The results thus suggest that manipulation of the DS diagnostic/intellectual label can affect mothers' perceptions of that child. Before discussing this further, it must first be considered as to whether these results could have been generated by extraneous, uncontrolled variables, rather than by the manipulation
the labels applied to the children.
It could be argued that intrinsic to the method used here of rating two separate children is that of ccnparison, thus making it more likely that one be judged more positively than the other.
The experimental instructions given to Group 3 (the control, unlabelled condition) were designed to circumvent this possibility
experimental result been sinply a product of the intrinsic demand characteristics for ccraparison, then Group 3 should have shown similar results in the same direction. Instead, as will be seen from Table 2,1, Group 3's mean difference was in the opposite direction to that of the 2 experimental groups, (i.e. subtracting Infant 2's ("normal") ratings from those of Infant 1 ("DS"), Group 1 showed a mean group difference of -0,35, Group 2 was -0.842, but Group 3 showed +0,642),
It could be argued, however, that mothers in Groups 1 and 2 feel obliged to demonstrate their knowledge of the stereotypical reality of DS, and so "mark down" the DS labelled child, even if they do not actually perceive her as less able. If this were the ccmplete explanation for the ctoserved effect, then it might be expected that this would be equally observed in both Groups 1 and 2. Instead, as will be discussed in detail belcw, on specific rating scales, the 2 Groups judge the infants very differently, thus suggesting that the effect is due to more than siitply an Experimenter Demand to mark down the DS labelled child.
Indeed to seme extent, the experience of having a DS child seems to mitigate the effect of the stereotype. As reference to Table 2.1 will illustrate, Group 2 mothers show greater mean "labelling effects" than Group 1 mothers for all ratings but those of Vocal Ability and Happiness, and in the cases of Attentiveness, Sociability, Manipulative Skills and Interest in Mother, Group 2 mothers' ratings of the DS labelled child are highly significantly more negative than are those given to this child by the mothers of DS children. Indeed, this mitigating effect is perhaps most clearly
This scale is perhaps the one most likely to engender a labelling effect based on perceived demand characteristics as it relates specifically to subjects' knowledge of the retardation associated with DS, rather than to their present inpressions of the videotaped infant. It is thus interesting to observe that whilst both Groups 1 and 2 demonstrate a highly significant negative labelling effect in their ratings of the DS-labelled infant (p < 0.01), this effect is larger in Group 2 than in Group 1 and this difference approaches, although does not quite reach statistical significance (it being 0,667, with the critical Tukey value being 0.70). In some cases, therefore, any negative expectancy and its consequent effect on perception is perhaps softened by experience wdth DS children.
Nevertheless, notwd-thstanding methodological considerations and bearing in mind the discussed differential effects shewn by the 2 Groups of Mothers, on various ratings, the "DS" label can be said to exert a strong negative effect on mothers' ratings of infants thus labelled, even when the behaviour of the infants they are witnessing is in every way "normal". This raises the question of whether this negative effect would be enhanced in a situation where to seme extent, the stereotype or negative expectancy is based on reality - i.e. when mothers are confronted with "real" DS children. Reference to the "Vocal Ability" ratings gives sane indication of this. In Group 3, only the "Vocal Ability" ratings showed a negative effect - a difference in favour of Infant 2 (i.e. the "normal" child). Thus on this Vocal Ability scale, the so-called "DS" infant, as presented to Groups 1 and 2, appeared less able than
"real" DS infant Who may to some extent confirm the stereotype of being vocally retarded. In this case, whilst both Groups 1 and 2 rated the so-called IS child as worse than the "normal" infant, the effect was only significantly different from that of Group 3 in the mothers of the DS children (see Table 2,1). This suggests that perhaps the actual behaviour of DS children would interact with mothers ' stereotyped beliefs not only to mitigate some of the negative expectancy effects, but also to reinforce, if not to enhance others, if and when the children's behaviour confirms any elanent of this stereotype. Further studies are thus needed wherein the less able, but still norihandicapped infant is labelled "IS", within a balanced design, to ascertain whether any negative expectancy or labelling effect thus engendered is stronger than that observed in this present experiment.
2.5 Conclusions
This study thus denonstrates that mothers* ratings of children are significantly affected by the application of the "DS" label to a child, even •vhen that child is exhibiting perfectly "normal"
behaviour. Whilst both methodolgical considerations and the
interaction between mothers ' experience of DS children and the complexities of their susceptibility to negative expectancy effects is acknowledged, the overall strength of the negative effect engendered raises the question of how mothers' behaviour, and in particular, their cxxtmunicative behaviour, might be affected by the
CEmPTER TEÏREE
As the introducticm to the previous experiment indicated, little work has examined the effect of the diagnostic/intellectual label "DS" on the behaviour of the mothers of DS children. As several studies, including the previous experiment reported here, have indicated that the label DS can exert an effect on mothers' attitudes and perceptions of children thus labelled, the following experiment was conducted to investigate such effects on actual behaviour. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the behaviour of mothers towards a child described as "DS" would differ significantly from that towards a similar child not so described, or described as "normal", irrespective of the children's actual behaviour.
3.2 Method