personal

experience leaves the learning to chance, education can provide specific information on how

disabled people respond in social situations and prepare people for those situations. Education

also can provide information on the diversity surrounding disabilities to promote awareness and

understanding of the challenges faced by the disabled community. More personalized

information may help to deconstruct dangerous stereotyping practices.

Many of the researchers discussed in this literature review have suggested that education

during the elementary school years can have significant impacts on children’s intergroup

orientations later in life. Such impacts could include a decrease in stereotyping and an increase in

intention to interact with disabled people. The curriculum in chapter three will address the

identified need for both cognitive and affective educational experiences to change negative

attitudes of non-disabled students toward disabled students.


References

Alghazo, E., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. (2003). Attitudes of pre-service teachers toward

persons with disabilities. College Student Journal, 37(4), 515-523.

Andrews, S. (1998). Using inclusion literature to promote positive attitudes toward disabilities.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(6), 420-426.

Bateman, D. & Bateman, F. (2002). What does a principal need to know about inclusion? ERIC

Digest, E635, EDO-EC-02-13. Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://firstsearch.

oclc.org.

Esses, V. & Beaufoy, S. (1994). Determinants of attitudes toward people with disabilities. In D.

Dunn (Ed.), Psychosocial perspectives on disability (pp. 43-64). Bethlehem, PA:

Moravian College.

Gething, L. (1994) The interaction with disabled persons scale. In D. Dunn (Ed.), Psychosocial

perspectives on disability (pp. 23-42). Bethlehem, PA: Moravian College.

Hastings, R. & Graham, S. (1995). Adolescents’ perceptions of young people with severe

learning difficulties: The effects of integration schemes and frequency of contact.

Educational Psychology, 15(2), 149-160.

Herbert, J. (2000). Simulations as a learning method to facilitate disability awareness. The

Journal of Experiential Education, 23(1), 5-11.

Houlette, M., Gaertner, S., Johnson, K., Banker, B., Riek, B. & Dovidio, J. (2004). Developing a

more inclusive social identity: An elementary school intervention. Journal of Social

Issues, 60(1), 35-55.

http://firstsearch/


Innes, F. & Diamond, K. (1999). Typically developing children’s interactions with peers with

disabilities: Relationships between mother’s comments and children’s ideas about

disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(2), 103-112.

Jobe, D., Rust, J. & Brissie, J. (1996). Teachers attitudes toward inclusion of students with

disabilities into regular classrooms. Education Chula Vista, 117(1), 148-153.

Karnilowicz, W., Sparrow, W.A., & Shinkfield, A.J. (1994). High school students’ attitudes

toward performing social behaviors with mentally retarded and physically disabled peers.

In D. Dunn (Ed.), Psychosocial perspectives on disability (pp. 65-80). Bethlehem, PA:

Moravian College.

Kratzer, L. & Nelson-LeGall, S. (1990). Understanding competencies and limitations of

wheelchair-bound peers as helpers: Developmental changes during early childhood.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 69-84.

Merriam-Webster OnLine. (2004). Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary. Retrieved March 17,

2004, from http://www.m-w.com/

Miller, J. & Cordova, J. (2002). Changing attitudes toward people with disabilities. Palaestra.

18(3), 16-21.

Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 36(4), 336-347.

Nowicki, E. & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes towards

persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education. 49(3), 243-265.


Olkin, R. & Howson, L. (1994). Attitudes toward and images of physical disability. In D. Dunn

(Ed.), Psychosocial perspectives on disability (pp.81-96). Bethlehem, PA: Moravian

College.

Roberts, C. & Smith, P. (1999). Attitudes and behaviors of children toward peers with

disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(1), 35-

50.

Rogers-Adkinson, D., Ochoa, T. & Delgado, B. (2003). Developing cross-cultural competence:

Serving families of children with significant developmental needs. Focus on Autism and

Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 4-8.

Salas-Provance, M., Erickson, J. & Reed, J. (2002). Disabilities as viewed by four generations of

one Hispanic family. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 151-162.

Scheer, J. & Groce, N. (1988). Impairment as a human constant: Cross-cultural and historical

perspectives on variation. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 23-37.

Scherr, T.G. (2000). Attitudes toward the cognitively and physically disabled. Unpublished

master’s thesis, University of Northern Colorado.

Sigelman, C., Miller, T., & Whitworth, L. (1986). The early development of stigmatizing

reactions to physical differences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7, 17-

32.

Smith, P. & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Disability status: 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/disabstat2k/disabstat2ktxt.html.


Williams, T. (1994). Glossary of Legal and Special Education Terms and Acronyms. Retrieved

March 17, 2004, from University of Washington, Washington School Law Academy

Web site: http://depts.washington.edu/slawd/glossry.pdf

Yuker, H. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In D. Dunn

(Ed.), Psychosocial perspectives on disability (pp. 3-22). Bethlehem, PA: Moravian

College.

EDU 550 Lit Review

Documents

Transcript of EDU 550 Lit Review