‘09..” movm!ofltono 0 “9-1.

'0 .-.

... .... - ooooo.—.’..Q 1'0... -..’u.¢u. o

 

0... .0

-.

-...

‘.-o.‘

w
..
0
~
C
O
a
n
.
~
.
o
O.
H.

0- th.o-

-..-n -'H‘u."~.'."‘.‘

”WY-uno- -

'D
69

:4

'x

V ..D.

 

 

. ..... .0
. . . .5 . .
.n . .. ...
c .. —- O
. ..... .. .
... ... . . .. I
.. . . .. .
.. ... . ... .
- ~ .v
..
u . n . o
g . . .
. o .
n. c _
... v‘ c
. . . .
. .
~ .. . .
n - y
.... . ... . .
. . . .
u _ I
V
..s.
. ‘
. O. u
c u . .
..
. _ .
. . .
_
. I
.
.
. .
... . ..
. .
. .

CTURE,

A GUTIMAN FACET

Th.
N
E.
T
N
nu
PFC
mm
9%
F.

HT:
TIP.
DO
MB
nwuw
rm.
Wynn
”Wm
UH
AT.

... .. . .... . ; ......f...
t

u .3. n
.- . . .. v
a . . .0” _U- _. n.

  

STRU

3
T
N
A
m
M
R

 

AND DET

2.;

Q

 

. A
. .... ...

of Ph

gree

.MICHIG 4;. STATE UN

Thesis for the De

0“ m. . I... ....v. ..r.
0.}.-

 

by...

 

WERSITY

THOMAS 'H. "POULUS

.. hr: ... ......
.20 ...
..n... 3..

 

... ......s‘l

' - 1,970

   

........,.$.o. ......s...
«cot

..
4
no
..
..
.
..
o
a
.
.
.
.
o
.
‘
.
F
_
.
o
.
..
.
.
-
. .
1 .
.. ..J
y o .
.. _
..
. ~
. .
.
..
. .
o .
.
.
. .
.. _
.
.
.
‘.

 

..‘.pb.o.~r.

h..’n’fifl).od.t

. a...

”9.
q p

... . ... .. 0 ...o-..¢... .. .u . .éa. .30. ’..a..oo..a...‘A.s.{A~%
._ .. .....x.

 

 

p .
«9.5.231... we... 1

 

    
     

 

   

 

. I: o‘

...‘p.'.

.o .a.

. oxol- ,

. .

...d . .

. .

......
. o, .r.

...-
. .0...
.... <

I
... ... .

u o.
.. ¢ ..

.n... .1...”
_ O. .

.. .n ..J
...... ..
. . .s .

o v

.s.. ...:OI
- I-nau
. o u
1...... ....a 7'5

. .I ....n ...Ioa

. — ‘. ...

..... ... .72.. . ....1 393......

... v...:. .o.

 

. .1 0rd.
0. .0 . .— .-.. .ooo...
... f n .6 ...o. a
o .. a. ...... . . .
‘..... .o . .a..vo..a 4. .
... , ya. I. coon!
o u: 'n- . ‘ .v. to .D
..
.. . 4 A .o .r
o.’......,./.... .
.. 4...... . ... .
a .1. .... ......
.. ... v . . or
... .. ... .....u‘ ‘o
..p..u.. .u. . a; 0
. . . . .5 ,.
.‘ . . ... .... .
o a . o r ... . . .
a... . I... ....5
.a.. 4.. ....
a A _I. v. . r .
... . .... ... .
..... ... .. . ...
_ . o . .. .4 . ...
... o; . . . c.
. . ... .. .
.. .. . ..._. .. .
. ... . .4 .... .. <.
y . . .... .o .. ..
. . . . .. y . .I
y . ,o 5.. . v . oz..<
.. .. . u g . .
.. r . .. .
I. . .l
.; . r .. . .
o a
. .0 . .0 o ....
. . ... 4 v
.. c a .-. ...o:
, . o
_ I t .
.-
0 a. ....-.. .
.
o. .. .
a . .0 o. .
f .. ..p .. ...
u . I . O
. a..
n pl ' .
. . .. -
... I . . o. a...
a o o >.. I 0.
0 .0 . .. a
I. .c . l C '
a «It. .,
o . . ,p
0.. . -..
o ..
- ... I... v a
‘ I _ . '
s u t
.-
u a . .l I
l .I
u t n
. - . ‘ A
’ l ...
o
. _. . .
. . . .o .1 .
. . . ..-
.. . p .
o o — o
t c a
.
..... .
o
. r
.
.. I
. o
.
.
o
p
.
. .
..
. .
.ar
0
v
a c ..
. '-
.
. . .
o
.

 

u L» Inn; 1!:lequ guy I Lung W! n

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEAF: A GUTTMAN
FACET THEORY ANALYSIS OF THEIR CONTENT,
STRUCTURE AND DETERMINANTS ?

 

presented by

THOMAS H. POULOS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_P_hI.D_._ degree in mm on

-. 7 1-; -‘

(1/ Majorflofessor

 

J1 9 0
Date uy ,197

 

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: \‘3

4.1.6"

 

ABSTRACT

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEAF: A GUTTMAN FACET
THEORY ANALYSIS OF THEIR CONTENT,
STRUCTURE, AND DETERMINANTS

BY

Thomas H. Poulos

Problem

Attitudes toward the deaf determine in part whether
the deaf obtain the encouragement, guidance, and education
to prepare them for socially useful, productive, and inde-
pendent lives. The aim of this study was to examine the
relationships of certain variables to deafness and to
assess the attitudes of five designated groups toward deaf-
ness: Teachers of the Deaf,XRegular School Teachers,‘
Mothers of Deaf Children, Prospective Employers (Managers-

Executives), and Mothers of Non-Deaf Children.

Instrumentation and Theory

 

The Attitude Behavior Scale-Deafness (ABS-DF) as
used in this study is a revised version of the ABS-MR in-

strument as developed by Jordan1 and is related to a

 

1The cross-national attitude study is under the direc-
tion of John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823.

Thomas H. Poulos

multi—national study of attitudes toward physical, mental-
emotional, and racial-ethnic differences. The major
changes made for Jordan's scale on mental retardation, with
the exception of the section on Knowledge, were the substi-
tution in the scale of the terms dea£_or deafness for any

reference to mentally retarded or mental retardation. As

 

is true with the original ABS-MR instrument, the ABS—DF
consists of six levels, each corresponding to a certain
level of the hypothesized attitude universe.

The six levels are called (a) Societal Stereotype,
(b) Societal Norm, (c) Personal Moral Interaction, (d)
Personal Hypothetical Behavior, (e) Personal Feelings,
and (f) Actual Personal Action. Included in the scale
were those items that tapped the predictor variables of

the study which Jordan (1968) has labeled determinants of

 

attitudes: (a) contact, (b) knowledge, (c) values, and

(d) demographic factors. The variables in the study were
intercorrelated to enable examination of relationships for
both content and intensity scores of the criterion (ABS—DP)
across each level with 21 independent variables. This
facilitated testing 14 hypotheses using simple correlations,
multiple correlations, analysis of variance statistical

techniques, and the g2 statistic.

Results
The results of this study indicated values, knowledge,

contact, and certain demographic variables were limited

Thomas H. Poulos

predictors of attitudes toward the deaf. The facet analysis
approach to scale construction was given support when the
simplex matrices formed a Guttman simplex as predicted.

In View of the surprising results in responses made
by mothers of deaf children and the assessment of responses
made by teachers of the deaf for the variable on amount of
education, recommendations were made for further research.
The importance of knowledge about deafness was noted;
especially in the eXpansion of the principle of day school
placement of the deaf, and attitudes were posited to be
especially important in considering job placement.

In-service programs for teachers as well as teacher
training programs, parent education programs, and public
informational services can benefit from the results ob-
tained in this study especially if it concerns attempts
at behavioral changes toward acceptance of the deaf and

the develOpment of positive attitudes toward the deaf.

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEAF: A GUTTMAN FACET
THEORY ANALYSIS OF THEIR CONTENT,

STRUCTURE, AND DETERMINANTS

BY

Thomas H. Poulos

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
Department of Elementary and Special Education

1970

PREFACE

This study is one of a series originated by Jordan

(1968) and further refined by several investigators (Erb,

‘1969; Gottlieb, 1970; Hamersma, 1969; Maierle, 1969;

Morin, 1969; Whitman, 1970; and Harrelson, 1970). Though
the major project has to date predominantly investigated
attitudes toWard the mentally retarded, the total scope of
the coordinated series will include a study of attitudes
toward other minority and handicapped groups as well as
racial/ethnic groups.

Though the researchers collaborated in many aspects,
the data design, procedural, and analysis methods differed
somewhat in each study. The interpretations of data in
each study are those of each individual author.

The present study benefitted from the results and
recommendations of the several studies and the final ver-

sion of the Attitude Behavior Scale for the Deaf was made

 

possible through their respective contributions.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted primarily to Dr. John E. Jordan and
Dr. Clarence Winder for their invaluable assistance.

Dr. Jordan served as chairman of my doctoral committee
and guided the entire research effort from inception to
completion, while Dr. Winder, Dean of the College of
Social Sciences was most encouraging in the selection and
development of a study in this area for the deaf.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the
remaining members of my committee, Dr. William Durr and
Mrs. Vivian Stevenson for their invaluable support, en-
couragement and suggestions in the fulfillment of this
project.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Grace, for
guidance and inspiration and for her invaluable assistance

in proofreading of the manuscript.

iii

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES. .
Attitude Measurement . . . .
Attitudes Toward the Exceptional
Guttman-Jordan Attitude Research
Attitude Intensity . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .

III.

INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES . .

Facet Theory and the ABS-MR Scale

Guttman's Four Level Theory .

Jordan's Expanded Six Level
Adaptation. . . . . .

ABS-DF Intensity. . . . .

Standardization Study . . . .

validity O O O O O O 0
Reliability . . . . . .

Combining Content and Intensity.

Instrument Limitations. .
ABS- DF Adapted Form of ABS-MR
Attitude Scale . .
Independent Variables . .
Demographic Variables .
Change Orientation . . .
Educational Aid and Planning.

Contact with Attitude Object Persons

Efficacy . . . . . .
Attitude Object . . . . .

iv

0 O O O

Page
ii
iii

vii

37
38

41
48

49

52
55
58
59

63

65
65
65
66
66
67

Chapter

IV.

V.

Major Research Aim .

Sample . . .

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES . . . .

Hypotheses of the Study . . . . .

Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Variables . .
Relating Attitudes
Orientation .
Relating Attitudes
Educational Aid
Relating Attitudes
Membership. .
Relating Attitudes
dimensionality

Analysis Procedures.

Descriptive Statistics. . . .
Correlational Statistics . . .
Analysis of Variance Statistics.

The 02 Statistic.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA .

ABS—DF Reliability .
Major Research Hypotheses. . . . .

Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Variables . .
Relating Attitudes
Orientation .
Relating Attitudes
Educational Aid
Relating Attitudes
Membership. .
Relating Attitudes
dimensionality

and Values .
and Knowledge .
and Contact . .
and Religiosity.
and Demographic
and Change

and Opinions on
and Planning. .
and Group

and Multi-

and Efficacy. .
and Knowledge .
and Contact . .
and Religiosity.
and Demographic
and Change

and Opinions on
and Planning. .
and Group

and Multi-

Page
69
69
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
75
76
78
80

80
82

83
85
87
105
107
112
125
129

133

Chapter

VI.

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Summary of Review of Research .

Instrumentation . .
Results. . . . .
Discussion. . . .

Attitudes
Attitudes
Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Relating Attitudes
Variables . .
Relating Attitudes
Orientation .
Relating Attitudes
Educational Aid
Relating Attitudes
Membership. .
Relating Attitudes
dimensionality

Relating
Relating
Relating

Recommendations . .
Implications . . .

Appendix A.l

ABS-MR
Appendix A.2

ABS-DF
Appendix B
Appendix C

vi

Statistical Material.
Glossary. . . . .

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

and Efficacy. .
and Knowledge .
and Contact . .
and Religiosity.
and Demographic
and Change
and Opinions on
and Planning. .
and Group

and Multi-

Attitude Behavior Scale:

Attitude Behavior Scale:

Page
138
138
139
143
143
143
145
146
148
149
151
153
154
154

155
156

158
166

167

200
232
235

Table

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Final items of the Cowen Attitude to
Deafness Scale with direction of keying
and two independent sets of item-test
correlations . . . . . . . . .

Basic facets used to determine component
structure of an attitude universe . .

Guttman facet profiles and descriptive labels

of attitude levels . . . . . . .

Jordan facets used to determine joint
struction of an attitude universe . .

Joint level, profile composition, and labels

for six types of attitude struction. .

Comparison of Guttman and Jordan facet
designations . . . . . . . . .

Five-facet six-level system of attitude

verbalizations: Levels, facet profiles,

and definitional statements for twelve
permutations . . . . . . . . .

A mapping sentence for the facet analysis of

conjoint and disjoint struction of
attitudes toward Specified persons . .

Correlation matrices of joint struction for

standardization groups on the six level
AB 8 -1'1R o o o o o o o o o o 0

Sample sizes, means, F tests, and multiple

means results for the ABS-MR for the SER,

ED200, and Belize samples . . . . .

Hoyt reliability coefficients for ABS-MR
standardization groups . . . . . .

Hoyt reliability coefficients for ABS-DF
groups 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

vii

Page

21

38

39

42

43

44

45

47

51

54

57

57

Table Page

13. Combined content-intensity scoring
procedure for ABS-MR levels 1-6 . . . . 60

14. ABS-DF: Basic variable list by IBM card
and column, Poulos study . . . . . . 74

15. ABS-DP Hoyt reliabilities for content and
combined content—intensity scores for
samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

16. ABS-DF efficacy variable correlations for
samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

17. ABS-DP knowledge variable correlations and
significance levels for samples . . . . 86

18. ABS-DF intensity, content, and combined
content and intensity correlations and
significance levels with amount of
contact with deaf persons for samples . . 89

19a. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for teachers
Of the deaf. O O O O O O O O O O 92

19b. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS—DP and contact variables for regular
school teachers . . . . . . . . . 93

19c. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for mothers
of the deaf. . . . . . . . . . . 94

19d. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for
managers-executives . . . . . . . . 95

19e. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for mothers
0f the non-deaf o o o o o o o o o 96

19f. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for females . 97

19g. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS—DF and contact variables for males. . 98

19h. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and contact variables for total
sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

viii

Table Page

20. ABS-DF stated importance of religion
correlation for samples. . . . . . . 106

21. ABS-DF stated adherence to religion
correlations for samples . . . . . . 108

22. ABS-DP amount of education correlations for

samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
23. ABS-DP age correlations for samples. . . . 111
24a. Multiple and partial correlations between

ABS-DF and change orientation variables

for teachers of the deaf . . . . . . 114

24b. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DP and change orientation variables
for regular school teachers . . . . . 115

24c. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and change orientation variables
for mothers of the deaf. . . . . . . 116

24d. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and change orientation variables
for managers-executives. . . . . . . 117

24e. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and change orientation variables
for mothers of non-deaf. . . . . . . 118

24f. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DP and change orientation variables
for females. . . . . . . . . . . 119

24g. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and change orientation variables
for males . . . . . . . . . . . 120

24h. Multiple and partial correlations between
ABS-DF and change orientation variables
for total sample . . . . . . . . . 121

25. ABS-DF agreement with local and federal aid
to education correlations for samples . . 126

26. ABS-DE agreement with centralized planning
of education correlations for samples . . 128

ix

Table Page

27. Adjusted means, F tests, and significant
levels for the variables of the study
by group and sex--by ABS-DP content
scores only. . . . . . . . . . . 130

28. Adjusted means, F tests, and significant
levels for the variables of the study
by group and sex--by ABS-DF content-
intensity scores combined . . . . . . 132

29. Simplex results for research groups on six
levels Of the ABS-BF. o o o o o o o 134

30. N's, means, and standard deviations for
ABS-DF samples. 0 o o o o o o o o 233

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the United States there were 44,020 children
receiving instruction in schools for the deaf in 1968;
of this total 19,828 were in residential schools, both
public and private, while 24,192 children were in public
or private day schools or day classes.1 In 1958 there
were 25,525 receiving instruction with 16,523 in residen-
tial schools and 8,792 in day schools.2

It is noted from the above that though there has
been an increase in enrollment in residential schools that
a greater number of children are enrolled in day centers.
The number of day schools and classes has increased con-
siderably during the past ten years. More deaf children
are in schools serving the normal hearing than ever before.

In some instances day schools for the deaf are complete

units within a larger complex of normal hearing classes

 

lPowrie V. Doctor, et al., "Tabular Summary—-Schools
and Classes for the Deaf in the United States," American
Annals of the Deaf, 1969, 622, 624, 114.

 

2Powrie V. Doctor, et al., "Tabular Statement of
American Schools for the Deaf, October 31, 1958," American
.Annals of the Deaf, 1958, 104, 154.

 

while in others, one or several classes are housed in
schools for the normal hearing with an integrated type
program serving the deaf and hard of hearing.

With this trend to greater placement of deaf children
in day school facilities, there is greater contact with
deaf children by normal hearing pupils and teachers of
normal hearing pupils as well. The acceptance or rejec-
tion of hearing handicapped children in the regular pub-
lic school is one type of problem; the attitudes of both
teachers and normal hearing pupils can be regarded as an
influential factor related to this problem. Likewise the
mobility of hearing handicapped children from home to
school, about the school, and from school to their respec-
tive homes each day has placed the hearing handicapped in
greater contact with hearing individuals than when they
were limited to a residential school environment.

In our modern society we strive to have improved
educational programs for our physically handicapped indi-
viduals. Pursuant to that goal we hOpe that programs for
the training and education of the deaf will result in the
deaf becoming self supporting and contributing individuals
in our society. Present day technological developments in
industry have placed new challenges on our vocational
programs--especially for the handicapped. Automation has
seen the elimination of a number of job Opportunities for
these handicapped. As a result, vocational programs must

continually keep abreast of developments and prepare our

youth for new and improved tasks in our employment struc-
ture. The jobs for which many deaf individuals have been
trained are becoming extinct. New competitive fields for
the deaf in line with automation need to be planned for
in our educational and job training programs for the deaf.'
If the deaf are to contribute in a constructive manner to
the productive aspect of our economy, the attitudes of
prospective employers are important influences in job
placement and job training.

Surveys of recent tabular statements of American

Schools for the Deaf, as reported in the American Annals

 

of the Deaf, indicate a great increase in pre-school pro-

 

grams for the deaf. Recent federal and state government
grants have given great impetus to this pre-school move-
ment. Whereas in the 1950's we saw great growth in pre-
school programs for the handicapped, we now see in the 70's
more and more inclusion of these programs in the public
schools for hearing children. This increasing trend of
having more and more pre-school programs for the hearing
handicapped in day school programs makes for greater con-
tact of handicapped pre-schoolers with hearing pre-schoolers;
paralleling this is the increased "contact" with teachers
of the non-handicapped. In 1958, there were 2,892 children
in pre-school classes for the deaf; in 1968, there were
8,220 children in these classes. This is an increase of

280 per cent. Increased governmental support for these

programs may spur further growth of programs for these
children. With this growth we will find a proportionate
increase in participation of parents of pre-school children
in these same school programs.

The number of supportive personnel necessary for all
special programs during the past decade have increased
greatly. As one views the result of federally-sponsored
programs to increase the use of educational technology,
the number of supportive specialists has expanded beyond
those initially included in regular basic school staffs.
The expanded programs available to the handicapped involve
coordinating the services of many of these supportive
personnel. The benefits derived may depend on the atti-
tudes of these individuals to the handicapped, particularly
if those same individuals are also available to serve the
normal hearing children as well.

The new demands on teacher-training institutions to
provide staff for these special programs increases with
the expansion mentioned above. The attitudes of teachers
to the deaf child may be likened somewhat to the effect of
attitudes of teachers of the disadvantaged or the culturally
deprived as reported by Goldberg (1967). In discussing the
expectancy of educational capabilities of these children,
he called attention to the relationship of actual achieve-

ment to preset attitudes toward expectancy of these children.

The preceding discussion implies that through early
and adequate special programs and related services, the
deaf can develop their potential for the benefit of them-
selves and society.

It follows from the foregoing that in order to meet
the future needs of deaf children we need to know about the
attitudes of groups of people who may have direct or in-
direct contact with the deaf. What are the attitudes of
our society toward deaf persons? Not only will the re-
actions of our society directly influence the deaf in
their own adjustment to living in our society but the atti-
tudes of a society toward the deaf will influence the types
of programs available for their education and training.

Underlying the basic phiIOSOphy of education of the
deaf is the principle of training the deaf individual to
become a useful citizen in our society. Inasmuch as our
society is a hearing one, the deaf have the problem of
fitting into this hearing pattern. The attitudes of per—
sons making up his circle of influence is of great impor-
tance. Knowing or understanding these attitudes may help
further to define and understand the environmental condi-
tions precribing the circle about the hearing handicapped.

The aim of this study is to examine the relationships
of certain variables to deafness and to assess the atti-
tudes of designated groups toward deafness. The substantive

aim of this study is:

1. To determine predominant value orientations and
attitudes toward education, rehabilitation and
social acceptance of the deaf among the following
groups who have been selected as the principal
respondents in this study:

a. Teachers of the deaf . . . . . . . TDF
b. Regular school teachers. . . . . . RST
c. Mothers of deaf children . . . . . MDF
d. Mothers of non-deaf children . . . MND
e. Prospective employers

Businessmen and managers. . . . MAN

2. To assess the predictive validity of the following
hypothesized determinants of attitudes toward the
deaf:

a. Demographic

b. Socio-psychological
c. Contactual

d. Knowledge

3. To test the hypothesis that the Guttman simplex
(Guttman, 1959, 1960) will be maintained across
groups.

The instrument used to measure attitudes toward deaf

persons was the Attitude Behavior Scale-Deafness (ABS-DF)

 

as originally designed by Jordan (1968) and revised by
Poulos (1970), which measures six levels of a person's

interaction with the attitude object (deaf persons). The

scale will be discussed under the section dealing with

instrumentation in Chapter III.

CHAPTER II

(1" REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON ATTITUDES

—£isto%ically, gttitude scales as reported by Stern
(1963), have been used, as suggested by Watson in 1925,
in the surveying of public opinion in general, and later
in such opinion surveys as the Gallop poll. In opinion
surveys there is less emphasis placed on "reliable" mea-
surement of individuals. In contrast to opinion polls,
attitude scales attempt to reliably test the attitude of
each individual. Opinion surveys are usually done on an
interview basis, asking one question on each of a number
of tOpics. Attitude scales usually concentrate on one
topic and use a number of questions measuring the same
factor to obtain greater reliability and are usually paper-
pencil tests. In contrast to the opinion surveys which
have been used for political trends or commercial and con-
sumer preferences, attitude scales have been used for more

intensive research.

fitti tude Measurement (

 

Prior to 1928 attitude testing had been generally
confined to simple questionnaires. According to Cronbach

(1949), these reflected obvious weaknesses in the lack of

evidence that the separate questions measured the same
attitude, and the arbitrary nature of the units of measure-
ments. Thurstone (1928) developed a scale which consisted
of 20 or more statements representative of several degrees
of opinion. The/method represented attitudes toward an
object as being arranged on a continuous scale, ranging
from highly acceptable or favorable toward the object, to
the opposite extreme of highly unfavorable. Thurstone's
ZO-item scale had the subject indicate those statements to
which he agreed. The statements had pre-set scale values
ranging from 0, most unfavorable, through 5.5 for neutral
statements and to 11.0 for most favorable. The score for
the respondent is the median score of all the values of
statements he chose.

Murphy, Murphy and Newcomb (1937) stated in evaluating
the Thurstone Method that "no scale can really be called
a scale unless one can tell from a given attitude that an
individual will maintain every attitude falling to the right
or to the left of that point . . ." Measurements are not
as easy as black and white.

Thurstone's technique of scaling involved three steps:
involving the preparation of items; sorting of statements
by judges and scaling; and testing for relevance.

Likert's technique (1932) for constructing attitude
scales centered around the collection of possible statements

which had been presented on a trial test to many subjects.

10

The items were scored and each item correlated with the
total test. Those items that did not correlate with the
total score were discarded. Ambiguous items and those that
were not of the same type as the rest of the scale were
eliminated through this internal-consistency procedure.

In the final scale, each respondent indicated his reaction

to a statement; usually on a five point scale:

Rating for Rating for
Favorable Unfavorable
Statements Statements
Strongly Agree SA 5 1
Agree A 4 2
Undecided U 3 3
Disagree D 2 4
Strongly Disagree SD 1 5

A favorable attitude was indicated by a high score and
scores were interpreted on a relative basis which differed
from Thurstone's absolute system of units.
Edwards and Kenney (1946), in a comparison of these
two tests, indicated that the factors which make invalid
mflself reports" were present in both. Response sets in-
fluence the score in the Likert tests which tended to lower
the validity, whereas in the Thurstone, because the direc—
tions required one to check the several statements with
which he most agreed, there was no influencing effect due
to response set. The Thurstone test was not as diagnostic
as the Likert which required a response to every item thus
enabling an item analysis to obtain a picture of reaction

to specific questions.

11

The most frequently used attitude scales are the
Thurstone, Likert, and Guttman methods of scale construc-
tion. Guttman's method (1944, 1947) is based upon the idea
that items can be arranged in such an order that a person
who responds in a positive way to any particular item would
respond similarly to all other items having a lower rank.
Consequently, if items can be arranged in this manner they
are "scalable." In the development of a scale following
this theme, a number of items about the attitude object
are composed, and the array of items are administered to
a group. The responses are analyzed to determine whether
they are scalable. Shaw and Wright (1967) point out that
since a given set of items may be scalable for one popula-
tion but not for another, it is essential to check the
scalability before Guttman scales are used with a popula-
tion other than the one used for development.

McNemar (1946) was critical of attitude tests being
used without their validity having been first established.
This lack of validation in tests used was due to the in-
ability of the test originators to find adequate criteria
for comparison.

6~To check on verbal expressions of attitude as to
whether they are honest and real, one needs to check them
against outside criteria; one way is to check the results
against the results of a group with known attitudes.

Cronbach (1949) points out that attitude tests are more

12

likely to be valid when the respondents have no motive to
conceal their true attitude.

The question of intensity of attitude is a factor of
great importance in the interpretation of scores in the
range of favorable to unfavorable rating. Neutral scores
have been difficult to interpret, as a score between the
two extremes may be due to indifference, or the respondent
may be acquainted with the attitude object, or he may have
conflicting feelings about the point in question. These
questions dealing with intensity which were raised early
in the use of attitude scales, need to be considered if
scales are to be used extensively. It is difficult to
reason from a general attitude that an individual holds the
same opinion to all phases of an attitude object.

Shaw and Wright (1967), in speaking of the dimensions
of attitudes, list the following characteristics:

1. The concepts that underlie attitude are evalua-
tive in nature and specify some degree of
"preferability" which is dependent upon the goal
orientation of the conceiver.

2. Attitudes are construed as varying in quality
and intensity on a continuum-~positive through
neutral to negative.

3. Attitudes are learned. . . .

4. Attitudes have specific social referents. . . .

5. Attitudes possess varying degrees of interrelated-
ness to one another.

6. Attitudes are relatively stable.

13

Since 1950 a number of more elaborate procedures for
scale contruction and refinement were proposed by Guttman,
Lazarsfeld, Coombs, Green and others. Shaw and Wright
(1967) report that though the contributions of attitude
research have been great, much effort had been wasted be-
cause of a lack of suitable instruments of measurement.
Though some research needs were met, results were not
always directly comparable because of this lack of a com-

mon base of instrumentation.

Attitudes Toward the Exceptional

 

A considerable amount of research is available in
the literature dealing with attitude measurement and the
modification of attitudes. {3 great portion of the research
on attitudes include such areas as socio-economic status,
race, and religion. As one surveys the field of special
education and research on attitudes toward the physically
handicapped, a number of studies have been reported.
These included a study of attitudes of parents toward
their own orthopedically handicapped children as reported
by Coughlin (1941). In this study the attitudes of 51
parents were studied on the basis of case history material,
and interviews were grouped into four broad categories

namely:

14

1. Parents who had sufficient intellectual insight,
and were adequately adjusted personally to accept
their child's handicap, and were able to turn
their efforts toward finding means to compensate
for it;

2. Parents who accepted their handicapped child on
an emotional level, with little or no intellectual
insight;

3. Parents who understood the problems intellectually
but could not accept their child on an emotional
level;

4. Parents who could not accept their child emotion-
ally or intellectually.

A study of attitudes of other individuals toward

cripples was reported by Mussen and Barker (1944). In
this study a rating scale was used; the subjects were 117
college students who were asked to assess the behavior
characteristics of crippled individuals. The ratings in—
cluded 24 personality and character traits. The subjects
were asked to check descriptive categories varying from

both extremes through average at midpoint. For example:

 

 

Disp051t1on
U u FT w m
<1) '0 H H 25a) E (D
4J (D r-l HO O LHO" <1) ~.—|
H H :3 OQ.>1 4J~Hrd (DMIJ-H
m >40 m. m r4 H 0&4 mroc:8 m
(DJ-’0‘ Hg JJCDu—l >~HDOJ<D mom:
12:32: -—1 ~ (DID-HS 0.0.c.‘> >«m'U tn
MH mnm>w2 momw cgom P4WCES
+JJJ-—I>~. H (Dr-1:3 MES-4H (DO r—ICDOOrU
a wilu Ozzrhau4 H Q>m Tim ms: m H£L©r4
manm CO-Hm (DOJ'UO) 2: mm SQJUJI—i
-HC)D¢U m OEEMtH >;:O.C G)m OJ: m O<DQ)H
Honm Gammo «p50 Egan DUUmO

15

The results indicated that the publicly expressed
verbalized attitudes of these university students tended
to be favorable toward cripples.

Barker, et_al. (1953) reviewed a great number of
studies of the attitudes toward physically handicapped as
well as attitudes of the handicapped toward themselves.

In the field of education of the mentally retarded,
dealing with the question of special classes for the men—
tally retarded as against placement in the regular classes
and the resultant acceptance or non-acceptance from the
other children in the school or classroom, a study by
Johnson (1950) produced interesting results. His study
was concerned with the social position of the mentally
retarded child in the regular grades. Children from 25
regular classrooms, each having one or more mentally handi-
capped children, were selected. A sociometric rating tech-
nique was used to determine "stars," "isolates," and
"rejected" pupils. His study demonstrated that retarded
pupils can be psychologically as segregated from their age
peers in regular classes as in special classes.

Review of the literature indicates that studies
dealing with attitudes towards the handicapped have been
primarily in areas of the handicapped other than the deaf.
In those cases where a number of handicaps are considered,
the deaf and hearing impaired are included as one of the

9rOUps as is illustrated by studies by Shears and Jensema

16

(1969), Murphy, e£_al. (1960), Jones, gt_al. (1966), and
Siller and Chipman (1967).
2k Shears and Jenseman in their study attempted to com-
pare the acceptability of different anomalies or disabled
persons in certain social situations. Ninety-four subjects
made up of undergraduate students, graduate students, and
psychiatric technicians ranked 10 anomalies with respect
to desirability in a friend or as a self affliction. In
addition they filled out a social distance questionnaire
based on the work of Bogardus (1925). The list of anomalies
included persons who were: (a) blind, (b) deaf, (c)
mentally retarded, (d) physically handicapped (wheelchair),
(e) cerebral palsy (spastic), (f) homosexual, (g) mentally
ill, (h) amputee (leg or arm), (i) severe stutter, (j) per-
son with a harelip. In every case the respondent was ex-
pected to use as his reference point his stereotype of the
condition. The questionnaire portion dealing with social
distance involved the following levels:

Would marry

Would have as a friend

Would work with

Would live in same neighborhood

Would speak to

Would live in same country
Results indicated that as the level of intimacy was in-
creased, the percentage of subjects who would accept per-
sons with this handicap gradually decreased until the level
of "willingness to marry" was reached at which level there

was an extreme drop. Three distinct levels of acceptability

were abstracted from the data:

17
Most acceptable - amputee, wheel chair patient, and
blind person

Next acceptable - persons who are deaf, stutter
severely, and have a harelip

Least acceptable- the mentally ill, the mentally re-
tarded, and the homosexual

The cerebral palsied fell somewhere between the middle
and last group.

It was interesting to note that in the highest accept-
able set the physical handicap was clearly visible, and in
the least acceptable set, the stigma associated with the
common stereotype seemed to be the predominant variable.
This latter group involved two mental disabilities while
the homosexual is not visibly disabled and is identified
by socially prescribed behavior. The effect of stigma can
be thought of as being similarly negative for this stereo-
type group. The intermediate group had one factor in
common--that of communication.

The results suggested six dimensions which probably
combine and interact in the formation of stereotypes of
anomalous persons: visibility of the disability, communica-
tion, social stigma associated with the disability, revers-
ibility prognosis, degree of disability, and difficulty
disability imposes on daily living. The need for further
Itasearch was pointed out if the indices of these factors
in understanding stereotypes by individuals and demographic

groups are to be ascertained.

18

The study by Force (1956) was designed to compare
physically handicapped and normal children in integrated
classes at the elementary school level, in an effort to
determine the effect of physical disability upon social
position among peers. The types of defects included ortho-
pedic, vision defect, and hearing defects. Findings indi-
cated that physically handicapped children are not as well
accepted as normal children in integrated classes. Degree
of disability as perceived by a normal subject was an
important factor. Few physically handicapped children have
enough positive assets to offset completely the negative
effect of being labelled as handicapped by normal peers:
(The major objectives of a study by Badt (1957) were
to ascertain attitudes regarding the administration of
special education services, and to determine attitudes to-
ward exceptional children as a group and toward several
categories of exceptional children. Questionnaires using
objective type items were used. The respondents were 210
University of Illinois students; 144 were in education and
66 were in curricula other than education. The exceptional
children included: (a) speech handicapped, (b) visually
handicapped, (c) hearing handicapped, (d) crippled, (e)
mentally handicapped, (f) mentally gifted, and (g) emotion-
ally maladjusted.

The findings indicated that the need for providing
Special educational services was appreciated by these stu—

dents, but there was some unwillingness to participate

19

directly in providing the services. The education students
were just as unwilling to teach special classes as the

n; education" students.3

‘KQU;% Cowen, Rockway, Bobgrove, and Stevenson (1967) re-
ported on a network of three studies each contributing to
the develOpment of an attitudes to deafness scale. In the
first study the 30 items originally used in an attitudes
to blindness scale were recast and adapted to a scale for
deafness by substituting the terms "deafness" for "blind—
ness" and a "deaf person" for a "blind person." In addi-
tion 20 items were written, each reflecting an attitude
toward deafness or deaf persons. These were based on
statements the investigators found in the literature. It
was stated that these included propositions which had no
empirical base and which reflected mostly the prejudgments
and stereotypes of a particular observer. The items in-
cluded agreement with the given proposition indicating
either a positive or negative attitude to deafness. The
items were then given to a group of judges (two advanced
clinical psychology students, two Ph. D. clinical psycholo-
gists, and one psychiatrist) who were asked to indicate
whether agreement with each reflected a positive or negative
attitude to deafness or did not relate to the question of
attitudes to deafness. There was 100% agreement on 18 out

of 20 and 80% on the remainder.\?
/'}

/

20

The total of 50 items were then given to 100 psy-
chology students. They were presented in a 4-point Likert
type framework of strongly or mildly agree or strongly or
mildly disagree. No neutral point was included. Results
were item analyzed according to Flanagan's suggested
method. Twenty-five items were then selected to make up
the final test form. These items were selected primarily
on the basis of discriminating power, with item test cor-
relations ranging from .43 to .83. In the final array the
25 items included 21 items in which "agreement with" indi-
cated a negative attitude to deafness and 4 in which
"agreement with" indicated a positive attitude to deafness.

This 25 item scale was then given to a second sample
of 160 psychology students for the purpose of cross valida-
tion. Results indicated a reasonable stability to the
discriminating power of the 25 item test?) The items of this
scale are presented in Table l.

Cowen's (1967) second study dealt with determining
relationship between anti-deafness scale scores and a
series of other attitude and personality measures. In this
portion of the research the investigators used abbreviated
versons of authoritarianism, anti-minority, and anti-negro

scales from The Authoritarian Personality studies of the

 

California group (Adorno, Frenkel-Brernswik, Levinson, and
Sanford, 1950). Cowen et a1. (1967) had found these measures
in their study of attitudes to blindness, to relate signifi-

cantly to an anti-blindness measure. They theorized that

21

TABLE l.--Fina1 items of the Cowen Attitude to Deafness Scale with direction of

keying and two independent sets of item-test correlations.

 

 

r1b r2b

The deaf generally have a less mature personality than the .64 .46
hearing. (N)a

In general, deaf people are more neurotic than those who hear. (N) .74 .36

It is impossible to really get "close" to a deaf person. (N) .57 .59

Deaf people somehow seem sadder and more wrapped up in themselves .59 .80
than hearing people. (P)

The deaf do not seem to be bothered by ordinary life events any .51 .33
more than hearing people. (P)

Because of his need to be pitied, it is particularly important that .49 .31
the deaf person have someone very tolerant to whom he can talk. (N)

Deaf people also seem to have more than the usual number of other .46 .59
physical complaints. (N)

Deaf people show personality characteristics which frequently make .64 .66
lthem seem odd. (N)

A person who is deaf is as apt to be born a leader as anyone else. (P) .46 .17

Most deaf people feel that they are worthless. (N) .59 .59

Most deaf people are dissatisfied with themselves. (N) .53 .45

The deaf have as many interests as the hearing have. (P) .53 .44

The deaf adult is not quite as mature or "grownvup" as the .56 .55
hearing adult. (N)

It's difficult to understand the deaf because they keep so much .73 .62
to themselves. (N)

It must be bitterly degrading for a deaf person to depend so much' .62 .39
on others. (N)

On the whole, deaf children seem to be less intelligent than .49 .51
hearing children. (N)

I feel that deafness is as hard to bear as complete paralysis. (N) .57 .32

A deaf person can't afford to talk back to people. (N) .56 .07

You should not expect too much from a deaf person. (N) .48 .62

A deaf person is constantly worried about what might happen to .60 .60
him. (N) -

A deaf person is not afraid to express his feelings. (P) .51 .15

Deaf people are more easily upset than peOple who can hear. (N) .46 .12

The deaf are prone to have many more fears about the world than the .72 .60
hearing. (N)

The deaf are usually on their guard with people. (N) .83 .58

Deaf people seem to be overly polite and to lack spontaneity. (N) .48 .79

 

aN indicates that agreement with the item reflects a negative attitude;
P indicates that agreement with the item reflects a positive attitude.

b

r1 is based on 100 male and female introductory psychology students from

evening extension school classes; r2 is based on 160 male introductory psychology

students from the regular day-session classes.

22

the disabled in a society have an underprivileged status
similar to that of racial and religious minorities. Thus,
as such, a somewhat common set of negative attitudes on

the part of the non-handicapped majority could be antici-
pated. This view was reported to have been spelled out

in detail by Chevigny and Braverman (1950). Cowen §t_al.
used the 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale

as a control measure in order to assess the possible effects
of common social desirability response tendencies across
tests.

... If
Cowen et al. also included another section in order

to study the factor dealing with the assumption that a
generalized predisposition to hostility might also relate
to negative attitudes to deafness. They drew items from
the Buss Durkee Hostility Scale (1957) and added these to
the test battery. Thirty—one items were added; these in-
cluded ten from the Irritability subscale, the intact 13—
item Verbal-Hostility subscale, and eight items taken from
the Suspicion, Assault, Resentment, and Negativism subscales.
For scoring purposes this yielded an Irritability, Verbal
Hostility, and Total Hostility Score. 1

Th Lotus of Evaluation Scale (Cowen, 1967) was added
tzo complete the Cowen Battery. It was thought that the
individual who "externalizes responsibility" might be more

likely to have negative attitudes to deafness than the per-

. . . . \
Son who accepts respons1b111ty when things go wrong.\

23

Cowen gt_al. found as a result of the preliminary
steps in the development of an attitudes for deafness scale
that the first study demonstrated reasonable face validity
and internal consistency. In the second study, inter-
relationships were demonstrated between anti-deafness and
authoritarian, anti-negro, and anti-minority attitudes. The
final question of whether responses to this attitudes to
deafness scale "were predictive of some outside behavior
apart from responses to other attitude scales" were postu-
lated to need further study.

In the external criterion portion of the research
they set up a task situation somewhat similar to the attempt
made by Gowman in his attitudes to blindness study. In
order to Operationalize the external criterion a "forming
impressions of personality" paradigm was used. The procedure
included using a "hearing" confederate, a "hearing impaired"
confederate who wore a hearing aid, and the real subject.
The latter during the course of the group discussion period,
set up for the purpose of finding out as much as possible
about the other two, had the task of rating the personal
characteristics of the two "stooges." These had been pre-
viously briefed and prepared to contribute to the triad as
either a hearing or hearing impaired individual and to
counter balance each other in responses and in questions.

A total of 48 male subjects participated in the behavioral

prediction study. Results demonstrated that subjects with

24

high anti—deafness scores, in comparison to their low anti-
deafness peers, gave more negative ratings to a confederate
wearing a hearing aid than they did to a non-disabled but
behaviorally comparable confederate.

Other questions still remain as to what results would
be obtained if attempts were made to investigate the dis-
criminating power of the scale in other settings, particu-
larly where attitudes to deafness might be expected to be
different among different groups or as a result of experi-
mental manipulation.

CV A; Mjiphy, Dickstein and Dripps (1960) studied the atti-
tudes of several groups of youth specialists toward hearing
handicapped children and compared these attitudes with
those held toward other types of exceptional children.

They used a scale using eight categories to include: the
hearing handicapped, the visually handicapped, the mentally
retarded or slow learners, the emotionally disturbed, the
physically handicapped, the gifted, the speech disordered,
and the delinquent. The question items were:

1. Which type of exceptional child would you most
prefer to teach?

2. Which type of exceptional child would you least
prefer to teach?

3. Which type of exceptional child do you know most
about?

4. Which type of exceptional child do you know least
about?

25

Each respondent was asked to rank order his selection of
each category as he answered each question. The rating
scale used was based on a suggested procedure by Kvaraceus
(1956).

Theirfindings indicated that the deaf ranked quite
low in preference to teach by respondents included in the
study with the exception of one group of speech therapists.
The respondents were college freshmen studying to become
teachers, elementary classroom teachers, elementary school
principals, special school personnel, and speech therapist€>

In response to items 3 and 4 above dealing with
knowledge-ability, the hearing impaired again was the group
about which all except speech therapists felt least know-
ledgeable.

The with—in group rank difference correlation between
attitude categories by all groups responding revealed a
trend indicating that, to a small degree, the more an indi-
vidual feels he knows about a handicap the more inclined he
is to desire to work with that type of child.

Haring (1958) reported on a study designed to effect
changes in attitudes of regular classroom teachers and
administrators toward acceptance of exceptional children.
Increased knowledge did not of itself modify attitudes
of individuals toward exceptional children. Significant
modifications of attitudes in a positive direction occurred

only in the group of subjects belonging to the two schools

26

in whcih there were a great number of exceptional children
in the classroom.

In another study by R. L. Jones (1962), an attempt
was made to verify the study by Badt on attitudes of stu-
dents toward exceptional children. The respondents (330
education students from Miami University) were asked to
indicate their preferences for teaching 12 types of excep-
tional children. The group which the respondents would
most prefer to teach was ranked 1 and the least preferred,
12. It was interesting to note that the results were quite
similar in both studies for the "Most Like to Teach" cate-
gories, but somewhat less so for the "Least Like to Teach"
categories. The results were also compared to those ob—
tained from a group of 51 teachers of the mentally retarded.
The latter teachers expressed a high preference for teaching
the educable mentally retarded and a somewhat low preference
for the emotionally disturbed. The rankings for preference
of teaching the deaf were consistently below average for
all groups.

Jones et_al. (1966) reported on a study dealing with
the social distance of the exceptional child. One hundred
eighty-six high school students completed a paired compari-
sons questionnaire involving 12 exceptionalities and 7 inter-
personal dimensions. The results revealed that acceptance
of certain exceptionalities was sometimes related to inter—

personal situations. The severely mentally retarded were

27

anchored at the unfavorable end of the acceptance continuum,
and the gifted at the favorable end. The exceptionalities
of a mild nature (hard of hearing, partially sighted) were
most often near the favorable end. The more severe excep-
tionalities tended to fall toward the unfavorable end of
-*the continuum.
-k “£%>
*xr Elser (1959) in his study attempted to determine to
what extent hearing handicapped children were accepted,

isolated, or rejected by their normally hearing classmates.

In the attempt to analyze the meaning of "acceptance" in

 

a classroom situation, the following areas were identified:
(a) the friendship patterns of children, their intimate
associates; (b) the reputation or social status a child
enjoys among his peers, in which favorable and unfavorable
traits are attributed to them; and (c) the area of self
perception, the individuals awareness of his own status in
the group of which he is a member.

The results showed the hearing handicapped were not
accepted as "average" by their classmates. As to friend-
ship, the hearing handicapped were not as well accepted as
the average of their groups. The results as to reputation
indicated that as a group they did not enjoy as good a
reputation as the average of the class.

Horowitz and Rees (1962) worked with 266 hearing
people divided into three groups. Age levels ranged from

children in the first grade to college students and PTA

28

members. The findings show some areas of clear knowledge
and other areas of great confusion. The research subjects
perceived as deaf all people who had varying degrees of
hearing loss. There was a general impression that hearing
aids guaranteed normal hearing. Children showed better
understanding than college students and adults of how deaf-
ness is related to speech difficulty. Children pointed
out that not only are deaf children unable to hear others
but they cannot hear themselves. It was interesting to
note that younger children also were more consistent in
realizing that a hearing aid did not guarantee normal

hearing.

Guttman—Jordan Attitude Research

 

Guttman's (1950) contribution to attitude scale con-
struction furnished a basis upon which a number of investi-
gators have pursued recent research studies in special
areas of the handicapped and other areas. Jordan (1967)
constructed a scale with the mentally retarded as attitude
objects using an adaptation of Guttman's proposals. Guttman
had prOposed that attitudes exist on various levels, from
stereotypes to concrete behavioral. Jordan's finding in
his preliminary administration of his scale yielded results
that were consistent with Guttman's theory. In his review
of literature he concluded that numerous variables seem to
be related to mental retardation such as sex, education,

Social class, religion, occupation, amount of knowledge

29

about retardation, general value orientation, and contact.
In the studies reviewed herein and by Jordan, few of them
attempted to control systematically more than one or two
of these variables or to relate verbal attitudes to actual
behavior, according to Jordan (1969).

Guttman's early work on attitude theory was primarily
concerned with the measurement of attitudes during World
War II. He defined attitude as "a delimited totality of
behavior with respect to something" (p. 51). Consonant
with this definition, both verbal responses and overt be-
haviors are construed as attitudes which can be measured
on at least four levels (Table 3).

Jordan's attitude behavior scale, with the mentally
retarded as attitude object, followed Guttman's facet
theory. Briefly, Guttman distinguished three "facets“ as
being involved in a particular attitude reSponse: (a) the
subject's behavior (belief or overt action), (b) the
referent (the subject's group or the subject himself), and
(c) the referent's intergroup behavior (comparative or
interactive). He labelled the first of the two options of
each facet as the "weaker" element (Table 2). According
to Guttman each attitude item in the scale was as strong
as the number of strong elements which appeared. If all
attitude items were thought of in terms of three facets,
then each individual item could have 0 to 3 strong facets

or a total of 4 combinations. He described these types as

30

levels. He hypothesized that responses at any given level
were most closely related to the most similar or adjacent
levels--the levels having the greater number of common
facets.

An example given by Maierle (1969, p. 19) in explana-
tion of the level designation of an attitude item is illus-
trated below:

"All members of the ---— race are mentally defective"
would be a level I response or stereotype, whether
accepted or rejected by the subject who responds.

The behavior of the subject is a belief about how

the attitude compares with other persons such as the
subject's gropp. The statement "I have invited
members ofithe ---- race to a dinner or party at

my house" would be level IV response or personal
interaction. The response indicates an interaction
of the subject himself, a specific overt action.

 

 

 

 

Maierle listed the levels as:

Level I Stereotype

Level II Norm

Level III Hypothetical Interaction
Level IV Personal Interaction

According to Guttman (1950) if attitude items are correctly
written to correspond to each hypothesized level, then
level-by-level correlations would reveal a simplexl
ordering.

Jordan's scale used an expanded approach in that he
proposed a five—facet six-level adaptation of the system in
line with Guttman's theory. He used 20 items for each of
the six levels for a total of 120 items. A measure of

intensity was also included for each item thus expanding

 

lSee glossary for definition.

31

the scale to 240 items. He added 60 items of demographic,
contact and related data, value orientation, and knowledge
about mental retardation for a total of 300 items.

His scale was administered to three groups in the test

development study:

1. Graduate students enrolled in a course on medical
information for rehabilitation counselors and
special education teachers. N=88

2. Regular education students. N=426

3. Elementary school teachers in British Honduras

(Belize). N=523

Attitude Intensity

 

On the question of intensity mentioned earlier,
Guttman and Foa (1951) emphasized the importance of inten-
sity measures in attitude scales. Suchman (1950) states
that intensity of attitudes may be ascertained by asking a
question about intensity immediately following a content
question. For example:

"How strongly do you feel about this?"

"Very strongly"

 

"Fairly strongly"

 

"Not so strongly"

 

Sample excerpts as taken from the Jordan Scale are

indicated on the following pages.

32

DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATION

 

Following a general set of directions and an example to
induce "test taking behavior" the 300 items were presented
to the subjects in a booklet which contained the six sub-
scales in numerical order; followed by the demographlc,
contact and related data, value orientation data, and know-
ledge about mental retardation data.

 

The directions for each of the six subscales (with an
example in each area) were:

Directions: Section I

 

In the statements that follow you are to mark the
number that indicates how other people compare mentally
retardedppersons to those who are not mentally retarded,
and then to state how sure you felt about your answer.
Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions,
and not sure of their answers to other questions. It is
important to answer all questions, even though you may
have to guess at the answers to some of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Other people generally believe the
following things about the mentally
retarded as compared to those who are
not retarded.

 

1. Energy and vitality 2. How sure are you of this
answer?
1. less energetic 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more energetic 3. sure
Directions: Section II

 

This section contains statements of ways in which
other people sometimes act towards people. You are asked
to indicate for each of these statements what other peOple
generally believe about interacting with the mentally re-
tarded in such ways. You should then indicate how sure you
feel about your answer.

 

 

 

Other peOple generally believe that
mentally retarded persons ought:

 

33

41. To play on the school 42. How sure are you of this
playground with other answer?
children who are not
mentally retarded.

1. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually approves 3. sure

Directions: Section III

 

This section contains statements of the "right" or
"moral" way of acting toward people. You are asked to indi-
cate whether ypupyourself agpee or disagree with each
statement according to how you personally believe you
ought to behave toward mentally retarded persons. You
should then indicate how sure you feel about your answer.

In respect to people who are mentally
retarded, do you believe that it is
usually right or usually wrong:

 

81. To take a mentally re- 82. How sure are you of this
tarded child on camping answer?
trips with normal
children
1. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. ~usually right 3. sure
Directions: Section IV

 

This section contains statements of ways in which
peOple sometimes act toward other people. You are asked to
indicate for each of these statements whether you personally
would act toward mentally retarded people according to the
statement. You should then indicate how sure you feel
about this answer.

In respect to a mentally retarded
person would_you,

 

121. Share a seat on a train 122. How sure are you of

for a long trip. this answer?

1. no 1. not sure

2. don't know 2. fairly sure
3 yes 3. sure

34

Directions: Section V

 

This section contains statements of actual feelings
that people may hold toward the mentally retarded. You
are asked to indicate how you feel toward people who are
mentally retarded compared to people who are not mentally
retarded. You should then indicate how sure ysu feel of
your answer.

 

How do you actually feel toward
persons who are mentally retarded
compared to others who are not
mentally retarded:

 

l. Disliking 2. How sure are you of this
answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

Directions: Section VI

 

This section contains statements of different kinds
of actual experiences you have had with mentally retarded
persons. If the statement applies to you, mark yg_, If
not you should mark pg.

41. Shared a seat on a bus, 42. If yes, has this experi-
train or plane? ence been mostly pleasant
or unpleasant?

1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between

4. pleasant

35

Summary

It appears from the review of Guttman's scale and
adaptations of his approach by Maierle and Jordan that an
instrument of this scope may render interesting results
if adapted for use with the deaf as attitude object.

Shaw and Wright (1967) have indicated that studies
dealing with attitude research have made great contribu-
tions; yet, it is unfortunate in their estimation that
much effort had been wasted because of the lack of suitable
instruments of measurement. They point out that two cir-
cumstances reduce the use of a great number of research by
investigators: (a) most research that has been done is
not directly comparable, (b) the quality of the measuring
instrument is poorer than if existing scales had been im-
proved upon and used instead of constructing new ones.
They further pointed out the great consumption of time
lost in the development of a scale and the valuable time
that could have been used in the research itself.

With these observations in mind it was decided to
study closely the scale developed by Maierle (1969) and
the scale develOped by Jordan (1968; 1970). Related
studies by Hamersma (1969), who used an attitude-behavior
scale of Negroes and Whites, Harrelson (1970) and Morin
(1969) who used a similar design in studies on mental re-
tardation, served to furnish related information toward
the refinement of a scale for use in the study of attitude-

behaviors towards the deaf.

36

In addition a recently completed study by Proctor
(1967) on the relationships between knowledge of excep-
tional children and attitudes toward their classroom inte-
gration furnished items for inclusion in the section dealing
with a respondent's knowledge about deafness.

In summary, the Guttman facet theory approach to the
study of attitudes was selected and the basic scale as
used in this study was an adaptation of the Jordan attitude

scale, ABS-MR (1969), as will be discussed in detail in

Chapter III.

CHAPTER III

INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES

The present study employed a revised version of the
ABS-MR instrument as developed by Jordan and revised by
Poulos for Special application as one suitable for use
with deaf persons as attitude object. Guttman facet theory
rationale furnished the basis for the construction of items
by a systematic a priori design instead of by a method of
intuition or by the use of judges.

Guttman's facet theory (Guttman, 1959, 1961) speci-
fies that the attitude universe represented by the item
content can be sub-structured into components which are
systematically related according to the number of identi-
Cal conceptual elements they hold in common. The sub-
structuring of an attitude universe into components or
elements facilitates a sampling of items within each of
the derived components, and also enables the prediction of
relationships between various components of the attitude

universe.

Facet Theory and the ABS-MR Scale

 

What is sought b7 facet design and analysis is to be
able to construct item content and subject-object

37

38

relationships in an attitude scale by a semantic, logical,
a priori technique, and to be able to predict the "order
structure" which would result from the empirical data.
What would happen then would be the reverse of what factor
analysis actually accomplishes. Factor analysis tries to
make sense out of what already has been done by a mathe-
matical process of forming correlational clusters and then
naming them, i.e., calling them factors. As opposed to
this approach, facet design, in essence, names the facets

before one begins.

Guttman's Four Level Theory

Following an analysis of research on racial attitudes
by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957), Guttman proposed that
in respect to intergroup attitudes and behavior there are
three necessary facets which may be combined according to
definite procedures to determine the semantic component
structure of four important sub-universes or levels of the
attitude universe. Table 2 presents these facets.

TABLE 2.—-Basic facets used to determine component structure
of an attitude universe.

 

 

Facets
(A) (B) (C)
Subject's Behavior Referent Referent's Inter-
group Behavior
al belief bl subject's group cl comparative
a2 overt action b2 subject himself c2 interactive

 

39

One element from each and every facet must be repre-
sented in any given statement, and these statements can be
grouped into profiles of the attitude universe by multi—
plication of the facets A x B x C, yielding a 2 x 2 x 2
combination of elements or eight semantic profiles in all,
i.e., (1) alblcl’ lblC2' . . . (8) a2b2c2. It can be

seen that permutations l and 2 have two elements in common

(2) a

(a bl) and one different (c and c2), whereas profiles 1

l l
and 8 have no elements in common.

Using the Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) research
as a model, Guttman (1959) was able to facetize the semantic
structure of their attitude items into the four attitudinal
sub-universes or levels as shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.--Guttman facet profiles and descriptive labels of
attitude levels.

 

 

Level Profile Descriptive Label
1 alblcl Stereotype
2 alblc2 Norm
3 albzc2 Hypothetical Interaction
4 a2b2c2 Personal Interaction

 

Guttman reasoned that if an attitude item can be
distinguished semantically by the three facets ABC out-
lined in Table 2, then an individual item could have one,

two, or three subscript "2" elements for a total of four

40

attitude levels. Logically, if the elements are correctly
ordered within facets, and if the facets are correctly
ordered with respect to each other, a semantic analysis

of attitude items will reveal n + 1 types or levels of atti-
tude items. While a total of eight permutations are pos-
sible on the four levels (one each on levels 1 and 4 and
three each on levels 2 and 3) only the four permutations
shown in Table 3 were studied by Bastide and van den Berghe
(1957).

The model in Table 3 depicts the attitudinal levels
and the descriptive labels for each level defined by
Guttman (1959). An attitude item in level 1 would deal
with the belief of the subject (al) that his group (b1)
compared itself (cl) favorably or unfavorably with the
attitude object in question, in this case members of a
different racial group. Similarly, an item in level 4
would deal with the subject's own (b2) reported behavior
(a2) in interacting (c2) with the attitude object.

A common meaning for the orderings was suggested by
Guttman, showing in each case a progression from a wgak_to
a strong form of behavior of the subject toward the atti—
tude object. That is, the more subscript "2" elements a
set contains, the greater the strength of the attitude.

Facet analysis of the semantic structure provides a
social-psychological-theoretical basis for predicting the
structure of the empirical intercorrelation matrix of the

above four levels.

41

One cannot propose to predict the exact size of
each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of
the semantics of universe ABC, but we do propose to
predict a pattern or structure for the relative
sizes of the statistical coefficients from purely
semantic considerations (Guttman, 1959, p. 324).

This prediction was stated by Guttman as the Conti-
guity Hypothesis which states that subuniverses closer to
each other in the semantic scale of their definitions will
also be closer statistically. In other words, the inter—
correlations should reveal a simplex ordering so that the
maximum predictability of each level is attainable from its
immediate neighbor or neighbors alone. This predicted
relationship has been obtained for the ABS—MR scale (Jordan,

1969; Harrelson, 1970; Morin, 1970; Vurdelja, 1970; as well

as by Foa, 1958, 1963; and Guttman, 1961).

Jordan's Expanded Six Level Adaptation

 

As was noted earlier, Guttman's (1959) facet design
and analysis of attitude items allows for three facets and
consequently four levels of attitudes. Jordan (1968),
theorizing that there might be other pertinent facets,
but accepting those identified by Guttman as appropriate,
expended facet analysis for attitude items dealing with
specified groups to include five facets and hence six
levels (Table 4).

The multiplication of facets ABCDE yields a possible
32 combinations of elements. Since not all combinations
are logical because of semantic considerations, the selec-

tion of a "best" set of components from the 32 possible was

42

TABLE 4.—-Jordan's facets used to determine jointl struction
of an attitude universe.

 

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Referent Referent Actor Actor's Domain of
Behavior Intergroup Actor's
Behavior Behavior

 

al others bl belief cl others dl comparison el symbolic

a self b action c self d interaction e Opera-
2 2 2 2 2 .
tional

 

lJoint struction is operationally defined as the
ordered sets of the five facets from low to high (subscript
1's are low) across all five facets simultaneously. Jordan
previously used the term conjoint but in order to avoid
confusion with conjoint measurement has adapted the term
"joint." (Zinnes, 1969, p. 461).
still partly a matter of judgment at the time of the con-
struction of the ABS-MR scale. Maierle (1969) extended
research in this area and found that 12 of the possible 32
permutations were semantically consistent. In constructing
the ABS-MR and the ABS-DF, however, six of these element
combinations or permutations seemed particularly fruitful
and these six combinations (Table 5) represent the six
levels of attitude strength used in the present study.

Table 5 shows levels of attitude strength, the element
composition of the profiles, and a descriptive term for
each profile or level used in the ABS—DP. It can be noted
that each successive level changes on only one facet so

that the profiles have a semantic simplex ordering from

least complex, with complete absence of subscript "2"

43

TABLE 5.--Joint level, profile composition, and labels for
six types of attitude struction.

 

 

 

Subscale Struction Descriptive Joint2 Term
Type-Level Profile1

1 alblcldlel Societal stereotype

2 alblcldzel Societal norm

3 aZblCleel Personal moral evaluation

4 azblczdzel Personal hypothetical action

5 azbzczdze1 Personal feeling

6 azbzczdze2 Personal action

1

Based on facets of Table 4.

2Joint struction is operationally defined as the
ordered sets of the five facets from low to high (subscript
1's are low) across all five facets simultaneously. Not
to be confused with conjoint measurement.
elements, to most complex where all elements are subscript
"2" elements.

Table 6 indicated the relationship between the Guttman
and Jordan facet systems.

Table 7 incorporates the data presented in Table 4
and 5 and shows how the semantic structure of the six atti-
tudinal levels of the ABS-DF is specified by the element
composition or facet profile of each level.

All items on the first level of the ABS-DF (exclu-
sive of those items measuring attitude intensity) corre-

spond to the definitional statement for level 1 in Table 7;

all item stems on the second level of the ABS-DF‘correspond

44

to the definitional statement for level 2 in Table 7, and

so on down through level 6.

TABLE 6.--Comparison of Guttman and Jordan facet designations.

 

Facets in Jordan Adaptation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A B C D E
Jordan
Referent Referent Actor Actor's Domain of
Behavior Intergroup Actor's
Behavior Behavior
al others b1 belief cl others d1 comparison e1 symbolic
a2 self b overt c2 self d2 interaction e2 Opera-
action tional
Guttman
--- Subject's Referent Referent's --—
Behavior Intergroup
Behavior
——- bl belief cl sub- dl compara- ---
ject's tive
group
--- b overt c subject d inter— ---
action himself active

 

The discussion above centered on what has been defined

by Guttman and Jordan (1968) as "joint struction," which

refers to the differences between scale levels of the ABS-DF

on facets A through E.

The counterpart to joint struction,

115

.eamom mzumma man aH com: coauuuseuom..

.wucwsmHo vacuum Ho wanes: I .02

m

.muonEoE Ho>wH msoHum> Ho mQHnmcoHuMHou mumoHch monogamouom :H moss: ouucu09H¢N

.mucmEmumum ucoumHmcoo use ucmpcspou no nude own mononucouum :H mouozH

 

:oHuom Hocomuomcc

«cmHHmcoHumummo uomumuqm H Auou Hy

~o~ «cu ~o
m m a a a a o

 

 

 

 

 

I- I- HE
mcHHoou Hmcomummcc acxHHmuHHonExm uomumucH H Auom Hy v m H H n H m
uoH>onon msoum Hmsuo< HHHmcoHumuomm uomumucm muonum Auom muonumv . a H o n o
m
I- I- HE
:oHuom Hmowuoguomhz Hmcomuwmac c¢hHHmoHHonEhm uomumucw H o>oHHwn H m H H n H v
AmmcHHomu msouo Hmsuomv auHucmvH msouc HHHMUHHonExm uum muocum Auom awesome w H o a o
choHuwuommxm msoumv m3mH omEHmHooum >HHmoHHonExm accumucm M m>oHHmm muosum m H H n o
I N
Amsumum Hmcomuom I I I I I
pwcmHmmmanHoCOmumav umoocooumem >HHmoHHonE>m mummEoo H o>mHHon H m o H n H
AmosHm> I I I I HwNmHOHm~o
om>Hoouomv coHuuan>0 Hence HmCOmuwmc¢ ccmHHmoHHonEam uomumucH mumnuo o>oHHmn H a H o a H n
msumum Hmcomuom vmcuwmmMImsouu >HHmoHHonexw mummsow M o>mHHmm muonum a u H a o
I Hu~maoamao
Enos HmumHUOmee .cxHHmoHHonEhm uumumucH mumnum m>oHHmm mumzum H a H o n o
msumum msoum posowmmulaHHMGOmuom xHHmoHHonsxm mummeom muozum m>oHHom M n o o a H N
.msumum msoum pmcmHmmm I I HuHmHonHo
mucuvv oeauoououu Hmuwwuomaa camHHmowHonexm mummsoo muonuo w>oHHum muocum o a o o n o H

Nessa 0>HumHuomoo

HmuauEmumum Hmcoauasaumn

.wCOHuousfiuom m>Hmzu “0H mucoswumum

m

.02 QHfiNOHm HUOMH

Ho>oH

HMGOHUHCfiNOU 0:0 .anflmOHQ “WOMH -MHO>0H nflCOHUflNflHMQHQ> Ufiflflfiuum HO EUHM%M H0>0Hl*dfl 000flH|0>flhlloh NJQ(H

46

which specifies attitude level, is "lateral1 struction,"
which specifies and differentiates the content of the items
of the ABS-DF through five additional facets F through J.
Table 8 shows the five additional facets specifying item
content, or lateral struction, and the relationship be-
tween joint and lateral struction on the ABS-DF in the form
of a mapping sentence. It can be seen that every response
of every subject corresponds to a combination of elements
in facets K and L for every attitude item, and in turn
corresponds to a combination of elements for each and every
facet A through J--with the exception of those items on
level 5. It should be noted that at the time of the con-
struction of the ABS-DF the ordering system had not been as
fully developed for joint struction as it had for lateral
struction, and as a result, it was not possible to struc—
ture items on level 5 for Personal Feelings beyond the joint
facets A through E. Consequently, items on this level
simply ask for general feelings about the attitude object
without relating these feelings to the specific situations
represented by the lateral facets F through J.

From the complete facet design shown in Table 8,
twenty content items, each with a corresponding measure of
intensity were selected for each of the six levels of the
ABS-DF so that the final attitude scale consisted of 240

items.

 

l -. . . .
The term "disjoint” was prev1ously used, see Glossary.

47

 

. m .8388 2: .8. 88538
o o a H o H u m: :4 on .38 93.3 0350 3 ”333.8qu 6:283. 653 .voua «a :28 93g» 333 .3 .3939 34¢

nuuaouom HoHuom nuHHen<

H OH 0 u a u H u m cH H a mu m H -.eozoauimbfioncou .3. an 330.8% 33.29 3e 02335.. :03 3.»

.85 use .... 3 3 .8 8.. :88: 3.86.8 2:. .8828 3an 8 83:8 833a 32% ...... 5:25 ...? 38“.:

he uuo>He= oumum :mecqu
H :3 u o n . m E. o n .82: .8 838% E888 32.8 ..m: 5:25 :4... 38am"

 

 

 

 

 

.82 .p 3.32 B 3533 min—nan. 3 panam—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

chHQoov
. . Aflapofi>acmnv
Aspaflanamdo .m.mv m ~ Aamoamszav m m
.mcomema . uHmsp Hmsuom n HmucmezpumcH H . ouHammp n
zomHeHooam= o>Hummmc mxH~A| AQmOHccmn .w.ov w>Huooeea NH LHozu. eo cannoob m2
cemzop mocon> o>HuHmoa Hx* pHmnu oopstLuum Hn w m>Huchoo HH 0» pomawmu an3 H:
mocmHm> Hm>oq prLe mane pHmae wwooopm coHummHm>m
Axe Adv AHV Amy
mcoHpmHon azonw mempCOoom we
zHHEme ocm xmm we
coHpmHmemH AHmmuv ou ocoomop
a .mamuflwz .npsmmc me at“;
Ame :oHpHoCOQ m ucoemoHQEo e QHmc HHHmHooam
Loos: mocmu 30H m coHpmosom me cH mCOmLmQ :sz muomnoucH mo
ILOQEH no Hm>mH EsHomE mm wcH>Ho>CH coHummLoop e :omHeHooam=
:an Hm mcoHumHmL esouw mamEHLq mu AcpH3.osteoo
mprtu HmCOmLmq He mmnm son He
LoH>mcmm
mocmupomEH mcoHpmsuHm oqu amoemnoucH m.t0uo<
Ace Amv on
moon
HHHmcoHu m eHmm mo eHom mm
Imnoao m .036 .365 .opmmz eOuom :oHpom mo .opm .3oh .opwoz acmpoeop
unwso omHDMmHo eo mucmume on» unm>o mo noH>mcmb noHpmmHo mo mucmpma ou
oHsoz omHQMmHoaco: pan» ucmpmeoa omHnmchIcoc mmBSDHLuum
zHHmo H mHonz m we .doa can emHHmb Hp on» oHonz a ma .ooq Axv poowbsm
IHHOQEHm m mpocuo Ho memzuo Hm
LoH>mcom m.LoDo< eo :Hmsoa hobo< mmH>mzmm econmemm acoumeom
Ame on Ame A<e
.mcomumm «UmHmHummm pumzou mmcauHuum Ho
:oHuosuum HSHOanp can chOncoo mo mHmaHmcm umomu on» How moswucmm mchmmE 4|:.m mqmde

m N H

48

ABS-DF Intensity

 

Guttman and Foa (1951) have emphasized the importance
of intensity measures in attitude scales, particularly with
regard to the contact variable.

A single question ordinarily cannot distinguish be-
tween changes due to intensity and those due to direc-
tion. A change in reSponse to a single question may
be due to either factor, or to both. Since any single
question is usually biased, as is easily seen from
the theory of scale and intensity analysis, the use
of a single question for the study of effect, or
change, or even for comparing groups, is quite in-
advisable (p. 53).
Suchman (1950) has suggested that intensity of attitudes
may be ascertained by asking a question about intensity
immediately following a content question.
One form used for an intensity question is simply:
"How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer
categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly,"
and "Not so strongly." Repeating such a question
after each content question yields a series of in-
tensity answers. Using the same procedure as for
content answers, these are scored and each respon-
dent is given an intensity score (p. 219).

This latter procedure was adopted to measure intensity
of attitudes on the ABS-DF. On levels 1-5, the three alter-
natives "not sure," "fairly sure," and "sure" are presented
to the question "How sure are you of this answer?" for each
item in these scales. A variation of this procedure was
used on level 6 to ascertain whether a reported experience

with deaf persons was "unpleasant," "in between," or

"pleasant."

49

Standardization Study

 

In the standardization study the ABS-MR was adminis-
tered to three groups: (a) 88 MSU graduate students (46
female, 42 male) in a course in medical information for
rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers--
students studying to be professionals in the area of dis-
abling or handicapping conditions, (b) 633 regular education
students (426 female, 207 male) at the sophomore level and
constituting of all MSU education students at that level
during the 1968 Winter Term, and (c) 523 elementary school
teachers (381 female, 142 male) in Belize (British Honduras).
The groups were chosen on the basis of a presumed differ-
ence in age, education, and cultural orientation, as well
as knowledge and experience regarding mental retardation
(see Table 10).

The attitude items in the ABS-MR and the ABS—DF scales,
as in all attitude scales, are verbalizations of behavior.
The advantage of an attitude scale based on facet theory,
however, is that the verbalizations refer to different
levels of behavior and go beyond the usual stereotypic,
comparative, abstract and hypothetical levels of most atti-
tude scales to verbalizations about affective experiences
and concrete, overt behavior. The inclusion of level 6--
actual reported behavior-~in the ABS-DF scale, provided
the opportunity to predict and analyze which of the other
five levels correlate highest with this "actual behavior"

level.

50

Table 9 shows the "joint" intercorrelation matrices
for the three sample groups employed in the standardiza—
tion study of the ABS-MR. It will be noted that for the
two MSU samples, level 5, "personal feelings," showed the
highest correlation with level 6, as predicted by facet
theory and Guttman's (1959) Contiguity Hypothesis. For the
Belize sample, the highest correlation obtained for level 6
was with level 4--"personal hypothetical behavior." In
general support of the facet theory approach, it appears
from these results that what an individual says he "would"
do and what he "feels" toward the retarded are better pre—
dictors of his behavior than what he thinks "should" be
done.

The obtained correlation matrices (Table 9) for the
three groups formed approximate simplexes as predicted by
joint struction facet theory and the contiguity hypothesis.
According to facet theory the correlations between levels
decrease in relation to the number of steps the two levels
are removed from each other. There were three reversals
from the hypothesized ordering for the MSU graduate stu-
dents, four for the MSU sophomores, and five for the Belize
teachers. Kaiser (1962) has suggested a procedure for
testing a simplex approximation and this procedure, along
with its application to the data in this study will be

described in Chapter IV.

51

.pmsHHuwps: mum msHumpuo wamEHm :H mHmmum>mm

 

 

 

 

h
.mo. u Hm>mH mo. an m mo msam> Hmoauauom
.mo. u Hw>mH mo. an m mo msHm> HMUHuHuOm
.mH. u Hw>mH mo. um M mo msHm> HMUHuHHOv
mmm u 2m
mmm u ZN
mm H zH
III wH. Nm. mH. 0H. MH. III NN. mH. mo. v0. Ho. 0 III Hm. MH. vo. mo. Ho. m
III Hm. mH. 00. NH. III mm. mH. NH. hH. m III vm. mo. MH. vo. m
III mm. mm. HN. III mm. HN. mH. v III mv.hNH. 0H. v
III NM. HH. III Hm. mo. m III em. 5H. m
---mmm ---mve N ---vmm N
In- --- H In- H
w n v m N H w m w m N H HO>OH w m v m N H HO>OH
mmumnomoe mNHHmm mmusmpsum oom am am: Hmuswpsum mwmspmuo am:
.mzlmmd Hw>wH XHm on» so mmsoum soHumquumpsmum uoH coHuosuum ucHOn mo mmoHHums soHuMHmuHOOII.m mqmde

52

Anastasi (1961) had pointed out that many attitude
studies are conducted for the stated purpose of systemati-
cally exploring verbally reported attitudes, consequently,
the criterion itself should be defined in terms of verbally
expressed attitudes. With this in mind the method of
selecting item content on a systematic basis through the
use of facet theory and a mapping sentence, as was done in
the ABSéMR and the ABS-DF is far superior to earlier
methods in securing a representative sample of the desired
behavior domains. Through this approach it became a rela-
tively simple matter to plot out the elements and facets
one wishes to include and to construct scale items to meet
this criterion, thus making sure all desired elements were

represented.

Validity

According to Anastasi (1961) one way in which atti-
tude scales are sometimes validated is through the use of
contrasted groups as a special instance of concurrent
validation. In concurrent validation procedures generally,
the relationship between test scores and indices of cri-
terion status obtained at approximately the same time is
examined. With the method of contrasted groups, the
reasoning is that the groups have become somewhat differ-
entiated through the multiple demands of daily living in
some important way with respect to the criterion in ques-

tion.

53

The groups in the standardization study of the ABS-MR
were chosen on the basis of a presumed difference in age,
education, knowledge and experience regarding retardation,
and cultural orientation. It had been assumed that the
special education-rehabilitation graduate students would
have more favorable attitudes toward mental retardation
than the education sophomores (ED 200) and the Belize
teachers, and, if such a difference were reflected on the
ABS-MR, this could be interpreted as providing concurrent
validation data for this instrument.

Table 10 shows the content and intensity mean scores
and analysis of variance results for the three sample
groups on the ABS-MR as well as for the independent vari-
ables (variables 15 through 36 in this table) to be de-
scribed later.

This table reveals that the SER group did in fact
obtain a significantly higher total content score than
the ED 200 sample, thus providing some support for the
concurrent validity of the ABS-MR. Also it should be
noted that the ED 200 group scored significantly higher

than the SER group on the stereotypic level 1 of the

 

ABS-MR, as did the Belize sample. The latter group's
significantly higher scores on levels 1 and 2 in fact off-
set its significantly lower score on level 6 to the point
where the Belize sample obtained a significantly higher

total mean score than did the SER group. This finding

54

....H .huolncn ....Auoo. H.040. Hons-'00. aoHoaunv ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.ai.fivafiunéenhfifivfififiufifififiafi .§;55.a:£§i:zs.em
.... uncut-cu claw...“ ..oo. ......u... ..ouucuauuaoao. we. sous-00v. ......- u. ..noooao cacao-.o ...-...
.38... ...... ...: ... .... .... ...... ... .88.... 6.8.2.... .3... 3.3. 8...... .33... . I-....
.A. .8. .... .... I.. .I I.. .... .I 8.. 2... ... I.. I.. I .... .... ... II I ...
.IIIIIIIIIII ... I... .... .... ... I.. I.. ... .... .... ... .... .... I .... .... ... I. I. ... m
IIIIII ... .... .... 8.. I. 8.. .... ... .... .... ... .... 2.. I .... .... ... I. 1.8 ...
.A. ..A- SI.V 8.3 .... I... I. 3.. .... 3. 3.. 3.. a. .... a... I o... I.. 5 ...-.33 03- ..n
.l. 889 .... I.. .... I. .... .... I. .... 3.. ... .... .... I .... a... I. ...-IS .8 ... m
.A. .. A. .I..v I.. .... .... ... .... .... I. 8.. .... ... .... .... I .... 3.. ... lilo... ...
n A. .n In it. U.V 8.3. I.» 3.. .I 3.. H... 3.. 3.. a... on. no.» a... I 3.. 3.. I. 33.0 I... .I
.A. ..A. 889 I... .... .... .I .... .... ... .... .... I. .... .... I I.. I.. ... I... 3.0 ...
. A. ... .... .... .... ... 8.. 8.. .I .... .... I. 3.. .... I .... .... ... III...- ...
. A. .. A. ..A. II? I... .... .... I .... .... ... .... .... I. .... .... I a... .... I. .817... ...
. A. .. A. .. A. .. A. ......v ...... I.. .... ... a... .... ... 3.. .... I. .... .... I 8.. .... ... Jul-.... .I
. A. ..A. .. A. II? ...... .... .... ... 8.. .... ... .... I . ... .... I; I 8.. 8.. ... III I .I
.A. .. A. ..A. ..A- 889 I... ... .... I. 3.. .... 3. I... .... ... .... a... I .... 8.. .3 I. .3
. A. ..A. ..A. 889 ...... .... .... I. .... .... ... .... .... I .... .... 8 .... .... ... I... I ...
.A. .. A. ..A. 889 I... I... I.. I. .... .... I. .... .... .3 .... .... I .... .... ... III I .I
. A. ..A. I9 I... 8.. 8.. I. .... .... ... .... .... .1 .... 8.. .. .... .... I. I... I ... m
. A. .. A. ..A. IIV I3: .... .... I. .... 3.. I. .... .... .I 8.. 8.. 3 a . .... I .II. I ... a
..A. .. A. ..A. ..A. II.v ...3 .... .... I. .... I.. ... .... .... I. .... .... I 8.. 8.. ... 38. I ...
.A. ..A. 880 I... 3.. 3.. I. 8.. .... ... 3.. .... ... .... .... I .... 3.. ... .II. I ...
.A. .. A. .. A. ..A. II? ...: .... .... I. .... .... ... .... .... I. .... .... I .. . .... ... in... I ... n
. A. .. A. .. A. ..I.v ...: I... ...I I. I... 8... ... a... ...: ... ...: I... I I... I... .3 .... .33... ... A
. A. .. A. ..A. .....v I... I... I... ... ...: ...: ... I... I... ... 8.... I... I I... I... ... ..lo .58.... ... w
. A. .. A. ..A. 889 .... 8.... ...... I. ...... ...... ... ...... ...... ... ...... ...... I ...... ...... ... .3.- ...
. A. .. A. .. A. ..A. II? ...... 3... I... I. a... I... I. a... I... ... I... ...I I I... I... ... I38 ... w
. A. .. A. ..A. ..A. 889 I... ...: I... I. I... 8.3 I ...: ...: ... I... 1... I I... I... ... 1.. ... n
.A. .. A. ..A. II? 3.: I... a... I. ...: I... I. ...: I... ... ...: a... I I... I... ... II ... m
. A. .. A. .. A. ..A- 889 ...S I... I... I. ...: I... I I... ...: ... I... ...: I I... a... ... 1.] I m
. A. ..A. ..A. II? ...: ...: ...: I. ...: I... .... ...: 8.3 ... I... I... I I... ...3 ... II .. a
. A. .. A. .. A. .. A. 88v I... I... I... I. I... I... I. 3... I... ... ...: 3... I I... ...! ... .28. ..
. A. .. A. .. A. ...-V I... ...... ...... I. ...... ...... 3. 3.... ...... ... ...... ...... I ...... ...... ... .38 ..
. A. .. A. ..A. .. A. 889 ...: .... I... I. ...I a... I. I... 8... ... .... I... I a... ...: .... l8! .. w
III. .... .... =6. 3.8 I. I... I... I. I... I... ... ...... I... I I... I... ... .8. .. w
. A. ..A. ..A . 889 a... 8... I... I. ...: ....o I. 8... I... ... a... I... I ...: I... .3 .... ..
.A. .. A. .I. 3.. I... a... I. ...: I... 3. ...: I... ... 3... I... I 8.3 I... ... .8... .. u
. A. ..A . 889 I... ...I I... I. a... I... ... ...3 ...I ... I... I... I I... I... ... II ..
. A. .. A. .. A. 889 I... I... I... ... I... I... 3. a... a... ... ...... I... I I... I... ... .28. ..
a... . a -3
...-.133... 8.... . ...... .....l. .....3. ...I. .....I 5......

 

.mmHmem wNHHwQ new .

co. am . mmm we» no. exumma we» no.

m N H

muHSmmH names mHmHuHsE can mummy M .mcmwfi .mwNHm meEmmII.0H mqm<e

55

highlights the utility of the facet approach in attitude
item construction. The total scores for these two groups
indicate that the Belize teachers have more positive atti-
tudes toward retardation, contrary to expectation, than
students studying to be professionals in the area of handi-
capping conditions. What is particularly clarified by the
facet approach is that these more positive attitudes are
reflected only in the more abstract "stereotypic" and
"normative" levels 1 and 2 and that the Belize group
actually scored significantly more poorly on the more per-
sonal "hypothetical personal behavior" and "actual personal
behavior" levels 4 and 6 of the ABS-MR than did the SER
group.

In conclusion it was stated that the results cited
above provide support for the content and concurrent valid-
ity of the ABS-MR as well as for the utility and fruit-

fulness of the facet approach to attitude scale construction.

Reliability

 

One legitimate method for assessing the reliability
of the ABS-MR scale would be through a test-retest Opera—
tion on the same sample which would, when correlated, pro-
duce a correlation of temporal stability. Even though the
resulting correlation coefficient might be spuriously high
because of item recall, this would nevertheless seem to be
a viable procedure since it is generally believed that atti-

tudes are relatively permanent (Duijker, 1955). Because

56

of the impossibility of re-assembling the sample groups
used in this present study, however, it was not possible
to carry out this procedure on the ABS—DF nor was it pos-
sible for uses of the ABS—MR by Harrelson (1970) and Morin
(1969).

Another procedure for obtaining an estimate of scale
reliability which seems appropriate would be through the
split-half method whereby the scale is split into two com-
parable halves and the scores obtained are correlated and
corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. This procedure
would provide a measure of equivalence, or adequacy of item
sampling, across all levels of the Attitude-Behavior Scale.

A third satisfactory method of estimating reliability
would be through obtaining a measure of internal consistency

for each individual scale level by computing a Kuder-

 

Richardson type reliability coefficient for each scale
level. Actually, this was the procedure used to estimate
the reliability of the ABS-MR.

Hoyt (1967) has described a formula for estimating
test reliability based on analysis of variance which gives
precisely the same result as the one described by Kuder
and Richardson (1937). A variation of Hoyt's formula,
allowing for a difference between the method of scoring
the ABS scales and the scoring method used in the Hoyt and
Kuder and Richardson data, was programmed into the MSU

computer and was used to estimate the reliability of the

57

ABS—MR for the three standardization sample groups on each

scale level as well as for the sample on the ABS—DF.

Table 11 contains the reliability estimates obtained in

this manner for each of the samples on the ABS-MR and

Table 12 provides the same information for the ABS-DF.

TABLE 11.--Hoyt reliability coefficients for ABS—MR standard-
ization groups.

 

 

 

 

 

Group ABS-MR Scale Level Reliability Coefficients
l 2 3 4 5 6

88 M.S.U. SER Students .74 .82 .64 .79 .85 .78

633 M.S.U. ED 200 Students .73 .83 .69 .79 .71 .67

523 Belize Teachers .63 .75 .60 .79 .76 .76

TABLE 12.--Hoyt reliability coefficients for the ABS-DP

groups.

Group ABS-DP Scale Level Reliability Coefficients
l 2 3 4 5 6

51 Teachers of the Deaf .61 .81 .54 .61 .92 .67

58 Regular School Teachers .73 .85 .75 .88 .89 .61

50 Mothers of Deaf .70 .79 .58 .61 .87 .68

55 Managers—executives .79 .80 .72 .80 .89 .68

51 Mothers of Non-deaf .69 .79 .62 .80 .85 .65

 

58

Shaw and Wright (1967) have reported reliability
estimates on a large number of various types of attitude
scales, and the figures shown in Tables 11 and 12 for the
ABS-MR and the ABS-DP compare very favorably with the

majority of those reported by them.

Combining Content and Intensity

 

All of the data discussed in this chapter in refer-
ence to the standardization study has referred to subject
responses to the content of each attitude item and does

not have reference to the intensity with which these items

 

were responded to. Thus, a weakly felt negative attitude
response was given the same weight as a strongly felt
negative response and, accordingly, strongly and weakly
felt neutral responses and strongly and weakly felt posi-
tive responses were weighted equally.

As was indicated in the section of this chapter
dealing with intensity, Guttman and Foa (1951) have sug-
gested that it is "quite inadvisable" to ignore attitude
intensity in comparing groups. Since the ABS-MR already
contained an intensity statement following each content
item on each scale level, Harrelson (1970) in his study
decided that the content and intensity responses should be
combined into one score for each item and in the present
research the same was done to eliminate the seemingly

inappropriate response weights described above.

59

Accordingly, a rationale and scoring procedure
(Table 13) was developed for combining content and inten-
sity responses which differentially weights each combina-
tion of these two variables for every item. Actually, the
procedure has the effect of increasing the range of possible
scores for each item from 1-3 (negative to positive) to
1-9 (strongly negative to strongly positive). The increase
in range of scores should theoretically enhance the reli-
ability of each item (Anastasi, 1961) which in turn should
further clarify group differences and relationships be-
tween the predictor variables and the Attitude Behavior

Scale.

Instrument Limitations

 

In the development of the ABS-MR the question of
response weights arose. In the Harrelson study (1970) the
decision was made to weight the items on a negative to
positive evaluative dimension without concern whether the
most "favorable" response was the most "realistic" response.

Three alternatives were presented to each question:
one alternative suggesting a positive evaluation, one a
negative evaluation, and the third a neutral position.
Ideally, the questions and responses would have been worded
so that the favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses
would have been randomly assigned to these three alter-
natives. Thus, the most favorable response to a question

would be alternative 1 while for another question it would

60

. .HmoHuomud on» new HumoH wau cmmzuon
mmHEOumEoo m mucmmmummu m Hm>mH you Emum>m mcHuoom on» .msse .mnH mHm>wH co mmuoom on» ma AmIHV wocmu can :oHuomHHU m>HuHmom
nouum>Hummmc meow on» :HmuchE mcoHumanEoo mchHmEmu on» umzu omuoc on HHH3 uH .mcoHumcHnEoo mmonu :H msoHuoHpmuucoo HmoamoH
ucwumch wnu mo mmsmown uouuw mocmno nosounu can» uwcuo unooo on >waHHcs mHoEmuuxm mum m>onm mmeumumm zuH3 mcoHumsHQEoo 0:9
.conHomp chu mo uHsmmu mnu mH m H0>0H new w>onm czocm musomooud mcHuoom map can msmumoum mcHumeo mommuHm mcu cu m>HumcumuHm
NuHmcmusH nausea wnu ch Emumoum= o» omoHowp mm3 uH .m Hm>mH co anmHum> qumsmusH HmcoHquom mzu u0w umsflom ou mEmumoua uwusmeoo
muHucm mchcmno cH vmumucsoocm mmHuHsoHMMHp wo omsmowm .muH mHm>mH :0 com: musomooum mcHuoom mnu mo mewn on» so meEwuooud HHm
wuws mmmmecm 0:» van» noon on» Eouu can mnH mHm>wH so oc50m uoc o Hm>mH co w>HumcumuHm :qumcmucH= HmcoHuHopm may Eouw wmmHum
auHsonuHo one .mnH mHm>mH no mm m Hm>wH co HmHucmsqmm mHHmonoH mm uo: mH musooooum mcHuoom on» umcu pwuo: on HHH3 uH¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mocmHHmdxm
ucmmmon mm3 mostquxmllv mHnu pm: m>m£ .mmxllm
cmwzumn CH mm3 mocmHuwmanum mmocmHummxm on: muHmcmucH mcouumllm mUDuHuum m>HuHmomuum
ucmmmmHacs mm: mocmHumaxounN m>mz umzuwnz chuuwocsnlN muHmcmucH EDHUmEuIN mpsuHuum kuusmCInN
wocmHummxo scam oeuuH mocwHumaxm pm: m>mc um>mcusH NuncmucH xmw3luH omcommmu m>HummmsuuH
mmcoamou canlo mmcommmu onlno mmcommwu ocnlo mmcommou osllo
mw>HumcumuH< uNuHmcmucH: mm>HumcuwuH< =ucmucou= mm>HumCumuH< :muHmcmucH= mm>HumsumuH< zucmusou=
"muspmooumm
mocmHummxw mHnmusmmea muHcmeo a v m
ouocu00m momulusooo ou mexHHco «m H m wosuHuum 0>HuHmom mcouum . m m m
cmm3uwn CH paw wocwHuoaxw wUHcHuwo m m m wozuHuuw 0>HuHm0d Espr: m N m
ucmmmmHacn van mucmHumaxm wUHcmeo h N m upzuHuum m>HuHmom xmoz h H m
mocmHuwmxm ucmmmmHm usn chuumuco w v N
muocu00m mmmnnusooo ou >meHHco am H N oosuHuum Hmuuso: vacuum 9 m N
mocmHquxo cmmzuwn CH usn CHMuuooco m m N oosuHuum Hmuusoc EsHpo: m N N
mocmHuwdxm unammmHmcs van :Hmuuooc: v N N opsuHuum Hmuusoc xmwz v H N
mocmHumdxw o: no: m>mc ou ucmmwdec: «m N H
mocmHuodxw 0: can w>ma ou cmm3uwb CH .N m H oosuHuum m>Hummoc x603 m H H
mocmHummxm 02 N H H oosuHubm o>Hummoc EsHoo: N N H
mocwHummxw o: no: m>m£ ou unammem «H v H opsuHuum 0>Hummwc mcouum H m H
pmcmHmmm m mo muoum m o m oocmHmmm N mo muoom m o m
qumcmucH kuuswc can m o N >uHmc0ucH Hmuusoc new m o N
omEswmm uouum muHmcwucH N o H pofismmm nouuw muHmcoucH N o H
o v o
QHDMCHEHQUQUCfi mm3 O M O mHflwCfiEHOUOUCH wm3 COHU O m. O
coHuomqu mpsuHuum wmsmomn o N o nomqu monuHuuw owsmoon o N o
mmeHmcm Eouu UmumHmo o H o mHmmHmcm Eoum ooumHoo o H o
mecoHumm pmcHnEou muHmcwucH ucoucoo mHmcoHumm pmsHQEou NuHmcmucH ucoucou
m Ho>mq "mouoom omcHnEou muH me>wq "wmuoom owcHnEou

 

 

.wIH mHo>mq mzlmmc MOW ouopoooum mcHuoom qumcmucHlucmucoo UmCHnEouul.MH mqm<e

m

61

have been alternative 3, and so on in random fashion. For
practical reasons involving logistical problems in cross-
cultural organization of the data and computer programming,
the responses were set up so that alternative 1 always
represented the least favorable reSponse, alternative 2 a
neutral position, and alternative 3 the most positive
response. In such an arrangement there exists some danger
of error due to response sets.

Attitude scales of this type are influenced somewhat
by the desire of the respondent to answer an item according
to what he thinks is socially desirable. Through guaran-
teeing the subjects complete anonymity the influence of
this factor, it is hoped, was lessened. Whether or not
this procedure was adequate is not certain.

It was pointed out in the discussion on the develop-
ment of the ABS-MR scale that the lateral struction or
item content was not as well controlled as the joint struc-
tion or attitude levels. This was particularly true of
level 5 which was not structured on the lateral dimension.
Lateral struction was also relatively uncontrolled on the
other levels of the ABS-MR and the ABS-DP; that is, the
various subscales or levels include items of different
content and as a result the same content does not neces-
sarily appear on all levels. In the Hamersma study (1969)
the content of each attitude item was repeated across all

six levels with the item being altered only to fit the

62

structure (joint struction) of the different levels. This
was not possible in the present study since it was planned
to draw comparisons to the ABS-MR data in the Harrelson
(1970) study.

It was also previously noted that multiplication of
the two elements in each of the five joint struction facets
yielded a possible 32 combinations or permutations of
elements. The six level permutations of the ABS scales
were originally selected primarily through subjective
judgment. Maierle (1969) has extended research in this
area and found that of the 32 permutations which might be
formed, only 12 were semantically consistent. Maierle
found that varying numbers of these permutations belong
to different levels; that is, if a level is defined by the
number of strong or weak elements found in the attitude
items of that level, then one permutation exists on level 1,
three of level 2, four on level 3, two on level 4, and one
permutation each on levels 5 and 6. The violations of
simplex orderings previously noted (Table 9) in the stan-
dardization data may have been due in part to the fact that
four permutations are possible on level 3, the level on
which most of the violations of simplex ordering continue
to appear.

Maierle (1969) also studied the question relating to
simplex ordering dealing with the effect of the order of

scale level administration upon the resulting correlation

63

matrix. In the present study, as in all of the previous
research in this area, all of the data have been obtained
from administration of various level member sub-tests in
the same order, i.e., all items of level 1 have been pre-
sented first, followed by those in level 2, then those in
level 3 and consecutively through level 6. Maierle (1969)
randomly varied the order of scale level presentation of
a new Guttman facet type attitude scale to a large group
of subjects and found that a better simplex approximation
was obtained when correlations were plotted according to
theoretical relationships than according to order of ad-
ministration, thus lending further support to the theoreti-
cal assumptions involved. His analysis also indicated
that the six permutations originally selected by Jordan
(1968) were as "good" as any other similar set.

tABS-DF Adapted Form of
ABS-MR Attitude Scale

 

 

The ABS-DP consists of six levels, each corresponding
to a certain level of the hypothesized attitude universe.
The final version of the scale is the revised version of
the ABS-MR instrument as developed by Jordan and revised by
Poulos for special application for use with the deaf as
attitude object. The major changes1 made, with the excep-

tion of the section on knowledge, were the substitution of

 

1
Items 63, 65, 73, 75, 115, and 153 in the original
ABS-MR were changed to apply to deafness for items 63, 65,
73, 75, 115, and 153 respectively of ABS-DF.

64

the terms deaf or deafness for any reference to mentally
retarded or mental retardation. (See Appendices A.l and
A.2.) Included with the scale were those items that tapped
those predictor variables which Jordan labelled determinants
of attitude (demographic, socio-psychological, contactual,
and knowledge).

In the further revision of the questionnaire to meet
the needs and purposes of the present research, the section
dealing with the knowledge factor was adapted to apply to
the area of the deaf. Proctor's study (1967) furnished
several items applicable to the deaf with two items sub-
stituted in the final array as a result of clarifying

ambiguity of knowledge responses.

Independent Variables

The instrument labeled Personal_guestionnaire: DF
(Appendix A) was designed to operationalize a number of
independent variables suggested by the review of the liter-
ature to be determinants of attitudes toward deaf persons.
The items in this questionnaire were used in the inter-
national study of attitudes toward mentally retarded per-
sons conducted by Jordan (1970) and all revisions in these
items were made by that author. The only other revisions
were those made in direct reference to the deaf instead of

the mentally retarded.

65

Demggraphic Variables

A total of seven demographic items were included in
the questionnaire which, from a theoretical standpoint,
might correlate with or predict the criterion: sex, item
134; age, item 81; amount of education, item 83; work
experience to education, item 135; marital status, item
136; religious preference, item 137; and perceived impor-

tance of and adherence to religion, items 82 and 92.

Change Orientation

 

A measure of change orientation was included as taken
from Jordan ABS-MR to measure attitudes toward change in
the following areas: self change, child-rearing practices,
legislation relating to adult deaf, automation, and politi-
cal leadership. Items included are: self change, items
84 and 93; child—rearing practices, item 85; birth control,
item 86; automation, item 87; and political leadership

change, item 88.

Educational Aid and Planning

Items were included in the questionnaire to measure
opinions regarding local government aid to education (item
89), federal aid to education (item 90), as well as to who
should have responsibility for educational planning (item

91).

66

Contact with Attitude Object Persons

Questions 94 through 99 were designed to Operational-
ize variables involved in personal contact between the re-
spondents and deaf persons in this study. This section
replaces the one in the original instrument referring to
handicapped persons and mentally retarded. In all state-
ments the words deaf or deaf persons were substituted for
mentally retarded or retarded persons. The items included
are conceptually distinct. Item 94 reports the frequency
of contact; item 95 the ease with which the contact might
have been avoided; items 96 and 97 the extent to which the
respondent gained materially by the contact; while item 98
indicates the availability of alternatives to working with
the deaf. Item 99 was designed to measure respectively
the amount of enjoyment experienced in contact with deaf

persons.

Efficagy

Attitude items 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112,
114, and 116, which appear in the questionnaire (Appendix A)
under the heading "Life Situations," were adapted from a
fully evolved Guttman Scale reported by Wolf (1967).
Measures of intensity, or answer "certainty," i.e., items
101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, and 117, were added
to the original items evolved by Wolf. In addition, four
levels of intensity of agreement-disagreement with the items

replace the original "agree-disagree" dichotomy used by Wolf.

67

This section was used intact from the Jordan ABS-MR Scale.
Attitude items which appear in the questionnaire under the
heading "Life Situations" were those adapted from Jordan's
scale.

The scale was designed to measure attitudes toward
man and his environment and attempts to determine the re-
spondent's view of this relationship. This variable has
been labeled "Efficacy" by Jordan since the scale purports
to measure attitudes towards man's effectiveness in the

face of his natural environment.

.‘Attitude Object

 

a
One characteristic of the present formulation is that

the analyses involved are independent of a particular atti-
tude object, provided that object is some specifiable group
of persons. The attitude object specified in the present
study is the "deaf" person. Such a person is described in
commonly acceptable terms as that individual who has a
hearing loss of such a degree that he cannot be educated
without special educational measures, such as enrollment

in a school for the deaf or classes for the deaf. The

term "deaf person" would apply to the individual who may
have a total loss of hearing or a hearing loss of such
severity as to necessitate special educational measures
beyond the regular classroom. Children with the losses
described above have losses in the speech range at or ex-

ceeding 60 decibels and would include those with such a

68

hearing loss whether they wear a hearing aid or not. How-
ever, no fine dividing line will limit the generally
acceptable term of deafness as "not so deaf" in colloquial
terms also refers to the hard of hearing and if these indi-
viduals need specialized training as is provided in schools
for the deaf, then they are included in the "acceptable

group" as objects.

CHAPTER IV

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

Major Research Aim

 

One major aim of this study was to investigate
value orientations and attitudes held by five groups toward

the deaf. The groups were comprised of:

1. Teachers of the deaf TDF N = 51
2. Regular school teachers RST N = 58
3. Mothers of deaf children MDF N = 50
4. Mothers of non-deaf children MND N = 51
5. Businessmen (Managers- MAN N = 55
executives)
TOTAL N =265
Sample

All the subjects resided in Michigan. For those
mothers whose children attended either a local school pro-
gram or the state school for the deaf as day pupils,
residence was in Genesee County. The remainder of mothers
came from the state at large.

On the whole the cooperation of the mothers of deaf
children was very encouraging. Those who were from out—
state had been informed by letter that should they be

coming to the school to pick up their child prior to a

69

70

school vacation that it would be appreciated if they would
participate as respondents in this study. Those who lived
in the area were informed by letter that it would be appre-
ciated if they could participate on one of two days set
aside for the administration of the questionnaire and the
response was most gratifying. There was no a priori selec-
tion of parents in either case. In the out—state list all
who drove to school with their children were included.

For the area involving pupils on a day basis, all the names
on the list were notified.

The mothers of non—deaf children were those from the
greater Genesee County area. Composition of the various
groups making up this sample was mixed. There were parents
from central city areas, suburban areas, and some from
rural areas. They were representative of various ethnic
and racial groups as well as economic levels.

The group comprising the regular school teacher
sample were teachers from Genesee County, a school district
in Gratiot County, and a city school in Flint.

The elementary teachers of the deaf were drawn from
the public residential school for the deaf and a private
residential school for the deaf; both in Michigan.

The manager-executive subjects were drawn from the
greater Genesee County area. The scale was administered to
various business groups following an explanation of the
general purpose of the study. This was done at a regular

noon luncheon meeting for these groups.

71

In summary, it is felt that the obtained samples were
quite good, generally representative, and adequate for a

study of this type.

Hypotheses of the Study,

 

The variables in this study were intercorrelated (see
Table 14) to enable examination of relationships for both
content and intensity scores of the criterion (ABS-DP)
across each level with 21 independent variables. This

facilitated testing of the following hypotheses.

Relating Attitudes and Values

 

H-l.--Persons who score high in efficacy will score
high in positive attitudes toward the deaf on each of the

six levels of the ABS-DE.

Relating_Attitudes and Knowledge

 

H-2.--Persons who score high in knowledge about the
deaf will score high in positive attitudes toward the deaf

on each of the six levels of the ABS-DF.

Relating Attitudes and Contact

H:3.--The more frequent the contact with deaf persons
the higher will be the intensity scores on each of the
levels of the ABS-DE.

H-4.--High frequency of contact with deaf persons will

 

be associated with favorable attitudes toward the deaf on

 

each of the levels of the ABS-DF if high frequency is

72

concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities,

 

(b) ease of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjoyment of

 

 

the contact.

Relating Attitudes and Religiosity

 

H:§,--Persons who score high on stated importance of
'religion will score lgw on positive attitudes toward the
deaf.

H:§.—-Persons who score high on stated adherence to
religion will score lgw on positive attitudes toward the
deaf.

Relating Attitudes and
Demographic Variables

 

 

H-7.--Amount of education will be positively related

 

to favorable attitudes toward the deaf.

H-8.--Age will be positively related to favorable

 

attitudes toward the deaf.
H-9.--Women will score higher on positive attitudes

toward the deaf than men.

Relating Attitudes and
Change Orientation

 

H-lO.--Persons who score high on change orientation

will score high on positive attitudes toward the deaf.

Relating Attitudes and Opinions on
Educational Aid and Plannigg

 

 

H-ll.--Agreement with government aid to education will

be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the deaf.

 

73

H-12.—-Agreement with centralized government planning

of education will be positively related to favorable atti—

 

tudes toward the deaf.

Relating Attitudes and Group Membership

 

H:l§.--The groups will assume the following order
with respect to favorable attitudes toward the deaf:
mothers of the deaf>teachers of the deaf>regular school
teachers>mothers of the non-deaf>manager—executives.

Relating Attitudes and
Multidimensionality

 

 

H-l4.--The ABS-DE scale levels or attitude subuniverses

will form a Guttman simplex for each of the sample groups.

Analysis Procedures

 

The control Data Corporation Computer (CDC 3600 and
6500) at Michigan State University (MSU) was used to analyze
the data, which also facilitated the data being analyzed
as an integral part of the larger comprehensive study by
Jordan. Table 14 contains the variable list of the entire

study by IBM card and column.

Descriptive Statistics

 

Two Frequency Column Count PrOgrams (Clark, 1964)
designated as FCC-I and FCC-II were used to compile the fre-
quency distribution for every item on the instrument. This
procedure was also found to be useful as a final check on

the accuracy of the data.

'74

TABLE l4.--ABS—DF: Basic variable list by IBM card and column--Poulos study.

 

Variablel Card Column Page Item

 

1. Stereotype 28,30 alter to 66 2-4 1,3 alter to 39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
m 2. Normative 2 28,30 alter to 66 5-7 41,43 \ 79
3'2 3. Moral Eval. 3 28,30 alter to 66 8-11 81,83 119
fi.3 4. Hypothetical 4 28,30 alter to 66 12-14 121,123 159
u c 5. Feeling 5 28,30 alter to 66 15-17 1,3 39
§,8 6. Action 6 28,30 alter to 66 18-20 41,43 79
x 7. Stereotype 1 29,31 alter to 67 2-4 2,4 alter to 40
g;fi 8. Normative 2 29,31 alter to 67 5-7 42,44 80
D m 9. Moral Eval. 3 29,31 alter to 67 8-11 82,84' 120
fi 5 10. Hypothetical 4 29,31 alter to 67 12-14 122,124 160
fi‘g 11. Feeling 5 29,31 alter to 67 15-17 2,4 40
<14 12. Action 6 29,31 alter to 67 18-20 42,44 80
e 13. Efficacy--Cont. 7 29,30 alter to 44 26-27 100,102 alter to 116
> 14 Efficacy--Int. 7 29,31 alter to 45 26-27 101,103 117
"g 15. Df Knowledge 7 46-61 28-30 118-133 118—133
u 16. Df Amount 1-7 18 24 94
g 17. Df Avoid 1—7 19 24 95
u 18 of Income 1-7 21 25 97
8 19. Df Alter 1-7 22 25 98
U 20. Df Enjoy 1-7 23 . 25 99
.3 21. Age 1-7 5 21 81
5-3 22. Educ. Amount 1-7 7 21 83
E g 23. Religion Impor. 1-7 6 21 82
Q o 24. Religion Adher. 1-7 16 23 92
.§ 25. Self Change 1—7 8 22 84
m u 26. Child Rearing 1-7 9 22 85
2‘3 27. Birth Control 1-7 10 22 ~ 86
g 5 28. Automation 1-7 11 22 87
0.4 29. Political Lead. 1-7 12 23 88
5 30. Rule Adher. 1-7 17 24 93
d 31. Local Aid 1-7 13 23 89
3 32. Federal Aid 1-7 14 23 90
L1 33. Ed. Planning 1—7 15 23 91
N 34. Sexg 1-7 24 31 134
g 35. Ed. Contact Var. 1-7 25 31 135
m 36. Marital Status 1-7 26 31 136
U 37. Rel. Affiliation 1-7 27 31 137
- 38. DF gain 1-7 20 24 96
3 39. Group 1-7 1 none none
3 40. Subject no. l-7 2—3 none none
0 41. Card no. 1-7 4 none none

 

1Based on the ABS-DP 112269 TP edition.

2Not used in correlational analysis.
3K = Knowledge.

4V = Value.

5Female = 1, male = 2.

6Groups = TDF--l

RST--2
HDF--4
HAN--5 '

HND--8

75

Correlational Statistics

 

In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966),
a great deal of data can be secured in one analysis. Sepa—
rate analysis can be done for the total group and for any
number of sub-groups, or partitionings of the data. For
each specified group (e.g., total, male, female), a number
of statistics can be requested. Those used for each parti-
tioning in this research were the means and standard devia-
tions for each variable and the matrix of simple correla-
tions between all variables.

Partial and multiple correlations are outputs of the
general multiple regression model used in the CDC program
at MSU (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966a). One benefit of the
use of partial correlation is that a number of variables
which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion,
or dependent variable, can be examined simultaneously.
Often when a series of Pearsonian product-moment £L§ are
computed between a criterion and a set of variables con-
sidered to be predictors of the criterion, spurious con-
clusions may be obtained because the predictor variables
are themselves inter-related rather than directly predic-
tive of the criterion. In a partial correlation solution
to the problem, these relationships among the predictor
variables are considered in computing the correlation of
each variable with the criterion, i.e., the effects of all

but one variable are held constant.

76

The use of multiple regression analysis has been
recommended by Ward (1962) because it "not only reduces
the dangers in piecemeal research but also facilitates the
investigation of broad problems never before considered
'researchable' (p. 206)." The multiple correlation program
yields the following statistics: the beta weights of all
predictor variables, a test of significance for each beta
weight, and the partial correlations between each predictor

and the criterion.

Analysis of Variance Statistics

 

The UNEQI routine (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966b) was
used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statis-
tics. This program is designed to handle unequal fre-
quencies occurring in the various categories. In addition
to the analysis of variance tables, the frequency, sums,
means, standard deviations, sums of squares, and sums of
squared deviations of the mean were included for each cate-
gory.

A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal
nlg was used to analyze group-sex interaction (Ruble,
Paulson & Rafter, 1966). Since the samples were not equal
in size or sex ratio within groups, an "adjusted mean" was
computed on which to base all 3 tests. The adjusted mean
equalizes or accounts for the variance in the size of the
group as well as for unequal sex distribution within the

samples. For convenience of computer programming the E

77

statistic was used for testing of all mean differences, even
though differences between two means are usually tested by
the t_statistic. Comparisons of the §_and 5 statistics

have shown that results are the same for the t and E test
procedures (Edwards, 1966).

While a significant overall 5 leads to rejection of
the statistical hypothesis, it is not known whether every
mean is significantly different from every other mean when
three or more means are involved. Several multiple means
tests have been proposed for determining the differences
between treatment means (Winer, 1962). In this study the
5 test for group comparisons is the usual one while the
E test used to test for differences between the "adjusted
means" of "pairs of groups" is equal to a two tailed E
test, while also fully accounting for the other experi-
mental factors. This procedure for testing for signifi-
cance among multiple means is approximately equal to
Duncan's New Multiple Means Test (Edward, 1960; Kramer,
1956, pp. 307-310) up to and including three treatment
means. This procedure is somewhat more liberal than
Duncan's when more than three means are included, thus in-
creasing the likelihood of Type I error. The procedure
also does not account for non-independence among the pair—
of-treatment means.

The approximate significance probability of the E

statistic is also included in the computer print-out. This

78

convenient figure enables the researcher to know if the E
was significant without referring to a table. For example,
if the number printed out was .05, the level of confidence,

with appropriate degrees of freedom, would be .05 or less.

The Q2 Statistic

 

Kaiser (1962, p. 155) suggests a procedure for testing
a simplex approximation: "for scaling the variables of a
Guttman simplex . . . the procedure . . . orders the vari-
ables. A measure of the goodness of fit of the scale to
the data is suggested."

Kaiser's approach may be seen as performing two func—
tions: (a) a "sorting" of virtually all possible arrange-
ments of data so as to generate the best empirically pos-
sible simplex approximation; and (b) an assignment of a
descriptive statistic, "Q2," to specified matrices. The
index g2 is a descriptive one, with a range of 0.00 to 1.00.

A computer program was developed which (a) reordered
the level members of each matrix, by Kaiser's procedures,
so as to generate the best empirically possible simplex
approximation; and (b) calculated 92 for the hypothesized
ordering and for the empirically best ordering of each
matrix. The distribution of 92 has not been developed,
therefore, probability statements about "better" or "worse"
matrix ordering can not be made. However, the hypothesis
of the preSent Study examines whether the six levels of the
.ABS-DF form the best simplex approx1mation when listed level-

by-level, regardless of the order of administration.

79

At the time of the research completion, appropriate

likelihood ratios for measuring goodness of fit were not

 

available. Mukherjee (1966) suggests a method which appears
appropriate for matrices of equally spaced correlations, but
neither facet theory nor the actual data suggest that the
matrices in the present study have equally spaced entries.
Harrelson's (1970) research also contains a rather complete

discussion of the problems related to the Q? procedure.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data in this research were analyzed by computer at
Michigan State University. Computer analysis enabled the
testing not only of the major research hypotheses but also
provided cues in the data which may have implications for

future research.

ABS-DP Re liability

As mentioned in Chapter III, the ABS-DF content and
intensity scores were combined into one score for each sub-
ject on each item according to the procedure described in
Table 13. This was a similar procedure as was done in the
Harrelson study (1970). It had the effect of increasing
the range of possible scores for each item from 1-3 (nega-
tive to positive) to 1-9 (strongly negative to strongly
positive).

To further test the effectiveness of this procedure,
reliability estimates were obtained on the ABS-DF for the
samples on content scores alone and on the combined content-
intensity scores via the Hoyt (1966) method. The resulting

reliability estimates are shown in Table 15.

80

81

 

 

 

om. mm. mm. mm. mm. Nb. pmcHnEou AHmV
mm. mm. om. me. an. mm. ucmucou mmmolcoz mo mnmauoz
mm. mm. Hm. Nb. Nm. mm. pmcHQEou Ammv
mm. mm. om. Nu. om. on. uswucou mm>Husomxmuummmcmz
mm. mm. mm. mm. Nm. um. cmcHnEoo Homv
mo. hm. Hm. mm. mm. on. uaousoo memo esp mo mumnuoz
mm. mm. om. mm. mm. on. pmcHQEoo Hmmv
Hw. mm. mm. mp. mm. mm. ucmucou mumnomwe Hoonom Hmstmm
om. om. om. Hm. em. mm. cmcHnEoo AHmv
hm. Nm. Hm. em. Hm. Hm. ucmucoo mmmo ecu mo mumcomoe
m m e m N H
mucmHOHmmmou mpHHHQMHHmm Ho>mH mHmom muouw
.mmHmEMm now
mmuoom muHmcmucHlpsmucoo cmcHnEoo paw ucmusoo mom mmHuHHHanHmu whom moummd .mH mqmme

82

Table 15 reveals that the ABS-DF reliabilities were
elevated as predicted in most instances as a result of the
combining procedure-~particularly levels 1, 2, and 3.

The reliabilities also increased somewhat on level 4 for

all groups except teachers of the deaf but not to the degree
of the other ABS-DF levels. The combining procedure re-
sulted in a drop for all groups on level 6.

The content reliability coefficients presented in
Table 15 for the present groups are comparably similar to
those appearing in Table 11 in Chapter III for the ABS-MR
standardization groups with the exception of level 6. The
mean of the content reliability coefficients on level 6 for
the standardization groups was .74 while the mean for the
present samples on this level is .66-

In general, and as was the case with the reliability
figures for the standardization groups, the ABS-DF reli-
ability estimates obtained for the present samples compare
favorably with the majority of those reported by Shaw and
Wright (1967) for a variety of attitude scales, and they
appear adequate for the type of group research in the pre-

sent study.

Major Research Hypotheses
The analysis of the data as it relates to the major
research hypotheses are presented in the same order as the
hypotheses were listed in Chapter IV. Viewing the several

correlational hypotheses, larger correlations appear for

83

the total sample then for the individual samples, which sug-
gests homogeneity within and differences between groups,
with regard to the predictor variables in these instances.
(The means and standard deviations of the predictor vari-
ables used in this study are contained in Table 30, Appen-

dix B.)

Relating Attitudes and Efficacy

H-l.--Persons who score high in efficacy will score
high in positive attitudes toward the deaf.

The Efficacy Scale was designed to measure the sub-
ject's View of man's effectiveness in the face of his
natural environment. Hypothesis 1 was tested by correlating
scores on the Efficacy Scale with scores on the six levels
of the ABS-DP. Table 16 presents these correlations for
the five sample groups and for the entire sample.

Table 16 indicates a statistically significant posi-
tive correlation between the Efficacy variable at level 4
for regular school teachers, and weak positive correlations
at level 4 (hypothetical behavior) and at level 5 (personal
feelings) for managers. Four other correlations in Table 16
reached significance: a significant positive correlation
on level 1 (stereotypic) for the total sample, a positive
significant correlation at level 3 (personal moral evalua-
tion) for the total sample, a significant positive correla-
tion at level 4 (hypothetical behavior) for the total sample,
and a significant negative correlation at level 6 (actual

Personal behavior) for the total sample.

84

.mmmwaucmnmm :H J3onm mum me>mH cosmoHMHcmHm

 

 

k H L
. . ,3 ,. ,4 :31} .. ... . n. 1....r11 . f
ideo.el Ame.v AHee.e. lime.. _ Ame.c ,AHee.. lemme
_ Hm.-._ eH.u mm. V,eH. me. . em. mHeeem Hence
- .\ ”.... JUAN..- . My «nun . n . r13
Amm.v Hem. Hem. ANH.V Hom.v Ame.v Home
No. He. eH. mm. ee.- ee.u memeueoz mo memreoz
le~.c lee.3 lee.. Amm.c lee.c lee.3 Ammo
mH. mN. .vN. mH. mo.l eo. mm>Husomxm ummmsmz
... r.... M... aw 1.. .V \I.
Hem.v Ame.v Hoo.e HNm.V Amo.v Ave.v Home
me.- me.u 50.- me. e~.- mo.u meme may he mumeuoz
Ams.v AHm.v AHo.v AwH.V Amm.v Amn.v Ammo
ee. ee.- mm“- mH. He.u ee.u mumeomme Hooeom ansmwm
AmN.v AHN.V AmH.v Hom.v AHe.V Amm.v AHmV
ea. mH. Hm. me. NH. no. memo men we memeomme
e m . m e,,, ~-w .3 m . _m;,

mcoHDMHmHHOU Hm>mH;eHmom molmmd

macho

 

.monEMm How meHumeuuoo mHanHm> NOMOHmmm molmm4|I.mH mqmde

85

Table 16 indicates very limited support for the hypo-
thesis. The small yet statistically significant positive

correlations for the total sample on levels 1, 3, and 4

are in direct support of the hypothesis; however, the signi-
ficant negative correlation for the total sample on level 6
is in contradiction of the hypothesis. It is cgncluded that

.H..-H._ ...—e H“

Hypothesis 1 is partially, though weakly, supported by the

-H—M.
‘ ...,

data.

_._‘..

Relating Attitudes and Knowledge

H-2.--Persons who score high in knowledge about the
deaf WlII score high in positive attitudes toward the deaf.

Hypothesis 2 was tested by correlating the ABS-DP
with the Knowledge About Deaf Scale described in Chapter IV.
Table 17 presents these correlations for the various group
samples and the total sample.

Examination of Table 17 discloses that all signifi-
cant correlations are positive except four. Significant
positive correlations were found at level 4 (personal hypo—
thetical behavior) for regular school teachers, and at
level 4 (personal hypothetical behavior) for managers. A
significant negative correlation was found at level 5 (per-
sonal feelings) for mothers of the deaf and at level 6
(actual personal behavior) for mothers of non-deaf. For
the total sample significant correlations were obtained at
all levels except level 2 (societal interactive norm);

these significant correlations as obtained were positive at

86

.mmmmcucwumm :H mHm>mH mocmoHMHchm

 

 

H
AHoo.v AHoo.c AHoo. Ame. .HH.V “Hoo.c Heemv
mm.n ~m.- ee. eH. 0H. mm. mHeemm Hence
Amo.v AHe.V Ao~.V Hem.v Amm.e AHm.v Acme
mm.u mo.u mH.u mo.u mo.u mo. mmmauaoz mo mumeuo:
Hom.v AHH.V AHo.. Ame.v lee.v Ame.v Ammo
No. HN.| mm. HH. 0H. so. mm>Husomxmuummmcmz
Asm.v Amo.v Aom.v AmH.c Hoe.v AmH.e Home
No. Hm.u eo. mH. mo.u om.u memo may mo mumsno:
Ame.c AHm.V Amo.e Aom.v Amm.. AmH.V Ammo
mo.u no.1 em. 5H. mo. mH.u mumeomme Hoogom HMHsmmm
AHm.V AmH.V Hem.v Hee.v Amm.v AeH.V .Hme
eH. HN.| MH. mo.l vH.| mH.I memo on» mo mumsomme
e m e m N H

mGOHUMHOHHOU Hm>wfl GHMOW mnlmm/N

msouw

 

H

.mmHmEMm now

mHm>mH mocmoHMHcmHm cam msoHpmHmuuoo mHQMHHm> ompmHsocx molmmmul.NH mqmde

87

level 1 (societal stereotype), at level 3 (personal moral
evaluation), and at level 4 (personal hypothetical behavior).
They were negative at level 5 (personal feelings) and at
level 6 (actual personal behavior).

In comparison to the Harrelson study dealing with the
mentally retarded as the attitude object, these results are
not parallel, as all of the findings in the Harrelson study
showed negative correlations. In the present study all
significant correlations were positive except four. These
occurred for the total sample at levels 1, 3, 4, and for
regular school teachers and managers at level 4. The four
negative correlations occurred at levels 5 and 6; at level 5
for mothers of deaf, level 6 for mothers of non-deaf and
levels 5 and 6 for total sample.

In short, Table 17 suggests that increased knowledge
about deafness may be a weak predictor of positive attitudes
toward the deaf but it's not an indicator in the reverse.

The results are in partial support of the hypothesis.

Relating Attitudes and Contact

H-3.--The more frequent the contact with deaf persons
the higher will be the intensity scores on the ABS-DF,
regardless of the direction (positiveness or negativeness)
of attitude.

Hypothesis 3 was tested by keeping content and inten-
sity responses separate and correlating item 94 in the ques-

tionnaire section, which deals with the frequency of contact

with deaf persons, and the intensity variables of the ABS-DP.

88

Table 18 contains these correlations along with separate
correlations between the contact variable and ABS-DP con-
tent and intensity scores.

Referring to the intensity correlations in Table 18,
it can be seen that frequency of contact is predominantly
positively related at those levels where significant corre-
lations are obtained. In only one level was there a nega-
tive correlation at a significant level; this was at the
level 1 (societal stereotype) for teachers of the deaf.

For regular teachers we find a significant positive corre-
lation at level 4 (personal hypothetical behavior) and

level 6 (personal action). The same was true for mothers

of the deaf. Managers-executives obtained significant
positive correlations at level 2 (societal norm) and level 6
(personal action). Mothers of the non-deaf showed a signi-
ficant positive correlation at level 1 (societal stereo-
type).

For the total samples significant positive correla-
tions were obtained at all levels except level 2 (normative).

In comparison to the Harrelson study it may be
pointed out that the findings for mothers of deaf children
were opposite to those obtained for mothers of the retarded.
Harrelson's study indicated a negative intensity correla-
tion at level 5. At this level no significant correlation
was obtained for MDF. On the other hand, the intensity

correlation at level 4 for MDF was significantly positive

89

.mmmplco: mo mumnuoz
.mm>Husomxm was mummmsmz

.mmmp mnu mo mnmnuoz
.mumnommu Hoonom Hstmmm

.mmmp ma» mo mumnomma u
.mmmmnucwumm sH :30£m mum me>mH wocmoHMHcmHm

Dz:
Z<E
EOE
8mm
EOE

 

 

“Hoes em Amos mH HHoec He Ach we AHee He Hams mon emcHnsoo
Home we lame ee “Hoes em Heme ee Heme He Heme ee ucmucoo mHQEMm
AHoee em AHeec mm “Heel en AHeoe em Ammo ee “Hoes mm NuHmcmucH Hence
Amps me- Ammc me- laws we. AHme me Heme mo Heeoc am emcHnsoo
Heme we- lees no- AHec No- Heat HH Ammo mo Heeev am nemueoo
Ammo we lees eon lees Ho- Amev eon Home He- AHec mm muHmcmucH a2:
AHeoe me lees em Amos mm AHHV Hm Heov em Hmec HH emcHnsoo
.Heoe we Aeov mm lees em Ammo eH Amos em Heme me ucmueoo
AHeoe av Heme MH AHmv eH Heme MH Amos em AOHV mm suHmewueH 2a:
Amos em AMHV mm Amos mm ANHV mm- Ammo mo- Heme me- emcHnsoo
Ammo mo AHHV om lees em Amos em- Heme eH- AHec me- eaaueoo
Amos em Heel OH AHee em AHHV mm Heel eH Amec NH suHmcmueH ma:
AHeee em Ammo we- Heme me Ammo mH- “Hes me Heel eH emeHnaoo
iHeec me AHeV so- Home He- Home eH- Heel eH AHev HH nemueoo
AHoe. we Ammo mo Amos mm Heme NH Home eon lees HH suHmemueH emm
lees eH Hoes em- Ammo eH- Home mH- Amps me less ee emaHnsou
lmee HH HeHe mm- Ammo eH- AHHV mm- Amec me Home no nemueoo
Anne no Ach mH- Ammo me. less eo Ach em- lees mm- seHmemueH ace
e m e m m H
mGOHuMHmHHou Hm>mH mHmom moummm wHQMHHm> msouu

 

.mmHmEmm Hem mnemumm mmmp nuHB Homucoo
cam mcoHumHmHHoo muHmcmusH cam ucwucoo cmcHnEoo

mo unscam zuHB mHm>wH mUQMOHMHcmHm
cam .ucmucoo .NuHmcmueH moummmnn.mH mHmae

90

and likewise so at level 6. Interpretation of level 6

with results of level 4 (hypothetical behavior) shows some
conformity of feelings. It should be recalled that "inten-
sity" on level 6 measures the degree of pleasantness or
unpleasantness of behavioral interactions with the deaf.

For manager-executives a similar interpretation leads
to reinforcement in a like direction for intensity feelings
from level 2 (societal norm) to a measure of pleasantness
or unpleasantness of contact, as found in level 6, which
for this group was very significant.

For mothers of the non-deaf a significant positive
correlation was obtained on level 1.

In contrast to the Harrelson study, increase in
contact for mothers of the deaf resulted in mothers being
very sure of their feelings about the deaf. Consistent
positive correlations for levels 4 and 6 (actual personal
behavior) show strength of direction of intensity.

To summarize, the intensity data presented in Table
18, showing significant positive correlations between
amount of contact with the deaf at all but level 2 of the
ABS-DF intensity scores for the total sample, suggest
rather direct and strong support for Hypothesis 3.

H:4.--High frequency of contact with deaf persons
will be associated with favorable attitudes toward the deaf
on each of the levels of the ABS-DF if high frequency is
concurrent with (a) alternative rewaFding opportunities,

(b) ease of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjcyment of
the contact.

 

 

 

 

 

91

The hypothesis for contact and favorableness of atti-
tudes toward the deaf was supported, in that the multiple
correlation coefficient for each group: teachers of the
deaf, regular school teachers, mothers of the deaf, managers,
mothers of non-deaf, females, males, and for the total
group, comparing all contact variables (see variable list,
Table 10) with the total ABS-DF (Table 19a to 19h), indi-
cated a high positive relationship. One exception was
noted for the mothers of the deaf in that no multiple cor-
relation run was possible as all mothers answered variable
19, question 98 the same. Instead a multiple R was ob-
tained with the remaining contact variables (deleting
variable 19). The resulting correlations are noted in
Table 19c; however, difficulty with the computer lab in
obtaining corrected reruns by eliminating variable 19
dealing with alternative rewarding opportunities resulted
in incomplete returns. Data as received were applicable to
levels 1, 2, and 3 only, and consequently disregarded.’

Comparing all contact variables with specific ABS-DP
levels for the total groups (Table 19h) reveals that con-
tact is most related to the personal hypothetical behavior,
personal feeling, and action levels as well as level 1
(societal stereotype) of the attitude continuum.

The partial correlation coefficients for the contact
variables, using the total group for comparison (Table 19h)

indicates significant positive correlations between the

.mmmmnusmumm CH czonm mum mHm>wH mocmonHcmHm

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

“OHo.v AmNo.V AmNo.v AmNo.V Amoo.v Hmoo.v Amoo.v Hmoo.v AHo.. Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.v
em. om. Hm. om. we. me. mm. Ne. mm. hm. Ne. Ne. H meHuHsE

Hmm.v me.v Hom.v Hom.v ANN.V AHN.V HNm.V AHv.v Hmo.v Hwo.v AmH.v ANH.V
MH. me. 3.1 No.1 S. S. 2. NH. mm. em. S. 2. 6.3m .3

AeH.V HON.V Hmm.v Amm.v Amo.v ANo.V HHH.V Hmo.v Hem.v Amm.v HNH.V HmN.v
NN. mH. mo. mo. mN. vm. mN. mN. «H. MH. HN. mH. .umqu .mo

Amm.v Hmw.v Ahm.v Amh.v ANN.V Hmn.v Aen.v Avm.v Hmh.. HHN.V HmN.v HNm.V
mo.1 no.1 voo.1 v0.1 mo. mo. mo.1 Ho.1 vo. mo. NH. om. mEoucH mo

.wm.v Hoe.v AMN.V ANN.V Hom.v Amm.v Amm.v ANN.V Amv.v Hmv.v HNH.V Hmo.v
mo.1 HH.1 mH. mH. mH. vH. voo. vo. HH.1 HH.1 mN.1 hN.1 .pHo>< .mo

Hom.v HNm.v AvH.V AmN.V Amm.v me.v va.v Hmm.v HHw.V How.v HHm.V Hmm.v
mH. mH. NN.1 NH.1 mo.1 no.1 HH.1 mH.1 mo. mo. «0. no. .uE¢ .uo

H u u u n u n u u u u u
pwcHnEou ucmucou pmcHnEoo ucwucou pmcHnEou ucmucoo pmcHnEoo ucwucou pmcHnEoo ucmucoo pmcHnEoo ucmucoo mmHQmHum>
oCHHmmm uoH>mnwm HMUHumcu coHumsHm>m . UHQNuomuoum m

coHuo< HMCOmHmm Hmc0mumm IOQNm Hmc0mumm Hmuo: HMCOmem EH02 Hmumwoom HmuwHoom ucmpcm mpsH

 

.mmwp wnu mo mumnomwu new meQMHHm> uomucoo paw monmmd cmeumn mcoHHMHmHHOU HmHuHmm paw mHmHuHDSII.mmH mqmme

93

.mmmwsuswumm :H c3onm mum mHm>mH wUGMOHuHcon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amoo.o Hmoo.o Amo.Ao Amo.xo Hmo.Ao Amo.Ao Amo.o Amo.o Hmo.o Hmo.o Amo.Ao Hmo.Ao
S. S. Z. S. S. «H. mm. mm. em. mm. 2. em. H 03332
Amm.v HnN.o Amm.v HNm.o Hom.v Hmv.o ANm.v ANw.V Hmm.o Hem.v Amm.o Hmv.v
MH.| mH. No. mo. mH. oH. VH. no. No.1 mo.1 Ho.1 oH.I nansm .uo
Amn.o Hmm.v Amo.v Hmo.v Amm.o Hom.o HHm.o ANm.o . Hmv.o Hom.v Ann.o Amm.o
vo.1 Ho. mo.1 no.1 Hoo. no. mo.1 mo.1 oH.1 no.1 «0.1 moo. .HmUHN .wQ
AHv.o HNm.V Hoo.o HHm.o “No.o AHm.V Avv.v AHm.. HmN.o Hem.o Amm.v Hmm.o
HH. mo. no. mo. Ho.1 No. HH. VH. oH. nH. woo. mo.1 wEoocH .mo
AvH.o AMN.V Hmm.v Amm.o Hem.o Hmm.v Hmo.v AHv.. Avv.o Avv.v Amv.o Hom.o
oN. nH. NH. NH. mo. no. mo. NH. HH.1 HH.1 HH.1 vo.1 .pHo>< .mo
Amooo.o Amooo.. HNo.v Hnm.v Avn.o Hmm.v Amo.o ANH.V Hmo.v AHo.V HHv.V HnH.o
em. mm. no.1 NH.1 mo.1 mo.1 mN.1 HN.1 oo. no. HH. mH. .usd .mo
u u u u u u u u u u u H
pwanEou ucwusoo pmcHnEou ucmucoo pmcHnEoo ucmucou pmcHnEoo ucwucou pmcHnEou ucwusoo prHnEOU ucmucoo mmHanum>
mcHHomm uoH>mnwm HMUHumnu coHumsHm>m . 0Hm>uomumum m
coHuo< Hscomuom HMCOmHmm Iomnm Hmcomumm Hmuoz Hmc0muwm Euoz HmumHOOm HmumHoom acmpso mpsH

 

.wuwnommu Hoonom HMHsmmu new mmHQMHHm> uumucoo paw LQImm< cmmzumn mcoHumHmuuou HMHuHmm paw mHmHuHszll.an wands

94

.mmmmnucmumm :H czocm mum me>mH wocmoHuHcmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AmNo.v AmNo.v AmNo.o HHo.o AHo.v Hmoo.o
em. mm. mm. mm. em. em. u mHaHUHe:
AOH.V HHH.V Amo.o HNo.o Hoo.o Aeo.o
em. mm. Hm. em. mm. on. soflem .ee
.HOUHHN . MD
Hem.o Amm.o ANn.v Hmm.o ANN.V Hov.o
no.1 Ho. mo. no. mH. HH. mEoocH .mo
Amm.o Hmm.o Hov.o Hoe.v HHH.V Hoo.o
moo.1 mo. HH.1 HH.1 MN.1 nN.1 .UH0>¢ .wo
HmN.V AmH.o Aen.o ANn.o Amm.o Hom.o
NH.1 oN.1 mo. mo. moo.1 vo. .uE< .wo
u u u u u u u u u u H u
pmcHnEoo ucwucou pmcHnEoo ucmucoo pmcHnEoo ucmucoo pwcHQEOO acoucou cmcHnEou acousoo pwcHnEou ucwucoo moHQMHum>
mcHHmom uoH>mnmm HMUHumLu coHumsHm>m 0Hmnuomumum
. ucwpcommch
coHu04 Hmcomumm Hmcomuwm Iomnm Hmc0mumm Hmuo: Hegemuem Enoz HmpmHoom HmuwHoom

 

.MMOU 02.“ HO WHGSUOE HOW MOHQGHHMNH UUQJPHOO mucm halmmfi C®m3umfl mCOHHMHwHHOU HMHHHMQ USN QHQHUHdzlloUmH mafia“

955

.mmmwcucwumm CH czosm mum me>mH wUGmOHMHcmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmoo.o Amoo.v AHo.V AHo.V Amoo.v AHo.V Amo.v Hmo.o Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Amoo.o Hmoo..
vm. Nm. mm. mm. nm. om. MN. HN. mm. ov. vv. we. H mHmwuHSS

Hnm.o Hun.o Hoo.. Hmw.. Amv.o Hmm.o HHm.o Hmm.o Hno.o Hoo.o Hmm.o HNm.o
Ho. «0.1 No.1 no.1 HH. NH. No.1 No.1 mN. nN. NH. eH. N0.9m .mo

Hmm.o Hom.o Ame.o Hmm.o HNm.v Hon.o Hoo.o Hem.o Hom.o HNv.. Hom.v HoN.v
mo. mo. HH. Ho.. mo. wo. eo. Ho.1 mo.| NH.1 No.1 oH.1 .umuH¢ .mo

Hmm.o Hmm.o Hnm.o HNm.o AHm.o Hmv.o Hmn.v va.v Hmv.o Hom.v .nm.v Hmmw.
coo. mo. No. mo. oH.1 HH.1 «o. HH. HH. mH. mo. mo. mEoocH .wo

Hoo.v AoH.V HNm.V ANN.V HVH.V AmH.o Amn.o HNn.v HmN.V Hem.o HNoo.v AHoo.o
vN.1 nN.: vH.1 mH.I HN.1 HN.1 mo.1 mo.n mH.I vH.| Nv.1 v¢.1 .pHo>< .uQ

Hmooo.o HHoo.v Hmo.v Hoo.o Ano.v Hmo.o HmH.v HnN.o HoN.V AvN.v Hnm.o Hen.v
me. we. nN. nN. oN. mN. HN. oH. mH. nH. mo. mo. .uE< .ma

u u H u u H H u H u H H
pmcHnEou unmucou pmcHnEOU acmusou pmcHQEOU unsucoo pmcHnEoo ucmucoo pmcHnEou ucmucoo pmcHnEou acmucou mmHnmaum>
ucHHmmm HOH>mnwm HMUHumsu COHumsHm>m OHQNHOmumum m

coHuod HMGOmumm HMCOmumm Iomnm Hmcowumm Hmuo: HMCOmem Euoz HmumHoom HmumHoom ucmpcm mch

 

.mo>HusUmxw1meumcwE MOM mmHQMHum> uomucoo cam molmmd cmmsumn mcoHumHmHHoo HMHuumm pcm mHmHuHDZII.UmH mqmda

96

.mommnucoumm cH csonm mum nHw>mH cosmoHMHcmHm

 

 

 

 

“moo.“ Amoo.v Ammo.v Ammo.v AHo.v Ammo.v Ammo.v Ammo.v Hmo.v Hmo.v «moo.v Amoo.v
Hn. cm. on. mm. mm. mN. mm. wN. vN. oN. Nv. ow. H OHQHuHDZ

HoH.o Ano.. HvH.v Ano.v Hmn.o Amm.v Amv.o Hmm.. Avo.o Hmm.o HmH.v .NH.V
mm. mm. NN.I nN.! mo. Noo.l HH. mo. no.l nH.! 0N.l MN.I >Oflcm .MQ

Hmo.o Hoo.. Hmm.o Hmm.o Hom.o HHm.. Hem.o Hmm.o Ann.o Hoo.o HmH.v Hem.o
oN.1 wN.I No.1 No. OH. OH. Ho. Ho. vo. vo. 0N. no. HOHHC .MQ

Hmo.o Hoo.o Hmn.o HNm.o Hoo.v Hom.o Hmm.o Hnm.o Hmn.o Hon.o HmH.o Hmm.v
NM. mm. vo. No.l wo.l mo.l No. No. mo.l vo.l ON.I mo.l OEOOGH .MQ

Ame.“ HeN.v Awo.v AVH.V Hmm.v Aqm.v Anm.v ANw.V AvN.v Hmm.v Hnm.v Avm.v
mm. mH. mm. mm. mo. no.1 no.1 mo.l mH. nH. nH. mo. .pHO>< .wQ

HoH.o HoH.v Hoo.o Hmv.o HHN.V HnH.o Hmm.o Hom.v Amv.o Hoo.o HvN.V ANN.V
«N. vm. mo. HH. wH. ON. mo.l OH.I HH.I mo.l mH.I mH.I .uEd .wo

u u u u u u H u u H u u
pmanEou unmucoo pmcHnEoo usmucou pmcHnsou acmucoo prHnsoo ucmucou pmanEoo ucmucoo pocHnEoo vamucoo mOHanHm>
ocHmem uoH>msmm HmoHuosu soHumsHm>m on>uowH0um : m

coHuo¢ HocOmumm Hmsomumm noon: HMCOmumm Hmuo: Hchmuwm Euoz HmuwHoom HmumHoom u muse mvcH

 

.mmmpucos mo muonuos new meanum> pomucoo tam moumma cmeumn mGOHuMHmHuoo HMHuusm paw onHuHsztl.mmH wands

9T7

.mmmmsuaonm CH :3osm mHm mHm>0H mocmonHcmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHo.o HHo.o .Ho.v HHo.o HHo.v AHo.v HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.v HHo.o
on. om. om. «N. mm. Hm. NN. vN. NN. nN. Hm. mm. H mHmHHHsz
HoH.v HmH.v HHm.o Hmm.o AmH.o Hoo.. Hmo.o HHN.V Hmm.o AnN.o Hom.v Hmm.v
NH. HH. Ho.1 vo.1 oH. mo. mH. mo. vo.1 oo.1 Ho. No.1 noflqm .uo
Hmo.o HmH.o Hom.v Hov.o Hno.o Hmo.o Hmo.o HNo.v Hmm.v Hom.o Hem.. Hmo.o
NH. oH. no. mo. mH. vH. oH. nH. no. no. Ho.1 Ho.1 .kuHd .mo
Hmm.o Hmn.. Hnm.o Hem.o HmH.o HHH.V Hmo.o Hno.o ANN.V HoN.o HHo.o HHo.o
vo.1 no.1 Ho.1 no.1 HH.1 NH.1 NH.1 MH.1 mo.1 no.1 oN.1 HN.1 mEoosH .wo
va.o Hom.o Hvo.o Avo.o Hen.o Hom.o HHm.o HnN.o Hoo.v Hom.o HoH.o Hoo.o
mo. Ho. mH. , mH. No. moo. mo.1 No.1 Ho. moo. oH.1 vH.1 .UH0>¢ .mo
Hmooo.o Hmooo.o HHH.V Hmo.o Hno.v Hmo.o Hmo.o Amo.o oom.v HoN.V HoN.v HHH..
Ne. mm. NH. MH. mH. NH. NH.1 oH.1 No.1 oo.1 oo.1 NH.1 .uEd .mo
H H H H H H H H H H H H
owcHnEou ucmucou pmcHnEou ucwusou pwcHQEoo usmucou pmcHnEou ucmucou pmGHHEOO Hcmusoo pmanEou ucmucou mmHnsHHm>
msHHmmh HoH>mnwm HMUHchu soHumsHm>m UHQNHOwHon m
:OHH0¢ HchmHmm HMCOmem Iomnm HmcomHmm HMHOE HchmHmm EHoz HmumHoom HmumHoom accuse moan

 

.memEmw H0u mmHQMHHu> uomucou can HQ1mm¢ smozumn mcoHumHmHHoo HMHHHmm use mHmHuHsEII.HmH mamma

9E3

.mommnucmHmm :H s3oam on mH0>mH condOHuHcmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«moo.o Hmoo.o AmNo.o HmNo.v Amoo.v Hmoo.o Hmo.Av Hmo.Av «moo.o Hmoo.. Hmoo.o «moo.o
No. ow. nN. oN. mm. on. mH. vH. on. on. Nv. no. H onHuHsz

Hoo.. Hmm.o Hmm.o .nm.v Avo.. Avo.v Hon.o Hon.o HoH.V Ano.o va.v Hmm.o
mo. Hoo.1 Ho.1 no.1 vN. nN. mo. vo. oN. NN. mo. oH. aoflcm .mo

Hom.o Anv.o Hmo.o .Nm.v HHo.. Hmm.v Hmn.. HNo.o HmN.o HNm.o Hom.o HHN.o
oo. mo. mo. Ho.1 mo. No. no.1 oo.1 nH.1 NH.1 nH.1 mH.1 .Hmqu .ma

Ano.o Hmo.o Ano.o Amo.o .Hw.o Hmo.o Avo.o Hmw.v Hmm.o HHo.o Hn¢.o HNm.o
No. mo. mo.1 No.1 oo.1 oo.1 No. oo. oo. oo. mo.1 NH.1 mEoosH .uo

.mo.o “oH.. AmH.. HnH.v AmH.o HHH.V Hen.o Hmo.o Avo.o Avo.o HHoo.. HHoo.v
HN.1 oN.1 oH.1 nH.1 nH.1 oH.1 vo.1 no.1 oN.1 mN.1 mm.1 mm.1 .pHo>¢ .mo

Hmooo.o Hmooo.o Hmo.o Hmo.o HmN.o ANN.V Hom.o HNm.o HNv.o Hmv.o Hmm.o Hmm..
Hm. av. oN. HN. VH. vH. no. mo. oH. oH. HH. NH. .u54 .mo

H H H H H H H H H H H H
pwcHnEoo ucmucoo pmcHnEoo uswucou pmcHnEou ucmucou pwcHnEou ucmucoo pmcHnsou ucwucoo pecHnsou ucoucou moHanHm>
acHHmom HOH>mnom HmoHumnu coHumsHm>m onhuomHoum cmm

coHuo¢ HMCOmHom Hmcomem 10mm: HMCOmHmm HmHoz Hm20mHmm EHoz HmuwHoom HmumHuom vamp mch

 

..WOHME HON mmdfldflHflur “UM.“COU

one me1mm¢ cmmzuwn meoHuaHmHHoo HmHuHmm can mHaHuHae11.meH HHm<H

 

9S9

.mmmmnucmem :H czonn 0Hs mHo>wH mochHuHGOHm

 

 

 

 

 

Goo; Ho; 33.. Ho; Goo; .Ho; HmoX. $.on 2.3.8 Ho; Goo; Ho;
co. co. oN. oN. vm. Hm. HH. mo. NH. oH. mv. Hm. H mHmHuHs:
Ano.o HNH.H Hno.o Anv.o Hmo.o HNH.V HmN.o Hmo.v Hmm.. .Hn.. HNo.o Hoo..
HH. oH. Ho.1 mo.1 NH. oH. no. mo. Nooo. No.1 no. Ho. HoHem .ma
Hmo.o HmH.o Hom.v Hmm.o AnH.o HwH.V AHm.o va.o Hmn.o Hmn.o Amm.o .vN.o
oH. oo. mo. no. mo. mo. mo. mo. No.1 No.1 no.1 no.1 .HmuH< .wo
Hmo.v Hom.o HNm.v HNm.v Hmm.o 2mm.o 2mm.o HHn.. 2mm.o Hmn.o HHo.v HHo.o
Ho.1 voo.1 Noo. Ho.1 mo.1 oo.1 vo.1 No.1 Ho.1 No.1 oH.1 nH.1 mEoocH .wo
Hmo.o Hem.v HvN.V ANN.V Hem.v Hem.o Hom.v Hnm.v HNm.o AnN.o Avoo.v HNoo.o
Ho.1 vo.1 no. no. vo.1 oo.1 oo.1 mo.1 mo.1 no.1 oH.1 oN.1 .pHo>¢ .wo
Hmooo.v Hmooo.o HNo.o HNo.o HNo.o Hmo.o Hmo.o Hov.o me.v HHm.o Hmm.o HmH.o
we. Nv. «H. mH. vH. vH. no.1 vo.1 vo.1 vo.1 oo.1 oo.1 .uE< .mo
H H H H H H H H H H H H
pmcHnEOU ucwucoo pmswneou ucwucou pocHnEoo uzeusoo pmcHnEoo Hcmucou pocHnEou usmucou pmcHnEoo usmucou moHanHd>
oCHHoom H0H>mnwm HMUHumcu coHumsHm>m OHQNHOmHmum so some a
coHuo< Hu:0mem HmCOmHom 10222 HMGOwHom HmHoz HmcomHmm EH02 HmuwHoom HmumHoom u p p H

 

.mHaEMm Hmuou Ham meanHm> Humucoo can 201wm¢ cmo3uon mcoHumHmHHoo HuHuHom can mHmHuHsZ11.an mamas

100

ABS-DE personal hypothetical behavior, personal feeling, and
personal action levels and frequency of contact with the
deaf. The "avoidance variable" rendered one negative but
significant partial correlation at the societal stereotype
level. No significant correlation was obtained for the
enjoyment variable at any level nor was any significant
correlation obtained for the "alternative rewarding oppor-
tunities" variable at any level. The variable of income
derived with the deaf resulted in one negative significant
correlation at the societal stereotype level; it is inter-
esting to note that all correlations were negative for this
variable except the one significant one indicated.

The multiple correlations for the total group be-
tween contact with the deaf and total ABS-DE attitude re-
sponses indicated all positive correlations, with signi-
ficant correlations at the societal stereotype, societal
norm, personal hypothetical behavior, personal feelings,
and personal action levels.

An unexpected finding, and one that parallels the
findings of studies with the mentally retarded, was the
negative correlation between the amount of monetary reward
received for working with the deaf and the ABS-DP attitude
levels (Tables 19a, 19e, 19f, l9g, 19h), though not all
correlations were significant.

Multiple correlations for the TDF group (Table 19a)

between contact with the deaf and total ABS-DE attitude

101

responses shows the comparison to be positive and at the
.025 level of significance for levels 1 through 6. How-
ever, when TDF partial correlations were considered, fre-
quency of contact was not significant at any level; the
avoidance factor was negatively significant at the societal
stereotype level; the alternative variable was positively
significant at levels 3 and 4 (personal moral evaluation
and personal hypothetical levels); enjoyment of experience
factor was positively significant at level 2 (societal
norm). The predominance of positive significant correla-
tions is in support of the hypothesis.

The multiple correlation between contact and the
ABS-DF for the RST group (Table 19b) resulted in a signi-
ficant positive correlation at the societal normative level,
a significant positive correlation at the personal moral
evaluation level and a significant positive correlation at
the personal action level. Partial correlations between
individual predictor contact variables and attitude levels
revealed one significant relationship for the RST group.
This was at the personal action level for the variable
"frequency of contact." The correlation was significantly
positive. Jordan's work (1968, 1969) predicted and con-
firmed the importance of other contact variables besides
"amount" of contact in attitude formation; the data of the

RST partial correlations do not replicate.

102

Multiple correlations for the manager-executive group
(Table 19d) yielded a significant positive correlation at
each level. Partial and multiple correlations yielded
significant positive correlations at level 5 (personal
feeling) and level 6 (personal action) for amount of con—
tact; significant negative correlations at level 1 (soci-
etal stereotype) for the "avoidance" factor as well as a
weak negative correlation at level 6 (personal action);
and a significant positive correlation at level 2 (soci-
etal normative) for amount and enjoyment factor.

Multiple correlations for the MND group (Table l9e)
yielded positive significant correlations between all in-
dependent contact variables and each of the ABS-DP levels.
The partial correlation for the avoidance variable was
positive and significant at the personal action level; for
the "income" variable, it was significantly positive at
level 6; for "alternate rewarding Opportunities" there was
a negative correlation at level 6. Based on the signifi-
cant positive multiple correlations between combined con—
tact variables and the ABS-DP scale levels, H-4 was sup-
ported for the MND group.

The multiple correlations for females (of total
sample) (Table 19f) yielded significant positive correla-
tions at the .01 level. Partial correlations between
amount of contact and the personal action level was signi-

ficantly positive at the .0005 level. Partial correlations

103

between the avoidance variable and societal stereotype
level was negative but weak and at the personal feeling
level a positive significant correlation was obtained.
Partial correlations between income and societal stereo-
type (level 1) yielded a negative but significant correla-
tion, yielded for level 3 a negative correlation, and
yielded for level 4 a negative correlation (but weak).
Partial correlations between alternate rewarding oppor—
tunities and levels 3 and 4 resulted in positive signifi-
cant correlations; the same was true for level 6 though
the resulting correlation was weak. Hypothesis 4 was sup-
ported for females.

Multiple correlations for the male group of the total
sample between contact with the deaf and total ABS-DP at-
titude responses (Table 199) showed positive correlations
at all action levels except level 3 (personal moral evalua—
tion), which was positive but not significant. Partial
correlation coefficients for the contact variable yielded
a significant positive correlation between frequency of
contact and the personal feeling level; and yielded a posi-
tive significant correlation between the frequency of con-
tact variable and personal action level. Partial correla-
tion coefficients between the avoidance factor and societal
stereotype (level 1) were negative and significant, corre-
lation between this factor and societal norm (level 2) also

yielded a negative significant correlation. All levels for

104

this factor were negative but significant at the first two
levels. Partial correlation coefficients between the
"enjoyment" variable and societal norm indicated a positive
significant correlation; the same was true at level 4 (per-
sonal hypothetical behavior). For the male group it can

be said H-4 was partially supported.

Multiple correlations for the total sample (Table 19h)
between contact with the deaf and total ABS-DF attitude'
responses showed significant positive responses at all
levels except level 3 (personal moral evaluation). Par-
tial correlations between frequency of contact and level 4
(personal hypothetical behavior) was positive and signifi-
cant; for level 5 (personal feeling) it was positive and
significant and for level 6 (personal action) positive and
significant. Partial correlations between the avoidance
factor and all levels were negative throughout, but signi-
ficant at the societal stereotype level. Partial correla-
tions between amount of income and all levels were pre-
dominantly negative but significant only at level 1 (soci-
etal stereotype). Partial correlations between alternate
opportunities and each level were not significant except
for a weak positive correlation at level 6; for the enjoy-
ment factor positive significant correlations were obtained
at level 4 and level 6 (though weak). On the basis of the
multiple correlations, hypothesis 4 was supported for the

total sample.

105

Relating_Attitudes and Religiosity

H:§.--Persons who score high on stated importance of
religion will score low on positive attitudes toward the
deaf.

Hypothesis 5 was tested by correlating the ABS-DF
scale with responses to item 82 in the questionnaire sec-
tion of the instrument, which asks the subject to rate the
importance to him of his religion in his daily life.

Table 20 contains the resulting correlations for the var-
ious sample groups and total sample ABS-DF and the reli-
giosity variable.

Hypothesis 5 predicts a negative relationship be-
tween religious importance and the ABS-DF and it can be
seen from Table 20 that only one such correlation appears
which reaches the .05 level of significance: the -.32
correlation on level 5 for the mothers of the non-deaf.
The other correlation in this table which reached signifi-
cance of a positive nature was level 5 for manager—
executives.

The lack of significant correlations except in two
instances leads to the conclusion that this hypothesis was
not supported.

H-6.--Persons who score high on stated adherence to
religion will score low on positive attitudes toward the
deaf.

Hypothesis 6 was tested by correlating the ABS-DF
with.the extent to which the subjects reported that they

(floserved the rules and regulations of their religion, as

106

.momonusonm sH czosm mHm mHo>oH mocmoHMHcmHm

 

Hmm.v Hoo.. HmN.o HmN.o Hmm.v Hem.v
mo. HH. no. no. mo. Ho.1

HHm.V HNo.V Hnm.v AmH.V Hmn.v Amm.v
No. Nm.1 Ho.1 mH. mo.1 $0.1

Hoo.v HNo.o va.o ANN.V AHm.o AHm.v
NN. Hm. OH. mH. no.1 mo.1
Hmv.v Hmm.v HMH.V Amm.v Hom.v Hmv.v
OH. MH. HN. Hoo.1 No. HH.
HHo.V Hmo.v Hom.v Hem.o Hon.v Hom.v
no.1 mN. Ho.1 Ho.1 vo. vH.

Hmm.v Hmv.o Hom.o Hmm.o HmH.o Hmm.v
mo. 0H. mo.1 Ho. ON. we.

vaNv
oHQEMm Hmuoe

Homo
mmoolcoz mo mHmnuo:

Ammo
mo>HusooHMIHmmmsmE

Homo
moon map mo mHQSHOE

Home
mHonomoB Hoosom HoHommm

HHmV
memo map wo mHonommB

 

o m e m N H
mcoHumHmHHou Hm>mH mHmom 201mm<

QSOHU

 

.mmHmEMm How mCOHumHmHHoo conHHoH m0 mocmuHomEH

Umumum mnlmm4ll.om mHm48

107

measured by item 92 in the questionnaire. Table 21 pre-
sents these correlations for the samples.

Table 21 reveals that only one correlation between
the ABS-DF and the religious adherence variable reached
significance and that this one is negative and occurred
.at level 1. In agreement with H—S importance of religion,
Hypothesis 6 is also not supported.

Relating Attitudes and
Demographic Variables

H-7.--Amount of education will be positively related
to favorable attitudes toward the deaf.

This hypothesis was tested by correlating the ABS-DP
with responses to item 83 in the questionnaire which asked
the subject to report his highest level of education. The
resultant correlations for the five sample groups and the
total sample are given in Table 22.

The correlation results suggest that education is
related to favorable attitudes only at level 4 (personal
hypothetical behavior) for the manager-executive group;
however, for teachers of the deaf at level 5 (personal
feelings) a significant negative correlation is noted. A
significant negative correlation at level 6 (actual per-
sonal behavior) as well as a negative correlation at
level 5 were also noted for the total sample.

On the basis of the findings it is concluded that
hypothesis 7 is not supported; however, it must be pointed

cult that for the manager-executive group an interesting

108

.wmmonuconm :H axonm mHs mHm>mH mosmonHcmHm

 

AeH.V HNn.v Hnm.v Hnm.v HNm.v Hmn.v
mo.1 No. wo. wo. Ho.1 No.1

Hnm.v Ame.o Hmm.o Hmn.o Anv.v Avo.o

Ho. OH.1 Ho.1 «0. OH.1 oN.1
Hmm.v Ano.o HHN.V Hmn.v HNH.V Hmo.o
mo.1 mo.1 nH.1 vo. HN.1 NN.I
HnN.v HmN.V HmN.v HHm.v Anv.v AHm.v
oH.1 mH. mH. mo.1 0H.I no.1
Hmv.o Hoo. Hmm.v Hmm.v Hom.v Hmo.v
mo. NN. NH. No. No.1 Hoo.1

Hen.v Hmm.o Hon.v Hom.o ANN.V Hom.o
mo. mo. vo.1 MH. nH. mo.

AvoNo
onEsm Hmuoe

Homo
mmoQIGOZ m0 mHonuoz

Ammo
mm>Husooxm1Hmmmsmz

Homo
mmmo mnu mo mHmnHoz

Home
mHmzommB Hooaom HmHsmmm

AHmv
memo 05H m0 mHonommB

 

o m e m N H
msoHumHmHHou Hm>mH mHmom 201mm¢

QDOHD

 

.mmHmEMm How msoHHMHmHHoo :onHHmH ou mocmHmzom

emumum mo1mm411.HN mHmee

109

.momonusmHmm cH csosm mHm mHo>oH wUHMOHHHcmHm

 

 

HHo.o Hoo.o ANN.o imN.o HeN.o Hem.o lemme
oH.1 HH.1 mo. no. no. no.1 mHasmm Hence
HNm.o HoH.o HHo.o Ame.o Hoo.1 HeN.o HHmo
eH. HN. no.1 HH.1 no. nH.1 Heme1eoz No mumeuo:
HNH.o HNo.o Hmo.o Ano.o HHH.V 2mm.o Hmmo
HN. no.1 oN. HN. HN. oo. mm>Huoomxm1Hmomeez
ANN.V Hom.o HMN.V Hmo.o Hoo.o HmH.o Home
mH. oo.1 nH. HH. HN.1 oN.1 Heme are no meereoz
inm.o Hem. Hoo. Hen.o Hoo.o ANN.V Home
NH. HH. NH. eo.1 oo.1 oH.1 memromme Hooeom HmHaomm
HHn.o HHo.o Hom.o HoH.o HHn.o Hoo.o HHmo
mo1. no.1 oo.1 oH.1 mo.1 Ho.1 Home was no mumeomme
o m e m N H

msoHHMHmHHoo Ho>mH onom 201mm¢

QDOHU

 

.memEmm HOM mCOHHMHmHHoo COHHMUSCm mo

Hcsosm mo1mm<11.NN mqmme

110

and somewhat positive direction appears in contrast to
other levels.

It should be noted that for the TDF group all corre-
lations were negative though significant only at level 5.
Why there should be a negative direction concerning the
education variable for the TDF group raises some questions
and this is commented on in Chapter VI.

H-8.—-Age will be positively related to favorable
attitudes toward the deaf.

Hypothesis 8 was tested by correlating the ABS-DP
with the respondents' ages as determined by item 81 in the
questionnaire section of the instrument. These correla-
tions appear in Table 23 for the various sample groups.

The only significant correlation appeared at level 4
(personal hypothetical behavior) for mothers of the deaf
and this one is negative. The same is true for the total
sample._¥Why increasing age is related to negative atti-
tudes toward the deaf at the personal hypothetical level
for mothers of deaf children is difficult to explain. It
can however be explained by the fact that with increasing
age, problems of job placement, achievement, etc. are of
increasing concern to mothers of deaf children.

The one significant positive correlation was noted
for teachers of the deaf at level 6 (actual personal be-
havior); for this group we find support for the hypothesis.
For all other groups we found no support. It can thus be

concluded that the hypothesis is selectively supported for

111

.mmmonuConm CH Csonm me>oH oOCMOHmHCmHm

 

 

Hoo.o Hon.o Hmo.o HNH.V ANN.o Hmo.o HeoNo
No. No.1 NH.1 oH.1 no. HH.1 mHasmm Hence
Hom.o HoH.o Hnm.o HNo.o Hno.o Hmo.o HHmo
mH.1 oN.1 No. mo.1 No.1 Ho. Hemo1eoz No mumruoz
Hoo.1 HoN.o Hem. Hmn.v Hom.o HHe.o Ammo
NH. nH. mo. eo. oH. HH. mm>Husomxm1Hmmmcmz
HmN.o HNm.o Hmo.o Hno.o Heo.o Hom.o Home
oH.1 No.1 nN.1 Ho.1 mo. oH.1 name we» no mHano:
HoH.o ANN.V HmH.o HNo.o Hom.o Hon.o Home
HN. oH. oH.1 Ho.1 eH. Ho.1 mumroome Hoonom HmHsmmm
Hoo.o Hoo.o HHe.o Hmm.o Ame.o HNH.o HHmo
oN. no.1 NH.1 mo. HH. NN. memo was Ho mumnomme
o m e m N H

mCOflUMHmHHOU HO>®H OHMOW .lemm/N

QCOHU

 

.monEmm HOH mCOHHmHoHHoo mom 201mm<11.mN mHmCB

112

the teachers of the deaf group but was not supported for
all other groups.

H-9.--Women will score higher on positive attitudes
toward the deaf than will men.

The analysis provided means and standard deviations
according to sex only for the total sample; thus, it was
not possible to evaluate any ABS-DF differences according
to sex within the individual sample groups. An E test was
calculated1 between total sample male and female means on
each of the six levels of the ABS-DF, and these results
appear in Tables 27 and 28.

Table 28 indicates that although there were small
male-female differences on levels 1 through 6 predominantly
favoring the male group, none of the differences was signi-
ficant. Table 27 for content scores only, indicated the
same small differences favoring the male group for levels
3 through 6. For levels 1 and 2, the female group was
favored. For all levels shown, except levels 3 and 4
involving intensity, the differences were not significant.

Hypothesis 9 is clearly not supported by the data.

Relating Attitudes and
Change Orientation

 

 

H-10.--Persons who score high on change orientation
will score high on positive attitudes toward the deaf.

Hypothesis 10 was tested by a multiple correlation

program which produced a correlation between responses to

 

1The E is equivalent to a 3 test.

113

the six change orientation questions described in Chapter III,
and each of the six levels for each sample group as well as
the total sample. In addition, this program produced a par-
tial correlation between each change orientation variable
and the various ABS-DF levels, with the remaining change
orientation variables "partialled out" or held constant.
The change orientation questions dealt with self change
(item 84 in the questionnaire), child rearing (item 85),
birth control (item 86), automation (item 87), political
leadership (item 88), and rule adherence (item 93). The
results of the multiple regression analysis are presented
in Tables 24a through 24h.

Examining the data in the Table 24 series, a random
pattern of significant correlations is quite apparent.

The results are somewhat in contrast to those of the
Harrelson study in respect to magnitude and significance
as well as direction.

For teachers of the deaf, Table 24a, the multiple
correlations between the change orientation variables and
the ABS—DE were all significant at each level. Partial
correlations between individual predictor variables and
attitude levels revealed significant positive correlations
for self change at the societal stereotype level; a signi-
ficant negative correlation for the variable in child
rearing at the personal action level; a significant nega-

'tive correlation for the birth control variable at the

114

.mmmocucmHmm CH :30Cm me mHo>wH wononHCme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmoo.o Hmoo.o HHo.o HHo.o Hmoo.o Hmoo.o Hmoo.o Hmoo.. Hmoo.o HHo.o .moo.o Hmoo.o
nv. vv. em. em. Hm. om. Ne. me. nm. mN. ow. vv. H onHuHsE
Hmo.o Hoo.1 AoH.o Hoo.1 HHo.o HHo.o Hoo.1 Hoo.o HNo.o HNo.o 2mm.o Ho.Ho
mN. oN. oH. VH. mm. mm. oN.1 oN.1 mo. mo. mo. mmooo. .Hmntc oHsm
Hov.o 2mm.v Hee.o HNv.o Ano.v Hmo.o HNo.V Hom.v HNo.o HNv.o Hmo.o Hmo.o
HH. oH. NH.1 NH.1 nN. oN. oo. oo. NH. NH. oN. oN. .pmmH .Hom
.mo.o Hmo.o Hom.o Hoo.o ino.o Hoo.o Hmo.o Hoo.o HNH.. HON.o HnN.o Hmm.o
Nm. Nm. no.1 mo. no. mo. oN. mN. MN. oH. nH. mo. CoHumEous<
Hmo.v Hoo.. HOH.1 Hmo.o HnH.o ANN.o Hoo.1 Hmo.o Hom.o 2mm.o Ham.o HNom.
no. No. oN.1 mN.1 HN.1 oH.1 No. Ho.1 Ho. Ho. NH.1 no.1 .ucoo CHHHm
HNo.v Hmo.o Hom.o HHo.o Hon.o Hem.o HNm.o Hmm.o Hoe.o Hne.o Hom.o HmN.o
mm.1 Nm.1 oH. mo. vo. Ho. No.1 moo.1 HH. HH. vH.1 nH.1 .Hmwm pHHcO
Hoo.1 Hoo.o HNm.o HmH.o Hnm.o Hmm.o Hmo.o 2mm.o Hom.o HHm.o HNo.o Hmo.o
Ho. No.1 mH.1 HN.1 mo.1 oo.1 no.1 mo.1 mo. oH. mm. mm. mmcmcu MHmm
H H H H H H H H H H H H
pmcHnEou Hcmucoo meHnEou HCquOU meHnEoo quuCou meHQEOO quuCOU prHQEOU HCmuCOU meHnEOU HCmHCOU meanHm>
oCHHmmm H0H>mnmm HMUHHwCH COHumsHm>m onnuomHoum m
COHHUC HMCOmem HCCOmHmm 102nm HmCOwHom HMHo: HmCOmHom EH02 HMHOHUOm HmumHoom qupcm mpCH

 

.wmmmu Q51... MO WHOSUMQU .HOM mmflflflflhm> COHumucwflho w0CM£O CCM hfllmmfi C003UQD WCOHUMHOHHOU HMHHHMQ MUCH mHanUHDEII.MVN “Am/NH.

.mmmoSHConm CH C3osm on mHm>mH OUCMUHMHcmHm

 

11.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmo.v Amo.o .mNo.o Hmo.v Amoo.v Hmoo.o Hmoo.o Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.o HHo.v
I I O O I I O O O I O 0‘. If
nN. N on N 2 me E. on no 3 nm on H mHaHuHs: .
me.o HNm.o HoN.o Hmm.v HNm.o Hmm.v HHm.o HoH.o HNH.V HHN.V “oN.o HoN.v
mo. mo. NH. NH. No.1 oo.1 No.1 oN.1 NN. NH. oH. NH. .Hmnpd mHsm h.
Amn.o HNn.V an.o Hov.o Hnn.v Hmm.o HoH.V Hmo.v Hmv.v HNN.V ANN.V HHN.V
mo. mo. oH. NH. vo. mo. oN. nN. oH. «H. NH. oH. .pmmH .Hom
HNm.o ANN.V HNo.o Hmm.v Ho.Ho HNo.o Hmm.v Hom.v ANN.V HoN.V Hom.o HHm.V
Ho. No. no. Hoo.1 mooo. Ho.1 Noo.1 No.1 nH.1 oH.1 No.1 No.1 CoHumEOHsd
Hon.o Avo.o Hnm.o Hoo.o HeN.o Hmm.o HnN.o AeN.o Hmm.o Ho.Hv HNo.v AoNuo
vo.1 oo.1 No.1 Hoo. NH. NH. NH. NH. Ho.1 onooo. no. «H. .HCOO CHHHmlc
va.o Hon.o HoN.v HmN.v Hom.o HNNso Hov.o HnN.v HHo.o HNo.o Hom.o HNm.o
no. mo. oH.1 oH.1 mo. mH. oH. mH. NN. HNJ No. Ho. .Hmom UHHCO.1
HNH.V HmH.o HHN.o HNm.V HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o Hooo.v HNH.V HNH.V Hmo.o HmH.o
HN. NH. nH. mo. nN. NN. nN. oN. NN. oH. nN. NH. memso mem.4
H H H H H H H H H H H H
meHnEoo HCmHCOU UoCHnEoo HCwHCou poCHnEou ucoHCOU toCHQEoo HCmHCOO thHnEou ucmuCoo meHQEOU HCmHCOU meQMHHm>
oCHHwom H0H>wnom HmoHHmCu CoHHmsHm>m onnuomHon m
COHHOC HMCOmHom HwCOmHom 102nm HMCOmHom HmHoz HmcomHom EH02 HmHoHoom 3r HmuoHoom ucmpco mpCH

.\

11L,

4

.mHGSUMOU H0050»... HMHDOQH HOW wOHQflHHM> GOHHmHCwHHO OUGMSU UCM hfllmmé C0®3UQQ mCOHDMHmHHOU Hflflflhmm U96 QHQNUHDEII.QVN @939

Jfil6

.mwmmCHCmem CH Csonm 0H0 mHm>mH UOCmUHchmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amoo.v Hmoo.v “moo.v Amoo.v AmNo.v Hmo.v Hmo.v Hmo.v HmNo.v HHo.v . Hmo.Av Hmo.Av
mv. wc. we. we. NN. nN. NN. NN. NN. VN. mH. NH. H OHQHUHDZ
HNH.V Ano.v HOH.V Hmc.v ANN.V How.» . ANm.v HnN.v Hom.v ANN.v HON.V Hom.v
VN. nN. NN. NN. No. NH. No.1 VH.I OH. NO. vo; Ho. .Hmnpd OHDm
ANN.V Hom.v Hem.v HNm.o ANN.v Hmm.o HnN.o, Hmn.o HmH.V HNH.V Hmm.v HNv.o
No.1 No.1 . Ho.1 No.1 vH.1 No.1 vH.1 v0.1 NN. NN. No. NH. .vmmH .Hom
Hov.v HN¢.V ANN.V HNH.V Hmm.v HNm.v va.v Hmn.v . ANN.V AHvHV va.v Hom.v
NH. HH. NH.1 ON.I «H. OH. Ho.1 no.1 NH. NH. NH. No. COHHMEOHS<
.Ho.v ANo.v Hmo.v HNH.v HHN.V va.v ANn.V Hmn.v ANH.v Amo.v HmN.o ANNMV
NN. vN. ON.I NN.! No. HH. No. mo. NN.1 NN.! No.1 Ho.1 .HCOU SHHHm
Hmm.o Hnn.o How.v HNv.V HNo.v Hmmio Hmm.v HHv.o HHN.V Hmm.o Hmm.v Hoo..
Ho. mo. No.1 NH.1 No.1 No.l No.1 NH.1 vo. No. No.1 Hoo.1 .Hmmm @HHSU
Hmm.v Hmw.v Hen.v Amn.v ANN.V HHm.v ANN.V HVN.V ANN.V ANm.v Hwn.v AnN.v
no.l no.1 Ho. No.1 mH. OH. NH. NH. Ho. Noo. No.1 No.1 QOGMSU MHmm
H H H H H H H H H H H H
thHnEou uCouCoo thHnEoo uCouCoo poCHnEoo ucouCou prHnEou uCoHCOO thHnEoo HCQHCOO poCHnEoo uCoHCOU mmHQMHHm>
oCHHooh HOH>mcom HMUHHoCu CoHumsHm>m . OHQNuoonum m
C0HH0< HMComem HMCOmHom loan: HMCOmHom HMHoz HmcomHmm EH02 HmuoHoom HMHUHUON qupCm mpCH

 

.umop map Ho mHOHHOE HON moHanHm> COHHMHCoHHo omCmco pCm m01mm¢ CmmBHon mCOHHMHmHHoo HMHHHMQ UCM mHmHuHsE11.0vN mqmma

.mwmmCquHmm CH Czonm me mHm>oH moCmonHcmHm

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHo.o Hmo.o Hmoo.o HHo.v HHo.o HmNo.o HmNo.o HHo.v HHo.v HmNo.v , Hmoo.v Hmoo.o
oN. mN. «N. NN. oN. oN. nN. NN. NN. NN. we. NN. H mHmHHHCE
ANN.V HHv.o HHH.V ANN.V Hmm.v Hnm.v HHm.o Hov.o HNv.o HNv.o HmN.V ANN.V
NH. NH. NN. nH. No. No. oH. NH. NH. HH. nH.1 NH.1 .Honpd mHsm
Hmm.o HHm.o Ho.Hv Hom.v HoN.o ANN.o HHm.o Ho.Ho HHH.o HNH.V ANN.V Hmv.v
No. No.1 Nooo. No. NH.1 nH.1 No.1 nooo.1 NN.1 NN.1 NH.1 HH.1 .pmoq .Hom
HnN.o HHe.o HNH.V HnN.o ANN.V ANN.V Hom.o Hov.o Ame.o Hoo.v ANN.o Hee.o
oH.1 NH.1 NH.1 oH.1 NH.1 nH.1 No. oH. NH.1 No.1 VH.1 HH.1 CoHHmEousd
HNm.v Hmm.o ANN.V HNH.V Hnm.v Anv.o Hon.v AHo.o ANN.V Hom.v Hom.o Hmm.v
No.1 No.1 oH.1 NN.1 No.1 HH.1 No.1 no.1 NH.1 NH.1 No. voo.1 .HCOO CHHHm
HHH.V HoN.o Hon.o Hmv.v Hom.o Hom.v HoH.o HHH.V HNo.o Hmv.. HHo.o Hno.o
NN. NH. eo. HH. mo. 0H. NH. NN. no. Ho.1 mN. oN. .Hmom pHHCO
Hnm.o Hmn.o HNm.o Hnm.v Hon.o Ame.v Hom.o Hmm.o Ham.o HNm.v HHo.o Hon.o
No.1 vo.1 No. No. mo. HH. No.1 No.1 Hoo. No. no.1 vo.1 mmCmnu HHmm
H H H H H H H H H H H H
thHnEou HCouCou toCHnEoo HCoHCOO ooCHnEoo ucmuCoo toCHnEoo HCmHCoo meHnEOO HCmHCoo poCHHEOU Hcmucou moHanHm>
oCHHomm HoH>mcwm HMUHHoCH CoHumsHm>m . onnuooHoum m
COHHUC HmcomHmm HmCOmHmm 1oo>2 HmcomHom HMHOZ HsCOmHoe EH02 HmuoHoom HmumHoom qupCm mpCH

 

.mm>Husomxm1memMCmE How mmHanHm> CoHumucoHHo omCmco tcm 201mm< CmQBHmn mCOHHmHmHHoo HmHHHmQ pCm mHmHuHCE11.va mHm<B

118

.mmmwnucmHmm CH C3onm mHm mHm>mH COCCUHchmHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmo.Ao Amo.nv Hmoo.o Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.o Hmoo.o Hmo.Ao Hmo.v Hmoo.v Hmoo.v
0N. oN. Hv. Nv. Nv. ov. me. Ne. HN. NN. oN. av. H mHQHHHCz
Hmm.o Hnm.o HHm.o Hom.o Hom.o Hmo.o .NH.V HnH.o Hom.o HmH.o HHo.o HNoo.o
Hoo.1 No.1 No. vo. mo. no. NN. 0N. nH. oN. nN. mv. .Hmzpd oHsm
Hom.o ANN.V Hmo.o HHH.V Hmm.o Hom.o HHm.o Hom.o Hom.o ANN.V HNn.o HHv.o
oH. NH. NN. vN. No. Ho.1 No.1 No.1 Ho.1 No.1 No.1 NH.1 .pmmH .Hom
HNm.o Hom.v HoH.o Aeo.o Hov.o Hom.o HNH.o Amm.o Hoo.1 HHN.V Hom.o Hmm.o
oH. vo. HN.1 oN.1 HH. No. oN. vH. Ho. vo.1 No. No. COHHmEOHsd
HHo.o HHm.o Hon.o HoN.o Hen.o Hmo.o Hmn.o HHm.o HNe.o Hov.o HvN.v HoN.o
No.1 No.1 No.1 nH.1 No.1 no.1 v0.1 No.1 NH.1 NH.1 VH.1 nH.1 .HCOO CHHHm
Hnm.o Hmm.o HNo.o HmH.o Hmo.o 20H.v HNo.v HHH.V 2mm.o HoN.o Hon.o ANH.V
No. No. no.1 NN.1 om. mN. HN. oN. No.1 nH.1 mo.1 NN.1 .Hmom pHHCU
Hno.o Hmo.v HmH.o ANH.V HmH.v Avo.v HON.V HnH.V Hom.v HnN.V Hmm.v ANm.v
Ho. 00. NN. NN. NN. oN. mH. HN. OH. VH. No. 0H. moCmnu mHom
H H H H H H H H H H H H
meHQEOU HCCHCOO poCHQEOU quuCou meHnEou HCoHCOU meHQEOU HCwHCOU UoCHnEoo chHCOU prHCEOU quHCOU mmHQCHHm>
oCHwam H0H>mcwm HmoHHwCH coHumsHm>m onnuowHme m
COHHU< HCCOmem HMCOmHmm Iomnm HmCOmem HmHOZ HmCOmHom EH02 HmumHoom HmumHuom qupcm mpCH

.Hmop1C0C mo mHmCHoE HOH onanHm> CoHumHCoHHo moCmCo pCm Houmm< waxumn wCoHHmHmHHoo HmHuHmQ UCM mHmHHHsE11.ovN mqmde

Jfil9

.mmeCHCOHmm CH CBOCm

0H0 mHm>mH OUCCUHMHCmHm

 

 

 

 

 

HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.v HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.v Hmo.Ao HHo.o
NN. NN. NN. NN. HN. HN. NN. HN. NN. NH. NH. mH. H OHQHHHCS
HNo.o Hmo.o HHo.V Hno.v HvH.o HnN.v Hmn.o HVN.V HNH.o HoN.V Amo.o ANN.V
NH. VH. NH. NH. HH. No. No.1 no.1 HH. mo. No. No. .HOHCd mHsm
ANo.V Hmo.v HvN.o HNN.V HNv.o ANN.N ANN.N Anv.v HmH.o HNH.V Hmo.o Hom..
vH. NH. No. No. No. No. Ho. mo. HH. HH. No. mo. .pmmH .Hom
HNo.o Hmo.o AmH.o HvH.v HHm.o Hon.v HNH.V HNH.V ANN.V HHvJV ANN.V an.v
oH. vH. oH.1 HH.1 mo. No. NH. oH. No. mo. No. mo. COHHMEOHCC
ANN.V AHN.V Hmo.o Hoo.o HHN.V HHN.V HNo.o Hmo.o Hoe.o Hmv.o Hoo.o HnNHv
Ho. Ho.1 NH.1 oH.1 vo. vo. No. No. No.1 No.1 No.1 Ho.1 .HCOO CHHHm
HNm.o Hom.o HHN.V ANN.V Heo.o HNo.o Hov.o Hnm.o va.o Hem.o ANN.N HNo.o
Ho. Ho. No. No.1 NH. NH. No. eo. No. mo. No.1 NH.1 .Hmmm CHHCO
HNe.o Ame.v HoH.o HNm.o HHo.o HHo.o Hoo.o Ano.v ANN.V Hmv.o HNm.V Hmo.o
mo. No. NH. mo. NH. NH. HH. NH. No. No. vo. No. memCO HHmm
H H H H H H H H H H H H
thHnEOO HCOHCOO thHHEOO HCOHCOU COCHQEOU HCOHCOO owCHCEOO HCOHCOO meHnEOU HCOHCOU thHHEOO HCOHCOO mOHCMHHm>
mCHHomm H0H>mnom HMOHHoCH COHHmsHm>m OHmnuomHoum m
COHHOd HCCOmem HCCOmHmm Iomnm HCCOmed HNHOZ HmcomHmm EH02 HmumHoom HCHOHOOm HCmpCo mpCH

.mmHmEOm HOw mmHanHm> COHHNHCOHHO OUCCCO tCm 201mm4 cwwzumn mCOHHMHwHHOO HmHuHmm pCm OHQHHHCSII.va NANCE

120

.mmmeHCmHmm CH Czocm OHM mHm>oH OOCMOHHHCNHN

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmo.o Amo.Av AmNo.o HHo.o HHo.v Hmoo.o AmNo.o HHo.V Hmoo.o Hmoo.v . Hmoo.o Hmoo.o
oN. NH. nN. NN. oN. NN. mN. NN. Nv., nN. NN. mm. H mHmHHHCE
Hoo.v Hvo.v HvH.o HNH.V Hmw.o ANN.V Hmo.v ANN.V HHH.V HmH.V an.v ANN.V
No. mo. NH. nH. No. mo. mo. No. oN. nH. No.1 HH.1 .Hocpd mHsm
Ann.v ANN.V Hmn.v HNv.o HNH.V HoN.v Hom.o HHN.V HNo.o Avo.v HVN.V ANN.V
vo. No. No. oH. nH.1 NH.1 No.1 Ho. nN.1 NN.1 NH.1 HH.1 .pmmH .Hom
HnN.o Hev.o Ave.v Hoo.v ANN.V HNH.V Hoo.o HHN.V HeN.o HNN.V HHN.o Hom.o
NH.1 oH.1 oH.1 No.1 vH.1 NH.1 mo. No. oH.1 NH.1 NH.1 HH.1 COHHCEOHCC
Hoo.v Hoo.v ANN.V HNH.V HvN.V HNN.V Hom.v Hmm.v ANN.V HHN.V HHN.N me.v
No.1 No.1 NH.1 NH.1 NH.1 NH.1 no.1 no.1 mH.1 NH.1 Ho.1 Ho. HCOO CHHHm
HnN.v Hom.v HNn.v ANN.V Hom.o HNv.v HHN.V Hoo.v HvN.o Anv.o HNo.V HNo.o
«H. No. «o.1 No. no. No. mH. oN. eH. mo. NN. NN. .Hmmm UHHCU
ANN.V HNn.v .nm.o HNN.V HNN.V HNH.V HNm.V HNm.o HNn.v Hmo.v Hnm.v Hoo.v
No.1 vo.1 .voo. Ho. mH. NH. No. No. No. No. no.1 no.1 ONCMCO Hwa
H H H H H H H H H H H H
COCHQEOO HCOHCOU COCHHEOU HCOHCOO prHnEOU HCOHCOU tOCHnEOU HCOHCOO COCHHEOO HCOHCOO prHQEOO HCOHCOU mmHHMHHm>
mCHHoem Hpomsmm HMOHHOCH COHHmsHm>m OHQNHOOHOHN m
CoHuo< HMCOmHom HMCOmem loan: HCCOmem HMHOS HMCOmem EH02 HmumHoom HmuoHoom HCOUCO OUCH

.mmHmE HOm mmHanHm> COHHCHCOHHO moCmso pCm malmmd COOBHOQ mCOHumHmHHOU HmHHHmQ pcm OHQHHHCS11.NVN mHm<B

121

.mmwOLHConm CH Czosm mHm mHm>mH OOCMUHHHCmHm

 

 

 

 

 

HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.o HHo.V HHo.v HHo.v HHo.v HHo.V HHo.v . HNo.AV HNo.Av
oN. NH. nN. NN. NN. nN. HN. HN. oN. nH. mo. No. H mHQHuHC:
Hoo.o HNo.o HHo.o HNo.o HNH.V ANN.V HNn.o HHe.. HNo.o Hoo.o Hom.o ANN.V
NH. HH. nH. NH. No. No. No.1 No.1 NH. NH. woo. Ho.1 .HOCUH 0Hsm
HHH.V Hmo.. ANN.V ANN.V HHN.V HNm.V Hen.o ANN.V Hon.o ANN.V HNe.o Hon.v
oH. HH. No. no. Ho.1 Noo. No.1 Noo. No.1 Ho.1 vo.1 No.1 .pmmH .Hom
HNN.V HNN.V HNo.o Heo.v Hme.o Hom.o HeN.o HNN.V HVN.V AHN-V HnN.v Hee.o
No. No. vH.1 NH.1 vo.1 No.1 No. vo. Ho. Noo.1 No. No. COHHmEOHC¢
ANN.V HHN.V HNo.V HHo.o HnN.V ANN.V ANN.V va.v HNv.v HoN.V ANN.V Annuo
No. Ho. NH.1 NH.1 vo. No. Ho. Nooo. No.1 vo.1 No.1 No.1 .HCOU CHHHm
HvN.o HNv.V ANN.V AnN.o HHo.V Avoo.v Hoo.o HNo.V Hoo.v HOH.V HoN.o HHN.V
No. No. Ho. vo.1 nH. NH. HH. NH. NH. oH. No. Ho.1 .Hmom UHHCO
ANN.N HnN.o HHH.V HnN.v Avoo.v HNoo.o HNo.v HNo.V HoN.o ANN.V ANN.V HNn.V
co. co. oH. No. NH. NH. oH. NH. No. no. No. No. meCCU HHmm
H H H H H H H H H H H H
thHnEOU HCOHCOU meHCEOO HCOHCOU meHnEOO HCOHCOO meHnEOO HCOHCOO meHnEOU HCOHCOU UOCHQEOU HCOHCOO mmHCMHHm>
mCHHomm HOH>mCmm HmuHumCH COHHmsHm>m OHQNHOOHOHN Q
CoHuod HCCOmHmm HCCOmHmm 1omnm HMCOmem HMHOZ HMCOmHom EH02 HouwHoom HmumHoom HCOUCO OUCH

 

.mHmEmw HCHOH HON mmemHHm> COHHCHCOHHO memno pr malmmm cmm3uon mCOHHmHmHHOO HmHHHmm pCm OHQHHHCZII.CVN mqm<s

122

personal feeling level; two positive significant corre-
lations for the variable on automation at the personal
moral evaluation level and at the personal action level;
for the variable of political leadership a positive signi-
ficant correlation at the societal stereotype level; and
for the variable on rule adherence a negative correlation
at the personal moral evaluation level, a positive signi-
ficant correlation at the personal hypothetical behavior
level, and a positive correlation at the personal action
level.

For regular school teachers, Table 24b, the multiple
correlations between the ABS-DP and the change orientation
variables were all significant at each level. Partial cor-
relations between individual variables and attitude levels
resulted in the following:

1. Significant positive correlations for the variable
dealing with self change at the personal moral
evaluation level and at the personal hypothetical
behavior level.

2. A significant positive correlation for the child
rearing variable at the societal normative level.

3. A significant positive correlation for the poli-
tical leadership variable at the personal moral
evaluation level.

The multiple correlations for the group of mothers of

the deaf, Table 24c, revealed positive significant correla-

tions for all levels except level l--societal stereotype.

123

Partial correlations were significant (positive) at
the personal action level for the variable of birth control
and at the personal feeling level for the variable of rule
adherence.

For the manager-executive group, Table 24d, the
resulting multiple correlations for all levels were sig-
nificant.

The multiple correlations obtained for the mothers
of the non-deaf, Table 24e, were positive and significant
for every level except for the personal action level.

Partial correlations were significant at level 4
(hypothetical behavior) for self change; level 3 (personal
moral evaluation) for child rearing; a negative correla-
tion at level 5 (personal feeling) for automation; a weak
positive correlation at level 5 for political leadership;
and significant positive correlations at level 1 (societal
stereotype) for rule adherence.

The partial correlations for the total female group,
Table 24f, revealed a significant positive correlation at
the personal hypothetical level for the variable of self
change and at the same level for the variable Of child
rearing; however, a significant negative correlation at
the personal feeling level for birth control. A signifi-
cant positive correlation at the personal action level for
the variable of automation. A similar significant positive

correlation was obtained at the personal action level for

124

political leadership while for the variable of rule adher-
ence significant positive correlations at the personal
feeling and personal action levels.

Multiple correlations for the total female group
revealed significant positive correlation at all levels.

The multiple correlations for the male group, Table
249, were significant and positive at all levels except
the personal action level. Also only two partial correla-
tions were significant; one was positive for the variable
of child rearing at the societal stereotype level, the
other was a negative significant correlation for the
variable of political leadership at the societal norm
level.

For the total sample group, Table 24h, the multiple
correlations Obtained were significant throughout except
for the societal stereotype level.

Also, reference to the product-moment correlations
on which the multiple correlations are based revealed that
most of the latter are derived from both positive and nega-
tive product—moment correlations. It is not surprising,
therefore, that nearly all of these multiple correlations
reach the .05 level of significance. Hagood and Price (1952)
point out however:

The coefficient of multiple correlation does not
have any direction since the concept of direction is
not applicable to association between one variable
and several others considered simultaneously. The
coefficient of multiple correlation is often a com-

bined measure of positive and negative relation-
ships (p. 508).

125

Thus, while there is a weak relationship within the
various samples and the total sample between the change
orientation variables and the ABS-DF, in the sense that a
significant amount of ABS-DF variance can be accounted for
by the multiple correlation coefficients, the relationship
is not a direct one as predicted by Hypothesis 10.

It is therefore concluded that the data in Tables
24a through 24h is partially supportive of Hypothesis 10.
Relating Attitudes to Opinions on
Educafional Aid‘afid Planning

H:ll.--Agreement with government aid to education
will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward
the deaf.

Hypothesis 11 was tested by correlating the ABS-DE
with items 89 and 90 of the personal questionnaire which
deals with opinions regarding increased local and federal
government financial support of education respectively.
These correlations are reported for the samples in Table 25.

Table 25 reveals that the aid to education variable
bears the strongest relationship to ABS-DE attitudes in
the teachers of the deaf group where 6 of the 12 scale level
correlations reach significance. A number Of other signi-
ficant correlations are scattered throughout Table 25, but
in none of the other groups does a pattern emerge as
clearly as with the teachers of the deaf, where positive

correlations are found on levels 1, 2, 4, and 6.

126

.momOCHCmHmm CH C30Cm OHM mHm>OH OOCCOHHHCmHm

 

 

H
AoH. HHo.o HHN.V HNo.o HHoo.o HNo.o
oH. NH. No. HH. oN. NH. eHm HNHwemH
HNH.o Hen.o HNH.o Heo.o HNo.o HNo.o mHCsmm Hmuoe
oo. No. oH. NH. NH. eH. on HmOOH
Hne.o HNo.o Hem.o HnN.o HHN.o Hoo.o
Ho. no. No.1 NH. eH. NN. on HMHmomH
HnN.. HNH.V HNN.V Hon.o Hoe.o ANN.. Hema1coz Ho mHmCuo:
NH. NN. No. Ho. NH. NH. eHm HmooH
Hnm.o HNo.o Hem.o HnN.o HHN.o Hoo.o
Ho. no. No.1 NH. oH. NN. oHe HmHmewH .
HHH.o HNN.o Hon.o HNH.o ANN.V Hmo.o mm>Husomxm1mHmmmsz
NN. NH. eo. HN. No. NN. eH< HNOOH
Hmo.o HoN.o Hno.o HNo.o HmN.o HNH.o
nN. NH. NN. No. NH. oN. oH< HMHmemH
HHo.o HHN.V ANN.V HnH.o HeH.o Hoo.o Heme men Ho mHmCHoz
NN. No. oH. NH. HN. NN. NHN HmooH
Hoo. Hmo.v HHN. ANN.V HHo.o 2mm.o
eN. NN. NH. «H. «N. Ho. on HmeomH
Ann.o Hnm.o Hoo.1 Hon.o Hen.o HHN.o mHmCommH Hoorom HmHstm
eo. Ho. no. oo. mo. NH.1 eH< HNOOH
HNoo.o Hmo.o HnN.o HnN.o HNo.o HNe.o
He. eN. NH. No.1 HN. oH. on HmHmemH
HNoo.o HHN.V HHoo.o Hno.o HHo.o Hoo.1 Heme an» H0 menomms
oe. oH.1 om. oN. HN. NN. eH< HNOOH
o m e N N H
mCOHHMHOHHOU HO>0H mHmow malmmm mmHCMHHm> QCOHO

 

.memEmm HOH mCoHumHmHHoo COHumospo OH CHM HMHOUOH pCm HCOOH CHHB HCOEOOHmm malmm<ll.NN mHmNB

H

127

Turning to the results for the total sample, it is
noted that the direction of the correlation coefficients
for those that are significant are positive. Judging from
the results for the total sample, it would appear that the
aid-to-education variables are related to ABS-DF attitudes
at the stereotypic, societal interactive norm, personal
moral evaluation, and personal feeling level. Though weak
they are all positive for the total sample. The findings
for the teachers of the deaf are positive and significant
at levels 1, 2, 4, and 6. The correlations were much
larger than for the total group. For the other groups the
significant correlations were scattered but the pattern of
direction was positive.

In summary, it can be said that the hypothesis is
generally supported for the teachers of the deaf group and
for the total sample. In the sense of direction, it can
be said it is also generally supported.

H-12.-—Agreement with centralized government planning
of eduEEEIOn will be positively related to favorable atti-
tudes toward the deaf.

Hypothesis 12 was tested by correlating the ABS-DF
with responses to item 91 Of the personal questionnaire.
This item measures the extent to which education should be
planned by governmental agencies, on a continuum ranging
from planning directed primarily by the church to planning
directed primarily by the federal government. The resulting

correlations are displayed for the samples in Table 26.

128

.mOmOCHCOHMm CH Csosm OHM mHO>OH OOCMOHHHCmHm

 

 

H

H
HoH.o HNn.o 2mm. HeN.o HoH.o Hoo.1 HeoNo
oH. No. Ho. Ho. No. NH.1 mHasmm Heron
HHo.o HNo.o HnN.o Ham.o HNH.V Hoe.o HHmo
no.1 No.1 No.1 Noo. NH. oH.1 Heme1eoz Ho mHmsHoz
Hoo.1 Ane.o HNo.o HNo.o. ANN.V ANN.o Home
no. oH.1 Ho.1 no.1 NH.1 No.1 mO>Husomxm1HOmmcms
Heo.o HHe.o HNm.o ANN.o HNH.o HNN.V Home
no. NH.1 No.1 No. NN. NH. Name as» Ho mHmeuo:
HNm.o Hen.o Hno.o HNm.o HHH.V HNH.V Ammo
oo. oo. NN. No. HN. No.1 mHmromme Hoorom HmHoomm
ANN.o HNN.V Hon.o HNo.o HNN.V HnN.o HHmo
NH. nH. mo. no.1 eH. oH. Heme mg» no mHmromme

o m e N N H

mCOHUMHQHHOU H0>®1H OHGOW .mQImmafl

QCOHU

 

.mOHmEMm How

mCOHHMHOHHOO COHHMOCUO m0 mCHCCMHm OONHHMHHCOO CHHs HCOEOOHmM m01mm¢11.NN mqmme

129

No significant correlations were obtained for the
individual sample groups nor for the total sample. On this
basis the hypothesis is not supported.

Relating Attitudes and
Group MemberShip

 

 

§2l3.--The groups will assume the following order
with respect to favorable attitudes toward the deaf:
MDF >TDF >RST >MND>MAN .

The hypothesis was tested through a one way analysis
of variance procedure for each of the samples on each of
the ABS-DF scale levels, using means adjusted for sample
size and sex differences. The multiple means test was also
applied to the data, and each mean was tested against every
other mean in a 5 test. Table 27 contains the results of
this analysis. Table 28 contains similar results as ob-
tained from ABS-DF content intensity scores combined.

It will be noted that the groups did not assume the
hypothesized order on any level of the ABS-DP. 0n closer
scrutiny it can be discerned that the only level which some-
what approximates the assumed order with the exception of
one group, is level 1. An interesting order for levels 4,
5, and 6 takes form as well. Results indicate that the
groups which are more involved with the deaf are at the end
of the continuum denoting less favorable attitudes toward
the deaf; whereas, those less involved with the deaf have

more favorable attitudes.

130

TABLE 27.--Adjusted means, E tests, and significant levels for the
variables of the study by group and sex--by ABS-DP content scores only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. TDF (l) RST (2) MDF (4) MAN (5) MND (8)
T e__¥:;;::EfName Adj. n. Adj. M. Adj. M. Adj. M. Adj. M.
YP (N=51) (N=58) (N=SO) (N=55) N=50)
1. Stereotype 49.16 41.12 42.64 39.93 41.49
2. Normative 45.86 41.42 44.48 42.91 42.01
g.“ 3. Moral Eval. 45.14* 44.07 44.15 48.18 44.74
g g 4. Hypothetical 50.46 54.23 50.51 56.23 52.22
.443 5. Feeling 36.61 41.47 38.75 41.61 40.41
3 5 6. Action 28.72 37.70 30.94 34.44 38.23
40
7. Stereotype 38.01 38.51 36.62 40.19 39.64
$.51 8. Normative 41.60 41.86 41.64 45.74 46.92
o-a 9. Moral Eval. 45.97 50.83 49.00 55.73 51.53
3 2 10. Hypothetical 49.37 53.81 52.27 57.20 54.60
3.3 11. Feeling 46.51 53.52 52.08 56.33 52.38
3.5 12. Action 25.29 44.60 35.53 41.60 45.27
13. Efficacy--Cont. 23.75 24.33 24.09 23.23 23.38
> 14. Efficacy--Int. 27.82 28.77 29.88 30.80 29.28
M 15. Df. Knowledge 8.40 10.12 10.39 10.51 10.29
16. Df. Amount 1.35 4.28 2.06 3.90 4.34
3 17. Df. Avoid 3.46 3.25 3.75 3.23 3.50
3 18. Df. Income -1.06 2.59 2.65 2.86 2.61
c 19. Df. A1ter. —0.76 2.59 2.66 2.72 2.46
8 20. Df. Enjoy 3.01 4.95 3.48 4.58 4.59
21. Age 3.54 3.56 3.47 2.01 3.36
. 22. Educ. Amount 3.52 3.51 5.30 4.35 4.56
O
5 23. Religion Impor. 3.94 4.15 4.30 4.02 4.22
a 24. Religion Adher. 3.85 3.92 4.04 4.06 4.20
8 25. Self Change 2.57 2.65 2.58 2.78 2.73
m1; 26. Child Rearing 2.78 3.12 2.99 3.12 2.91
avg 27. Birth Control 3.35 3.44 3.38 3.51 3.27
5 a 28. Automation 3.30 3.35 3.34 3.31 3.48
5,3 29. Political Lead. 2.38 2.89 2.45 2.57 2.64
3 30. Rule Adher. 2.34 2.52 2.81 2.92 2.72
5 31. Local Aid 2.97 2.84 2.92 2.06 2.90
'3 32. Federal Aid 2.54 2.61 2.79 2.51 2.77
m 33. Ed. Planning 2.93 3.05 3.18 3.27 3.02

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Group _, - Male Female 1 Sex
F Sig. Multiple Means Test“ Adj. M. Adj. H. F Sig.
of F (N=74) (N=l90) of F
20.27 <.0005 l>2,1>4,1>5,l>8 42.15 43.59 1.05 .31
3.41 .01 l>2,1>8,4>2 42.44 44.22 .91 .34
2.81 .03 l<5,2<5,4<5,5>8 45.57 44.88 .29 .60
5.52 <.0005 1>2,1<5,2>8,4<5,5>8 53.58 51.88 1.67 .19
2.22 .07 1<2,2>4 40.47 39.86 .17 .69
32.27 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8,2>4, 34.06 33.95 .006 .90
2>S,4<8,5<8
1.25 .29 4<8 39.02 39.16 .18 .67
4.31 .002 1<8,2<8,4<8 44.70 42.41 1.01 .32
5.30 <.0005 1<2,1<5,1<8,2<5,4<5 52.97 48.25 4.87 .03
5.76 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8,4<5 55.26 51.64 4.11 .04
5.99 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8, 53.57 50.76 1.58 .21
53.82 <.0005 1<2,1<4,1<5,1<8,2>4 39.69 37.23 1.36 .24
4<5,4<8
1.16 .33 23.46 24.05 .59 .45
2.92 .02 1<4,l<5,2<5 30.73 27.89 7.39 .007
9.67 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8 9.78 10.09 .37 .55
66.09 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8,2>4, 3.31 3.05 .70 .41
‘ 4<5,4<8
.61 .66 8.46 3.42 .01 .88
420.47 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8 2.12 1.74 6.44 .01
163.01 <.0005 l<2,1<4,l<5,1<8 2.15 .172 3.83 .05
18.97 <.0005 l<2,1<5,1<8,2>4,4<5 4.46 3.78 4.01 .04
4<8
9.22 <.0005 1>5,2>5,4>5,5<8 2.95 2.43 3.34 .07
84.00 <.0005 1<4,1<5,1<8,2<4,2<5, 4.26 4.23 .03 .84
2<8, 4>5,4>8
1.22 .30 1<4 4.00 4.25 1.12 .29
.97 .42 4.06 4.97 .12 .73
.54 .71 2.66 2.66 .001 .93
1.16 .33 l<2 3.05 2.93 .31 .59
.65 .63 3.41 3.37 .08 .77
.34 .85 3.57 3.15 3.60 .06
2.02 .09 1<2,2>4 2.72 2.45 1.02 .32
3.45 .009 l<4,1<5,l<8 2.89 2.43 4.64 .03
.29 .88 2.07 2.80 1.10 .30
.60 .66 2.54 2.75 .67 .42
1.62 .17 1<4 3.11 3.07 .04 .82

 

aMean for this variable is original mean due to error in computer not
printing mean.

b3 based on adjusted means which accounts for differences in sample

sizes and sex ratios within sample.

cp<.05.

.mo.vmc

 

HomoHHmm .oH

 

 

1L32

 

 

 

 

om. mm. Hm.eo oo.~o omoHneoo HomoHuum .mH A
He. eH. me.~oH m~.eoH coHnod .o a
em. oe. HH.ooH mo.HHH ocHHooo .m m w
oH. mo.H Hm.meH ~o.~mH HooHoornod>= .e 3.H
oH. He.H -.eHH HH.m~H .Ho>m Hmuoz .m g H
mm. me. oo.~HH ~m.ooH o>Hunsuoz .~ u.m
He. do. 363 HH..moH 09308.on .H We
h MO AomHflZv Avhflzv II II 9%
.on d .2 .Ho< .2 .Ho< oEmzmHmmmmwn 0 e
xmm mHmEmm mHmz .
m Bmdm
. . . . . . . HomoHHum .eH
mm Hm H no oo oo Ho om em on or en mo oocHnsoo HoooHumm .mH .n
eve m u.
.mve.e.~.ovH.mvH.evH.~4H mooo.v m~.em oH.HHH ee.ooH mo.mo em.mHH oo.mo ooHuod .o u 3
eA~.ovH.mVH.NVH Ho. om.m mo.HHH mH.oHH mm.moH om.mHH mo.ooH ocHHoom .m on“
o.m.mve.eA~.ovH.mVH.NVH mooo.v mn.m oo.HeH om.moH oe.oeH om.emH oo.omH HooHooooooxr .e u m
o.m.mve.mv~.HVH Ho. om.m oo.oHH om.emH eo.eHH oo.oHH Hm.o~H .Hoam Hone: .m 7.9
ev~.oVH.~AH eo. em.~ ee.HoH em.HHH oo.mHH em.moH om.HHH 0>Honsnoz .~ “we
oAH.mAH.eAH.NAH mooo.v mm.oH ~o.ooH oa.~oH oo.eoH oH.moH o~.HmH odaoooumnm .H .
a no Homuzo Ammuzv Aomuzo Homuzv .Hmuzv I II
nude inomoz oHdHuHoz .on m .2 .Hod .2 .Hod .: .Hoe .2 .Hod z .Hod memzmHmwmwwn mass
.Imoouo Ami oz: Amy zd: Hey do: HHV 9mm HHV one .
< .533

 

.pmcHnEoo monoum qumcmucHI Iucwusoo
mQI mmd mnIIxmm can mooum an xcsum wcu wo mmHQMHHm> wnu new mHm>mH unmoHuHcmHm cam emummu M .mcmmE omumSndeI.mN mqmde

133

For levels 1 and 2, the teachers of the deaf and
mothers of the deaf attributed more positive attitudes to
others. On levels 4, 5, and 6 mothers of the deaf and
teachers of the deaf scored consistently low. Managers
and regular school teachers scored high on levels 4 and 5;
for level 6, mothers of non-deaf children and regular
school teachers scored high.

In conclusion, the results indicate no support for
the hypothesis.

Relating Attitudes and
Multidimensionality

 

H-l4.--The ABS-DP scale levels or attitude subuniverses
will form a Guttman simplex for each of the sample groups.

Hypothesis 14 was tested by plotting the content and
combined content—intensity scale level intercorrelation
matrices for each sample and subjecting these matrices to
Kaiser's (1962) simplex approximation test, as described
in Chapter IV, which generates a goodness of fit value,
i.e., Q?, for the obtained matrices and then rearranges
these matrices into the "best" simplex order for which a
g2 value is also given. The matrices for the obtained and
best ordered Q? values are shown in Table 29 for each of
the samples.

Table 29 reveals that one negative correlation
occurred in the matrix for the teachers of the deaf, one
in the regular teacher matrix, six in the mothers of the
deaf matrix, none in the manager-executive matrix, and none

in the mothers of non-deaf matrix.

TABLE 29.--Simplex results

_ —-:z:‘m

 

134

for research groups on six levels of the ABS-DP.

 

 

. _,—r~3.—..— 1 n. =._ -_ _ fif?‘fi;zx’"‘.'m

 

 

__.-........‘_ .— --, ... n.

_a:, r =_—"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Term TDF--Cont. RST-~Cont.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1—2—
1. Stereotype -- 002 = .58 -— 002 = .90 --
2. Normative .57* -— .49' -- .53* --
3. Moral Eval. .02 .12 -— .14 .31‘ -— .20 .09
4. Hypothetical .16 .32* .14 -- .07 .31* .74‘ -- -.05 -.13
5. Feeling .07 22 - 06 02 -- .23 .27' .50* .44* -- .07 —.20
6. Action .21 .29' .01 .41' .18 .01 .18 -.04 .17 .03 -- .24 —.07
1. Stereotype -- 862 = 84 -— 802 = .93 --
2. Normative .14 -- .23 -— .53 --
3. Moral Eval. .12 .32 -- .49 .27 -- .20 .09
4. Hypothetical .02 .16 .51 —- .14 .50 .31 -- .07 .20
5. Feeling .01 .41 .29 .21 -- .07 .44 .31 .74 -- .24 .07
6. Action .06 .02 .22 .07 .18 .01 .03 .18 .04 .17 -- .05 .13

TDF--Conb. RST--Comb.

l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 6 I—_——‘jr—‘
l. Stereotype -- 002 = .59 -- 002 = .89 --
2. Normative .60' -- .56* -- .60* --
3. Moral Eval. .03 .15 -— .16 .30' -- .15 .12
4. Hypothetical .15 .32’ .14 -- .13 .27* .71* -— .02 .07
5. Feeling .18 .21 .16 .09 —- .27 .32* 57* .44‘ -- .03 .08
6. Action .26 .33' .01 .46* .21 .07 .19 .05 .22* .13 -- .15 .11
l. Stereotype —- 86? = .89 -- BO? = .91 ——
2. Normative .16 -- .56 -- .60 --
3. Moral Eval. .15 .21 -- .27 .32 -- .15 .12
4. Hypothetical .03 .18 .60 -- .16 .30 .57 -- .15 .ll
5. Feeling .14 .09 .32 .15 -— .13 .27 .44 .71 -- .02 .07
6. Action .01 .21 .33 .26 .46 .07 .19 .13 .05 .22 —- .03 .08

 

*Significant at

.05 level.

 

 

11355

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MDF--Cont. HND--Cont. MAN--Cont.
5 6 1 2 3 4 57 6 1 2 3 4 417 6
oo2 = .79 " oo2 = 87 " 00 = .89
.46* -— .519 --
-- .16 .11 -- .12 .44‘ .--
21 -- 02 .06 .38‘ -- .23 .51* .38' .--
-.32* .06 -- .14 .14 .03 .34* -- .17 .28* .14 .26. --
-.08 .15 24 -- .04 .10 .09 .26 .55' -- .13 .14 .13 .30‘ .34. --
8077= .83 -- 897 = .87 -— EQZ_:_182
46 -— .51 --
-- .16 .11 -- .12 .44 --
32 -- 02 .06 .38 -- .23 .51 .38 --
09 .24 -- .14 .14 .03 .34 -- .17 .28 .14 .26 --
21 .07 15 -- .04 .10 .09 .26 .55 -- .13 .14 .13 .30 .34 --
HDF--Comb. HHD--Comb. MAN——Comb.
3 4 5 6 l 72 3 47 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
002 = .86 -- oo2 = .89 -- 092 = .88
.38* -- .49. _-
-- .03 .10 -- .14 .45* --
.33* -- .01 .05 .50‘ .-- .22 .53 .41 --
.13 .23 -- .07 .22 .07 .30* -- .10 .29* .17 .34* --
.03 .29* .21 -- .01 .12 .25 .28* .57* -- .20 .21 .13 .34* .32* --
. 802 = .87 -- 567 = 90 -- B 2 = .88
.38 -- .49 ~-
-- .03 .10 -- .14 .45 --
03 -- .07 .22 .07 -- .22 .53 .41 --
.33 .29 -- .01 .12 .25 .57 -- .20 .21 .13 .34 --
.13 .22 23 -- .01 .05 .50 .30 .28 -~ .10 .29 .17 .34 .32 --

 

136

Kaiser (1962) offers three possible solutions in
dealing with negative correlation coefficients:

It might be possible in some cases to reflect vari-
ables--as in centroid factoring--to get rid of non-
positive correlations . . . remembering that the
reflected variables are being measured in opposite
directions . . .

Offending variables might simply be thrown out
of the battery . . .

Perhaps the best answer for non-positive corre-
lations is simply to ignore them-~to treat such
correlations as missing data--and fit only to the
positive correlations (p. 161).

Following this suggestion, the negative correlations
were ignored and treated instead as positive correlations
for purposes of computer computation of g? values, while
attempting at the same time to take this into account in
evaluating the results. Accordingly, the Q? values appear-
ing in Table 29 are the Q? values for these matrices with
negative correlations treated as positive correlations.

One negative correlation coefficient appeared in the
TDF matrix, one in the RST matrix, and none appeared in
the MAN and MND matrices. Only one matrix remained which
yielded six negative coefficients; this one was the MDF
matrix. For this group there is some question as to the
value of the obtained and ordered matrices. For the TDF,
RST, MAN, and MND groups, the number of negative correla-
tions appearing in the matrices is either negligible or
non-existent; hence, more stock can be placed in the Q?

values. If Hamersma's (1969) criterion of a Q? value of

.70 or greater is accepted as evidence that a simplex has

137

indeed been approximated, then it may be concluded that a
simplex has been approximated for all groups according to
the B02 criterion.

Hypothesis 14 predicted that a simplex would be ob-
tained for each of the sample groups. Neither Guttman's
(1959) Contiguity Hypothesis on which the simplex model is
based nor Kaiser's (1962) simplex approximation test takes
into account the occurrence of non-positive correlations.
The negative correlations which it was noted followed no
extensive pattern were ignored in computing Q? values and
reordering of matrices. For all groups, a simplex was con-
sidered approximated using the BQ2 criterion, according to
Hamersma's (1969) criterion of Q? value greater than .70.
Although a number of limitations of the simplex approxima-
tion test as applied to this data have been listed, it is
currently the best and most objective measure available,
and by its standard, a simplex using OQ2 criterion was con-
sidered to have been obtained for four of the five sample
groups. Therefore, it is concluded that Hypothesis 14 is

supported.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The primary aim of this study was to examine the rela-
tionship of certain variables to attitudes toward deafness
and to compare the attitudes of designated groups toward
deafness. More specifically the substantive aim was to
investigate the attitudes held by five groups toward the
deaf. These included teachers of the deaf, regular school
teachers, mothers of deaf children, mothers of non-deaf
children, and prospective employers (managers-executives).
Another purpose was to assess the predictive validity of
hypothesized determinants of attitudes toward the deaf:

(a) demographic, (b) socio-psychological, (c) contactual,
and (d) knowledge. The instrument used to measure atti-
tudes toward the deaf was the Attitude Behavior Scale-

Deafness (ABS-DP - Jordan (1968) and Poulos (1970), which

 

measures six levels of a person's interaction with the deaf

(see Appendix A.2).

Summary of Review of Research
A review of the literature indicated that studies
dealing with attitudes toward the handicapped have been

primarily in areas other than the deaf. In those cases

138

139

where a number of handicaps had been under investigation,
the deaf and hearing impaired were included as one of a
number of sub-groups being studied. None of these studies
reviewed employed an attitude scale based on the structural
facet theory of attitudes as proposed by Guttman. No study
was found which had the deaf as the attitude object using
the Guttman facet theory approach to study attitudes. The

present research is the first such attempt.

Instrumentation

 

The ABS-DF instrument used in this study was con-
structed according to Guttman's facet theory, which speci-
fies that an attitude universe can be substructured into
components which are systematically related, according to
the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in
common. Facet design permits the construction of a scale
by a semantic, logical, a priori technique and the predic-
tion of the order structure resulting from empirical appli-
cation.

Guttman defined attitude as "a delimited totality of
behavior with respect to something" and preposed that three
semantic facets, each containing two elements, could account
for an eight permutation attitude universe. Only four
permutations were semantically consistent, however, and
these four permutations or attitude levels adequately
accounted for the item content used in an earlier research

effort. Guttman named these levels (a) Stereotype, (b)Norm,

140

(c) Hypothetical Interaction, and (d) Personal Interaction.
Each of the three facets contained a weak and a strong
element and the four levels showed a progression from a
weak to a strong form of behavior with one additional
strong element appearing on each level. Thus, no strong
elements appeared on the Stereotype level and each succeed-
ing level contained one more strong element than its pre-
decessor until the Personal Interaction level contained all
strong elements. Guttman's contiguity hypothesis stated
that attitude item levels close to each other in the seman-
tic scale of their definitions would also be closer statis-
tically and the resulting matrix of attitude level corre-
lations would assume a simplex ordering. If the four levels
defined above were plotted from 1 to 4 from left to right
and from tOp to bottom in a correlation matrix, a perfect
simplex would exhibit descending absolute values of co-
efficients moving down the columns and ascending values
moving from left to right in the rows.

Jordan accepted Guttman's three facets but expanded
the paradigm to include two other facets to form a six
level paradigm of attitude structure. Again, each facet
contained a weak and a strong element and each level con-
tained one more strong element than its predecessor.
Jordan's six levels were((a) Societal Stereotype, (b) Soci-
etal Norm, (c) Personal Moral Evaluation, (d) Personal

Hypothetical Action, (e) Personal Feelings, and (f) Personal

141

Action. These subject-object facets are termed joint1 struc-
tion while additional facets accounting for specific item
content are termed lateral struction. A six level attitude
scale measuring attitudes toward the mentally retarded was
constructed by Jordan: the ABS-MR--from a mapping sentence
(Table 7) containing the joint and lateral struction facets
so that each and every item corresponded to a combination

of facet elements in the mapping sentence. The final scale
contained a total of 20 items on each level and the content
measure of each item was followed by an intensity measure.

A procedure for combining content and intensity scores
into one score for each item was described. The procedure
increases the range of scores for each item and was used
in this study with the deaf as attitude object. This pro—
cedure was similar to that of the Harrelson study (1970)
which resulted in enhancing reliability and clarifying re-
lationships.

A questionnaire containing measures of the independent
variables of the study was also described. Among the items
in this questionnaire were measures of (a) demographic vari-
ables, (b) change orientation, (c) opinions on educational
aid and planning, (d) contact with the deaf, (e) efficacy--
a scale designed to measure attitudes toward mans' effec-
tiveness in the face of his natural environment, and (f)

knowledge about deafness--a scale also adapted from previous

 

lIn Jordan's (1968) original work the terms conjoint
and disjoint were used.

142

research projects. The minor alterations in Jordan's Atti-
tude Behavior Scale were those involving the substitution
of the words deaf and deafness to all statements in the
original scale referring to the mentally retarded and men-
tal retardation respectively.

The present research sampled five groups from within
the State of Michigan. They were: (a) 51 teachers of the
deaf, (b) 58 regular school teachers, (c) 50 mothers of
deaf children, (d) 51 mothers of non-deaf children, and
(e) 55 prospective employers--managers and executives. As
mentioned in Chapter IV it was felt that the obtained
samples were quite good, generally representative, and ade-
quate for a study of this type.

A total of 14 major research hypotheses were formu-
lated which were based on previous research in studies with
attitude objects other than the deaf. These 14 hypotheses
are listed below along with the results of the analysis.

The data obtained were analyzed by computer at
Michigan State University. Product-moment, partial, and
multiple correlation procedures were used to test the
various hypotheses, as were analysis of variance procedures
and a multiple means test. In addition, a simplex approxi-
Ination test was used which produces a descriptive statistic
(g?) for obtained attitude level matrices and matrices re-
<3rdered into a "best" simplex order, despite some obvious

Slimitations since no better alternative procedure was

aavailable. The .05 level of significance was accepted

143

despite the danger of Type I errors because of the early

stage of facet theory development in the study of attitudes.

Results

Kuder-Richardson type reliabilities were obtained for
each of the sample groups on each of the ABS-DF levels for
both content scores alone and combined content-intensity
scores. The combined score reliabilities ranged from 50 to
90; the content-only reliabilities ranged from 54 to 92. The
reliability estimates for the samples compared favorably
with those of the standardization groups with the personal
action level 6 reliabilities being lowest while the personal
feelings level 5 reliabilities were highest. Two groups
rendered consistently high reliabilities throughout; these
two were regular school teachers and manager-executives. The
overall reliability of the adapted version of Jordan's ABS-MR

scale was considered adequate for the present research.

Discussion

 

In this section the results of the testing of each

hypothesis are reviewed and findings are discussed.

RelatingyAttitudes and Efficacy

 

H-l.--Persons who score high in efficacy will score
high in positive attitudes toward the deaf.

The Efficacy scale was designed to measure the subjects
view of mans' degree of control or effectiveness in the face
of his natural environment. Significant positive correla-

tions were obtained for only two groups of the total sample:

144

(a) at level 4 (hypothetical behavior) for regular school
teachers and (b) at level 4 and level 5 (personal feelings)
for managers. The total sample indicated statistically sig-
nificant and positive correlations at levels 1, 3, and 4 but
a negative significant correlation at level 6 (actual per-
sonal behavior). The results for the two groups, regular
school teachers and managers, were consistent with those of
the total sample but the negative significant correlation
for the total sample at level 6 is in contradiction to the
other findings. In a hypothetical sense RST and Managers
indicated a positive view of their effectiveness in their
environment. The results for the total sample for these
same levels and the societal stereotype level were in agree-
ment, but the negative significant correlation obtained in
level 6 (actual personal behavior) suggests in a practical
sense a feeling of ineffectiveness. This negative direction
is also somewhat suggested by the weak negative correlation
at level 5 (personal feelings) for the total sample.

It can be said the hypothesis is partially supported
though in a weak sense. It can also be stated that efficacy,
£35 a predictor of attitudes toward the deaf, is not a clear
:indicator for as the level of interaction reaches the per-
isonal action level we see a reversal in direction resulting
iri a negative correlation whereas at the impersonal level

Clevel 2) to the hypothetical behavior level positive cor—

re 1 ations exist .

145

Relating Attitudes and Knowledge?

 

H-2.--Persons who score high in knowledge about the
deaf WilI score high in positive attitudes toward the deaf.

The results suggest that increasing knowledge about
deafness may be a weak predictor of positive attitudes toward
the deaf. The hypothesis was partially supported. Unlike
a study on mental retardation wherein it was found that the
reverse was true; that it was a predictor of negative atti-
tudes toward the mentally retarded, in the present study it
was a weak predictor of positive attitudes. The only nega-
tive correlations were at level 5 (personal feelings) for
mothers of deaf and level 6 (personal action) for mothers of
non-deaf. It was positive at level 4, personal hypothetical
behavior, for regular school teachers and managers. These
findings suggest that increased knowledge about deafness may
prove valuable for regular school teachers and for managers
as it may be conducive for a positive outlook in anticipation
of future contacts with the deaf. This would be true for a
regular school setting and for future employment possibili-
ties. The negative correlations suggest a possible negative
feeling on the part of mothers of deaf children and for
mothers of non-deaf, negative attitudes at the personal ac-
tion behavior level which may go along with the fear parents
of normal children may have as they think of the conse-
quences of having a deaf child.

With the increase in the placement of deaf children
in day school programs, as mentioned earlier in Chapter I,

increased knowledge about deafness would be of value for

146

regular school teachers. The same would be true for poten-

tial employers of the deaf.

Relating Attitudes and Contact

H-3.--The more frequent the contact with deaf persons
the higher will be the intensity scores on the ABS-DP,
regardless of the direction (positiveness or negativeness)
of attitude.

It would be reasonable to assume that the more contact
an individual has had with the deaf the more firmly his
attitude would be entrenched and the more certain he would
be of his responses to an attitude scale with the deaf as
the attitude object. This turned out to be the case in the
present research and H—3, which predicted a positive rela-
tionship between intensity of attitudes toward the deaf
and amount of contact with this group, was strongly sup-
ported.

H—4.--High frequency of contact with deaf persons
will be associated with favorable attitudes toward the deaf
on each of the levels of the ABS-DP if high frequency is
concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities,

(b) ease of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjoyment
of the contact.

The multiple correlations between the ABS-DE and
contact variables for teachers of the deaf resulted in sig-
nificant correlations at all levels. For regular school
teachers significant correlations were obtained at level 2
(societal norm), level 3 (personal moral evaluation), and
level 6 (personal action). For managers significant cor-

relations were noted at all levels. For mothers of non-deaf

children similar results were obtained. For total females

147

and total males significant correlations were obtained at
all levels except for males who did not show any signifi-
cant correlation at level 3 (personal moral evaluation).
Multiple correlations for the total group were significant
at all levels except for level 3.

Though individual sub groups for partial correlations
indicated scattered results; multiple correlations were
indicative of support for this hypothesis.

An interesting development was noted in the scoring
of the ABS-DF, especially in this section dealing with
contact with the deaf. A number of mothers of deaf children
answered items 67, 69, 94, and 95 as if they did not have
deaf children. This might indicate:

1. that the instrument was not interpreted correctly
by each.

2. that they "forgot" they had deaf children.

3. that they live with the handicap in their family
and completely accept it and thus don't see it
as such.

4. that they don't accept it and reject it as is
noted by the response. They don't think of their
child as one of the family.

The items in question are:
(67) My children have played with children like this.

(69) My children have attended school with children
like this.

(94) Considering all of the times you have talked,
worked, or in some other way had personal con-
tact with deaf persons, about how many times has
it been altogether?

148

(95) When you have been in contact with deaf persons
how easy for you, in general, would it have
been to have avoided being with these handi-
capped persons?

The point which is very difficult to explain is that
for the six items preceding item 67, the first five have
the responses listed as (1) no, (2) uncertain, or (3) yes--
in that order. However, for the item immediately preceding
item 67 the order of response choices is reversed; therefore
it can not be explained as response set. These oddities
can not be explained adequately but it remains for further
research to determine the basis for some mothers of the

deaf to respond to these statements as if they did not have

deaf children.

Relating Attitudes and Religiosity

H-5 predicted a negative relationship between stated
religious importance and the ABS-DF and H-6 predicted a
negative relationship between religious stated adherence
and the ABS-DF. In both instances the religion variables
were not strong predictors of attitudes in the samples of
this study. The hypotheses were not supported.

Similarly a predicted negative relationship between
the religion variable and attitudes toward the physically
Inandicapped did not emerge in Jordan's (1968) study. The
:Eact that they were not predictors of attitudes in the
IHarrelson study (1970) for the mentally retarded and also
dixi not materialize in this study with the deaf may suggest

reevaluation of these variables as predictors of attitude.

149
Relating Attitudes and
Demographic Variables

H-7.--This hypothesis, which predicted a positive
relationship between favorable attitudes toward the deaf
and amount of education was supported only in a limited
manner for the manager group at the personal hypothetical
level. For teachers of the deaf a significant but negative
correlation existed at the personal feeling level and for
the total sample significant and negative correlations at
the personal feeling level and actual personal behavior
level were obtained.

With all other correlations for teachers of the deaf
being negative--though not significant; yet negative and
significant at level 5, one must question the amount of
education variable. If amount of education is negatively
related to attitudes toward the deaf, it is suggested that
the amount-of-education variable be refined to include
finer gradations or actual years of education. It would
be interesting to note whether there is a "turning point"
from positive to negative or no reversal in attitudes to-
ward the deaf. The question on amount of education needs
expansion. As it now reads it does not include fine enough
gradations as to amount of post graduate education. In the
Harrelson (1970) study it was found that amount of education
was positively related to favorable attitudes at the moral
and hypothetical levels and negatively related at the

stereotypic and normative levels. If question 83 could be

150

refined to include specific amount of education beyond the
bachelor's degree, we can ascertain if post graduate study
is an influencing factor. With certification requirements
as they are today, the majority of teachers have college
degrees. The question does not make any attempt to sepa-
rate bachelor degree from master's degree holders.

However, the data presently indicates that education
does not seem to be a predictor of positive attitudes to-
ward the deaf and in fact, it seems to be a weak predictor
of negative attitudes at the personal feeling and personal
action behavior levels.

H-9.-—Age will be positively related to favorable
attitudes toward the deaf.

One would hope that with increased age there would
be more understanding of the handicapped and a more mean-
ingful and personal acceptance. However, in this study
it was found that the only correlation which goes along
with this expectation was for the teachers of the deaf at
the personal action level, level 6.

For all other groups there was no additional support.
One interesting result was the significant negative cor-
relation at the personal hypothetical level for mothers
<of the deaf. In this case we have increasing age and nega-
‘tive attitudes toward the deaf. The only explanation would
lee that with increasing age we have a corresponding in-
czrease in age in deaf children. Older children present

Huore pressing problems to their parents concerning eventual

151

job placement or achievement at the secondary school level.
The uncertainty of the total situation may raise numerous
questions which may negatively affect the attitudes of
mothers.

H-9.--Women will score higher on positive attitudes
toward the deaf than will men.

This hypothesis was not supported by the results.
Though there were small male—female differences, none was
significant. No apparent pattern was discernable. In
Jordan's (1968) study of cross-cultural attitudes toward
the physically disabled, women's attitudes toward the dis-
abled were more positive than men's attitudes. However,
Harrelson's (1970) study had also secured results which
were not significant and consequently not in support of
the hypothesis as it related to the mentally retarded.

Relating Attitudes and
Change Orientation

 

 

H-lO.--Persons who score high on change orientation
will score high on positive attitudes toward the deaf.

The change orientation questions were inconsistent
predictors of attitudes on the various ABS-DP levels and
the data suggest that both the change orientation ques-
tions themselves and the ABS-DF are multidimensional. The
result was an inconsistent mixture of positive and negative
correlations which were impossible to interpret in any con—
sistent fashion. A similar confusing array of positive and

negative correlations appeared in Jordan's (1968) research

152

in which different attitude scales were employed. The
problem also existed in Harrelson's(l970) study which used
the ABS—MR. It may be that the problem is principally in
the change orientation questions themselves.

Two solutions suggest themselves: (a) the change
orientation questions should be revised so that they mea-
sure the same theoretical variable in a more consistent
fashion, or (b) they should be treated independently in
future research efforts, with each being related to the
dependent variable in a straightforward correlational
analysis.

All multiple correlations for all groups were pre-
dominantly significant. Yet, as the data are examined for
the individual groups, one finds the partial correlations
for the individual variables are scattered from group to
group with no apparent pattern. The several negative par-
tial correlations were consistent with the same mixture
of negative and positive partial correlations of previous
studies (Harrelson, 1970; Jordan, 1968).

Yet it should not be overlooked that there may be a
strong possibility that the different questions in the
array, referring to change orientation, may not be mea-
suring the same pure theoretic variable--change orientation--
on each ABS level.

The significant multiple correlations that appear for

each group as well as the total sample are in contrast to

153

the scattered partial correlations that appeared in the
results for each group. The partial correlations were
selectively interesting; yet not forceful enough to concur
in a parallel fashion with the resulting multiple corre-
lations.

Thus while there was a relationship between the
various samples and the total sample on the change orienta-
tion variables and the ABS-DE, in the sense that a signi-
ficant amount of ABS-DP variance can be accounted for by
the multiple correlation coefficients, the fact that the
relationship was not straightforward suggests that the
hypothesis was only partially supported.

Relating Attitudes to Opinions on
Educational Aid and Planning

 

H-ll.--Agreement with government aid to education will
be p051t1vely related to favorable attitudes toward the deaf.

The aid to education variables obtained the strongest
relationship to ABS-DF in the teacher of the deaf group.
This may be due to the fact that this group more so than
the others in the total sample were intimately more familiar
with both education of the deaf and with problems of aid;
in this instance these variables predict attitudes at the
impersonal as well as personal levels. These variables,
however, are not predictors of attitudes for the other
groups of the study.

The second hypothesis in this section, dealing with
centralized government planning of education (H-12), was

not supported for any group.

154
Relating Attitudes and
Group Membership

H:l§.--The hypothesis that MDF>TDF>RST>MND>MAN was not
supported.

The groups did not assume the hypothesized order on
any level of the ABS-DP. On noting specific results, it
was apparent that mothers of the deaf and teachers of the
deaf attributed more favorable attitudes to others at both
the stereotypic level and moral evaluative level. At the
hypothetical level we found managers and regular school
teachers as possessing more favorable attitudes than the
other groups. The same held true for level 5 (personal
feelings). At the personal action level we found that the
mothers of the non-deaf, the group less involved with the
deaf, scored high denoting more favorable attitudes;
whereas, mothers of the deaf and teachers of the deaf
scored low, denoting less favorable attitudes. Regular
school teachers scored second highest at this level placing
them near the top of the continuum. This is discussed fur-
ther in the section on implications.

Relating Attitudes and
Multidimensionality

 

 

H-l4.--The ABS-DF scale levels or attitude subuniverses
will form a Guttman simplex for each of the sample groups.

The matrices displayed in Table 29, arranged according
to Jordan's (1968) six level theory, reveal the correlations

between the six levels of the ABS-DP do form a Guttman

155

simplex for each group sampled. For one group (MDF), there
is some question as to value of the obtained and ordered
matrices.

- The Q? values obtained for all matrices lent support
to the use of facet theory in scale construction; yet, one
must not ignore the fact that there are a number of limi-
tations to the simplex approximation test, but it is cur-
rently the best and most available measure. This test
together with the "visual test" employed in earlier re-
search by Morin (1970), Erb (1969), Hamersma (1969) and
Jordan (1968), focused on whether or not the hypothesized
attitude levels closer together correlated higher than

those farther apart, according to the contiguity hypothesis.

Recommendations

 

Selectively, the results of this study pointed out
several limitations of the instrument which should be con-
sidered in future studies.

1. The instructions to respondents for the question-

naire should be revised. The suggestions of
replying to every item should apply to Sections I
through VI inclusive; whereas the instruction to
the questionnaire section (Part II) should be
revised to allow for the response of "I do not
know," in the Knowledge section. This would re-

duce the guessing factor.

156

2. The item on amount of education should be expanded
and refined to result in responses designating
more specific amount of post graduate college
work in addition to those listed.

3. Though earlier researchers have suggested reducing
the scale length, none of the sampled groups ob-
jected to the length of the instrument except
when the number of respondents in a group num-
bered less than four. For large groups, and if
planned for in advance, time was the only factor
of concern. The length of the instrument was not

an objectionable feature.

Implications

 

In-service programs for teachers, parent education
programs, and public informational services can benefit from
the results obtained in this study. These programs and
services are concerned with attempts at behavioral changes
toward acceptance of the deaf, and the development of posi-
tive attitudes. Especially should consideration be given
to the selective findings dealing with the factor on know-
ledge about deafness. If the continued trend in growth of
day school programs prevails, the knowledge factor will
increase in importance. Future job placement of the deaf
can be more successful if manager-executive groups are made

more knowledgeable about the deaf. An improvement in

157

public information programs for the handicapped may be a
means of attaining this goal. Parent education programs
need expansion and should be extended beyond the preschool
and early elementary years. Data obtained on the age
factor also point out the need to extend knowledge or
public information services to parents of secondary school

age pupils.

REFERENCES

158

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W.; Frenkel-Brunswik, E.; Levinson, D. J.; &
Sanford, R. N. The authoritarianypersonality. New
York: Harper & Row, 1950.

 

Allan, W. S. On hiring the handicapped: The heart of the
problem. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1962, 28 (2),
19-20.

 

Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. 2nd ed. New York:
Macmillan, 1961.

 

Badt, M. L. Attitudes of students toward exceptional
children and special education. Exceptional Children,
1957, 23, 286-290, 336.

Barker, R. G., et al. Adjustment to physical handicap and
illness: A survey of the social psychoIOgy and
disability. New York: Social Science Research
Council, 1953 rev., Bulletin 55.

 

Bastide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and
interracial behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American
Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-694.

 

Baum, M. B. Some dynamic factors affecting family adjust-
ment to the handicapped child. Exceptional Children,
1962, 28, 387-392.

 

Berreman, J. V. Some implications of research in the social
psychology of physical disability. Exceptional
Children, 1954, 20, 347-350.

Bogardus, E. L. Measuring social distance. Journal of
Applied Sociology: 1925, 9, 299-308.

 

Buss, A. J., & Durkee, A. An inventory for assessing
different kinds of hostility, Journal of Consulting
PsycholOgy, 1957, 22, 343-348.

 

Carr, L. B. Problems confronting parents of children with
handicaps. Exceptional Children, 1959, 25, 251-255.

 

159

160

\/Chevigny, H., & Braverman, S. The adjgstment of the blind.
. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

 

Coughlin, E. W. Some parental attitudes toward handicapped
children. The Child, 1941, 6, 41-45.

 

V Cowen, Emory L.; Bobgrove, Philip H.; Rockway, Alan M.; &
Stevenson, John. Development and evaluation of an
attitudes to deafness scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 183-191.

 

 

\f'Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of psychological testipg. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1949, 368-385.

V Cruickshank, W. M., & Medve, J. Social relationships of
physically handicapped children. Journal of Excep-
tional Children, 1948, 14, 101-106.

 

 

DeCarlo, L. M., & Dolphin, J. B. Social adjustment and
personality development of deaf children: A review
of literature. Exceptional Children, 1952, 18,
111-118, 128.

 

Doctor, Powrie V., et al. Tabular summary--schools and
classes for the deaf in the United States. American
Annals of the Deaf, 1969, 114, 622, 624.

 

. Tabular statement of American schools for the
deaf, October 31, 1958. American Annals of the Deaf,
1958, 104, 154.

 

 

Duijker, H. C. J. Comparative research in social science
with special reference to attitude research.
International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7,
555-566.

 

—~

V“Edwards, Allen L., & Kenney, Kathryn C. A comparison of
the Thurstone and Liekert techniques of attitude
scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1946, 30, 72-83.

 

Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological
research. New York: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston,
1966.

 

V Elser, R. P. The social position of hearing handicapped
children in the regular grades. Exceptional Children,

1959, 25, 305-309.

 

Foa, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of
interpersonal relations. Human Relations, 1958, 11,
229-238.

161

U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of common-
alities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220-226.

 

Force, D. G. Social status of physically handicapped

children. Exceptional Children, 1956, 23, 104-107,
132.

 

Goldberg, M. Broadening literacy: The responsibility of

the school. The Educationally Retarded and Dis-
advantaged. N. S. S. E. Yearbook, Part I, 1967,
66, 356-361.

 

 

Greenburg, H. A. Problems of parents of handicapped

children. Journal of Exceptional Children, 1950,
17, 1-7, 25, 26.

 

V Guttman, L. A. Basis for scaling qualitative data.

J

American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 139-150.

 

. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity

 

analysis. Educational and Psycholpgical Measurement,
1947, 7, 247—250.

 

. The problem of attitude and opinion measure-

 

ment. Measurement and Prediction. Edited by S. A.
Stouffer. Princeton: Princeton University, 1950.

 

. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs

 

and action. American Sociological Review, 1959, 24,
318-328.

 

. The structuring of sociological spaces.

 

Technical Note No. 3, 1961, Israel Institute of
Applied Social Research, Contract No. AF 61 (052) -
121, United States Air Force.

. Order analysis of correlation matrices.

 

 

Handbook of mulpiyariate experimental s cholo .
Edited by R. B. Cattell. Chicago: Rand McNaIi ,
1966, 438-458.

Guttman, L., & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an intergroup

attitude. Public Opinionguarterly, 1951, Spring,
43-53.

 

Hagood, M. J., & Price, D. 0. Statistics for sociologists.

 

Rev. ed. New York: Holt, 1952.

Hamersma, R. J. Construction of an attitude behavior scale

of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman
facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.

162

Haring, Norris G.; Stern, George C.; & Cruickshank,
William M. Attitudes of educators toward exceptional
children. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,
1958, 8-9.

 

Harrelson, L. E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes
toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic
of Germany: Content, structure, and determinants.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

Hodgson, F. M. Special education--facts and attitudes.
Exceptional Children. 1964, 30, 196-201.

Horowitz, L. S., & Rees, N. S. Attitudes and information
about deafness. Volta Review, 1962, 64, 180-189.

Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of
variance. Principles of educational and psychological
measurement. Edited by W. Méhrens and R. Ebel.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967, 108-115.

 

Johnson, G. Orville. A study of the social position of
mentally handicapped children in the regular grades.
American Journal of Mental Deficieney, 1950, 55,
“‘89 0

Jones, R. L., et al. The social distance of the excep-
tional: A study at the high school level. Excep-
tional Children, 1966, 32, 551-556.

V Jordan, John E. Attitude behavior scale-—M.R. (ABS-MR).
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967.
Available from author.

V, . Guttman facet design and development of a
cross cultural attitude toward mentally retarded
persons scale. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1969, 1970. Available from author.

 

 

 

Y . Attitudes toward education and_physically
disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing:
Latin AmeriEa studies center, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1968.

'4 Jordan, J. E.; Vurdelja, D.; and Prazic, B. Guttman facet
theory analysis of attitudes toward retardation of
Yugoslav mothers of mentally retarded and non-
retarded. 1969 (in press in Yugoslavia). Available
from Jordan, East Lansing: Michigan State University.

163

Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962,
27, 155-162.

 

Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin,I1962,I116-117.

Koening, F. G. Social consciousness in relation to the
physically handicapped. Journal for Exceptional
Children, 1949, 15, 144-150, 154.

 

Kramer, C. Y. Extension of multiple range tests to group
means with unequal numbers of replications.
Biometrics, 1956, 12, 307-310.

 

Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. The theory of the esti-
mation of test reliability. Psyehometrika, 1937,
2, 151-160.

 

vaaraceus, William C. Acceptance, rejection, and excep-

tionality, Exceptional Children, 1956, 22, 328-331.

 

‘JLikert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives of Psychology, 1932, 22, 5-43.

 

Lingoes, J. C. An IBM 7090 program for the Guttman Lingoes
multidimensional scalogram analysis-I. Behavioral
Science, 1966, 11, 76-78.

Maierle, John Paul. An application of Guttman facet
analysis to attitude scale construction: A method-
ology study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1969, 16-19.

Magnuson, D. Test theory. Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley,
1966.

 

‘JMcNemar, Quinn. Opinion-attitude methodology. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1946, 43, 289-374.

Morin, K. N. Attitudes of Texas-Mexican Americans toward
mental retardation: A Guttman facet analysis.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1969.

Mukherjee, B. N. Derivations of likelihood-ratio tests
for Guttman quasisimplex covariance structures.
Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 97-123.

 

V/Murphy, Albert T.; Dickstein, Joan; & Dripps, Elaine.
Acceptance, rejection and the hearing handicapped.
The Volta Review, 1960, 62, 208-211.

 

164

Mussen, P. H., & Barker, R. G. Attitudes towards cripples.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1944, 39, 351-355.

 

Proctor, D. I. An investigation of the relationships
between knowledge of exceptional children, kind and
amount of experience, and attitudes toward their
classroom integration. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1961.

 

VRuble, W. L., & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic
statistics when missing data is involved (The MD-
Stat Routine). Stat.series description #6, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1966.

Ruble, W. L.; Kiel, D. F.; & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of
least squares (regression) problems on the L. S.
routine. Stat. series description #7, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966
(a).

V

Ruble, W. L.; Kiel, D. F.; & Rafter, M. E. One way analy-
sis of variance with unequal number of replications
permitted (UNEQl routine). Stat. series descrip-
tion #13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan
State University, 1966 (b).

‘(Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for measurement of
attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

 

 

Shears, Loyda M., & Jensema, Carl J. Social acceptability
of anomalous persons. Exceptional Children, 1969,
36, 91-96.

Siller, J., & Chipman, A. Attitudes of the nondisabled
toward the physically disabled. Final report on
vocational rehabilitation project RD 707, 1967.

Simmons, J. S. Social integration of preschool children
having hearing problems. Sociologyyand Social
Research, 1955, 40, 99-101.

 

‘¢ Stern, George G. Measuring non-cognitive variables in
research on teaching. Handbook of Research_gn
Teaching. Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1963, 404.

 

165

Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and
opinion research. Measurement and Prediction.
Edited by S. A. Stouffer. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1950.

 

Tenny, J. W. The minority status of the handicapped.
Exceptional Children, 1953, 19, 260-264.

 

VThurstone, L. L. Attitudes can be measured. American
Journal of Sociology, 1928, 33, 529-554.

 

Vurdelja, D. Attitudes of mothers of retarded and non-
retarded in four nations: A Guttman facet analysis.
Unpublished M. A. thesis, Michigan State University,
1970.

I

\anrd, J. H., Jr. Multiple linear regression models.
Computer Applications in the Behavioral§eiences.
Edited by H. Borko. Englewood Ciiffs: Prentice
Hall, 1962.

Wiener, J. L., & O'Shea, H. E. Attitudes of university
faculty, administrators, teachers, supervisors, and
university students toward the gifted. Exceptional
Children, 1963, 30, 163-167.

Winer, B. J. Structuralgprinciples in experimental design.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

V Wright, B. A. Physical disability--a psychological
approach. New York: Harper & Bros., I960.

Zinnes, J. L. Scaling. Annual Review of Psyehology.
Edited by P. J. Mussen and M. R. Rosenziveig.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1968, 20,
447-478.

APPENDICES

166

APPENDIX A.l

ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE - MR

ABS-MR

167

MR-ANS: U.S.

ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE- -MR

DIRECTIONS

This booklet contains statments of how peeple feel about certain things.
In this section you are asked to indicate for each of these statements
how most other pegple believe that mentally retarded people compare to
people who are not retarded. Here is a sample statment.

Seaple 1.

1. Chance of being blue-eyed

(3) less chance
2. about the same
3. more chance

If other_pepple believe that mentally retarded people have less
chance than most people to have blue eyes, you should circle the number 1
as shown above.

If other peeple believe the mentally retarded have more chance to
have blue eyes, you should circle the number 3 as shown below.

1. Chance of being blue-eyed

1. less chance
2. about the same
{3) more chance

After each statement there will also be a question asking you to
state how certain or sure you were ofyyour answer. Suppose you answered
the sample question about "blue eyes" by marking about the same.

Next you should then indicate how sure you were of this answer. If

you felt sure of this answer, you should e15g1g_ghe_ngmhgz_} as shown
below in Sample 2.

Sggple 2.
l. Chance of being blue-eyed 2. How sure are you of this
answer?
1. less chance 1. not sure
'2) about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more chance 3) sure

 

by: John E. Jordan
College of Education
Michigan State University

 

3968

ABS-I-MR

Directiong: Section I

MR-ANS:

U.S.

In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that
indicates how other people compare mentally retarded persons to those who
are not mentally retarded, and then to state how sure you felt about your
answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions, and
It is important to answer
all questionsy_even though you may have to guess at the answers to some

not sure of their answers to other questions.

of them.

Other people generally believe the
following things about the mentally
retarded as compared to those who
are not retarded:

1. Energy and vitality H 2.

1. less energetic
2. about the same
3. more energetic

 

3. Ability to do school work 4.
1. less ability
2. about the same
3. more ability

5. Memory 6.
1. not as good
2. same
3. better

7. Interested in unusual sex practices 8.
l. more interested
2. about the same
3. less interested

9. Can maintain a good marriage 10.
1. less able
2. about the some
3. more able

ll. Will have too many children 12.
1. more than most

2. about the same
3. less than most

3968

sure are you

not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure

fairly sure
sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

We

things about

-3-

ABS-I-MR

to those who are not mentally retarded:

13.

15.

17.

19.

21.

23.

25.

Faithful to spouse

1. less faithful
2. about the same
3. more faithful

Will take care of his children

1. less than most
2. about the same
3. better than most

Likely to obey the law

1. less likely
2. about the same
3. more likely

Does steady and dependable work

1. less likely
2. about the same
3. more likely

Works hard

1. not as much
2. about the same
3. more than most

Makes plans for the future

1. not as likely
2. about the same
3. more likely

Prefers to have fun now rather
than to work for the future

1. more so than most people
2. about the same
3. less so than most people

3968

14.

16.

18.

20.

22.

24.

26.

MRfiANS: U.S.

generally believe the following
the mentally retarded as compared

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-4-

ABS-I-MR

 

PIR'ANS E UoSo

Other people generally believe the following

 

things about the mentally retarded as compared
to those who are not retarded:

27.

29.

31.

33.

35.

37.

39.

3968

Likely to be cruel to others

1. more likely
2. about the same
3. less likely

Mentally retarded are sexually

l. more loose than others
2. about the same
3. less loose than others

Amount of initiative

1. less than others
2. about the same
3. more than others

Financial self-support

1. less able than others
2. about the same
3. more able than others

Mentally retarded prefer

I. to be by themselves
2. to be only with normal people
3. to be with all people equally

Compared to others, education
of the mentally retarded

. is not very important
is of uncertain importance
is an important social goal

Strictness of rules for
mentally retarded

I. must be more strict
2. about the same
3. need less strict rules

28.

30.

32.

34.

36.

38.

40.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How- sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

MR"ANS: U.S.

-5-

ABS-II-MR

Directions; Section II

This section contains statements of ways in which other people sometimes
act toward people. You are asked to indicate for each of these statements
what other_pegp1e generally believe about interacting with the mentally
retarded in such ways. You should then indicate how sure you feel about
your answer.

Other pEOQle generally believe that
mentally retarded persons ought:

 

41. To play on the school playground 42. How sure are you of this answer?
with other children who are not
mentally retarded

I. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure
43. To visit in the homes of other 44. How sure are you of this answer?
children who are not mentally
retarded
I. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. usually undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure

45. To go on camping trips with other 46. How sure are you of this answer?
children who are not mentally

retarded
1. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure
47. To be provided with simple 48. How sure are you of this answer?

talks since they can learn
very little

1. usually believed I. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. not usually believed 3. sure
49. To stay overnight at the homes 50. How sure are you of this answer?

of children who are not
mentally retarded

I. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure

3968

~6-

ABS-II-MR

Other people generally believe that
mentally retarded persons ought:

51. To go to parties with other
children who are not mentally
retarded

I. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved.

53. To be hired for a job only if
there are no qualified non-men-
tally retarded people seeking
the job

1. usually approved
2. undecided
3. usually not approved

55. To live in the same neighbor~
hood with people who are not
mentally retarded

I. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

57. To date a person who is not
mentally retarded

1. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

59. To go to the movies with someone
who is not mentally retarded

I. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

61. To marry a person who is not
mentally retarded

I. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

63. To be sterilized (males)

1. usually approved
2. undecided

3. usually not approved

3968

52.

54.

S6.

58.

60.

()2.

64.

MRnANS: U.S.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

Haw sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure

3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-7-

ABS-II-MR

Other people generally believe that

 

mentally retarded persons ought:

65. To be sterilized (females)

67.

69.

71.

73.

75.

77.

79.

To

usually approved
not sure
usually not approved

be desirable as friends
not usually approved
not sure

usually approved

be regarded as having sex

appeal

To

not usually so
not sure
usually so

be regarded as dangerous
usually so regarded
not sure

notusually regarded so

run machines that drill

holes in objects

1.
20
3.

To

usually not approved
not sure
usually approved

be trusted with money for

personal expenses

1.
2.
3

To

not usually so
not sure
usually so

work at jobs he can do even
he has almost no speech

not usually so
not sure

usually so

be forced to totally provide

for themselves

1.
2.

3.

3968

usual
not sure

not usual

66.

68.

70.

72.

74.

76.

78.

80.

MR-ANS: U.S.

How sure are you

1. net sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly

3. sure

sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

Direcgign§:

toward people.

-3-

ABS-III-MR

 

Section III

MR'ANS: U.S.

This section contains statments of the ”right" or "moral" way of acting

You are asked to indicate whether you yourself agree or dis-

agree with each statement according to how you personally believe you ought

to behave toward mentallyiretarded persons.

sure you feel about your answer.

In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you
believe that it is usually right or usually wrong:

81.

83.

85.

87.

89.

To take a mentally retarded
child on a camping trips
with normal children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To permit a mentally retarded
child to go to the movies with
children who are not ”0"8117
retarded

I. usually wrong

2. undecided

3. usually right

To allow a mentally retarded
child to visit overnight with
a child who is not mentally
retarded

I.
2.
3.

usually wrong
undecided
usually right

To take a mentally retarded
child to a party with

children who are not
mentally retarded

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay part
of the cost of elementary educa-
tion for mentally retarded
children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

3968

82.

84.

86.

88.

90.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

You should then indicate how

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-9-
ABS-III-MR

MR-ANS : 111.5.

In reapect to people who are mentally retarded, do you
believe that it is usually right or usually wrong:

91.

93. For

95.

97.

99.

101.

For the government to pay the full

cost of elementary education for
mentally retarded children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

coat of a high school education
for mentally retarded children

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay part
of the medical costs related to
the disability

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay all of
the medical costs related to the
disability

1. usually wrong

2. undecided

3. usually right

To be given money for food and
clothing by the government

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To mix freely with people who
are not mentally retarded at
parties

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

3968

the government to pay the full

92.

94.

96.

98.

100.

102.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure
2. fairly sure

3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-10-

ABS-III-gn;

 

MR-ANS

In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you
believe that it is usually right or usually wrong:

103. To go on dates with someone
who is not mentally retarded

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

105. To go to the movies with
someone who is not mentally
retarded

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

107. To marry someone who is not
mentally retarded

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

109. To be a soldier in the army

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

111. To provide special laws for
their protection

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

113. To provide special help to get
around the city

1. usually wrong
2. not sure
3. usually right

115. To sterilize the mentally
retarded

I. usually right

2. not sure
3. usually wrong

3968

104. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

106. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

108. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

110. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

112. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

114. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

116. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

U.S.

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

MR‘ANS : .S .
-11- U

ABS-III-MR

In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you believe
that it is usually right or usually wrong:

117. To put all mentally retarded 118. How sure are you of this answer?
in separate classes, away from
normal children

1. usually right 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually wrong 3. sure
119. To reserve certain jobs for the 120. How sure are you of this answer?

mentally retarded

I. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure

MR-ANS : U,‘S .
-12-

ABS-IV-MR

Directions: Section IV

 

This section contains statments of ways in which people sometimes act
toward other people. You are asked to indicate for each of these statments
whether you personally would act toward mentally_retarded people according

to the statment.
answer.

In respect to a mentally retarded
person, would you:

121. Share a seat on a train for a
long trip

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

123. Have such a person as a
fellow worker

I. no
2. don't know
3. yes

125. Have such a person working
for you

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

127. Live in the next-door house
or apartment

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

12‘). Extmd an invitation to
a party at your house

1. no
2 . don' t know
3. yes

131. Accept a dinner invitation at
his house

1. no

2. don't know
3. yes

3968

122. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

126. How sure are you
1. not sure
2. fairly sure

3. sure

126. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

[28. How sure are you
I. not sure
7. fairly sure
3. sure

130. How sure are you
1. not sure
2. fairly sure

3. sure
132. How sure are you
1. not sure

7. fairly sure
3. sure

You should then indicate how sure you feel about this

of th is answer?

of th is answer?

of this answer?

of this answer?

of this answer?

of thi s an swor?

-13-

ABS-IV-MR

In respect to a mentally retarded

person, would you:

133. Go to the movies together

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

date this person
1. no

2. don't know

3. yes

marry this person
1. no

2. don't know

3. yes

together

1. no

2. don't know
3. yes

163. Enjoy working with the

mentally retarded

I. no
2. don't know
3. yes

145. Enjoy working with the

together on a date

137. Permit a son or daughter to

139. Permit a son or daughter to

141. Peel sexually comfortable

mentally retarded as much as

other handicapped

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

147. Enjoy working with mentally

retarded who also have emotional

problems

1. no
2. don't know
9

MR'ANS ; U S

134. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

136. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

138. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

140. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

142. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

144. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

146. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

148. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure

1 .am.‘

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-14-

ABS-IV-MR

In respect to a mentally retarded

person, would you:

149. Hire the mentally retarded if
you were an employer

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

151. Want the mentally retarded in
your class if you were a teacher

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

153. Require the mentally retarded
to be sterilized if you were in
control

1. yes
2. don't know
3. no

155. Separate the mentally retarded
from the rest of society if you
were in control

1. yes
2. don't know
3. no

157. Believe that the care of the
mentally retarded is an evidence
of national social development

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

159. Provide, if you could, special
classes for the mentally retarded
in regular school

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

MR-ANS

150. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

152. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

154. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

156. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

158. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

160. How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

Directions:

 

toward the mentally retarded.

Section V

MR-ANS: U.S.

This section contains stalments of actual feelings that people may hold

You are asked to indicate how you feel toward

people who are men:a11y retarded compared to people who are not mentally
retarded.

How do you actually_ feel toward

persons who are mentally retarded compared

to others who are not mentally retarded:

I.

Disliking

l. more
2. about
3. less
Fearful

l. more

2. about the

3. less

Horrified

l. more
2. about
3. less

Loathing
1. more

2. about
3. less

' Dismay

l. more
2 . about
3. less

l1. Hating

l. more
2. about
3. less

the

the

the

the

the

13. Revulsion

l. more
2. about
3. less

3968

the

same

same

2.

10.

12.

14.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

You should then indicate how sure you feel of your answer.

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

MRHANS: U.S.

How do yaw toward persons who are
mentally retarded compared to others who are not

mentally retarded:

15. Contemptful

17.

l9.

21.

23.

25.

27.

29.

1. more
2. about
3. less

Distaste

l. more
2. about
3. less

Sickened
l. more
2. about
3. less
Confused
l. more

2. about
3. less

Negative
1. more
2. about
3. less
At ease
1. less
2. about
3. more
Restless
l. more

2. about
3. less

Uncomfortable

l. more

the

the

the

the

the

the

the

same

same

2. about the same

3. less

3968

16.

18.

20.

22.

24.

26.

28.

30.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly-sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-17-
ABS-V-MR
How do YQB actually feel toward persons who are

mentally retarded compared to others who are not
mentally retarded:

31. Relaxed 32. How
1. less 1.
2. about the same 2.
3. more 3.
33. Tense 34. How
1. more 1.
2. about the same 2.
3. less 3.
35. Bad 36. How
1. more 1.
2. about the same 2.
3. less 3.
37. Calm 38. How
1. less 1.
2. about the same 2.
3. more 3.
39. Happy 40. How
1. less 1.
2. about the same 2.
3. more 3.

3968

MR‘ANS : U.S .

sure are you

not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure
fairly sure
sure

sure are you
not sure

fairly sure
sure

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

MR-ANS: Uosd

-13-
ABS-VI-MR
Directions: Section VI
This section contains statements of different kinds of actual experiences
you have had with mentally retarded persons. If the statment applies to you,
circle ye . If not, you should circle 39.

Expgriences or contacts with the

mentally retarded:

41. Shared a seat on a bus, train, 42. Has this experience been mostly
or plane pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
43. Eaten at the same table together 44. Has this experience been mostly
in a restaurant pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
45. Lived in the same neighborhood 46. Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
47. Worked in the same place 48. Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
49. Had such a person as my boss 50. Has this experience been mostly
or employer pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
51. Worked to help such people 52. Has this experience been mostly
without being paid for it pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
3. yes 3. in between
4. pleasant
53. Have acquaintance like this 54. Has this experience been mostly

pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no 1. no such experience
2. uncertain 2. unpleasant
- V28 1 ‘ n Rah-A-“

-19-

ABS-VI-MR

MR‘ANS : U08 0

Experiencqg_or contacts with the mentally retarded:

55.

57.

59.

61.

63.

65.

67.

Have good friends like this

1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

Donated money, clothes, etc.,
for people like this

1. no

2. uncertain

3. yes

Have a husband(pr wife)like this
1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes
I am like this, myself
. no

1
2. uncertain
3. yes

best friend is like this

5

. no
uncertain
. yes

WNF‘
0

Received pay for working with
people like this

1. yes

2. no

My children have played with
children like this

1. no

2. uncertain

3. yes

56.

58.

60.

62.

64.

66.

68.

Has this experience beeimostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant
3. in between
4. pleasant
Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been mostly
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

-20..

ABS-VI-MR

MR-ANS: U.s.

Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded:

 

69.

71.

73.

75.

77.

79.

My children have attended school

with children like this

1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

Voted for extra taxes for their
education

1. no
2. not
3. yes

certain

Worked to get jobs for them

1. no
2. not
3. yes

certain

Have you sexually enjoyed such

people
1. no

2. no answer
3. yes

Studied about such people

1. no
2. yes

Have worked as a teacher with
such people

1. no
2. yes

70.

72.

74.

76.

78.

80.

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

. no such experience
. unpleasant

. in between

. pleasant

bUNF‘

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience

2. unpleasant
3. in between
4. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

. no such experience
. unpleasant

. in between

. pleasant

#UJNs-fi

has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

. no such experience
unpleasant

in between

. pleasant

bump-u
O

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

ABS-MR: U.S.
-21-
This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this

study, the answers of allgpersons are important.

Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you.
Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may
answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being iden-

tified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to every_guestion.

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please

answer by circling the answer you choose.

81. Please indicate your sex.
1. Female
2. Male
82. Please indicate your age as follows:

1. Under 20 years of age

2. 21-30
30 31-40
4. 41-50

5. 50 - over

83. Below are listed several different kinds of schools or educational
divisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education,
which one have you had the mostAprofessionnl or work experience with,
or do you have the most knowledge about? This does not refer to_your
own education, but to your proicssional work or related experiences
with education.

 

 

l. I have had no such experience

2. Elementary school (Grade school)
3. Secondary school (High school)
4. College or University

5. Other types

3968

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

What

What

is

is

ABS-MR: U.S.
-22-

your marital status?
Married

Single

Divorced

W id owed

Separated
your religion?

I prefer not to answer
Catholic

Protestant

Jewish

Other or none

About how important is your religion to you in your daily life?

I prefer not to answer
I have no religion

Not very important
Fairly important

Very important

About how much education do you have?

Some
rate

1.
2.
3.
4

5.

6 years 01 school or less
9 years of school or less
12 years of school or less
Some college or university

A college or university degree

'people are more set in their ways than others. How would you

yourself?

I find it very difficult to change
I find it slightly difficult to change
I find it somewhat easy to change

I find it very easy to change my ways

89,

90.

91.

92.

ABS-MR: U.S.

-23-
Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods
should be tried wherflvet - possible. Others feel that trying out new
methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following
statement? '

"New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever
possible."

1. Strongly disagree

2. Slightly disagree

3. Slightly agree

4. Strongly agree
Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people.
What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control?
Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to
decide, would you say that are doing wrong, or that they are doing
right?

1. It is always wrong

2. It is usually wrong

3. It is probably all right

4. It is always right
People have different ideas about what should be done concerning
automation and other new ways of doing things. He do you feel
about the following statement?
"Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in
government, business, and industry) since eventually they create
new jobs and raise the standard of living."

1. Strongly disagree

2. Slightly disagree

3. Slightly agree

4. Strongly agree

Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an
important job. What is your feeling on the following statement?

"Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are
doing a good job."

1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree

3. Slightlv agree

ABS-MR: U.S.

-24-

93. Some poeple believe that more local government income should be
used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay
in taxes. What are your feelings on this?
1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree

4. Strongly agree

94. Some people believe that more federal government income should be
used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay
in taxes. What are your feelings on this?

1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
4. Strongly agree

95. People have different ideas about planning for education in their
nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way?

1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the
church

2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the
parents

3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by
the individual city or other local governmental unit

4. Educational planning should be primarily directed by
the national government

96. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the
rules and regulations of your religion?

1. I prefer not to answer
2. I have no religion

3. Sometimes

4. Usually

5. Almost always

3968

ABS-MR: U.S.

-25-

97. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own.

I. Agree strongly

2. Agree slightly

3. Disagree slightly

4. Disagree strongly

QUESTIONNAIRE: HP

This part of the questionnaire deals with your experiences or contacts with
handicapped persons. Perhaps you have had much contact with handicapped per-
sons, or you may have studied about them. On the other hand, you may have
had little or no contact with handicapped persons, and may have never thought
much about them at all.

98. Some handicapped conditions are listed below. In respect to these
various handicaps, with which one have you had the most actual experience?

1. blind (uni partiallyrl)lind

2. deaf, partially deaf, or speech impaired
3. crippled or spastic

4. mental retardation

5. social or emotional disorders

 

[Irithe following questions, 99 through 103 you are to refer to the category I
‘ ot the handicapped persons you have just indicated.

99. The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you
have had with the category of handicapped person you indicated in the
previous question. If more than one category of experience applies,

please choose the answer with the highest number.

1. I have read or studied about handicapped persons through
reading, movies, lectures, or observations

2. A friend or relative is handicapped

3. I have Personally work with handicapped persons as a teacher,
counselor, volunteer, child care, etc.

4. I, myselL have a fairly serious handicap

3968

100.

101.

102.

103.

ABS-MR: U.S.

-26-
Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other
way had personal contact with the category of handicapped persons
indicated in question 98, about how many times has it been altogether?

1. Less than 10 occasions

2. Between 10 and 50 occasions

3. Between 50 and 100 occasions

4. Between 100 and 500 occasions

5. More than 500 occasions
When you have been in contact with this category of handicapped people
how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being

with these handicapped persons?

1. 1 could not aVoid the contact

2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only at great cost of difficulty

3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only with considerable difficulty

4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
but with some inconvenience

5. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts

without any difficulty or inconvenience

During your contact with this category of handicapped persons, did
you gain materially_in any way through these contacts, such as being
paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain?

 

1. No, I have never received money, credit, or any other
material gain

2. Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped persons

3. Yes, 1 have received academic credit or other material gain

4. Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit
If_ypu have been paid for working with handicapped persons, about

what percent offyour income was derived from contact with handicapped
persons during the actual period when working with them?

 

1. No work experience

2. Less than 25%

3. Between 26 and 50%

4. Between 51 and 7S]

ABS‘MR: U.S.
-27-

104. If you have ever worked with any category of handicapped persons for
personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what Oppor-
tunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead;
that is, soemthing else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job?

1. No such experience

2. No other job was available

3. Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me
4. Other jobs available were not guite acceptable to me

5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me

105. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering
all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had
personal contact with mentallygretarded persons, about how many times
has it been altogether?

1. Less than 10 occasions

2. Between 10 and 50 occasions
3. Between 50 and 100 occasions
4. Between 100 and 500 occasions

5. More than 500 occasions

106. How have you generally felt about your experiences with mentally
retarded persons?

1. No experience

2. I definitely disliked it

3. I did not like it very much
4. I liked it somewhat

5. I definitely enjoyed it

3968

ABS-MR: U.S.
-28-
LIFE SITUATIONS
This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of
life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by

circling the answer you choose.

107. It should be possible to eliminate 108. How sure do you feel about

war once and for all your answer?
1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree 4. very sure
109. Success depends to a large part 110. How sure do you feel about
on luck and fate. your answer?
1. strongly agree 1. not sure at all
2. agree 2. not very sure
3. disagree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly disagree 4. very sure
111. Some day most of the mysteries of 112. How sure do you feel about
the world will he revealed by your answer?
science.
1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree 4. very sure
113. By improving industrial and agri- 114. How sure do you feel about
cultural methods, poverty can be your answer?

' eliminated in the world.

1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. °not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree 4. very sure

115. With increased medical knowledge 116. How sure do you feel about
it should be possible to lengthen your answer?
the average life span to 100 years
or more.
1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree 4. very sure

3968

117.

119.

121.

123 C

3968

-29-
Someday the deserts will be con- 118.
verted into good farming land by
the application of engineering and
science.

1. strongly disagree

2. disagree
3. agree
4. strongly agree

Education can only help people 120.
develop their natural abilities;
it cannot change people in any

fundamental way.

1. strongly agree

2 . .-agree

3 disagree

4. strongly disagree

With hard work anyone can succeed. 122.
1. strongly disagree

2. disagree

3. agree

4. strongly agree

Almost every present human problem 124.

will be solved in the future.

1. strongly disagree
2. disagree

3. agree

4

strongly agree

ABS-MR: U.S.

How sure do you feel about
your answer?

. not sure at all
. not very sure

. fairly sure

. very sure

buNr—a

How sure do you feel about
your answer?

. not sure at all
. not very sure

. fairly sure

. very sure

buNr-a

How sure do you feel about
your answer?

not sure at all
not very sure

. fairly sure

. very sure

wai—t

How sure do you feel about
your answer?

. not sure at all
not very sure
fairly sure
very sure

wai—I
.0

ABS-MR: U.S.
-30-

MENTAL RETARDATION

This section of the questionnaire deals with information about mental
retardation.

125.

126 C

127.

128.

129.

130.

3968

Please circle your answer.

Which of the following is a preferred method of educating mentally
handicapped children:

to give the child work he can do with his hands
(handicraft, weaving).

to place the child in a vocational training school

to make the program practical and less academic

to present the same material presented to the average
child but allowing more time for practice.

In educating the mentally handicapped (IQ 50- -75) child, occupational
training should begin::

wai-i
0

Upon entering high school

the second year of high school
the last year of high school
when the child enters school

The major goal of training the mentally handicapped is:

wan—i
0

social adequacy
academic proficiency
occupational adequacy
occupational adjustment

Normal children reject mentally handicapped children because:

wai-I
0..

of their poor learning ability
of unacceptable behavior

they are usually dirty and poor
they do not "catch on”

The emotional needs of mentally handicapped are:

DWNH
a

stronger than normal children

the same as normal children

not as strong as normal children

nothing to be particularly concerned with

The proper placement for the slow learner (IQ 75-90) is in:

L‘WNP“
o

the regular classroom

special class

vocational arts

regular class until age of lo and then dropped out of school

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

3968

ABS-MR: U.S.

-31-

In school, the slow learner ususally:

1.
20
3.
4.

is given a lot of successful experiences
meets with a great many failures

is a leader

is aggressive

In grading the slow learner, the teacher should:

be realistic,if the child is a failure, fail him

grade him according to his achievement with relation to
his ability

not be particularly concerned with a grade

grade him according to his IQ

The studies with regard to changing intelligence of pro-school
children indicate that:

bw;rord
O

intellectual change may be accomplished

no change can be demonstrated

change may take place more readily with older children
the IQ can be increased at least 20 points if accelerated
training begins early enough

The development and organization of a comprehensive educational
program for the mentally handicapped is dependent upon:

blar0hi
O

adequate diagnoses

proper training facilities

a psychiatrist
parent-teacher organizations

The mentally handicapped are physically:

btdhaH
O

markedly taller
markedly shorter
heavier ,
about the same as the average child of the same age

The mentally handicapped child:

looks quite different from other children

is in need of an educational program especially designed
for his needs and characteristics

can never be self-supporting

cannot benefit from any educational program

The mentally handicapped individual usually becomes:

1.
2.
3.

.3.

a skilled craftsman

a professional person
a semi-skilled laborer
unemployable

ABS-MR: U.S.

-32-

138. The educationally handicapped have:

1.
2.
3.
4.

at least average intelligence

superior intelligence only

always have retarded intelligence

may have somewhat retarded, average, or superior intelligence.

139. The mentally handicapped have:

buNI-t
O

markedly inferior motor development
superior motor development

superior physical development

about average motor develOpment

140. The reaction of the public toward the retarded child seems to be:

«PUMP-i
o

rejecting

somewhat understanding but not completely accepting
accepting

express feelings of acceptance but really feel rejecting

APPENDIX A.2

ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE - DF

ABS-DF

200

ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE - DP

DIRECTIONS

 

This booklet contains statements of how peOple feel about certain things.
In this section you are asked to indicate for each of these statements
how most other people believe that deaf people compare to people who are
not deaf. Here is a sample statement.

Sample 1.

l. Chance of being intelligent

(:) less chance
2. about the same
3. more chance

If other people_believe that deaf people have less chance than most
people to be intelligent you should circle the number 1 as shown above.

If other_people believe the deaf have more chance to be intelligent,
you shouId circle the number 3 as showr below.

 

l. Chance of being intelligent

1. less chance
2. about the same
(E) more chance

After each statement there will also be a question asking you to
state how certain or sure you were of your answer. Suppose you answered
the sample question about "being intelligent" by marking about the same.

Next you should then indicate how sure you were of this answer. If
you felt sure of this answer, you should circle the number 3 as shown
below in Sample 2.

Sample 2.
l. Chance of being intelligent é—a 2. How sure are you of this
answer?
1. less chance I. not sure
about the same 2. fairly sure
. more chance sure
22_ NOT PUT YOUR NAME 95' THE BOOKLET by: John E. Jordan

 

 

College of Education
Michigan State University

revised by: Thomas H. Poulos

112269-TP

ABS-I-DF

Directions: Section I

In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that
indicates how other people compare deaf persons to those who are not
deaf, and then to state how sure you felt about your answer. Usually
people are sure of their answers to seme questions, and not sure of
their answers to other questions. It is important to answer all
Questionsj even though you may have to guess at the answers to some
Of them.

Other People generally believe the
allowing things about the deaf
person as compared to those who
are not draf:

 

 

 

1. Energy and vitality =<’ )= 2. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less energetic 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more energetic 3. sure

3. Ability to do school work H. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less ability I. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more ability 3. sure

5. Memory 6. How sure are you of this answer?
1. not as good 1. not sure
2. same 2. fairly sure
3. better 3. sure

7. Interested in unusual sex practices 8. How sure are you of this answer?

1. more interested 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less interested 3. sure
9. Can maintain a good marriage 10. How sure are you of this answer?

1. less able 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more able 3. sure

11. Will have too many children 12. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more than most 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less than most 3. sure

112269-T?

-3-
ABS-I-DF
Other eo le generally believe the following
thIngs about the deaf as compared to those
who are not deaf:
13. Faithful to Spouse 1%.
1. less faithful
2. about the same
3. more faithful
15. Hill take care of his children 16.
1. less than most
2. about the same
3. better than most
17. Likely to obey the law 18.
1. less likely
2. about the same
3. more likely
19. Does steady and dependable work 20.
1. less likely
2. about the same
3. more likely
21. Works hard 22.
1. not as much
2. about the same
3. more than most
23. Makes plans for the future 24.
1. not as likely
2. about the same
3. more likely

25. Prefers to have fun now rather 26.
than to work for the future

1. more so than most peOple

2. about the same
3. less so than most peOple

112269-T?

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
I. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
I. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
I. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

ABS-I-DF

 

Other pegple generally believe the following

things about the deaf as compared to those

who are not deaf:

27.

29.

31.

33.

35.

37.

39.

Likely to be cruel to others

1. more likely
2. about the same
3. less likely

Deaf are sexually

l. more loose than others
2. about the same
3. less loose than others

Amount of initiative

1. less than others
2. about the same
3. more than others

Financial self-support

1. less able than others
2. about the same
3. more able than others

Deaf prefer

l. to be by themselves
2. to be only with normal people
3. to be with all people equally

Compared to others, education
of the deaf

l. is not very important
2. is of uncertain importance
3. is an important social goal

Strictness of rules for deaf
1. must be more strict

2. about the same
3. need less strict rules

112269-T?

28.

30.

32.

34.

36.

38.

”0.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure

3 0 sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

Directions:

act toward people.

-5-

ABS-II-DF

Section II

This section contains statements of ways in which other_people sometimes

 

You are asked to indicate for each of these statements

what other people generally_believe about interacting with the deaf in such

ways 0

Other people generally believe that
deaf persons ought:

41.

#3.

45.

H7.

HQ.

To

play on the school playground

with other children who are not
deaf

l.
2.
3.

To

usually not approved
undecided
usually approved

visit in the homes of other

children who are not deaf

l.
2.
3.

To

usually not approved
usually undecided
usually approved

go on camping trips with other

children who are not deaf

1.
2.
3.

To

usually not approved
undecided
usually approved

be provided with simple

tasks since they can learn
very little

1.
2.
3.

To
of

l.
2.
3.

usually believed
undecided
not usualty believed

stay overnight at the homes
children who are not deaf

usually not approved
undecided
usually approved

ll2269-TP

42.

1m.

#6.

48.

50.

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
I. not sure

2. fairly sure

3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

You should then indicate how sure you feel about your answer.

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

answer?

answer?

answer?

'answer?

answer?

-5-

ABS-II-DF

Other_people generally believe that
deaf persons ought:

51.

53.

55.

57.

59.

61.

63.

To go to parties with other
children who are not deaf

1. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

To be hired for a job only if
there are no qualified non-deaf
people seeking the job

1. usually approved
2. undecided
3. usually not approved

To live in the same neighbor-
hood with people who are not
deaf

1. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

To date a person who is not deaf

1. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

To go to the movies with someone
who is not deaf

1. usually not approved
2. undecided
3. usually approved

To marry a person who is not deaf
1. usually not approved

2. undecided

3. usually approved

To wear a hearing aid

1. usually approved

2. undecided
3. usually not approved

112269-T?

S2.

5”.

56.

58.

60.

62.

64.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
I. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-7-
flee-11-0?

Other people generally believe that
deaf persons ought;

65. To be allowed to drive a car 66. How sure are you of this answer?
I. usually approved 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually not approved 3. sure

67. To be desirable as friends 68. How sure are you of this answer?
1. not usually approved 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure

69. To be regarded as having sex 70. How sure are you of this answer?
appeal
1. not usually so 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually so 3. sure

71. To be regarded as dangerous 72. How sure are you of this answer?
I. usually so regarded 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. not usually regarded so 3. sure

73. To be allowed to operate machinery 7n. How sure are you of this answer?

1. usually not approved 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually approved 3. sure
75. To be able to obtain auto 76. How sure are you of this answer?
insurance
1. not usually so 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually so 3. sure
77. To work at jobs he can do even 78. How sure are you of this answer?

if he has almost no speech

I. not usually so 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually so 3. sure
79. To be forced to totally provide 80. How sure are you of this answer?

for themselves

I. usually 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. not usually 3. sure 112269-T?

Directions:

toward people.

-8-

ABS-III-DF

 

Section III

This section contains statements of the "right" or "moral" way of acting

You are asked to indicate whether yougyourself agree or dis-

agree with each statement according to how you personally believe you ought

to behave toward deaf persons.

about your answer.

In respect to peOple who are deaf, do you believe

that it is usually right or usually wrong:

81.

83.

85.

87.

89.

 

To take a deaf child on a
camping trip with normal children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To permit a deaf child to go to
the movies with children who are
not deaf

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To allow a deaf child to visit
overnight with a child who is not
deaf

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To take a deaf child to a party
with children who are not deaf

1. usually wrong
2.‘undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay part of
the cost of elementary education
for deaf children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

ll2269-TP

82.

8A.

86.

88.

90.

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure
2. fairly sure

3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

You should then indicate how sxre you feel

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-9-

ABS-III-DF

In respect to peOple who are deaf, do you believe
that it is usually right or usually wrong:

91.

93.

95.

97.

99.

101.

For the government to pay the full
cost of elementary education for
deaf children

I. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay the full
cost of a high school education
for deaf children

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay part
of the medical costs related to
the disability

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

For the government to pay all of
the medical costs related to the
disability

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To be given money for food and
clothing by the government

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

To mix freely with people who are
not deaf at parties

1. usually wrong
2. undecided
3. usually right

ll2269-TP

92.

94.

96.

98.

100.

102.

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3 0 sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-10-

ABS-III-DF

 

In respect to peOple who are deaf, do you believe
that it is usually right or usually wrong:

 

103. To go on dates with someone who ion. How sure are you of this answer?
is not deaf
1. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
105. To go to the movies with 106. How sure are you of this answer?
someone who is not deaf
1. usually wrong I. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
107. To marry someone who is not 108. How sure are you of this answer?
deaf
1. usually wrong I. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
109. To be a soldier in the army 110. How sure are you of this answer?
I. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
111. To provide special laws for 112. How sure are you of this answer?
their protection
1. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. undecided 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
113. To provide Special help to llu. How sure are you of this answer?
get around the city
I. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure
115. To be fitted with hearing 116. How sure are you of this answer?

aids

1. usually right
2. not sure
3. usually wrong

112269-IF

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3._sure

-11-
ABS—III-DF

In respect to peeple who are deaf, do you believe that
it is usually right or usually wrong:

117. To put all deaf in separate 118. How sure are you of this answer?
classes, away from normal children

1. usually right 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually wrong 3. sure
119. To reserve certain jobs for 120. How sure are you of this answer?
the deaf
1. usually wrong 1. not sure
2. not sure 2. fairly sure
3. usually right 3. sure

112269-IF

Directions:

toward other peOple.

ABS-IV-DF

Section IV

This section contains statements of ways in which people sometimes act
You are asked to indicate for each of these statements

whether you personally would act toward deaf people according to the state-
You should then indicate how sure you feel about the answer.

ment e

In respect to a deaf person,

would 202:

121.

123.

125.

127.

129,

131. "

Share a seat on a train for
a long trip

10 n0
2. don't know
3. yes

‘Have such a person as
a fellow worker

10 no
2. don't know
3. yes

Have such a person
working for you

1. no
20 dOn't know
3. yes

Live in the next-door
house or apartment

10 DO
20 don't know
30 yes

Extend an invitation to
a party at your house

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

Accept a dinner invitation at
his house

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

112269-T?

122.

12“.

126.

128.

130.

132.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
30 sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
l. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-13-

ABS-IV-DF
In respect to a deaf person,
would you:
133. Go to the movies together 13w.
1e no
2. don't know
3. yes
135. Go together on a date 136.
10 no
2. don't know
30 yes
137. Permit a son or daughter to 138.
date this person
1. no
2. don't know
3. yes
139 . I’ermit a son or daughter 140.
to marry this person
ls no
2. don't know
3. yes
1H1. Feel sexually comfortable 142.
together
1e no
2. don't know
3. yes
ins. Enjoy working with the deaf inn.
1. no
2. don't know
30 yes
ins. Enjoy working with the deaf 146.
as much as other handicapped
1. no
2. don't know
3. yes
147. Enjoy working with deaf who also 148.

have emotional problems
19 no

2. don't know

So yes

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3e sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
l. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

ll2269-TP

ABS-IV-DF

In respect to a deaf person,

would you:

149.

151.

153.

155.

157.

159.

Hire the deaf if you
were an employer

1e no
2. don't know
3. yes

Want the deaf in your class
if you were a teacher

1. no
2. don't know
3. yes

Allow a deaf person to
drive a car

1. yes
2. don't know
3. no

Separate the deaf from the
rest of society if you were
in control

1. yes
2. don't know
3. no

Believe that the care of the
deaf is an evidence of national
social development

1e no
2. don't know
3. yes

Provide, if you could, special
classes for the deaf in regular
school

Is no
2. don't know
3. yes

112269-TP

150.

152.

154.

156.

158.

160.

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you
1. not sure

2. fairly sure

3 0 sure

How sure are you

I. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

How sure are you

1. not sure
2. fairly sure
3. sure

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

of this

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

answer?

-15-
ABS—V-DF
Directions: Section V
This section contains statements of actual feeling§_that people may hold
toward the deaf. You are asked to indicate how you feel toward people who are

deaf compared to people who are not deaf. You should then indicate how sure
you feel of your answer.

 

How do ygu actually_feel toward
persons who are deaf compared to
others who are not deaf:

l. Disliking 2. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

3. Fearful u. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

5. Horrified 6. How sure are you of this answer?
I. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

7. Loathing 8. How sure are you of this answer?
I. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

9. Dismay 10. How sure are you of this answer?
l. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

11. Hating 12. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure
13. Revulsion ls. How sure are you of this answer?

1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

112269-TP

-15-
ABS-V-DF

How do you actually feel toward persons who are
deaf compared to others who are not deaf:

15. Contemptful 16. How surt are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

17. Distaste 18. How sure are you of this answer?
l. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

19. Sickened 20. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more I. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

21. Confused 22. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

23. Negative 2M. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

25. At ease 26. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more 3. sure

27. Restless 28. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

29. Uncomfortable 30. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

ll2269-TP

-17-
ABS-V-DF

How do you actually feel toward persons who are
deaf compared to others who are not deaf:

31. Relaxed 32. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more 3. sure

33. Tense 3H. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more I. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

35. Bad 36. How sure are you of this answer?
1. more I. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. less 3. sure

37. Calm 38. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less I. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more 3. sure

39. Happy 40. How sure are you of this answer?
1. less 1. not sure
2. about the same 2. fairly sure
3. more 3. sure

112269-T?

ABS-VI-DF

Directions: Section VI

 

This section contains statements of different
have had with deaf persons. If the statement
not, you should circle pp.

Experiences or contacts with the deaf:

ul. Shared a seat on a bLS, train, #2.
or plane
1. no
2. uncertain
30 yes

#3. Eaten at the same table nu.
together in a restaurant
I. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

us. Lived in the same neighborhood #6.

le no
2. uncertain
3e yes

#7. Worked in the same place 48.

1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

HQ. Had such a person as my boss 50.
or employer
1. no
2. uncertain
So yes

51. Worked to help such people 52.
without being paid for it
1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

53. Have acquaintance like this 58.
lo no
2. uncertain

3. yes

112269-TP

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experiences
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

a. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

kinds of actual experiences you
applies to you, circle yes. If

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

-19-

ABS-VI-DF

Experiences or contacts with the deaf:

 

55.

57.

59.

61.

63.

65.

67.

Have good friends like this

1. no
2. uncertain
3. yes

Donated money, clothes, etc.,
for people like this

10 n0

2. uncertain

3. yes

Have a husband ( or wife) like this

1. no
2. uncertain
30 yes

I am like this, myself

10 no
2. uncertain
30 yes

My best friend is like this

10 no
2. uncertain
3. yes

Received pay for working with
people like this

1. yes

2. uncertain

30 Do

My children have played with
children like this

1. no

2. uncertain

3. yes

112269-T?

56.

58.

60.

62.

6”.

66.

68.

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

H. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been
unpleasant or pleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

H. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

4. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?
1. no such experience

2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

-20-

ABS-VI-DF

Experiences or contacts with the deaf:

69. My children have attended school
with children like this

10 no
2. uncertain
3 0 yes

71. Voted for extra taxes for their
education

10 no
2. not certain
30 Y‘s

73. Worked to get jobs for them

10 no
2. not certain
3 9 yes

75. Have you sexually enjoyed such
people

10 n0
2. no answer
3. yes

77. Studied about such pe0ple

1. no

2- uncertain
3. yes

79. Have worked as a teacher with
such people

1. no

2' uncertain
3. yes

112269-T?

72.

7M.

76.

78.

80.

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2 . unpleasant

3. in between

1.. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

Has this experience been
pleasant or unpleasant?

1. no such experience
2. unpleasant

3. in between

u. pleasant

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

mostly

-21-
ABS-DF-D

This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this

study, the answers of all persons are important.

Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you.

Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may

answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being iden-

tified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to every question.

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please

answer by circling the answer you choose.

81. Please indicate your age as follows:
1. Under 20 years of age
2. 21-30
3. al-uo
4. Hl-SO
5. 50-over
82. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life?
I. I prefer not to answer
2. I have no religion
3. Not very important
u. Fairly important
5. Very important
83. About how much education do you have?
1. 6 years of school or less
2. 7‘9 years of school
3. lO-l2 years of school
M. Some college or university
5. A college or university degree

112269-T?

8M.

85.

86.

87.

-22-
ABS-DF-D

Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you
rate yourself.

1. I find it difficult to change

2. I find it slightly difficult to change
3. I find it somewhat easy to change

u. I find it very easy to change my ways

Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods
should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new
methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following
statement?

"New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever
possible."

I. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
u. Strongly agree

Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people.
What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control?
Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to
decide, would you say that they are doing wrong, or that they are doing
right?

1. It is always wrong

2. It is usually wrong

3. It i probably all right
4. It is always right

People have different ideas about what should be done concerning
automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel
about the following statement?

"Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in
government, business, and industry) since eventually they create
new jobs and raise the standard of living."

1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
u. Strongly agree

ll2269-TP

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

-23-
ABS-DF-D

Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an
important job. What is your feeling on the following statement?

"Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are
doing a good job."

1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
H. Strongly agree

Some people believe that more local government income should be
used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay
in taxes. What are your feelings on this?

1. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
u. Strongly agree

Some people believe that more federal government income should be
used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay
in taxes. What are your feelings on this?

I. Strongly disagree
2. Slightly disagree
3. Slightly agree
u. Strongly agree

People have different ideas about planning for education in their
nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way?

1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the
church
2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents
3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by
the individual city or other local governmental unit
a. Educationaf planning should be primarily directed by
the national government

In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the
rules and regulations of your religion?

I. I prefer not to answer
2. I have no religion

3. Sometimes

a. Usually

5. Almost always

112269-T?

93.

-24-
ABS-DF-D
I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own.
1. Agree strongly
2. Agree slightly
3. Disagree slightly

u. Disagree strongly

QUESTIONNAIRE: DEAF PERSONS

This part of the questionnaire deals with your experiences or contacts with

deaf persons. Perhaps you have had much contact with deaf persons, or you

may have studied about them. On the other hand, you may have had little or

no contact with deaf persons, and may have never thought much about them at all.

9“.

95.

96.

Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other
way had personal contact with deaf persons, about how many times has it been
altogether.

1. Less than 10 occasions

2. Between 10 an 50 occasions

3. Between 50 and 100 occasions
u. Between 100 and 500 occasions
S. More than 500 occasions

When you have been in contact with deaf persons how eas for you, in
general, would it have been to have avoided beinr with these handicapped
persons?

1. No experience

2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great
cost of difficulty

3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with
considerable difficulty

u. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some
inconvenience

S. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any
difficulty or inconvenience

During your contact with deaf persons, did you gain materially in any way
through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit,
or some such gain?

1. no, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain
2. yes, I have been paid for workinv with deaf persons

3. yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain

u. yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit

ll2269-TP

97.

98.

99.

-25-
ABS-DF-D

If you have been paid for working with deaf persons, about what
percent of your income was derived from contact with deaf persons
during the actual period when working with them?

1. No work experience
2. Less than 25%
3. Between 26% and 50%
u. Between 51% and 75%
5. More than 76%

If you have ever worked with deaf persons for personal gain (for
example, for money or some other gain), what opportunities did you
have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is,
something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job?

1. No such experience

2. No other job was available

3. Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me
u. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me
5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me

 

How have you generally felt about your experiences with deaf persons?

1. No experience

2. I definitely disliked it

3. I did not like it very much
u. I liked it somewhat

5. I definitely enjoyed it

112269-T?

-25-
ABS-DF-D
LIFE SITUATIONS
This section of the booklet deals with how peOple feel about several aspects of
life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by

circling the answer you choose.

100. It should be possible to eliminate 101. How sure do you feel about your

war once and for all answer?
i. Strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree u. very sure
102. Success depends to a large part 103. How sure do you feel about your
on luck and fate. answer?
1. strongly agree 1. not sure at all
2. agree 2. not very sure
3. disagree 3. fairly sure
a. strongly disagree u. very sure
104. Some day most of the mysteries of 105. How sure do you feel about your
the world will be revealed by science answer?
1.strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2.disagree 2. not verv sure
3.agree 3. fairly sure
u.strongly agree u. very sure
106. By improving industrial and agri- 107. How sure ado you feel about your
cultural methods, poverty can be answer?

eliminated in the world.

1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
u. strongly agree u. very sure

108. With increased medical knowledge 109. How sure do you feel about your
it should be possible to lengthen answer?
the average life Span to 100 years
or more
1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
u. strongly agree u. very sure

ll2269-TP

-27-

ABS-DF-D
110. Someday the deserts will be con- 111. How sure do you feel about your
verted int' good farming land by answer?
the application of engineering and
science.
34 strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure
4. strongly agree u. very sure
112. Education can only help people 113. how sure do you feel about your
develop their natural abilities; answer?

it cannot change people in any
fundamental way.

1. strongly agree 1. not sure at all
2. agree 2. not very sure
3. disagree 3. fairly sure

u. strongly disagree u. very sure

11H. With hard work anyone can succeed. 115. How sure are you of your answer?

1. strongly disagree I. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure

u. strongly agree u. very sure

116. Almost every present human problem 117. How sure are you of your answer?
will be solved in the future.

1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all
2. disagree 2. not very sure
3. agree 3. fairly sure

u. strongly agree a. very sure

ll2269-TP

-23-

ABS-DF-D

This section of the questionnaire deals with information about deafness.
Please circle your answer.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

A perennial controversy in education of the deaf involves:

1. method of instruction

2. choice of textbooks

3. disability definitions
u. licensing of teachers

The criticism of the manual method of teaching the deaf is that!

1. it is too difficult to learn

2. it is difficult for these pupils to communicate with hearing people
3. few teachers know the method

u. it is too symbolic

The major goal of educating the deaf is:

1. social adequacy

2. academic proficiency

3. occupational adequacy
u. occupational adjustment

Normal children reject deaf children because:

1. of their poor communication skills
2. of unacceptable behavior

3. they are usually dirty and poor

u. they do not "catch on"

The emotional needs of deaf are:

l. stronger than normal children

2. the same as normal children

3. not as strong as normal children

4. nothing to be particularly concerned with

The criterion used for placement of a child in a class for the
deaf is:

1. Speech development, intelligence and hearing loss
2. disease causing the loss and intelligence

3. speech development alone

n. hearing loss alone.

ll2269-TP

12“.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

-29-
ABS-DF-D
The oral method of teaching the deaf refers to:

1. teaching by means of speech and lip reading
2. only by auditory training

3. developing visual skills

u. teaching of arithmetic ant reading

Educating and rehabilitating the hard-of-hearing is primarily:

1. developing language

2. fitting hearing aids

3. giving audiometric tests

u. teaching lip reading and speech correction and auditory training

Pre-school training of deaf children results in:

l. the child's hearing acuity being increased 20 decibels
2. better school achievement through the grades
3. any beneficial changes being noticed at the end of
the pre-school period
u. no beneficial changes to the child

The development and organization of a comprehensive educational
program for the deaf is dependent upon:

1. adequate diagnoses

2. proper educational facilities
3. an audiologist

u. parent-teacher organization

The deaf, deafened, and hard-of—hearing are different categories
based mainly on:

1. degree of hearing loss

2. speech development

3. lip reading ability

u. amount of hearing loss and age of onset

The deaf child:

1. looks quite different from other children

2. is in need of an educational program especially designed
for his needs and characteristics

3. can never be self-supporting

u. cannot benefit from any educational program

112269-T?

130.

131.

132.

133.

112269-T?

-30-

ABS-DF-D

The employment possibilities of a deaf person on the whole are:

l.
2.
3.
9.

dependent on his training

dependent on his hearing loss

dependent on his ability to use a hearing aid
unemployable

Hard-of-hearing children usually have a decibel loss of:

1.
2e
30
“e

0—15
20-60
70-90
90-100

The congenital deaf child will probably display:

1.
2.
3.
“a

articulatory errors
voice abnormalities
retarded language growth
all of the above

The reaction of the public toward the deaf child seems to be:

1.
2.
3.
9.

rejecting

somewhat understanding but not completely accepting
accepting

express feelings of acceptance but really feel rejection

-31-

ABS-DF-D

Following are some general questions. Please answer all of them.

13“.

135.

136.

137.

Please indicate your sex.

1. female
2. male

Below are listed several different kinds of schools or educational
divisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education,
which one have you had the most professional or work experience with,
or do you have the most knowledge about? This does not refer to your
own education, but to your professional work or related experiences
with education.

1. I have had no such experience

2. elementary school (grade school)
3. secondary school (high school)
u. college or university

5. other types

What is your marital status?

1. married
2. single

3. divorced
u. widowed
5. separated

What is your religion?

1. I prefer not to answer
2e cathOliC

3. Protestant

4e JQWiSh

5. Other or none

APPENDIX B

STATISTICAL MATERIAL

232

TABLE 30.--N’s, means,

2133

and standard deviations for ABS-DP samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Range TDFl (N=51) RST2 (N-SB) unr3 (N=50)
Variable of
Means Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Attitude Content

1. Stereotype 20-60 37.24 4.78 44.91 5.15 43.82 5.42

2. Normative 20-60 41.63 7.19 45.62 7.85 43.08 6.40

3. Moral Evaluation zo-eo 4s.i4 3.70 46.24 5.36 45.95 3.94

4. Hypothetical 20-60 54.22 3.20 50.88 6.75 54.10 2.96

5. Feeling 20-60 41.45 6.09 38.74 5.60 41.28 5.49

6. Action 20-57 39.24 4.90 30.29 4.82 37.02 5.77
Attitude Intensity

7. Stereotype 20-80 38.78 6.97 38.50 7.26 40.14 6.87

8. Normative 20-80 44.45 7.69 44.78 7.73 44.32 7.86

9. Moral Eval. 20—80 $3.08 6.08 49.41 7.95 49.86 7.39
10. Hypothetical 20-80 55.86 3.53 52.35 8.25 52.82 5.51
11. Feeling 20-80 $6.53 5.51 50.22 9.12 50.84 8.37
12. Action 20-80 $0.49 7.38 31.81 7.25 40.16 8.28
Value
13. Efficacy--Cont. 9—36 24.04 3.24 23.31 3.03 23.72 2.47
14. Efficacy--Int. 9-36 29.49 3.31 29.26 3.70 27.32 4.36
15. Df Knowledge 0-16 11.63 1.44 9.83 1.84 9.64 1.85
Contact
16. Df Amount 1-5 4.90 0.30. 2.03 1.34 4.18 1.29
17. Df Avoid. 1-5 3.39 1.46 3.62 1.59 3.16 1.46
18. Df Income 1-5 4.75 0.82 1.19 0.78 1.02 0.14
19. Df Alter. 1-5 4.43 0.94 1.19 0.83 1.00 0.00
20. Df Enjoy 1-5 4.14 1.10 4.09 0.78 4.42 1.14
Demographic
21. Age 1-5 3.06 1.12 2.91 1.17 3.14 0.73
22. Educ. Amount 1-5 4.96 0.20 4.98 0.13 3.18 0.66
23. Religion Impor. 1-5 4.43 0.92 4.16 0.75 4.08 1.16
24. Religion Adher. 1-5 4.14 1.10 4.09 0.78 4.42 1.14
Change Orientation
25. Self Change 1-4 2.75 0.63 2.67 0.57 2.74 0.80
26. Child Rearing 1-4 3.14 0.80 2.83 0.82 2.92 0.78
27. Birth Control 1-4 3.41 0.57 3.33 0.51 3.38 0.57
28. Automation —4 3.22 0.88 3.28 0.81 3.16 0.79
29. Political Lead. 1-4 2.67 0.92 2.22 1.01 2.58 1.03
30. Rule Adher. -4 2.77 0.76 2.75 0.81 2.28 0.78
Education
31. Local Aid 1-4 2.78 0.95 2.98 0.98 2.82 0.85
32. Federal Aid 1-4 2.84 0.89 2.72 1.04 2.60 0.86
33. Ed. Planning 3.24 0.59 3.12 0.56 2.98 0.69

 

1Teachers of the deaf.

2Regular school teachers

3

Mothers of deaf children.

4 I
Managers-executives.

2134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAN4 (N=55) MND5 (N=50) M6 (N=74) F7 (N=190) T8 (N=264)
Mean S D Mean S.D. Mean 5 D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
45.09_ 5.87 32.48 4.16 44 57 5.80 39.48 7.10 40.91 7.13
42.87 6.88 40.22 _3.91 43 14 7.47 42.63 6.58 42.77 6.83
42.62 5.96 43.84 4.59 43 65 5.94 45.20 4.51 44.77 4.99
50.07 5.52 45.34 6.17 50.69 5.63 51.01 6.25 50.92 6.07
39.04 5.72 45.30 4.36 39 15 5.45 41.79 5.96 41.05 5.93
33.64 5.67 52.30 4.58 33 04 5.78 40.15 9.38 38.16 9.10
37.42 7.04 26.66 6.34 37.87 7.46 35.83 8.65 36.40 8.37
42.51 8.85 45.46 4.76 43.51 8.65 44.58 7.07 44.28 7.55
47.85 9.27 41.06 9.77 49.23 8.78 47.93 9.12 48.30 9.03
51.51 7.77 38.74 9.98 52.50 7.28 49.53 9.94 50.36 9.36
49.40 9.21 47.16 9.03 50.31 8.87 51.00 8.90 50.81 8.88
36.55 8.99 50.36 6.99 36.30 9.45 43.53 10.66 41.50 10.82
23.98 3.04 19.62 2.75 23.72 3.21 22.68 3.35 22.97 3.34
29.24 4.18 23.38 4.49 29.78 4.05 27.05 4.59 27.82 4.60
9.22 1.80 4.14 2.17 9.37 1.90 8.30 3.85 8.95 3.04
2.60 1.27 1.92 1.19 2.58 1.37 3.29 1.71 3.09 1.65
3.74 1.39 3.32 1.79 3.71 1.43 3.36 1.58 3.46 1.55
1.18 0.43 1.06 0.24 1.35 0.96 2.00 1.68 1.82 1.54
1.36 1.03 1.20 0.81 1.49 1.25 1.95 1.60 1.82 1.52
4.00 1.07 3.28 1.68 3.96 1.15 3.93 1.53 3.94 1.44
4.13 0.92 3.24 0.85 3.76 1.14 3.13 0.99 3.30 1.07
4.16 0.79 3.94 0.82 4.38 0.77 4.23 0.94 4.27 0.89
4.11 0.76 4.14 0.81 4.08 0.75 4.22 0.93 4.18 0.89
4.02 0.73 3.78 1.09 4.05 0.76 3.97 1.06 4.00 0.98
2.55 0.81 2.58 0.73 2.59 0.76 2.68 0.69 2.66 0.71
2.91 0.82 3.02 0.77 2.92 0.84 2.97 0.78 2.96 0.80
3.29 0.60 3.50 0.58 3.31 0.57 3.41 0.36 3.38 0.57
3.62 0.73 3.02 0.96 3 61 0.68 3.13 0.88 3.27 0.85
2.75 1.09 2.40 1 05 2.68 1.07 2.46 1.02 2.52 1.04
2.64 0.93 2.38 0.64 2.74 0.91 2.50 0.76 2.57 0.81
2.95 0.97 2.86 0.99 3.00 0.97 2.84 0.94 2.88 0.95
2.67 1.07 2.64 1.03 2.65 1.10 2.72 0.93 2.70 0.98
2.93 0.66 3.16 0.51 2.99 0.65 3.12 0.59 3.08 0.61

 

5Mothers of non-deaf children.

6Males.

7Females.

8Total.

APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY

235

GLOSSARY l

Approximation——see "simplex approximation."

Attitude--"Delimited totality of behavior with respect to
something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51).

Content——situation (action, feeling, comparison, circum-
stances) indicated in an attitude item; generally
corresponds to "lateral struction."

Definitional statement--specification of characteristics
proper to an item of a given level member, typically
stated in phrase or clause form.

Definitional system--ordered group of definitional state-
ments or of the corresponding level members;typi-
cally either the group constituting a "semantic path"
or the complete group of 12 level members in the
"semantic map."

Directionality--characteristic of an item, sometimes called
positive or negative, determining agreement with the
item as indicating favorableness or unfavorableness
toward the attitude object.

Element--one of two or more ways in which a facet may be
expressed; in the present system, all joint facets
are dichotomous, expressed in one.

Facet--one of several semantic units distinguishable in
the verbal expression of an attitude; in the present
system, five dichotomous facets are noted within the
joint struction.

Facet profile--see "struction profile."

Joint struction--see also "struction," "lateral struction"--
"Operationally defined as the ordered sets of . . .
five facets from low to high across all five facets
simultaneously" (Jordan, 1968a, p. 76); that part of
the semantic structure of attitude items which can be
determined independently of specific response situa—
tions.

 

1Credit is given to Maierle (1969) for most of the
work in developing this glossary.

236

237

Lateral struction--see also "struction," "joint struction"--
that part of the semantic structure of attitude items
which is directly dependent on specification of situa-
tion and object; a more precise term than "content."

Level--degree of attitude strength specified by the number
of strong and weak facets in the member(s) of that
level; in the present system, six ordered levels are
identified: level 1 is characterized by the unique
member having five weak facets; level 2, by members
having four weak and one strong facet . . . level 6,
by the unique member having five strong facets.

Level member--one of one or more permutation(s) of strong
and weak facets which are common to a given level;
in the present system, 12 level members have been
identified: three on level 2, four on level 3, two
on level 4, and one each on levels 1, 5, and 6.

Map--see "semantic map."
Member--see "level member."
Path--see "semantic path."
Profile--see "struction profile."

Reversal--change in a specified order of levels or of
correlations, involving only the two indicated levels
or correlations.

Semantic-—pertaining to or arising from the varying meanings,
grammatical forms, or stylistic emphasis of words,
phrases, or clauses.

Semantic map--two dimensional representation of hypothesized
relationships among six levels and among 12 level
members.

Semantic path—-ordered set of level members, typically six,
such that each member has one more strong facet than
the immediately preceding member and one less strong
facet than the immediately following member.

Semantic possibility analysis--linguistic discussion of the
implications of the five dichotomous joint facets
identified in the present system; of 32 permutations,
only 12 are considered logically consistent.

Simplex--specific form of (correlation) matrix, diagonally
dominated and decreasing in magnitude away from the
main diagonal; see Table 8 for comparison of equally
spaced and unequally-spaced diagonals.

238

Simplex approximation--matrix which approaches more or
less perfectly the simplex form; existing tests
(Kaiser, 1962; Mukherjee, 1966) reflects both
ordering of individual entries and sizes of differ-
ences between entries and between diagonals.

Strong(er)--0pposite of weak(er)--term functionally as-
signed to one of two elements, to a facet expressed
by its strong element, or to a level member charac-
terized by more strong facets than another level
member; the strong-weak continuum is presently
examined as undimensional.

Struction--see also "joint struction," "lateral struction"--
semantic pattern identifiable in any attitude item,
or the system of such identifications.

Struction profile--specification, typically indicated by
small letters and numerical subscripts, of the per-
mutation(s) of weak and strong elements or facets
in a level member or a set of level members; or of
permutations of lateral elements or facets.

Transposition--change in a specified order of levels or
or correlations involving a change in position of
one level or correlation and the corresponding one-
place shift in the position of following or preceding
levels or correlations.

Weak--opposite of "strong" (see "strong").

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES

31293103353086