The Structure of Attitudes Toward Personswith a Disability, When Specific Disability

and Context Are ConsideredEric D. Gordon, Patricia M. Minnes, and Ronald R. Holden

Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

ABSTRACT: The structure of the Disability Social Relationship (DSR) scale wasexamined using university students in five health care areas: occupational therapy,physical therapy, medicine, nursing, and clinical psychology. Evidence was foundsupporting the multidimensionality of attitudes toward persons who have a physicaldisability, and the interactive influence of specific target disability and social situationon these attitudes. Attitudinal components, as measured by the DSR, reflected theimportance of perceived limitations of particular disabilities, apprehensions concern-ing social stigmatization, situational constraints, and respondents' perceptions offunctional limitations as interfering with relationships. Issues with regard to themeasurement of attitudes toward persons with a disability are discussed.

The assessment of the attitudes of nondisabled persons toward those who have aphysical disability has received extensive attention over the past 25 years (e.g.,Chubon, 1982; Livneh, 1982b; Siller, Ferguson, Vann, & Holland, 1967; Yuker,Block, & Younng, 1966). The underlying dimensionality of these attitudes has beenof special interest (Antonak, 1980; Livneh, 1982a; Siller, Ferguson, Vann, &Holland, 1967; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966). Some authors (Yuker, Block, &Younng, 1966) have considered a unidimensional approach to be appropriate;others (Livneh, 1982a; Siller, 1986; Siller, Ferguson, Vann, & Holland, 1967) haveconsidered a multidimensional approach to be correct. Those arguing for the formerapproach propose that a single continuum of acceptance or rejection adequatelycaptures the essence of attitudes toward persons with a disability (e.g., Yuker,Block, & Younng, 1966). Those arguing for the latter perspective suggest thatattitudes are more correctly conceptualized as being composed of several statisti-cally independent underlying dimensions or factors, the nature of which must beassessed in order to understand these attitudes. This may be especially importantif the aim is to relate attitudes to other variables, or to use them to predict behavior(Grand, Bernier, & Strohmer, 1982).

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 35, No. 2, 1990 1990 by the Division of Rehabilitation Psychology of the American Psychological Association

Published by Springer Publishing Company, Inc., 536 Broadway, New York, NY 10012

79

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

80 Gordon et al.

Working within a multidimensional perspective, Siller et al. (1967) identifiedseven major components of attitudes toward persons with a disability, and alsodeveloped a series of multidimensional scales to assess these attitudes. Livneh(1985) reported a replication of Siller et al. 's factorial findings. Grand, Bernier, andStrohmer (1982) suggested that specific disability and social situation have impor-tant influences upon attitudes, and developed the Disability Social Relationship(DSR) scale, based partly on two of the factors identified by Siller et al. (InteractionStrain and Rejection of Intimacy), to test the hypothesis that type of social situationand type of disability would differentially affect attitudes toward persons with a dis-ability. Grand et al. reasoned that because context has been emphasized as a criticalcomponent of attitude formation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), and previous research(Sloat & Frankel, 1972) has demonstrated that context contributes significantly toattitudes toward persons with a disability, the inclusion of contextual variables intoscales designed to assess these attitudes is essential. Specifically, the DSR scale andsubscales were designed to assess the interactive effects of three social relationshipscales (Work, Dating, and Marriage) with four disability scales (Cerebral Palsy,Epilepsy, Amputee, and Blind).1 The DSR thus addresses two issues of greatrelevance to disability attitude research: the nature of the underlying dimensionalityof attitudes toward persons who have a disability, and the influence of disability andcontext on the measurement of such attitudes. Because the DSR specificallyincorporates these elements (disability and context) into scales with equivalentcontent, the relative influence of these elements can be assessed.

Grand et al.'s (1982) results indicated that attitudes were significantly affectedby situational context, particular disability, and the interaction of the two. Strohmer,Grand, and Purcell (1984) replicated and extended this research, relating DSRscores to a set of demographic and contact predictor variables using a hierarchicalmultiple-regression analysis. As in their previous research, they found situation-specific and disability-specific effects, as well as a significant interaction. Others(Harper, Wacker, & Cobb, 1986) have also recently found support for the impor-tance of contextual variables.

Attempts to replicate the findings of Grand et al. and Strohmer et al. have not, toour knowledge, been reported. Although the authors of the DSR suggest that itcontains seven (four disability and three social situation) subscales, they reportedthat they tested their research hypothesis concerning the effects of disability andcontext by examining the scores on the twelve 6-item disability-by-social situationsubscales produced by the crossing of the three social situation scales with the fourdisability scales. Thus, interpretation of the subscale results remains somewhatunclear. Additionally, the structure of the DSR should be a matter for empiricalverification. Of interest is its factor structure, as well as the replicability of the DSRresults. The present study was undertaken to explore the underlying dimensionalityof attitudes toward persons with a disability (as measured by the Disability SocialRelationship scale), and to clarify the effects of disability and situation on theseattitudes.

1 In referring to the DSR disability subscales, we have conformed to the terminology employed by

Grand et al. (1982), i.e.. Amputee, Blind, and so on. However, in accord with our intent to focus on the

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Structure of Attitudes Toward Disability 81

METHOD

Materials

Stimulus materials consisted of the 72 true or false items of the Disability SocialRelationship scale (Grand et al., 1982). This instrument is designed to have sevensubscales: Work, Dating, and Marriage (each containing 24 items) comprise thethree social relationship subscales; Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy, Amputee, and Blindcomprise the four disability subscales, each containing 18 items (6 from each of thethree social relationship subscales). An example of the format of the items comesfrom the Work scale: "If I were to work with a , I would not be surprised ifhe or she fell behind in their work." Each item in a particular social relationshipsubscale is asked four times, each time in regard to a specific disability group. Alphareliability coefficients for the DSR scale and subscales are reported as ranging from.86 to .95.

Subjects and ProcedureSubjects were 259 university students enrolled in occupational therapy (n = 37),

physical therapy (n = 60), nursing (n = 72), medicine (n = 58), or clinical psycho-logy (n = 32). The mean age of the subjects was 23.2 years (SD =4.1). They werecontacted either in their classrooms or through the university mail system, and eithercompleted the questionnaire in one sitting, or returned the finished inventory at theirconvenience. Participation was voluntary. Approximately 420 questionnaires weredistributed, with 259 returned complete, producing a 62% response rate.

RESULTS

The original DSR and also a reduced version (designated the DSR-reduced) wereanalyzed. The reduced version (51 items) omitted those items with extremeendorsement frequencies (i.e.,/? values < .05 or > .95). Items with such extremeendorsement frequencies tend to contribute little variance and may distort multi-variate results (Comrey, 1978). The 21 deleted items included 4 from the Amputee,5 from the Blind, and 12 from the Epilepsy subscales. The total scale scores for theDSR and the DSR-reduced correlated .99.

In the present study, coefficient alphas ranged from .72 for the Epilepsy subscaleto .91 for the total DSR. DSR subscale intercorrelations were quite high, rangingfrom .33 to .80, indicating that the subscales may not discriminate sufficientlyamong the 12 purported disability-situation combinations. The subscale intercor-relations obtained from the authors of the DSR (not reported in the publishedarticles) were comparably high. For the DSR-reduced (51 items) the coefficientalpha was .91.

person rather than the disability, we have used terminology consistent with this principle elsewhere inthe article.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

82 Gordon et al.

Factor Structure of the DSRThe DSR items were intercorrelated and the matrix of phi coefficients was

subjected to a principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Because aneigenvalue-one rule may tend to extract too many factors (Hom, 1965), the numberof factors to be extracted was based on Horn's (1965) parallel analysis criterion,which has been demonstrated to be one of the most accurate rules for dealing withthe number-of-components problem (Zwick & Velicer, 1986). Three sets ofrandom data were generated, based on the number of subjects in the present studyand the number of items in the DSR and the DSR-reduced scales, and the point atwhich the mean random eigenvalue obtained from the Horn's parallel analysisexceeded the corresponding value from the present sample was taken as the cutoffpointfor the number of factors to be extracted. This procedure suggested a 13-factorsolution for the original DSR scale (72 items), and a 9-factor solution for the DSR-reduced scale (51 items). Because the factorial structure of the full DSR may beunreliable in the present study, only the following facets of the full DSR will benoted.

The principal components analysis of the 72-item DSR yielded 15 componentswith eigenvalues greater than one. Based on the theoretical considerations of thescale authors, 12 distinct factors would be expected to be produced, but evidence ofthis was not found. Factors were loaded by items from several different disabilitiesand social situations. The 13-factor solution (selected by the parallel analysiscriterion) accounted for 56.5% of the total variance. Seven of the 13 factorscorresponded closely to those of the reduced DSR 9-factor solution. A largeepilepsy factor (absent in the 9-factor solution because of the deleted epilepsy items)also emerged. Notably, in the 13-factor solution, the question about the potentialproblem of the disabled person not being able to earn an adequate income emergedas a distinct factor for the three disabilities perceived as more severe, i.e., amputa-tion, blindness, and cerebral palsy. The remaining four factors in the 13-factorsolution were combinations of items deleted due to extreme/? values, and items thatgenerally loaded together on the 9-factor solution.

The 9-factor solution accounted for 54.4% of the total variance. Table 1 presentsthe varimax rotated factor loadings. Factors were tentatively named: ImputedDevaluation by Others; Cerebral Palsy-Rejection of Intimacy; Embarrassment inAssisting in Eating; Moderate Disability-Rejection of Intimacy; Concerns WithInterpersonal Dependency; Moderate Disability-Dependency at Work; InteractionStrain in Conversation; Rejection of Social Relationships at Work; and Willingnessfor Intimacy in Dating. All but two items loaded at least one factor in excess of .40.The results of this factor analysis support the multidimensionality of the DSR,although the theoretical interpretation posited by its authors is not supported.

The nine factors that emerged are, in general, clearly represented by the itemscontained on each factor. For the first factor, Imputed Devaluation by Others, theitem content involves two aspects: worry about what other people would think (ofthe person associating with individuals with a disability), and discomfort becausepeople would stare. Overt and covert stigmatization are the two elements presentin this factor, and these elements apply across all disability types. Notably, this

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Structure of Attitudes Toward Disability 83

Table 1. The DSR-reduced; a Nine-Factor Solution. The Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix

ITEM ITEM CONTENT (abridged) I II III IV VI VII VIII IX

.30

API 4 DATE: worry what other people ihink .76CP14DATE: worry what other people think 69BL5DATE: worry what other people think .66 .31AP4 DATE: uncomfortable, people would stare .64BL17DATE: uncomfortable, people would stare .61CP13 DATE- uncomfortable, people would stare .60EP10DATE- worry what other people think .57EP12DATE: uncomfortable, people would Hare .54

CP2 DATE: would have a friendship, but nothing more .80CP1 DATE: willing to have sexual relationship 80CP16MAR: difficult, uncomfortable making love .74CP9 MAR: something I'd consider .69CP3 DATE: find sex, physical contact embarrassing .68CP17MAR: worth a try if I loved the person .41 .33 .36

AP13DATE: embarrassed to help eat in public 86BL6 DATE: embarrassed to help eat in public .80CP6 DATE: embarrassed to help eat in public .80EP9 DATE: embarrassed to help eat in public 79

BL8 DATE: would have a friendship but nothing more .70API 2 DATE: would have a friendship but nothing more .69AP7 MAR: is something I'd consider .62BL15MAR: is something I'd consider .30 .56BL7 MAR: difficult, uncomfortable making love 54AP9 MAR: difficult, uncomfortable making love 44

.30

43

CP7 MAR: problem, can't earn adequate income .63CP11 MAR: difficult, can't be fully responsible parent .63BL4 MAR: difficult, can't be fully responsible parent .54CP5 MAR: more difficult, too dependent .52BLI3 MAR: problem, can't earn adequate income .49CP8WORK: require extra help, so would disrupt .49 .35BLI OMAR: more difficult, too dependent 47

AP6 WORK: not suiprised if fell behind .62BL3 WORK: not surprised if fell behind .59API 1 WORK: require extra help, so would disrupt .56AP8 MAR- difficult, can't be fully responsible parent 54AP2 MAR: more difficult, too dependent .45AP18DATE: find sex, physical contact embarrassing .31 .41CP4WORK: not surprised if fell behind .30 .40BL2WORK: require extra help, so would disrupt .33 .39EP4 MAR: difficult, uncomfortable making love .32

CP12WORK: careful choosing words in conversationAP10WORK: careful choosing words in conversationBLI 8 WORK: careful choosing words in conversationEP14 WORK. careful choosing words in conversation

CP15WORK: o.k. if don't have to socializeCP10WORK: prefer not be close relationshipCP18 WORK: uncomfortable eating lunch withAP3 WORK: prefer not be close relationship

EP7 DATE: willing to have sexual relationshipBLI 6 DATE: willing to have sexual relationshipAPI 5 DATE: willing to have sexual relationship .46

.36

.82

.82

.77

.60

.33

.65

.62

.53

.49

8381

.55

Note: AP = Amputee, BL = Blind, CP = CP, EP = Epilepsy, WORK = Work, DATE = Dating,MAR = Marriage. Negatively keyed items have been reflected.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

84 Gordon et al.

factor encompasses the only two items on the DSR that address this aspect ofrelationships with persons who have a disability, and the items differ in the elementsof stigmatization that they address.

The second factor, Cerebral Palsy-Rejection of Intimacy, involves cerebral palsyas the disability, and is concerned with the degree of intimacy acceptable in a rela-tionship with a person who has cerebral palsy. The item content involves intimacyin dating and marriage situations. The factor was equally loaded by acceptance andrejection items: our naming reflects the latter. The third factor, Embarrassment inAssisting in Eating, is a factor that loads across all disabilities and involves only theitem addressing this specific concern, that is, the respondent would feel embar-rassed if he or she had to help a person with a disability eat in public. Influence ofdisability type is not evident in this concern. This might indicate a uniform uneasi-ness with this particular activity; that is, not the disability aspect per se, but thediscomfort associated with providing this kind of assistance.

The fourth factor, Moderate Disability-Rejection of Intimacy, concerns accep-tance of intimacy with persons who have had an amputation or who are blind (thetwo middle disabilities in terms of overall acceptance according to the results ofGrand et al. (1982), and the present research). Item content addresses intimacy andcommitment in dating and marriage situations. The fifth factor, Concerns WithInterpersonal Dependency, addresses issues related to dependency in relation-ships, and the items in this factor are split between two disabilities: blindness andcerebral palsy. The item content involves the supposition that in a marriage, theperson with the disability would be too dependent. The one odd item concerns cere-bral palsy, suggesting a dependency problem in the work sphere for persons withthis disability.

The sixth factor, Moderate Disability-Dependency at Work, focuses on expecteddependency in a work situation (five items), and in more intimate social situations(two items). The interpretation of the remaining two items that load on this factoris less clear; they address intimacy issues for amputee and epileptic target persons.The seventh factor, Interaction Strain in Conversation, has one item loading acrossall four disabilities, and the item is straightforward; the respondent indicates that ina work situation, he or she would be particularly careful choosing words in talkingto a person with a disability. The eighth factor, Rejection of Social Relationshipsat Work, addresses the degree of closeness acceptable in relationships at work.Three items are for cerebral palsy targets, and one is for the amputee target. Theninth factor, Willingness for Intimacy in Dating, has three items (identical incontent) involving the amputee, blind, and epileptic targets: whether the respondentwould be willing to have a sexual relationship in a dating situation with a person withthis disability. The corresponding item for cerebral palsy is notably absent from thisfactor.

Attitudes as a Function of Disability and Context

To test the hypothesis that the 12 disability-by-social relationship subscaleswould show the predicted disability-specific and situation-specific patterns ofresponse, in accordance with the analysis employed by Grand et al. (1982) andStrohmer et al. (1984), a 3 x 4 repeated-measures analysis of variance was carried

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Structure of Attitudes Toward Disability 85

Table 2. Mean Acceptance Scores for the DSR on the Disability Scales, Social Situation Scales,and Disability by Social Situation Subscales

Social SituationScale

Work

Dating

Marriage

Total Disability Scale

Amputee

5 36(0.94)4.66

(1 53)5.11

(1.14)15 13

Blind

5.00(1.02)5.32

(1.13)5.01

(1.15)15.33

CerebralPalsy

4.58(1.36)3.33

(2.00)3.35

(1.84)11.26

Epilepsy

5.81(0.57)5.51

(0.83)5.81

(0.58)17.13

TotalSocial

SituationScale

20.75

18.81

19.28

Individual subscale scores range from 0-6 Disability scale scores range from 0-18 Social Situation scalescores range from 0-24 Higher scores indicate greater acceptance Standard deviations are given in parentheses

out. Table 2 reports the mean acceptance scores for the 259 respondents. Resultsindicated significant effects for disability, F (3,774) = 321.13, p < .001, socialsituation F (2, 516) = 44.89, p < .001, and their interaction F (6, 1548) = 65.68,p < .001. These findings essentially replicate those of Grand et al. (1982) andStrohmer et al. (1984), using their method of analysis of the 12 disabili ty-by-social-situation subscales; that is, attitudes toward persons with a disability differed acrosssocial situations and disabilities, and there was an interaction of the two. Figure 1illustrates the results of the present research.

DSR Results

L

ou

a03

4 - *

a.a>

e03

5 -

4"

3"

2"

1 -

AmputeeBlindCerebral PalsyEpilepsy

Work Dating MarriageSocial Situation

Figure 1. Disability and social situation interaction on the mean acceptance ratings.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

86 Gordon et al.

A post hoc test of the differences among the means was performed utilizingTukey's HSD Test (Winer, 1971). Significant differences at less than the .01 levelwere found between all the social relationship scales. For the social relationshipscales, the highest mean acceptance score was found on the Work scale (M = 20.75),and the lowest on the Dating scale (M = 18.81). The mean of the Marriage scalewas intermediate between the two (M = 19.28). For the disability scales, compari-sons revealed significant differences at less than the .01 level between the CerebralPalsy scale (M = 11.26), and the Blind (M = 15.33), Amputee (M = 15.13), andEpilepsy (Af = 17.13) scales. Additionally, the differences between the Amputeeand the Epilepsy, and the Blind and the Epilepsy scales were significant at the .01level. The means of the Blind and the Amputee scales were not significantly dif-ferent. The mean of the Epilepsy scale is higher than was found in either the Grandet al. (1982) study (M = 15.83), or the Strohmer et al. (1984) study (M = 14.95).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study support the contention that attitudes vary as a functionof disability, context, and the interaction of the two. Of greater interest, however,are the results of the factor analysis, which indicate that disability and situationcontribute to attitudes interactively in a manner reflecting elements of social stigma,social distance, and the negatively perceived functional limitations of disablingconditions. The theoretical structure of the DSR proposed by the scale authors isnot borne out empirically: neither 7 (four 18-item disability and three 24-item socialsituation), nor 12 (6-item disability-by-social situation) factors emerged from thefactor analysis to support Grand et al.'s (1982) hypothetical scale structure.

Factor Analysis of the DSRFactor analyses were conducted on both the complete Disability Social Relation-

ship scale (72 items) and on an empirically derived, shorter version, the DSR-reduced (51 items). The results were very similar, revealing a number of dimensionsthat revolved around particular themes related to reservations about persons whohave a disability: their dependency in both personal and work contexts, reluctanceto engage in intimacy with them, reservations about personal embarrassment in bothsocial and more intimate situations, and concerns about social stigma incurred inpublic interactions. Although some of these dimensions differed both acrossdisabilities and situations, others were consistent regardless of disability.

The factor structure of attitudes that emerged in this study is consistent withprevious factorial studies encountered in the literature (e.g., Livneh, 1985; Siller etal., 1967). These posit the importance of attitudinal components such as stigmati-zation and fear of strained interactions (e.g., Goffman, 1963; Wright, 1960). Theyare also consistent with social psychology and social learning approaches that arguefor a consideration of situational influences upon attitudes and behavior (Ajzen &Fishbein, 1980; Mischel, 1973). Notably, for certain components (e.g., fears ofstigmatization and expectations of interaction strain) results indicated that theparticular disability was not the attitudinal determinant. However, for other aspects

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Structure of Attitudes Toward Disability 87

(e.g., intimacy with persons who have a disability) the nature of the disability wasimportant. An example of the former is the factor named Interaction Strain inConversation: this factor loaded across the four target disabilities on the DSR. Anexample of the latter is Moderate Disability-Rejection of Intimacy, in which twodisabilities (amputation and blindness) loaded together, and the items reflecteddating and marriage evaluations. This is consistent with the attitudinal similaritiesfound by Siller et al. (1967) with respect to amputation and blindness, but there arealso attitude differences toward amputation and blindness depending on the context,i.e., work versus dating, with persons who are blind more accepted in the contextof social (and presumably public) intimacy than are persons with an amputation.

With regard to the two remaining target disabilities in the DSR (cerebral palsyand epilepsy), several findings emerged. The majority of the epilepsy items provedpsychometrically unreliable due to extremely high endorsement rates in the positive(accepting) direction. Conversely, responses to the Cerebral Palsy (CP) subscaleindicated the presence of a much more negative set of attitudes toward persons withCP. For instance, the CP items related to intimacy concerns formed a stronglydefined factor in the present research which indicated a rejection of intimacy ininterpersonal relationships. Siller (1986) has recently expressed reservations aboutthe inclusion of CP in so-called "physical" disability scales, because of potentiallyconfounding perceptions related to nonphysical disability aspects of CP (i.e.,developmental handicap and communication difficulties). The DSR does not assessthese perceptions.

An important dimension of attitudes toward persons with a physical disabilitythat was strongly reaffirmed by this research concerned expectations regardingstigmatization of the self by others when interacting with persons who have aphysical disability (Goffman, 1963). As noted, this constituted the first factor toemerge from the DSR, and loaded across all four disabilities. Instruments thatneglect this aspect of attitude formation would seem to be ignoring an importantattitudinal determinant.

The Effects of Disability and Context

With regard to the analysis of variance of the Disability Social Relationshipscale, the present results are essentially a replication of the findings of Grand et al.(1982), and Strohmeretal. (1984): differences in acceptance are found across dis-abilities and across situations, and there is an interaction between disability andsituation. The highest mean acceptance in the present results was found on the Workscale, consistent with the results of Grand et al. (1982) and Strohmer et al. (1984).Clearly, less intimacy is involved in the context of work than in dating or marriageand it is plausible that social relationships with persons who have a disability aremore acceptable in a work environment than in situations involving greater inti-macy. Consistent with previous research using the DSR, there were significantdifferences across disabilities in the work context This suggests that co-workerswith a disability may encounter expectations (perhaps negative) based upon theirparticular disability, and the imputed limitations it places upon them. However, thecontent of the items relating to functional limitations does not permit a disentangle-

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

88 Gordon et al.

ment of accurate from inaccurate perceptions. The respondent may have an accuratenotion of how a particular disability might detrimentally affect the co-worker'sperformance in a particular work setting, but may nevertheless be accepting of thatperson.

Grand et al. (1982) found the lowest rate of acceptance to be on the Marriagescale, while in the present research the lowest rate was on the Dating scale. Thisfinding may possibly be explained by the recently shifting mores toward moreconservative attitudes with respect to sexual relationships. A number of respon-dents emphasized (either with comments written in on the questionnaire or in personto the test administrator) that sex in a dating context was unacceptable, and disabilityor lack thereof had no bearing on this. Another possibility is that within the aegisof a long-term relationship such as marriage, disability might be perceived as lessimportant, although respondents may also believe that problems related to thedisability would have been overcome for the relationship to progress to marriage.

These results suggest that a multidimensional approach to attitude assessment islikely to yield information that is of both theoretical and practical utili ty. An attitudeis likely to be expressed (directly or indirectly), in particular contexts, and forspecific reasons. Therefore, attempts at attitude assessment or change should be asspecific as possible. It may be the case that certain components of interpersonalinteractions (e.g., attractiveness) are so important to some individuals as to precludesome types of contact (i.e., with "cosmetically imperfect" individuals such aspersons with an amputation), but that other components of attitudes might beamenable to change (e.g., overcoming strained interactions through knowledge andpractice). Thus, the present research strongly supports a multidimensional perspec-tive, consistent with the approach developed by Siller et al. (1967), but at odds withthe use of a unidimensional scale such as the Attitude Toward Disabled Personsscale (Yuker et al., 1966).

The results also point to the necessity of carefully examining disability attitudescales, both to assess their structural properties, and also to increase our understand-ing of the factors underlying attitudes toward persons with a disability. A scale suchas the DSR can indicate several things, all of which, from differing perspectives,may be of interest. In the present research, it was found that disability and situationcontribute to attitudes interactively, and that a variety of attitudinal elements (suchas social distance and affect) are present in these attitudes. Although the DSR asemployed by its authors provides evidence of the former, a further analysis wasnecessary to show evidence of the latter. Researchers who employ several differentscales to assess attitudinal components, and then compare or correlate total scalescores, may be obscuring contributions made by the different elements.

The extreme positive attitudes obtained in the present study may reflect either amore accepting attitude among a highly educated sample of students intent on enter-ing the helping professions, or a growing knowledge and acceptance of persons withphysical disabilities. Unfortunately, the Disabili ty Social Relationship scale has notbeen employed sufficiently to determine its properties across differing groups ofsubjects, and over time. As well, there are no a priori grounds to ascertain the ef-fects on the factor structure of the DSR resulting from using a student sample. A

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Structure of Attitudes Toward Disability 89

factor analysis of the two previous DSR results would do much to clarify theseissues.

Although this study is essentially exploratory and descriptive in nature, it hastaken an important step in clarifying the appropriate conceptualization with whichto assess attitudes toward persons with a disability. Several conclusions can bereached. Attitudes toward persons with a disability are multidimensional, and asingle scale is inappropriate in the assessment of these attitudes. Future researchshould take into account the importance of both disability- and situation-specificfactors, as well as their interaction. Furthermore, research instruments should bedesigned to assess many facets of the social transactions between persons with adisability and those with whom they interact, as this microanalysis is more appro-priate for yielding useful information regarding attitude structure and determinants.Persons who have a physical disability and individuals with whom they interactshould be considered not as attitude target and agent, but as people functioningwithin the societal cues that constrain them. The separation of the disability fromthe person can only be accomplished by a realistic appraisal of the variables that leadto their confusion.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Antonak, R. F. (1980). Psychometric analysis of the Attitude Toward Disabled PersonsScale, Form O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 23, 169-176.

Chubon, R. A. (1982). An analysis of the research dealing with the attitudes of professionalstoward disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48, 25-30.

Comrey, A. L. (1978). Common methodological problems in factor analytic studies. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 648-659.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Grand, S. A., Bemier, J. E., & Strohmer, D. C. (1982). Attitudes toward disabled persons asa function of social context and specific disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27,165-174.

Harper, D. C , Wacker, D. P., & Cobb, L. S. (1986). Children's social preferences towardpeers with visible physical differences. Journal ofPediatric Psychology ,11,323-342.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Livneh, H. (1982a). Factor analysis of the attitudes toward disabled persons scale- Form A.Rehabilitation Psychology, 27, 235-243.

Livneh, H. (1982b). On the origins of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities.Rehabilitation Literature, 43, 338-347.

Livneh, H. (1985). Factor structure of attitudes toward individuals with disabilities-Areplication. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29, 53-58.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Siller, J. (1986). The measurement of attitudes toward physically disabled persons. In C. P.Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, andsocial behavior: The Ontario symposium, Vol. 3 (pp. 245-288). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

90 Gordon et al.

Siller, I , Ferguson, L. T., Vann, D. G., & Holland, B. (1967). Studies in reactions to disabilityXII: Structure of attitudes toward the physically disabled. New York: New YorkUniversity, School of Education.

Sloat, W. L., & Frankel, A. (1972). The contributions of subjects, disabilities, situations, sexof target person, and items to the variation of attitudes toward persons with a disability.Rehabilitation Psychology. 19, 3-17.

Strohmer, D. C , Grand, S. A., & Purcell, M. J. (1984). Attitudes toward persons with adisability: An examination of demographic factors, social context, and specificdisability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 29, 131-145.

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Wright, B. A. (1960). Physical disabilityA psychological approach. New York: Harper &Row.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes towarddisabled persons. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the numberof components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99,432-442.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Dr. Sylvia Hains and Stewart Longman for theirassistance with the data analysis. Preparation of this paper was supported by grants from theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Ontario Ministry of Health.Portions of this article were presented at the Canadian Psychological Association conferencein Montreal, June, 1988.

Offprints: Requests for offprints should be sent to Eric Gordon at the Department ofPsychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6.

Submitted: 12/15/88Revised: 3/6/89Accepted: 4/20/89

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.