Introducción

Theories on attitude towards PWDs, as well as how contact and other demographic variables can influence attitude, is discussed in this section. Antonak and Livneh (2000) provided the following quote on why knowledge on attitudes towards PWDs is important to investigate:

Knowledge of attitudes of persons without disabilities towards persons with disabilities helps us to understand the nature of the interaction between the two groups. Furthermore, understanding the underlying dimensions of negative attitudes may suggest differential change procedures and promote appropriate assessment of the effects of these interventions”. (p. 211)

2.2.1.1 Theories on attitude towards PWDs

The study of attitude in social psychology has been extensive. In the Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, Fazio and Olson (2009) explain that a tripartite model of attitude was prominent in the 1960’s.

With this view, attitude could not be directly observed, but rather manifested in what/how a person believed, felt or acted. This basic model does, however, assume that all three components of attitude (beliefs, feelings, behaviour) must be present and consistent in one direction (i.e. all must be positive or negative), according to Fazio and Olson (2009). The assumption that all three components must be present and congruent led to the critique of this simple tripartite model towards one where the cognitive, affective and behavioural domains can interact and form attitude in various and diverse ways (Fazio & Olson, 2009).

The “bases and structure of attitudes” can influence the strength of attitude, according to Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar (1997, p. 611). Attitude accessibility, or “object-evaluation association” (p. 611) can

indicate attitude strength due to the assumption that strong attitudes are more easily accessed cognitively and require less time for the person to respond to (Petty et al., 1997). Attitude ambivalence, or “evaluatively inconsistent information” (p. 612), indicates both a negative and positive internal evaluation of an object, which negatively affects attitude strength (Petty et al., 1997). Finally, evaluative-cognitive consistency can also influence attitude strength (Fazio & Olson, 2009). The degree of consistency with which a person evaluates an object can influence their beliefs about that object. What this means is that attitude change, through for example persuasive language, can be more effective when inconsistent evaluations of an object exist within the person. Persons with higher evaluative-cognitive consistency have greater attitude strength for that object. General attitude formation principles must also be considered when investigating attitude towards disability, especially since attitudes also influence socialisation (Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005).

People possess a social identity that, in its most simplistic form, represents what attitudes one may subscribe to a stranger at first glance, according to Goffman (2006). Cognitive categorisation of PWDs is influenced by numerous factors (Colella, DeNisi, & Varma, 1997). A person with a disability may be viewed as being disabled when they are in an environment where they are underrepresented. “Cognitive dissonance”

may occur when persons without disabilities are not generally exposed to PWDs (Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005, p. 551). Discomfort and avoidance may arise within the person without a disability when interacting with a PWD (Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005). The degree and content of information on disability can further influence attitude towards PWDs, as well as a person’s education on working with PWDs (Gaier, Linkowski, &

Jaques, 1968).

The mere nature of a person’s disability can also influence the category to which they are cognitively assigned (Colella et al., 1997). The more visible and disruptive a disability is deemed to be by the observer, the more negatively such a person may be categorised. Coleman (2006) states that “physical abnormalities…may be the most severely stigmati[s]ed differences because they are physically salient, represent some deficiency or distortion in the bodily form, and in most cases are unalterable” (p.142).

Werner, Corrigan, Ditchman, and Sokol (2012) point out, however, that there has been a lack of research and measurement on intellectual disability and stigma. Cognitive categorisation can lead to stereotypical judgements (Colella et al., 1997).

Coleman (2006) explains that stigma alters perception and highlights differences between the observer and the stigmatised individual. Stereotypes and stigma can lead the evaluator to believe that a PWD is suitable for only specific jobs and can lead to lowered performance expectation and higher dissociation with the person (Colella et al., 1997). When one considers and classifies a person as “tainted, discounted”, his/her attributes are stigmatised and discredited from the norm (Goffman, 2006, p. 131).

Fear can also create stigma. Some persons without disabilities can become scared that contact with a PWD can somehow ‘infect’ them with the same ‘disease’ (Coleman, 2006). A fear of the unknown and uncontrollable creates fear and feeds stigmatised thinking (Coleman, 2006). Through her multidisciplinary investigation, Coleman (2006) concludes that stigma forms and manifest on three levels: through fear (emotion); stereotyping (cognition) and social control (behaviour). It is the social control aspect of stigma

Furthermore, stereotyping and stigma is often internalised, and the stigmatised person can soon question their own normalcy and become isolated (Coleman, 2006). PWDs may choose to perform actions in order to attain acceptance or avoid feelings of rejection (Goffman, 2006). These actions include (Goffman, 2006):

• directly altering the “objective basis of his failing” (p.134) through, for example, surgery;

• devoting time and effort to mastering activities normally not associated with the stigmatised group to which he/she belongs, for example taking part in socially acceptable activities such as sports;

• avoiding contact with the judging parties by isolating themselves;

• approaching unfriendly situations with excessive aggression and “bravado” (p.138).

Although negative attitudes, prejudice and stigma towards disability are discussed by many authors, Söder (1990) argues that attitudes toward PWDs may rather be ambivalent (as a results of conflicting values) and not necessarily just negative. This creates hope that sensitisation to and education on disability may influence cognitive evaluation and guide attitude change towards the positive side, as the attitude ambivalence theory (as reported by Petty et al., 1997) may suggest. Bizjak, Knežević, and Cvetrežnik (2011) indeed found that disability information and presentations can create more positive perceptions towards PWDs as potential clients in a sample of tourism students. In the following section, it will be shown that contact with a PWD and other demographic variables can positively influence attitude towards PWDs.

2.2.1.2 Contact and demographic variables that can influence attitude towards disability

There has been positive support for the view that actual contact with PWDs counteracts stigma (and misconception about disability) and creates a positive attitude towards PWD (Barr & Bracchitta, 2008;

Keller & Siegrist, 2010; McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller, & Killip, 2004; Stachura & Garven, 2007; Yuker, 1988). Contact with persons with mental disabilities, for example, did positively influence attitude towards PWDs in two USA samples (Gaier et al., 1968; Roper, 1990). Contact with persons with developmental disabilities and persons with behavioural/psychiatric disabilities were associated with less misconception and more optimism from students without disabilities towards these groups (Barr & Bracchitta, 2008). Even when greater contact was not directly correlated with positive attitude, Barr and Bracchitta (2008) found that it was associated with less misconception and more optimism towards persons with developmental and behavioural disabilities.

The amount of actual contact with PWDs can influence attitude (Gaier et al., 1968). Rimmerman, Hozmi, and Duvdevany (2000) found that the total time and length of exposure to a PWD was more significantly related to attitude change, rather than a singular contact session. Also, exposure to PWDs in leadership roles have been associated with a more positive attitude than merely contact with any PWD (Shannon, Schoen, & Tansey, 2009; Yuker, 1988). As shown by Yuker (1988), it is not only contact with PWDs that can influence attitudes.

Prior beliefs and personality characteristics of the person without a disability can also influence attitude during contact (Yuker, 1988). The belief in a just world was negatively associated with positive attitude towards PWDs (Keller & Siegrist, 2010). PWDs may be blamed for their disability when a person

believes that a just world rewards/punishes behaviour on a physical level as well. On the other hand, Keller and Siegrist (2010) also found that people with a positive attitude and liking towards people in general reported a more positive attitude towards PWDs.

Gender can also influence attitude towards PWDs. There is a trend that women have more positive attitudes towards PWDs in comparison to men (Harasymiw, Horne, & Lewis, 1978; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller, & Killip, 2004; Panek & Jungers, 2008; Perry, Ivy, Conner, &

Shelar, 2008; Vilchinsky, Werner, & Findler, 2010). Female students also viewed accommodations in education settings more favourably than men (Upton & Harper, 2002). This trend is mostly explained by strong nurturing and empathy associated with the female gender, according to Hergenrather and Rhodes (2007). The gender of the PWD themselves can also influence attitude. Women with disabilities seem to have a double challenge, belonging to the disability and gender disadvantaged groups (according to literature in Vilchinsky et al., 2010).

Age differences could account for different attitudes towards PWDs, although the “direction and/or even existence of an association between attitudes and age is unclear” (Nowicki, 2006, p. 336). Younger respondents reported more accepting attitudes towards persons that exhibited socially deviant behaviour (Harasymiw et al., 1978). An Australian and Canadian study found that younger respondents were more positive than older respondents about persons with intellectual disability (Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz, &

Lysaght, 2007; Yazbeck, McVilly, & Parmenter, 2004). A Canadian study also found that older participants (in comparison to younger participants) indicated more social distance required between themselves and a person with intellectual disability (Ouellette-Kuntz, Burge, Brown, & Arsenault, 2010). Others, however, did not find differences with regards to age and attitude towards disability (Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002; Perry et al., 2008).

Level of education has been associated with attitude differences towards PWDs (Yuker, 1988).

Persons with a higher level of education were found to be more accepting towards diverse disability types (Harasymiw et al., 1978). Higher education was also positively associated with less social distance towards persons with intellectual disability (Ouellette-Kuntz et al., 2010). Finally, it was also found that students tend to have more liberal views on minorities and thus also seem to have more positive views on PWDs than high school children (Ryan as cited in Fichten, 1988). Burge et al. (2007) also found that when respondents preferred segregated employment for persons with intellectual disabilities, these respondents tended be male and have limited education.

Cultural background and influences also play a role in the perception of disability by persons without a disability. Devlieger (1999) gives examples of African proverbs (in sub-Saharan countries) that refer to disability. Fear of rebuke by an upper being and self-infliction through bad behaviour can be found in many quoted proverbs. Other proverbs indicate a more positive view that focus on the skills of a PWD. Many proverbs also present a type of resignation that a PWD must reach in terms of their fate and restricted ability, which seems in contrast with modern rehabilitation principles. In the USA, Grames and Leverentz (2010) found that American and Chinese students differed on attitudes towards PWDs. The Chinese students had

Southern/Eastern European) was also positively associated with contact with persons with a mental disability in a USA sample (Gaier et al., 1986). Students from North American/European origin reported more contact with PWDs. Unique cultural difference and family structure could account for this finding.

Hergenrather and Rhodes (2007) explored the influence that social context may have on attitudes towards PWDs. They tested whether the attitudes of undergraduates towards PWDs were influenced by the contexts of dating, marriage and work. The students had the most positive attitude towards PWDs as co-workers, followed by marriage. The lowest mean score was attitude towards dating a PWD (Hergenrather &

Rhodes, 2007). Yuker (1988) also found that social interaction variables (of the interaction itself, but also the setting) can influence attitude (Yuker, 1988).

The type of disability can also influence attitude towards disability. Many authors have found that physical disability (in comparison to intellectual and psychiatric disability) evokes more positive attitude amongst persons without a disability (e.g. Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000; Rosenthal, Fong, & Livneh, 2006; Wong, Chan, Da Sliva Cardoso, & Miller, 2004). These findings range from studies on children, worker and student attitudes. Grames and Leverentz (2010) also found a preference for mentoring persons with physical disability, instead of persons with a psychiatric disability in a USA college setting.

Most of the research mentioned in this section used standardised measurement instruments to test attitudes towards PWDs. The following section will explore some of these measurement instruments.