 

. LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRCIDateDue.p65~p. 15

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF OBJECTIVE SELF -AWARENESS ON THE
MEANING ATTRIBUTIONS AND JOB-HUNTING BEHAVIORS
OF PERSONS WITH VISIBLE DISABILITIES.

By

Andrew A. Phemister

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2002

ABSTRACT

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF OBJECTIVE SELF-AWARENESS ON THE
MEANING ATTRIBUTIONS AND JOB-HUNTING BEHAVORS
OF PERSONS WITH VISIBLE DISABILITIES.
By

Andrew A. Phemister

The theory of objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) has ﬁieled a
tremendous amount of social psychological research. The authors developed this theory
in an effort to better understand the reasons why people conform their beliefs and
behaviors to the larger society. Objective self-awareness refers to that moment in a
particular situation when an individual feels him or herself to be the focus of attention.
In this state, the person is then theorized to negatively evaluate those characteristics that
distinguish him or her from the group. AS a result, the person’s behavior—even beliefs—
will likely be altered in order for the person to appear less distinct from others. Decades
of research in social psychology have produced reliable results in individual behavior
using mirrors, video equipment, and voice recordings to induce such a state in
individuals, and groups.

People with visible disabilities ﬁ'equently experience stigma during social
interaction because of the sometimes-obvious differences that distinguish them from the
group. AS a result, persons with visible disabilities likely stand a greater risk of

experiencing stigma. In response, rehabilitation scholars have long documented the need

to extend research deeply within the social interactions that occur between persons with
disabilities and the able-bodied.

This investigation examined how objective self-awareness would affect the
meaning attributions and job-seeking behaviors of persons with visible disabilities. It was
hypothesized that individual meaning attributions would be less positive for persons with
high levels of public self-consciousness aﬁer objective self-awareness was induced in an
experimental condition. It was likewise hypothesized that self-reported job-hunting
behaviors would indicate less assertiveness aﬁer objective self-awareness was induced.
The predicted statistical signiﬁcance was not achieved. A ﬁfth hypothesis predicted that
gender would Signiﬁcantly interact with the experimental condition, however the
hypothesis was not supported. Some adventitious ﬁndings did emerge as gender had a
Signiﬁcant eﬂ‘ect on 3 of the 10 meaning attribution variables. The implications for

rehabilitation education, practice, and future research are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................ ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Statement and Signiﬁcance of the Problem ................................................... 12
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .............................................. 14
Deﬁnition of Terms ..................................................................................... 16
Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................... 18
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 21
Historical Antecedents ................................................................................. 23
Theory of Objective Self-Awareness ............................................................ 28
Self-Consciousness and the Principle of Dual Location ................................. 31
The Semantic Diﬁ‘erential Technique ............................................................ 36
The Self-Consciousness Scale-Revised ......................................................... 38
The Assertive Job-Hunting Survey ............................................................... 40
Research in Rehabilitation ............................................................................ 41
Research in Social Psychology ..................................................................... 51
Summary ..................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 67
Design ......................................................................................................... 67
Participants .................................................................................................. 69
Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 71
Manipulation Check ..................................................................................... 76
Procedure .................................................................................................... 77
Data Collection ............................................................................................ 77
Data Analyses .............................................................................................. 80
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Participants ................................................................................................... 81
Sample Characteristics .................................................................................. 82
Manipulation Check ...................................................................................... 87

iv

Frequency Distribution of the Independent Variable ...................................... 88

Results of the Analyses of Variance .............................................................. 89
Meaning Attribution Variables ......................................................... 90
Job-Hunting Assertiveness ............................................................... 93
Gender Interaction Eﬁ‘ect ................................................................. 94

Chapter 5
Discussion ................................................................................................... 97
Surmnary of Findings ................................................................................... 98
Hypotheses for Meaning Attributions ............................................... 99
Hypotheses for Job-Hunting Assertiveness ....................................... 102
Gender Interaction Hypothesis ......................................................... 103
Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................... 105
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Education .................................... 107
Implications for Rehabilitation Counseling Practice ...................................... 108
Suggestion for Future Research ................................................................... 110
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 112
APPENDICES
A The Public Self-Consciousness Subscale .................................................. 116
B. The Semantic Diﬂ‘erential Technique ....................................................... 119
C. The Assertive Job-Hunting Survey .......................................................... 131
D. Consent Form ......................................................................................... 135
E. Demographic Questionnaire .................................................................... 138
F. Ranked Total Meaning Attribution Means ............................................... 141
G. Descriptive and ANOVA results for Disability Concepts, Job-Hunting
Assertiveness, and Gender ....................................................................... 143
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 155

 

LIST OF TABLES

3.1. Rehabilitation— and Disability-Related Concepts ......................................... 73
3.2. Semantic Dimensions and their Polar Scales ............................................... 74
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ................................................ 83
4.2 Disability Types of the Sample ................................................................... 84
4.3 Manipulation Check Group Mean Comparisons ......................................... 88
4.4 Multivariate Results ................................................................................... 91
4.5 Connotative Meanings for 10 Disability Concepts ...................................... 92
4.6 Reported Job-Hunting Assertiveness .......................................................... 94
4.7 Gender Differences in Connotative Meanings .............................................. 95
4.8 Gender Diﬁ‘erences in Job-Hunting Assertiveness ........................................ 96

LIST OF FIGURES

4.1 Histogram of PSC Scores ........................................................................... 89

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA .......................................... Analysis of Variance.

IHA ............................................... J ob-Hunting Assertiveness.

MANOVA ....................................... Multivariate Analysis of Variance.
MCTI ............................................. Michigan Career and Technical Institute.
MDCD-RS ...................................... Michigan Department of Career

Development-Rehabilitation Services.

PSC ............................................... Public Self-Consciousness.

LevelPSC ........................................ Individual Level (high or low) of Public
Self-Consciousness.

OSA .............................................. Objective Self-Awareness.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Does self-consciousness affect how a person thinks about him or herselfin different
situations? Social scientists and psychologists have studied this question for decades
(e.g., Cooley, 1902; James, 1890; Mead, 1934) and many would say that it certainly does
(Scheier, 1980). For instance, interviewing for a job, inviting someone on a date, and
giving a presentation are all common Situations that will likely cause a person to feel
more self-aware and sometimes self-critical (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). After such an
event, the person may be very negative about his or her appearance and performance. “I
was terrible!” “I looked foolish!” “Now they will surely think I’m stupid!”

In addition to how people may privately judge themselves, the perceptible behavior
of others in a given situation can also affect the self-consciousness of an individual by
sending messages that indicate the group’s beliefs toward that person. To illustrate,
being highly scrutinized at a cocktail party can aﬁ‘ect a person’s anxiety and comfort
levels. “Why are they staring at me?” Generally speaking, in any given situation too
much or too little attention given to one person (e. g., staring at or ignoring the person
altogether) can augment the feeling of not “ﬁtting-in” and increase anxiety causing
embarrassment and sometimes shame (Buss, A. H., 1980; cf. Gofﬁnan, 1963). However,
Arnold Buss (1980) also argued that almost halfof the people who are highly self-

Oonscious might not be overly anxious in social situations, presumably because they may
DOt have experienced negative social evaluations (Bruch, Hamer, & Heirnberg, 1995).

These persons do not perceive themselves to be a social object for any particular reason

other than their mere presence. Why then would shame enter the picture? Buss (1980)
stated that one possible enduring cause of shame might be stigma. For instance, he
suggested that persons with a physical defect (sic) might be more susceptible to shame.
Stated differently, a physical disability does not adhere to certain implicit social standards
such as long-lasting beauty and health, thus any individual not meeting these standards in
a given situation is at risk of experiencing negative social evaluations.

Digressing, many people may relate to the above self—critical statements from past
experience (e. g., “I looked foolishl”). However, on closer inspection such statements
imply a deeper issue regarding self-consciousness, particularly when considering Buss’
(1980) reference to physical disability. Speciﬁcally, how might such negative
experiences aﬁ‘ect the feelings that a person with a disability has about him or herself
across similar situations over time? The presumption here is that self-consciousness and
personal meanings may be intimately linked. Being turned down for a date and for a job
will likely have different implications for a person depending on which meant more to
them. That is, the more something is desired (i.e., a date with a certain person) then the
more meaningﬁrl it is to the individual. Likewise, the more meaningful something is to a
person, the more he or she will feel self-conscious about appearing and performing in
such a way that the event has a satisfactory outcome. However, if the person is rejected,
then corresponding with the greater meaning ascribed to the situation, he or she will
likely experience a more heartfelt disappointment. Thus, the individual may ﬁnd it easier
to interview for another job than to invite another person on a date due to the inﬂuence of

Self-consciousness on connotative meaning.

One plausrble explanation for this may be that an individual attributes a distinct
personal meaning to each situation encountered. As more situations are encountered, the
person may attribute similar meanings to similar situations where, over time, a new belief
may become engrained about those situations and the person’s assets in them (e. g., “I’m
not romantically attractive”). This belief can conceivably be seen as reﬂecting what the
person perceived others to believe about him or her. Such a belief will likely be a
determining factor for the future choices a person makes regarding particular situations
(“I will stop trying to get a date”) (cf. Magnusson, 1981; Pervin, 1981; Rommetveit,
1981). As a result, an individual may decide to engage primarily in those situations
conveying personal meanings that promote a desired identity and avoid those situations in
which personal meanings demote a desired identity. In effect, the person may begin to
“settle for less,” which is clearly a signiﬁcant barrier to the successful adaptation to life
with a disability. Adaptation to a disability connotes the restoration of a personal sense
of wholeness, bodily experience and integrity, and harmony, or balance, in life (see
Charmaz, 1995; Trieschrnann, 1988, Vash, 1980; Wright, B. A., 1983; Zola, 1991). In
other words, a person’s life may feel “lop-sided” if there are desired situations (e.g.,
ﬁnding employment or a partner) that are avoided because of the erroneous belief that
one’s diﬂ’erences disallow achievement and satisfaction ﬁ'om those particular situations.

The theory of objective self-awareness (Duval & \Vrcklund, 1972) assumes that
when a person becomes increasingly self-conscious, he or she will also become more

Self-critical and will evaluate him or herself with regard to a perceived set of expectations
for a given situation. An example of this is the occasion that a single female in a group of

males alters the expression of her political views to avoid or reduce the chance of conﬂict

or feeling uncomfortably distinct (cf. Chang, Tai Hau, & Mei Gou, 2001). In fact,
researchers have revealed that women are typically more self-consciousness (Alanazi,
2001, Schonert-Reichle, 1994) and experience more social stigma than men (Bryan,
1999). Furthermore, the theory of objective self-awareness postulates that, resultant to an
increased self-evaluative state; the person will attribute more responsibility to him or
herself for any incongruity, deviance, or miscommunication in a particular context. Thus,

for a female with a visrble disability, what then are the situational implications for

 

personal meaning attribution when that person is highly self-aware, and how does this
translate into behavior?

The focus of this investigation was threefold. First, it focused on the eﬁ‘ect
objective self-awareness (OSA) would have on persons (males and females) with a
visible disability and the personal meanings they attribute to speciﬁc disability-related
concepts. Second, it looked at the effect OSA might have on job-hunting assertiveness
behaviors (JHA). The third focus was gender and what additional impact it may have on
meaning attributions and assertiveness behaviors.

According to Scheier (1980) and Chang et al. (2001), the presence of others can
greatly affect a person’s publicly expressed beliefs. One possible implication resulting
ﬁ'om the above foci may involve an individual’s decisions regarding similar situations
across time (i.e., engaging or avoiding certain opportunities). Baumeister (1986) has
stated that the beliefs and evaluations a person has about him or herself can be traced

developmentally to social interactions (p. 17). Furthermore, ﬁom an interactional-
Phenomenological perspective, the meanings that one attributes to oneself and to stimuli

around the self, and the subsequent choices that are made, result ﬁ'om how one interprets

the situation (Hewitt, 2000; Magnusson, 1981; Mead, 1934; Rommetveit, 1981; Spinelli,
1989). Thus, there is a tremendous need to better understand the impact of social
interaction and social context on all persons with disabilities (Charmaz, 1995; Gordon,
Feldman, & Crose, 1998; Grand, Bernier, & Strohmer, 1982; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell,
1984; Wright, B. A, 1983, 1980; Zola, 1991).

A central assumption of OSA theory (Duval & “Wicklund, 1972) is that a person
will become more self-critical as he or she becomes objectively self-aware in social
situations (i.e., see themselves as others see them). Speciﬁcally, an enhanced focus of
attention upon the self will illuminate the differences that exist between the person and
others around. Consequently, the objectively self-aware individual will likely perceive
more “faults” within him or herself. Likewise, the more time that is spent in a state of
OSA, the more a person will feel they fall short of certain social standards or expectations
(Duval & Wicklund, 1972; cf. Goﬁinarr, 1963). This investigation predicted that a
person’s visible disability would typically be perceived as the foremost difference
between the person and a group.

The rationale for this experiment emerged ﬁ'om two sources: social stigma and the
theory of objective self-awareness. Several authors (see Goﬂinan, 1963; Hahn, 1993;
Wright, B. A, 1983; Wright, G. N., 1980) have explored the consequences of stigma
resulting ﬁ'om negative social attitudes on an individual’s (or a group’s) self-directed
thoughts and outward behaviors. A stigma is said to lessen the social (situational) value

Of an individual because he or she is believed by others to have attributes that are
“incongruous with our stereotype of what a given type of individual M be,”

(Gamma, 1963, p. 3, emphasis added). Resultant to such attitudes, people with

disabilities experience the effects of stigma much more than the general population. The
acute experience of stigrna—‘msi_tu—for an individual with a disability presupposes the
fact that negative attention is focused upon the person. This is nothing new. Yet, what
seems pivotal is the extent to which the inducement of OSA may lead the individual to
interpret the negative attention as being realistically based. In other words, can one’s
personal beliefs about oneself stand up against the perception that others believe
diﬂ'erently—and for how lOng?

As mentioned, the theory of objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972)
assumes that when a person is the focus of attention then self-consciousness will increase
and his or her differences (i.e., a visible disability) will become salient and assigned
responsibility for any enhanced aﬁ‘ect. Parenthetically, the theory allows for both
positive and negative affect and this investigation did report on both. However, it is
anticipated that when objective self-awareness is induced in people with visible
disabilities during various social interactions, a negative stigma experience may
dominate. Thus, the result may be that the meanings they ascribe to themselves will
come to more closely resemble the negative attitudes perceived m Generally, those
individuals who are high in self-consciousness will be more vulnerable, and will more
readily shift their meanings toward the perceived meanings of others, than will persons
low in self-consciousness.

There are many rhetorical considerations for rehabilitation that arise from OSA

theory. For instance, what are the long-term consequences for an individual with a
disability existing under the lens of an enhanced self-focused attention? What eﬂ‘ects

IIlight there be on his or her self-esteem, self-eﬂicacy, and overall self-concept? How

might this person alter his or her choices in order to preserve a positive self—concept?
Does an extended state of objective self-awareness cause a person to be more vulnerable
to depression? Will there be permanent changes made in the meanings that this person
attributes to his or her disability as well as to his or her life overall? The answers to such

questions may hold vital implications for rehabilitation counseling in general and the

adjustment process in particular.

.13 ocusafAttentm

Generally, our society values good health, a particular physique, and the concept of
“body beautiful” (Hahn, 1993; Wright, B. A., 1983). On the other hand, the concept of
disability conveys a devalued meaning to individuals and to society as a whole.
Whiteman & Lukoﬁ‘ (1965), investigated reactions to the concept of “blindness” as
compared to “blind people”, and the concept of “physical handicap” as compared to
“physically handicapped people.” Results indicated that the condition itself (e. g.,
blindness) was evaluated far more negatively than the person who could not see. What
this implies is that the interactant’s focus of attention (i.e., on a person or a characteristic)
will likely impact the meanings that are taken away from the interaction. Focus of
attention has been suggested as being a determinant of social perception, anxiety, and
behavior in social contexts (Fichten & Amsel, 1988; Fichten, Amsel, Robillard, Sabourin,
& Wright, 1997). Furthermore, the cultural conditioning of an interactant will produce
certain beliefs and opinions for the person prior to engaging in an interaction
(Hershenson, 1992).

OSA theory contends that whatever is the focus of attention in any given situation

will draw causal attributions. It has been demonstrated that objectively self-aware

persons are more likely to attribute the source of an event to themselves (Duval, 1971).
According to Duval and Wicklund’s (1972) theory, attributing cause to oneselfwill occur
because the objectively self-aware individual is now aware of him or herselfas being
somehow “diﬁ’erent” ﬁom the majority of others. This difference can be analogous to
any type of social contradiction, deviance, or disagreement that may arise in a given
situation. What this implied for the present investigation was that when a person with a
visible disability (e. g., using a wheelchair or having a facial deformity) enters into a
social situation where he or she is the only one with a visible disability then he or she will
likely become objectively self-aware. As a result, that person’s attention will be directed
toward those differences, as they are now the salient characteristics of the situation as a
Whole (i.e., “what is different about this picture?”). That is, the individual becomes
focused upon him or herself for the same reasons that he or she perceives others’
attention to be focused.

Expanding on the above scenario, it follows that, depending upon the length of time
in the objective state, the result may be that the individual begins to question the accuracy
of his or her own beliefs and may consequently shiﬁ these to more closely align with
what they perceive the majority to believe. For instance, in her dissertation research,

C0gsvvell (1965) reported that, “paraplegics (sic) occasionally discussed how they
deﬁned themselves but found it much easier to say how they saw others deﬁning them,”

(I) -2 1 2),
The use of Video E i ment to induce Self-Consciousness

To test for the effects of objective self-awareness on the personal meanings

attributed to one’s visible disability this investigation employed a video camera and a

 

television monitor to induce a state of OSA on an experimental group composed of
persons with a visible disability. The use of video equipment and mirrors to induce such
a self-attentive state has proven extremely reliable over many years in a wide array of
experimental manipulations (see Buss, A. H., 1980; Buss, D. M., & Scheier, 1976; Carver
& Scheier, 1978; Chang et al, 2001; Duval, 1971; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; \Vrcklund &
Duval, 197; Geller & Shaver, 1975; Samuel & Dollinger 1989). In particular, Wicklund
and Duval (1971) found that they could generate individual opinion change in a sample
of college undergraduates by inducing OSA using a television camera.
The basic concept put forth is that when a person is confronted with an unavoidable
irnage of him or herself (i.e., videotaped image) then the individual will be reminded of
his or her social status and a state of OSA will be measurably induced. This, in turn,
brings about the tendency to ﬁnd fault with or “nit-pick” at oneself because of perceived
diﬂ‘erences. Consequently, the result is theorized to be that the individual’s beliefs now
become unstable and insecure. The individual begins to question the validity and worth
01“ his or her beliefs (i.e., “how can my belief about this be right if everyone else believes
that ?”). Thus, how an individual thinks others perceive him or her in a given situation

call inipact his or her personal beliefs causing the person to alter those beliefs to coincide

With the beliefs ofthe majority (cf. Scheier, 1980).

W

What are the possible consequences for such tenuous personal meanings regarding a
Person’s disability? For one, it is conceivable that the individual might feel a threat to
self-concept and therefore choose to avoid certain situations, such as applying for a job,

enrolling in a certain course at school, asking for assistance, or inviting someone on a

 

date. Harvey and Greenway (1984) compared two groups of 9- to ll-year old children
with physical disabilities. One group attended a regular public school and the other
group was enrolled in a special school. Results ﬁ'om both groups indicated lower self-
concepts than a matched sample of children without a physical disability. Contrary to
these ﬁndings, Sethi and Sen (1981) compared the self-esteem of 8- to 12-year old

orthopedically impaired children with a control group matched for age and IQ. Results
ﬁom the scores of children with a disability indicated higher, but not signiﬁcantly higher,

self-concept scores than the sample of children without a disability. Self-concept has
been hypothesized as being a topic of great importance for persons with [especially]
vi sible disabilities (Bracken, 1996). These contrary results may suggest situation-bound

inﬂuences on the phenomenological experience one has of oneself (cf. Strohmer, Grand,

& Purcell, 1984).
Another possible implication for one’s tenuous personal meanings might be a direct

i~I'tl'1133ct on the person’s overall adjustment to disability. For adults who have already
established and maintained a lasting identity (e. g., vocational, familial, educational, and
ﬁnmcial stability) this may not pose such a problem. However, for younger individuals

who are likely to still be forming their identities, it is reasonable to assume that a

I3"“<>longed objective state of self-awareness may negatively affect the beliefs they have
I‘egarding their competencies, abilities, and self—esteem. Consequently, the altering of
8‘1 (:11 personal meanings may aﬁ‘ect long-term adjustment to a visible disability vis-a-vis
I>el‘ceived employment opportunities and perceived social and familial interactions.

Q0Ilﬁr‘rnation of these speculations may hold implications for social interactions, choice

10

of situations (e.g., places for employment or leisure activities), and situational analysis
for persons with disabilities.
Statement and Signiﬁcance of the Problem
For four decades (the 19503 through the 19805) a reasonably steady supply of
empirical and theoretical research was being conducted on a variety of topics analogous
to social interaction like, coping and succumbing (Dembo, Leviton, & Wright, 1956),
role acquisition (Cogswell, 1965), socialization and social deviance (Britton & Thomas
1 976; Smith-Hanson, 1976), readjustment and socialization (Cogswell, 1968), the eﬁ‘ects
of state anxiety and initial reactions to disability (Marinelli, 1974), social discomfort
(Dunn, 1977), social stereotyping (Weinberg, 1976), self-perception and self-concept
(I.imkowski & Dunn, 1974; Weinberg-Asher, 1976), psychophysiological responses of
the able-bodied (Wesolowski & Deichmann, 1980), and social context (Grand, Bernier,
& Strohmer, 1982; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984).

Currently, social scientists continue to investigate the interactions between society
and persons with disabilities, while in the rehabilitation literature inconsistent attention is
now given to the these relationships. Recognizing the ubiquitous force that social
opinion has on the lives of all individuals (e.g., stigma, status), it is imperative that
I‘ellabilitation scholars maintain a concentration upon the interactions between their
“ clientele” and society at large. A person with a disability can n_o_t_ be rehabilitated in
i s<>lation (Britton & Thomas, 1976, emphasis added). Nor can social attitudes be

accurately understood and addressed without investigating everyone involved in an
it“legrated social context. Analogously, as humanistic psychology refers to a single

in(lividual as comprising a est t, or a “whole being” who is greater than the sum of his

11

or her parts (Ellis, 1973; Shaffer, 1978), an interaction situated in a social context should
also be considered greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, in order to understand one part
of a social interaction, the whole event and all who are involved must be observed ms_rtu_.
Catherine Fichten (1997, 1991, 1988a, 1988b) and her colleagues have maintained a
strong drive in the rehabilitation literature toward understanding what effects social
interaction may have on the able-bodied and the person with a disability- However, most
of her work has been conducted through self-reports provided via hypothetical (scripted)
situations. In her 1997 study that looked at disability as attracting attention due to
‘ ‘novelty-eﬂ’ects,” Fichten herself acknowledged that even though certain data indicate
that hypothetical and actual interactions often have similar results (see Zweig & Brown,
1 985) the analog nature of her investigation “presents a threat to ecological validity,” (p.
22 l ). Though her work has undoubtedly addressed many highly relevant situation-bound
i ssues, ecological validity appears to be at risk throughout.
Thus, a central purpose of this investigation is to address the phenomenological
experiences of a person with a disability when feeling objectively self-aware.
S peciﬁcally, this study focused on the meanings that individuals attributed to disability-
re] ated concepts when OSA was induced. This study followed the methods and
asSumptions of the quantitative research paradigm.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this experiment was to test the theory that OSA may adversely
itIfruence the meanings that a male or female with a visible disability attributed to
s‘I>eciﬁc concepts and situations. In order to induce an objectively self-aware state, the

presence or absence of video camera and a television monitor were employed as the

12

independent variable. The monitor gave each participant in a treatment group an

unavoidable view of his or her image while seated in a small group of people. Two

dependent variables were deﬁned as 1) the connotative meanings that a participant

attributed to speciﬁc disability-related concepts, and 2) that participant’s job-hunting

assertiveness. Inferences were made regarding the moderating effects of high public self-

consciousness on these connotative meanings and self-reported assertive behaviors.

The research questions put forth by this investigation were as follows:

1.

Are the meaning attributions for persons with visible disabilities who
score high in public self-consciousness diﬁ'erent than for persons with
visible disabilities who score low in public self-consciousness?

What is the effect on the meaning attributions of persons with visible
disabilities when objective self-awareness is induced?

Is the job-hunting assertiveness for persons with visible disabilities who
score high in public self-consciousness diﬂ‘erent than for persons with
visible disabilities who score low in public self-consciousness?

What is the effect on job-hunting assertiveness for people with visible
disabilities when objective self-awareness is induced?

Does gender interact with induced objective self-awareness on meaning

attributions and job-hunting assertiveness?

13

The hypotheses for this investigation have been constructed around the attitudinal
(connotative meanings) and behavioral (social avoidance) consistency of the participants
(Scheier, 1980) and are listed below:

Hypothesis 1: The meaning attributions for persons with visible disabilities who score
high on public self-consciousness will be less positive than for those

who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 2: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible
disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will
have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions than persons who

score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 3: Persons with visible disabilities who score high on public self-
consciousness will report less assertive job-hunting behavior than those
who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 4: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible
disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will
report signiﬁcantly less assertive job hunting behaviors than persons

who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 5: Females will have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions and
less assertive job-hunting behaviors than males aﬁer the inducement of
objective self-awareness.

As will be described below, rehabilitation clients from ﬁve separate locations across

1°\Wer central Michigan were randomly placed into either a treatment or control group

based on the presence of a visible disability, and their voluntary consent. Participants in

14

both groups responded to a series of four questionnaires. Brieﬂy, these were a

demographic questionnaire that provided the investigator with the characteristics of the
sample, the public subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale—Revised (Carver & Scheier,
l 985), the Semantic Differential (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), and the Assertive
Job-Hunting Survey (Becker, 1980).
The experimental group answered their questionnaires in a room with a television
monitor and video camera mounted on a tripod that provided each person a clear view of
him- or herself seated with the others. The control group completed the same tasks in a
room with no video equipment. Of the four questionnaires, a key factor was the
participant’s responses to the public subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale-Revised
(Carver & Scheier, 1985). It was expected that the results obtained from the treatment
gI-oup would reveal a tendency for those scoring high in public self-consciousness (PSC)
t 0 report less positive meaning attributions to speciﬁed disability-related concepts as
indicated by the Semantic Differential. Additionally, the effects of induced objective
selflawareness (OSA) were expected to be statistically signiﬁcant for the same individual
rIleaning attributions for participants scoring high in PSC. Likewise, Semantic
Diﬂ‘ererrtial results obtained from persons in the control group were expected to reveal

ITl<>re positive meaning attributions.
The Semantic Differential technique, (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) elicited

each participant’s meaning attributions for speciﬁc disability-related concepts and
sitnations such as, Having a Visible Disability and Applying for a Job. Finally, the
Assertive Job-Hunting Survey (Becker, 1980) provided an indication of the impact that

il‘lduced OSA had on individual assertiveness toward securing employment.

15

Deﬁnition of Terms
_S_el_f:Qm_sci_Qus_ne§s
To be self-conscious is “simply the disposition to be aware of the self,” (Carver &
Scheier, 1985, p. 149). However, as argued by Hewitt (2000) and Mead (1934), the

sub sequent meanings that one may attribute to oneself while aware of the self will result
{from this self-awareness as it relates to a particular social context. Therefore,
theoretically, the present investigation will add to this brief deﬁnition the concepts of
time and space, such that, a person is now aware of him or herselfin a particular moment
in time. It should be acknowledged that Fenigstein (1979) and Fenigstein, Scheier, and
Buss (1975) also articulated the dimension of “private” self-consciousness, and referred
to it as an individual’s awareness of personal thoughts and feelings. Included in this
awareness is the knowledge of one’s own unique personal history and the events that
helped to slmpe his or her strengths and limitations, likes and dislikes, ambitions, and
deSires. Yet, as the present study addresses only the effects of public self-consciousness

on a person, the concept of private self-consciousness will not be elaborated ﬁrrther.

lic Self-Co 'o ess
The use of the term public imparts the idea that something is observable and open to

t h
'3 scrutiny of others, thus “the essence of the public state of self-consciousness is the

311‘s a social object,” (Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss, 1975, p. 525). More speciﬁcally,
I:13!rblic self-consciousness] refers to the tendency to think about those self-aspects that

N matters of public display, qualities of the self from which impressions are formed in
cher people’s eyes,” (Scheier & Carver, 1985, p. 687). Public self-consciousness, as
qeﬁned by Fenigstein et al. (1975), may result from either transient contextual variables

16

or chronic dispositions. Yet regardless of these two possibilities, individual public self-

consciousness may certainly be enhanced when in the presence of others. However, for

the purposes of this study, public self-consciousness was treated as dispositional.

' e -Awareness

Ob'
Objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) is the guiding theory for this

investigation and will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter 2. It was selected because of
its ease of application and its relevance for rehabilitation theory and practice. Duval and
Wi cldund described the concept as a context dependent State of attention that is focused
exclusively upon oneself. Hence, the basic element of public self-consciousness is the
realization that one is the object of another’s interpretation. This notion alone bears
trernendous phenomenological implications such as evaluation anxiety (cf. Inoue, 1980;
Laing, 1967,1965; Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966). As employed in this study, objective

selflawareness represented a context dependent state of increased awareness of oneself as

the object of others’ attention.

Vi ﬂlg‘lili

Very simply, for the purpose of this study, a visible disability may be any
QQngenital or acquired nontrivial distinguishing physical characteristic that is the result of
(ii sense or injury and has been, or can be, medically conﬁrmed as such. For instance, the

3% of a wheelchair or cane and any observable impairment, disﬁgurement or deformity

% a result of ﬁre, injury or violence all provide the conceptual parameters for this

Qﬁt egor'y.

l7

Perso M
Philosophers have pointed out that meaning corresponds to language and can refer

to relationships that a person may have with another person, object or event (Gadamer,

1 976; Russell, 1940). Social scientists have similarly linked meaning with social
interaction and intentional conduct (Hewitt, 2000; Mead, 1934; cf. Creelman, 1966).
Phemomenologists extend the deﬁnition of meaning and emphasize meaning to be a
descriptive process. How a person interprets what is stimulating his or her senses will

determine what those stimuli mean (de Muralt, 1974; Spinelli, 1989). The interpretation
of a particular situation will thus determine personal meanings and subsequent behavior.

M

The concept of [93 is one of the most widely used in the social sciences. The

conventional view regards a role as a unique cluster of duties and/or behaviors that are

 

associated with a particular social position, or status (Hewitt, 2000, 1984; Newcomb,

1 950; Shibutani, 1961). A person’s role can be said to “explain” or to deﬁne, for the
ind-iVidual and others, who he or she is, and what he or she is expected to do in a given
s‘i‘T‘--lation.

Assumptions and Limitations
The foremost assumption underlying this investigation was that a video camera and
t§l Qwision monitor would induce a state of objective self-awareness in people with visible
di sabilities. Decades of empirical investigations have provided ample validity and
rﬁli ability for this method using a variety of population samples. However, a

Mpulation check of the independent variable was conducted because it has yet to be
§lTlpirically determined whether video equipment will reliably produce similar effects on

18

a sample of persons with disabilities. Still, the work of several rehabilitation and social
science scholars (see Baumeister, 1986; Buss, A H., 1980; Bus, D. M., & Scheier, 1976;
Carver & Scheier, 1978; Cogswell, 1965; Duval & “Wicklund, 1972; Geller & Shaver,
1 97 5; Goﬂ‘man, 1963; Saﬁlios-Rothschild, 1970; Samuel & Dollinger 1989;
Trieschmann, 1988; Wicklund & Duval, 1971; Wright, B. A., 1983), indicate that when
an individual is reminded of his or her prescribed social status and role, vis-a-vis a visual
or audio recording, or a mirrored reﬂection, then some self—evaluations will ensue. To
approximate such an event, the study’s recruits were asked to complete questionnaires in

groups of at least two with a treatment condition that additionally exposed those

panicipants to their images projected onto a television monitor.
A second assumption concerned the generalizability of the results. Group

e(ll—livarlence is a necessary element of between-groups designs such as employed here.
Howie-yer, since this investigation was concerned with the effects of PSC on a person with
a Visible disability, diﬂ‘erent disability types will be included. While this could threaten
the generalizability of the results to a speciﬁc disability, it could more effectively reﬂect
the public at large. Age was controlled for such that only people eighteen years old or
01 Ger were asked to participate. Included also were racially diverse females and males
with either an acquired or congenital visible disability other than a visual impairment.
“avg representatives ﬁ'om both genders and diverse backgrounds reﬂected a typical
le'limunity. Visually impaired persons were not be recruited for this particular study

Mm it is unknown how a lack of sight may inﬂuence feelings of self-consciousness.
" IQreover, since the intervention is visually based it could not possibly work with persons

Who are visually impaired.

19

Finally, this experiment was limited to the use of a convenience sample that
precluded the adequate use of a non-disabled cohort by which to measure population
diﬁ'erences. While this posed a problem when generalizing to the larger society, the
results of this experiment still produced some valuable information regarding the speciﬁc
eﬂ’ects of OSA on the connotative meanings and assertiveness of persons with diﬂ‘erent

vi sible disabilities.

20

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
From an existential-phenomenological perspective, when a person approaches a
situation he or she can be aware of only part of it (typically those aspects that are most
salient) and, thus, lacking a sense of the entire context, the person is likely to
mi sunderstand the situation and all that it may imply (de Muralt, 1974; Merleau-Ponty,

1 989; Valle & Halling, 1989). Moreover, an individual’s interpretation of a current

 

situation is theorized to be determined in large part by pg exm’ences. A person’s past
experiences are always present when interpreting a current situation and the
“unconscious” is the mechanism that directs this process (Fischer, 1989). One’s
“consciousness” then, is considered the window through which a present experience is
re\Veaaled and made available for interpretation by the unconscious. Thus, people interpret
Only what they M they see, and these interpretations become engrained in memory.
Situations that hold positive or negative connotations for a person are anticipated and the
indiVidual may likely continue to make decisions about whether to avoid or engage with
new situations based on this memory. This process creates a pattern for the person that
may have a tremendous impact on ﬁlture opportunities and, in particular, adjustment to a
(1i 8ability.
Most of the research cited in this review was selected for its emphasis on these
phenomenological aspects of individuals with disabilities. Other work was selected for
it % analogous content on situation selection and interpretation and the subsequent creation

Qf personal meaning.

21

Apprgghing the Problem

Typically, the “success” of one’s adjustment to a disability is largely assessed by
the individual’s rehabilitation counselor, or whoever may be overseeing the person’s
rehabilitation process. In keeping with rehabilitation philosophy, client self-report plays
a large role in this determination. However, this assumes that the client with a disability
and the counselor (who may or may not have a disability) will connotatively structure
their worlds the same. Metaphorically, what “success” means to a client will likely be
qualitatively different from how a counselor deﬁnes the term. A closer look at the game;
m of clients is thus warranted. Such an inspection seems imperative for many
reasons, especially because the personal or subjective meaning that the individual
ascribes to his or her disability is paramount to the rehabilitation (i.e., adjustment)
process (Trieschmann, 1988; Wright, G. N., 1980). One’s connotative meanings can be
Sigttliﬁcantly inﬂuenced by the attitudes of society at large (i.e., zeitgeist), others nearby,
and the person’s ability to eﬂ‘ectively negotiate his or her immediate environment. To a
p e1‘S<>n with a disability, discriminatory attitudes or environmental restrictions can
S“‘l‘bsimntially limit the range of activities available to occupy his or her time in meaningful
and enjoyable ways and promote a sense of quality to one’s life. Thus, Shontz (1991)
ﬁg serted that a person’s disability is but one of many factors (e.g., physical, social,

QQatronal, etc.) to cope With, and IS often a comparatively minor one in terms of a

t>§rson’s total adjustment.

It has been argued that one’s behavior does not exist except in relation to certain

$1‘Tllational conditions, that is to say, neither one’s behavior nor the environment can be

understood in isolation, that each inﬂuence the other in meaningful ways (Lewin, 193 5;

22

Magnusson, 1981; Shontz, 1975; Trieschrnann, 1988; Valle & Halling, 1989; Watts,

1 961). Moreover, of primary concern to an individual is the degree to which his or her

behavior remains consistent and self-regulated across environments or contexts and over
coherence and hypothesized

 

time (Snyder, 1983). Krahe (1992, 1990) referred to this as

that persons who perceive various situations as being similar in context will tend to
demonstrate similar behavior. Situations are considered similar to the extent that they
provide positive reinforcement (Krahe, 1992). It is difﬁcult to utilize this concept in
ternis of reinforcement for persons with .a visible disability, because coherence of
situations seemingly presupposes three conditions; 1) that an individual desires to engage
With a situation, 2) that the individual is physically able to negotiate certain situational
interactions such as steps that impede a wheelchair or weather conditions that might
exacerbate muscle cramping and pain and, 3) that the individual is _a_ll9_w_9_d_ to engage
with a situation (i.e., is not discriminated against). This third condition is of the greatest
ilill><>rtance to this investigation as it imports strong implications for self-consciousness,
meaning attribution, and roles assigned m. Speciﬁcally, the effects of perceived
hegettive social attitudes and evaluations may obstruct the individual’s ability to remain

i~3‘e3MIible and “personalize” situational roles to ﬁt his or her needs and desires, while at the

Seq,” timc adhering to social norms (cf. Duval & Wicklund, 1972).
Historical Antecedents

To clarify an a m'gri assumption of rehabilitation philosophy; a handicap is said to
§‘lierge ﬁ'om the interactions that occur between a person with an impairment and the
Si1:uational elements of the physical and social environments (Batavia, 1993; Livneh &

Antonak, 1997; Maki & Riggar, 1997; Trieschmann, 1988; Wright, B. A., 1983).

23

Beatrice Wright has long been an advocate for investigating the situational precursors of
behavior (1983; 1980; cf. Barker, Wright, Meyerson, & Gonick, 1953) and, taking her
lead from Fritz Heider, aﬁirmed, “the environment is the medium that allows the person
to act, just as sound waves are the medium that allow the person to hear,” (p. 42).
For centuries, Oriental philosophies (e.g., Taoism, Buddhism) have asserted the
notion that an individual is not born “mtg the world, but emerges out of the world, and is
therefore an inseparable par_t_0f the world (Watts, 1951,1961). This view bears
signiﬁcant implications for rehabilitation especially when placed under the light of Kurt
Levvin’s Person, Environment Fit Theory (1935). Lewin held the conviction that a person
and his or her environment are interdependent, that each exists as a separate yet integral
aspect of the other. Of particular importance here is the presence of the comma rather
than a mathematical operator in the expression B=ﬂP,E). “It is not the person and the
environment which determine behavior, but a person-environment unit—the life space”
C Ozer, 1986, p. 8). Although this is not a novel idea for rehabilitation research, what this
insight means is that both the individual and the environment can and do impact each
0t her—in chorus. Thus, a consideration of the overall context of an individual involves
an examination of the relationships between all elements of the person’s life, especially

as they interact during a given point in social time and space.
Similarly, existential philosophy depicts the concept of the “three modes of world”.

 

Brieﬂy, these are the umwelt (world around), mitwelt (with world), and the eigenwelt
(QM world). Creating a much needed bridge between an otherwise antiquated and
complex philosophy and modem-day psychiatry, Rollo May (1983; 1958) has deciphered

the physical and personal interconnectedness that each human being has with his or her

24

 

biological, social, and “spiritual” worlds, respectively. That is, three simultaneously
interacting aspects of a person’s life [-space] that characterizes his or her existence during
a particular moment in time. This information is useﬁll for an investigation of public
self-consciousness because it provides a ﬁamework from which to more clearly
M a person’s situation. The relationship between a person and the
environment may now be conceived of in the form of a Venn diagram, in which the three
worlds overlap and inﬂuence each other while, at the same time, remaining separate and
unique. The actual “ﬁt” between the person and the environment may be understood in
terms of the balance, or “best ﬁt”, between the three worlds (cf. T rieschmann, 1988).

This concept is more commonly recognized as “congruence” and is oﬁen utilized in the
social psychology literature (see Diener, Larson, & Emmons, 1984; Krahe, 1992; Moos,

l 987).
Shontz (1975) argued a similar theory of congruence, and offered six basic
principles by which health professionals can more clearly and systematically comprehend
the meaning (s) of another person’s behavior. First, understanding the likely presence of
W for any given issue or behavior will prevent the common misconception
of a single cause. The assumption that a particular behavior is provoked by only one
caElse may mislead health professionals toward hasty conclusions. Second, professionals
will need to recognize that all persons seek integration into their environments, that is,
eVery cause of behavior “is related to every other, and the whole constitutes an integrated
‘ ﬁeld’” of relationships (p. 192, original emphasis). A third principle builds directly ﬁom
the previous one in terms of how a person interprets and subsequently responds to a

situation. The principle of interpretation is exempliﬁed in the investigation proposed

25

 

here, as is the fourth principle of contemporaneig. This principle identiﬁes how a

person’s overall “context” of the current moment factors into the determination of his or

her behavior. The implication is that one’s past and future are aﬁ‘ected only by how one

 

interprets the present moment. Thus, a ﬁfth principle addresses the construal of the past

 

and the anticipation of the future. Borrowing from G. A. Kelly’s (1955) theory of
personal constructs, this principle regards the organization of past experiences into

personal constructs or schemas by which the individual views (i.e., interprets) the present
moment, thus making it meaningﬁrl. Moreover, constructs provide an individual with the

means to predict future events. Finally, a sixth principle addresses the unity of an

orggrjsm ad the environment. This principle hypothesizes that an individual’s

personality results from the relationships experienced between the person and the

physical and social environments.
Thus reﬂecting the existential 3-modes of world, Shontz argued that to make

di stinctions between a person and the surrounding environment—subject-object
divisions—is to promote an “artiﬁcial” view of the organism-environment relationship

(I) - l 97). A person’s behavior is said to be a ﬁrnction of these relationships (p. 196).

It is worthwhile to note that almost two decades prior to Beatrice Wright’s sounding

of the “situation-speciﬁc” alarm, Betty Cogswell, in her dissertation research (1965),
a'clﬁnowledged this very same call. Cogswell referred to the problem as being one of
W and asserted that the overall process of socialization could be broken down

mto “sequences of socialization” (i.e., situations). Situations were understood to provide

Qleortunities for interaction that, in turn, would affect the subsequent interpretations of

the situation for each participant and the social roles therein. Reﬂecting upon Cogswell’s

26

thesis, one can visualize social situations being made up of different and separate but
interconnected interactions—steps—that come to form the “path taken” through a
person’s life.

During the same time period—1965—Mary Switzer, then the Commissioner of the
United States Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, helped to coordinate a
conference on the relevance of rehabilitation problems to sociological theory (see
Sussman, 1966). The conference, entitled “Sociological Theory, Research and
Rehabilitation,” invited distinguished sociologists ﬁ'om around the country to address the
mounting problem of social dependency. One objective for the conference was to
concentrate on such conceptualizations as, inter-group relations, deviance, sociology of
occupations, and socialization. In his discussion on deviance, Eliot Freidson (1966)
stated that an essential problem for social interaction exists in the maintenance of
“smooth relations” between “mixed contacts” (p. 93). That is, when someone who
deviates ﬁ'om a norm (someone who is “not average”) comes together in a social situation
with someone who is “average”. Freidson explained that the problem was not one of
domestic or private relations where, over time, familiar routines may develop but, rather
one of social interaction “on the streets, in the shops, and on the job,” where the
individual is most likely to meet others not as familiar (p. 93). When strangers meet like
this, each tends to focus his or her attention and makes a mental note of the most salient
characteristics about the other and, given time, proceeds to make certain appraisals of the
other. In the case of a person with a disability, an appraisal by another may serve as a
reminder that he or she has a difference (e. g., uses a wheelchair) and, is not average.

Charles Horton Cooley (1922) compared this phenomenon to a “looking glass” and stated

27

that, “. . .we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims,
deeds, character, ﬁiends, and so on, and are variously affected by it,” (p.184).

The self-identiﬁcation literature stresses that groups of people cue relevant
information in a person’s memory about him or herself, the group, and the relationship
between the person and the group (Schlenker, 1986, p. 30). The appraisals of others
activate social roles, memories, present images, and conceivable goals for an individual
in the present moment. Others in the environment cannot “see” how one individual
W a situation, only the physical attributes and outward behaviors are detectable.
Conversely, one’s Qw_n experience of an interaction mediates his or her behavior in the
moment, thus two persons sharing a common situation may conceivably represent an
ever-increasing series of reﬁ'actions (Laing, Phillipson, & Lee, 1966; cf. Shontz, 1975).
In the end, it remains virtually impossible to avoid trying to understand the other’s
experience. Therefore, through the observation of symbols, gestures, expressions, words,
etc, as well as the schemas created from past experience, an audience will try to make
others’ “invisible experience visible” (Inoue, 1980, p. 2).

Theory of Objective Self-Awareness

Duval and Wicklund’s (1972) theory is an attempt to understand the reasons why
individuals may conform to others. The authors have formulated this theory on the basis
of a distinction between two forms of conscious attention. Their theory postulates that
individuals have one innate consciousness with directional properties; attention can be

dually focused either inward toward oneself or outward toward the environment.

 

However, it is emphasized that attention cannot be focused inward and outward

28

simultaneously. For example, a person is unable to focus conscious attention on personal
aspects while driving a nail into wood.

“Subjective self-awareness” is the term given to attention that is focused outward
upon the external environment. That is, the person is the primary “subject” who is
observing and interpreting aspects of the environment. “Objective self-awareness” is the
term used to explain attention that is focused exclusively upon oneself. In this instance,
the person is now the “object” of his or her own attention. Consequently, the objectively
self-aware person has become conscious of him or herself in a given situation. The
individual has focused his or her observations on such personal characteristics as his or
her own body and physical attributes, speciﬁc personal aspects, and even his or her
unique history as it does or does not regard the situation at hand.

The theory assumes that as the objective state of self-awareness occurs, the
individual will not simply react impartially but instead will evaluate him or herself with
regard to an implied set of standards for a given situation. To elaborate, these standards
are deﬁned as “a mental representation of conect behavior, attitudes, and traits,” such as
appropriate dinner conversation or protocol at a funeral, (p. 3). In other words, what the
person is evaluating him or herself against are the social norms and expectations for
conduct. In the case of personality traits, Duval and Wicklund stated that each person
would have a mental representation of ideal personality traits for a given situation. The
extent to which a person does not match his or her mental representations will result in
negative self-evaluations.

An individual will experience the greatest negative affect when a signiﬁcant

discrepancy is salient and, as the theory implies, any situation that causes an individual to

29

become aware of him or herselfwill bring about the objective state. Moreover, any
situation where the person is clearly distinct ﬁom his or her environment will generate a
state of objective self-awareness. Consequently, for the person who is thus aware, Duval
(1971) has shown that the individual will also be more likely to attribute the source of the
distinction to him or herself. Explicitly, the person will view him or herself as
responsible for the differences that distinguish him or her from others, rather than
observing differences that distinguish others from him or herself.

Attribution of responsibility is ﬁrrther elaborated as being the result of the focus of
attention of an individual or a dominant group. That is, if attention is directed at the self,
so will be the attribution of responsibility, likewise, if attention is directed at another,
responsibility will be attributed to the other. Thus, if a discrepancy is perceived in a
given situation between two or more persons, responsibility for the discrepancy will
follow the direction of attention. As a result, the beliefs that an individual holds for his or
her ability to meet the perceived standards (i.e., social norms) of a given situation will
become unstable. In a situation where a person is distinct ﬁ'om others, he or she may
begin to question his or her presence there.

Duval and Wicklund posited two possible outcomes from this scenario. In order to
reduce the discrepancy and negative aﬁ‘ect experienced, the individual may either 1)
attempt to avoid similar situations or 2) adjust his or her behavior and/or beliefs to
coincide with those of the dominant other [5]. As the person comes to feel with more
certainty that he or she is indeed the source of a discrepancy but a discrepancy that @1191.
be adjusted then, theoretically, his or her tendency will be to avoid the situation

altogether. Doing so will reduce negative affect and increase the stability of beliefs about

30

the self (i.e., self-concept). On the other hand, if behavior and/or beliefs are adjustable
then the individual may begin to align these with what are the perceived dominant
standards and expectations. This latter concept is highly analogous to Beatrice Wright’s
(1983) theory of “as if’ behavior. Wright maintained that in the initial stages of
adjustment to disability, a person might wish to hide, forget, or otherwise deny what has
socially been considered a deﬁciency—a handicap, and because there are demonstrable
threats to being included in this category, the person may attempt to conceal the disability
anyway he or she can. In other words, to conform to a perceived social standard.

Employing Duval and “ﬁcklund’s theory in the present investigation held many
implications for the choices that persons with disabilities make regarding speciﬁc
situations. Further, it is conceivable that implications for situational locus of control may
also emerge. To what extent might persons with a speciﬁc disability avoid speciﬁc
situations and why? (cf. Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984). Finally, addressing the OSA
of persons with disabilities may illuminate patterns across persons and situations helping
to more precisely identify problematic areas for persons with disabilities.

Self-Consciousness and The Principle of Dual Location

Almost forty years ago, R. D. Laing (1965) revealed that in ordinary use, the term
selfoconsciousness implied two things: “an awareness of oneself by oneself, and an
awareness of oneself as an object of someone else ’3 observation, ” (p. 106, original
emphasis). Laing went on to discuss the effects of a person who is highly attune to the
above latter form of self-consciousness and, in response, effectively confounds the
identity of the object being observed into what is today considered a type of disability—

schizophrenia.

31

The idea that an individual can be both an object to his or her own observation and
an object to the observations of others is central to many theories of social psychology
(cf. Cooley, 1902; Heider, 1958; James, 1890; Mead, 1934). As discussed above, the
theory of objective self-awareness closely examines the concept of self-consciousness
and is the guiding theory for this investigation. However, as self-consciousness is not an
isolated concept, there are other theories that provide analogous insight that the present
investigation must take into consideration to accurately clarify its purpose. Of speciﬁc
relevance is the principle of dual lpgtion, which is a theoretical component of symbolic
interaction. The basic character of dual location is that when social interaction occurs
people take on the anticipated roles of others (in accordance with the norms or standards
of a given situation) and, in doing so, become objects of their own observations (Hewitt,
1984). In a social situation, an individual becomes constituted as am through
socially recognized roles. In order to explain this concept, Hewitt offered a simple
example: the situation of a professor governing his or her conduct within a class to best
accommodate a variety of perceived student needs such as, challenging the attentive
student or clarifying for the student with a confused expression. What the person is
doing, in effect, is striving to balance all of the aspects of the situation at hand.
Investigators of person-environment ﬁt might refer to this phenomenon as seeking
congruence.

It is helpful to note that the word m comes from the Latin ma referring to
the different masks worn by actors in a play (Hewitt, 1984; Watts, 1961). The
comiotations for pgsonalig are thus made apparent, as a person is considered capable of

taking multiple roles in any given situation. One’s “personality” is constructed in a

32

situation through the dual awareness of one’s own experience as it is more or less aligned
with the experience of others. This notion is highly analogous to Duval and Wicklund’s
(1972) theory that an individual who is considered different from a majority of others will
likely temper his or her beliefs in order to coincide with those of the dominant group.
This is assuming however, that the person is able to make certain realignments—that he
or she is not being forever “typecast” into one role (i.e., “disabled person”). As follows,
a consistency of personality across situations does not imply that a person retains one role
(i.e., persona), but rather that a person takes on diﬂ‘erent roles to ﬁt with the expectations
of different situations. A woman may be a physician during the day prescribing
medication to her patients and a wife in the evening discussing plans for a holiday trip.
Yet, whether shopping, at work or school, a person with a disability may always be seen
ﬁrst, as just that—a disabled ﬁrson—in which case, the inevitability of being typecast is
imminent (cf. Liesener & Mills, 1999). Incidentally, this perspective is not a perfect one.
A person’s sense of him or herselfin relation to others is doubtfuﬂy ever an exact match,
that is, totally congruent. Miscommunications, misinterpretations, and misinformation
(also, intentional distancing) all impede and confound the expectations that one may hold
for a situation. Thus, any interaction involving multiple individuals also involves multiple
heuristics that affect the potential meanings for the situation at hand.

For the individual with a disability, the principle of dual location (i.e., self-
consciousness) may conceivably be rendered ineﬁ‘ectual. The physical characteristics
that typically coincide with many physical disabilities (e. g., using a wheelchair, having
muscle spasticity, or atrophy) tend to med; the person in a given situation and me_ﬁ_x

his or her role in the minds of others. Thus, the person is effectively rendered unable to

33

seek congruence in the situation—the person is d_is_-abled. Hence, the philosophy that
disability is a social phenomenon. Goﬂ‘man (1963) referred to this phenomenon as social
grgmapzmg and stated that it represented a special discrepancy between one’s virtual and
actual social identity. One possible complication of stigma, or preﬁxed roles, is what
Beatrice Wright (1983) referred to as the “spread effect”. The notion of spread is
theorized to illustrate what happens in the minds of some able-bodied individuals, when
confronted with persons initially considered disabled and unpleasant. For the outside
observer, this feeling of unpleasantness generalizes to the whole person, and deﬁnes him
or her under this distorted perspective. The individual becomes devalued as a person and
is subsequently limited in his or her potential to interact with the immediate situation.
Building on this view, Hahn (1993) hypothesized that discrimination and the
prejudiced attitudes of [some] able-bodied persons result from an intense anxiety that is
aroused upon encountering an individual with a disability. Existential and aesthetic
anxiety are posited to cloud the view of able-bodied persons by essentially reminding
them of their own vulnerabilities, and arousing in them unpleasant feelings of repulsion
and fear engendered by one whose appearance deviates ﬁ'om “normal” expectation. A
highly discriminating, and certainly subjective, incongruence manifests between persons
with disabilities and others in the surrounding environment. Two potentially profound
impacts that this incongruence can have is to inhibit how a person may respond and
adjust to a particular situation (e.g., employment opportunities) as well as to the disability
itself and its subsequent impacts throughout the person’s life (V ash, 1981; Wright, B. A.,
1983; Wright, G. N., 1980). In other words, the very nature of discrimination and

prejudice presupposes the fact that negotiations with the environment and society at large

34

are being held to a minimum. The fact that discrimination occurs means that an
individual or a group is having _a_pr_io_ri social limits imposed upon them—that they are
being dis-abled.

There are many negative connotations that emerge as a result of such social
limitations. First, that negative or otherwise biased social attitudes impose restrictions on
a person’s ability to interact with a given situation. Second, that these restrictions
inﬂuence the person’s self-consciousness, and subsequently his or her self-concept, by
emphasizing the experience of others ever the experience of self. Third, this imposition
tends to reify one role (stigma) for the individual: disabled or handicapped, which, in
turn, may ﬁrrther impact the individual’s self-concept by acknowledging only the
physical diﬂ‘erences rather than the similarities. Fourth, that the individual may therefore
make conscious decisions to avoid certain, even desired, situations and interactions (e.g.,
applying for a job, going to a movie, or inviting someone on a date) in order to maintain a
consistent, and more importantly, an esteemed sense of self.

Such negative impacts to one’s self-consciousness may greatly inhibit the overall
adjustment to disability by precluding the person from taking on diﬁ‘erent roles to meet
the challenges and expectations of various situations. If an individual is unable to adjust .
his or her role in order to ﬁt into a given situation then, how can he or she be expected to
adjust to aﬂ comprised of many situations? Without (or being denied) the ability to
adjust oneself accordingly with the expectations of a particular situation, one may come
to feel alienated ﬁom desired environments and people. The extent to which one feels to
“belong” to a particular group will be threatened as various social roles that the person

had previously taken on habitually are dissolved or forfeited to another. The personal

35

meanings derived from esteem-building situational experiences may lose some of their
positive eﬂ‘ect on the person’s self-concept. One conceivable result of this could be a
powerful impedance to the individual’s ability (albeit desire) to restore or maintain
balance and a feeling of integrity in a life with a disability.

The Semantic Differential Technique

As previously asserted, the meaning that a person attributes to a particular situation
will likely determine how he or she will behave in that situation. Osgood, Suci, and
Tannenbaum (1957) stated that the consistency among situations and human behavior
ultimately determined psychological meaning and, therefore, they constructed the
semantic differential as a method of analyzing and measuring such meanings. The
authors ﬁrst pointed out that the semantic differential is not a test. Instead, it is a
technique of measurement that must be adapted to the speciﬁc requirements of each
unique experiment to which it is applied. The content of the semantic diﬂ‘erential is
selected by the investigator for its relevance to a particular problem under study and for
how well it represents the area of research interest.

To develop their technique the authors provided 100 subjects with a list of 20
concepts (e. g., “lady,” “statue,” “boulder”) and a list of 50 bipolar, 7-point scales with the
anchors being such familiar terms as “good—bad” and “rough—smooth.” At a single
point along the scale, subjects indicated how close to either pole they felt the concept to
be best represented. Some of the responses were quite natural; e.g., that a “boulder” is
“heavy” or “light,” while most were metaphorical (e.g., is a “boulder” “good” or “bad?”).
The goal was to locate a point in the semantic space of an individual. Essentially, this

space may be considered the proximity between concepts within a person’s subjective,

36

connotative way of structuring his or her world. Using Thurstone’s Centroid Method on
the resultant matrix of intercorrelations, three identiﬁable factors emerged: evaluation
(e.g., “good—bad,” “beautiﬁrl—ugly”), MGM (e.g., “strong-weak,” large—small”)
and, ac_t_i_\a'_ty (e. g., “active—passive,” “fast—slow”). Following, an elaborate factor
analysis using terms ﬁom Roget’s Thesaurus helped to ﬁrrther establish reliable semantic
dimensions for the three factors.

As indicated, the end product is a technique rather than one particular test or
measure. The authors’ methods have been used in a variety of ways. Research
participants have been asked to place concepts, pictures ﬁom the Thematic Apperception
Test, the names of political candidates, and even sonar signals on the bipolar scales to
indicate their meaning. The technique can illuminate differences between concepts,
groups of people and, differences over time. Osgood et al. have provided the guidelines,
basic factors (i.e., evaluation, potency, etc), and bipolar scales for investigators to follow
in constructing an appropriate semantic differential for their particular purposes (cf.
Buros, 1965).

Scoring of the differential can be accomplished in two ways. Both methods start by
arbitrarily assigning values to each space on the 7-point polar scales—for instance, values
of -3, -2, -l, 0, +1, +2 and +3 have the heuristic advantage of ﬁxing an origin in the

center (i.e., the neutral position). The mathematical operator easily contrasts the less

 

positive, attractive and, active concepts against the more positive, attractive and, active
concepts. Another scoring method is to assign values of 1 to 7 to each space on the
scales and sum the dimensions. Typically the higher scores reﬂect the more positive,

attractive and, active concepts and lower scores indicate a less positive, attractive and,

37

active ones. This method sets a score of 4 in the neutral position of the scale. Using

 

either method of scoring requires strict attention to the reverse order of some of the
scales.
The Self-Consciousness Scale-Revised

This is a 22-item scale that was revised by Scheier and Carver (1985) from the
earlier version by Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975). The original built on the theory
of objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) and the revision made the scale
appropriate for a wider range of populations. The scale focuses on individual feelings of
private and public self-consciousness and, social anxiety. Private self-consciousness is
deﬁned as the tendency to think more about those personal aspects that are not easily
accessible to the scrutiny of others—for example, one’s beliefs, values and, desires.
Public self-consciousness refers to a tendency to think more about the aspects of oneself
that are matters of public display such as overt behavior or appearance. The social
anxiety subscale measures one’s apprehension about being evaluated by others.

The norms for the revised scale are based on a sample of 298 undergraduate men
and women, 42 middle-aged men who had recently undergone coronary artery bypass
surgery, and 396 middle-aged women who were involved in a longitudinal study for
menopause. Means for the undergraduate men were 15.5 on private self-consciousness,
13.5 on public self-consciousness, and 8.8 for social anxiety. For the undergraduate
women, means were 17.3 for private, 14.2 for public, and 8.6 for social anxiety. For
middle-aged men the mean for private self-consciousness was. 13.5 (the only subscale
administered). For middle-aged women, only means on the public self-consciousness

and social anxiety scales are available. Respectively, they are 11.8 and 7.3.

38

Scheier and Carver reported that, overall, the psychometric properties of the revised
scale compared extremely well to the psychometric properties of the original. For
example, the correlations between the original subscales and the revised subscales were
all in the low to mid .805. Some examples of the changes in the revised scale are, from
the original public subscale “One of the last things I do before I leave my house is to look
in the mirror”, to the revised “Before I leave my house, I check how I look”.

To determine internal consistency, three separate Cronbach alphas (one for each
subscale) were computed. The Cronbach alphas obtained were; for the private subscale,
.75, for public .84, and for the social anxiety subscale .79. These scores are higher than
those obtained for the original scale (.69, .79, and .71, respectively). Test-retest
correlations determined that the revised scale possesses reasonable stability across time.
Correlations were; for the private subscale .76, for public .74, and for social anxiety .77.

The self-consciousness scale is scored by summing scores that range ﬁ'om 0 to 3.
The possible responses for each item are the same and pre-assigned a value that will be
added together at the conclusion. The responses are “Not at all like me” = 0; “Just a little
like me” = 1; “Somewhat like me” = 2; and “A lot like me” = 3. This produces a total
possible rangeof 0 to 66 with the higher the score representing more aspects of the three
subscales.

The Assertive Job-Hunting Survey
A 25-item questionnaire, the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey (Becker, 1980) was
developed to assess self-reported job-hunting behaviors and assertiveness. According to
Becker, there were no other such job-seeking assertiveness measures prior to this one.

The survey has been revised three times and administered to more than 400 college

39

students ranging ﬁ'om ﬁ'eshman to graduate level students. Becker reported that the
survey was designed to serve three purposes: (1) to provide concrete situations that will
stimulate discussion, (2) to assess the efﬁcacy of counseling interventions on self-
reported job-hunting attitudes and, (3) to explore the concept of job-hunting behavior (p.
46).

Speciﬁcally, the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey addresses the extent to which
persons act on their environment in order to gain information about jobs and to contact
employers regarding possible openings. The questionnaire was designed to reﬂect such
activities as resume’ writing, interviewing, contacting employers, soliciting
recommendations and, researching potential employers.

The survey was normed on 190 male and female college students (ranging from
freshman to graduate level students), and has good internal consistency with a coeﬂicient
alpha of .82 and a test-retest reliability of .7 7. Concurrent validity was established with a
signiﬁcant correlation between previous job-hunting experience and individual scores on
the questionnaire. Signiﬁcant relationships between survey scores, gender, and previous
job-hunting experiences were discovered. The instrument was also found to be sensitive
to change with signiﬁcant pre- to post-test changes for persons in job-hunting classes.
No other validity information was reported.

Scoring of the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey is rather straightforward. On a 6-
point scale ranging ﬁom 25 — 150 total points, individual responses are summed and
higher scores indicate more assertive behavior. F rom a range of choices (e.g., 1 = very

unlikely, 6 = very likely) respondents select the one that they believe best reﬂects how

40

they would behave. Scoring is reversed for items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 —12, 14, 15, 17, 19,
20, and 22 — 25.
Research in Rehabilitation

To date, no empirical research can be located in the rehabilitation journals that
speciﬁcally addressed the effects of self-consciousness on a person with a visible
disability. However, rehabilitation scholars have long emphasized a need to investigate
the inﬂuence of situational variables on attitudes of persons with disabilities (Grand,
Bernier, & Strohmer, 1982; Wright, B. A., 1983, 1980; Golin, 1970), reactions and
attitudes of the general public toward disability (Hahn, 1993; Antonak & Livneh, 1991;
Livneh & Antonak, 1990), and connotative meanings (Thomas & Britton, 1971; cf.
Saﬁlios-Rothschild, 1970).

Over the past decade, F ichten and her colleagues have investigated of the effects of
attentional focus and casual interaction of non-disabled persons (1997, 1996, 1994, 1991,
1988a, 1988b). It should be noted however, that since many of her studies were
conducted using hypothetical situations, threats to ecological validity are likely.

Fichten’s work will be discussed below.

Sitpatipnal Macs and Focus of Attention

Beatrice Wright (1980) was concerned with why the environment was so often

 

 

neglected by helping professionals as a source of difﬁculty for their clients. Wright
examined four factors of causal attribution (e.g., proximity between a person and
behavior and the saliency of a person as ﬁgure against an environmental background) that

deﬂect attention away from the environment when considering a person’s behavior.

41

Utilizing Heider’s (1958) work on causal attribution and Lewin’s (1935) person,
environment ﬁt theory, Wright elaborated on the attribution process. In situations where
a person’s behavior was atypical (such as with a minority population, see Duval, &
Wicklund, 1972), Wright stated that causal attributions to that person would be very
compelling. Further, since all persons vary in their characteristics and all situations vary
in their demands then, the nature of each unique situation must be examined when
accounting for behavior. In particular, Wright suggested that “the role played by the
situation in the behavior of a person with a disability will be revealed more readily if
differ—cut situations are speciﬁcally examined,” (original emphasis, p. 61). As a general
question for scholars and practitioners alike, Wright asked, “does the person behave this
way or have this problem in all situations?” (p. 61).

A recent study predicted that the self-focused attention (dispositional self-
consciousness) of a non-disabled person would lead to negative self-evaluation and affect
as well as stereotyped evaluations of people with a disability (F ichten, Lennox, Robillard,
Wright, Sabourin, & Amsel, 1996). Results indicated that public self-consciousness was
signiﬁcantly related to negative attitudes toward people with a visual impairment and
negative thinking about interacting with someone with a disability.

Similarly, Fichten, Amsel, Robillard, Sabourin, and Wright (1997) tested the
hypothesis that common reactions of the non-disabled students are partly due to an
attentional focus on “novelty effects” rather than to the mere presence of a disability.
Novel individuals were presented as either a visually impaired student or an
“outstanding” graduating student. Following a methodology that employed six diﬂ'erent

measures in an analogue context, Fichten et al. found that novelty provided only partial

42

explanation of interaction problems between non-disabled and disabled peers. However,
public self-consciousness scores for non-disabled students were signiﬁcantly related to
negative evaluative thoughts of novel peers.

Two other studies spearheaded by F ichten looked at casual interactions between
college students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Results revealed that,
when thinking about interaction with their disabled peers, non—disabled students generally
had more negative thoughts. Results also indicated that non-disabled students felt less at
ease when anticipating interaction in a variety of situations and, interestingly, did not
distinguish between students with diﬂ‘erent disabilities. Instead, non-disabled students
only distinguished generally between able-bodied students or disabled students.

Marinelli (1974) explored the state anxiety of undergraduate students when
encountering someone with a visible disability. Facial disﬁgurement was selected as the
visual stimulus and increased heart rate was the dependent variable. Although results
were ﬁom a small sample (n = 28), Marinelli found that the heart rates of participants did
increase and approach signiﬁcance during interactions with a person who had a facial
disﬁgurement. The mean heart rate for participants before the interaction was 92.71 and
93.52 during the interaction, while mean heart rates in the non-disabled condition
indicated a slight reduction (before = 89.85; after = 89.04). Marinelli concluded that
while interacting with persons with a visible disability, non-disabled persons might tend
to be more emotionally uncomfortable. Their discomfort would likely be an interpretable

characteristic that could impact the ease of the interaction.

43

Grand, Bernier, and Strohmer (1982) investigated attitudes toward persons with
disabilities as a function of situational context and speciﬁc disability. Participants
completed the Disability Social Relationship Scale, developed by the authors, which
distinguished varying attitudes across situations and disability types. Results indicated a
range of interaction eﬂ‘ects with the major interaction occurring between cerebral palsy
and social situations. The disabilities of blindness, epilepsy, and amputation evoked
much weaker reactions from participants across all situations. The authors speculated
that the cerebral palsy condition might have conveyed a more profound meaning in order
to elicit the discriminative social situation reactions.

Extending this line of research, Strohmer, Grand, and Purcell (1984) examined their
“multidimensionality” hypothesis, which suggested that attitudes would vary as a
ﬁrnction of type of disability and social context. The authors replicated their 1982 study
to test whether a more heterogeneous sample would provide similar results. Their
ﬁndings clearly indicated that attitudes toward persons with disabilities could not be
considered in a simplistic and unidimensional manner. The authors ﬁrrther argued that
though social context does appear to affect attitude, its inﬂuence may not be consistent.
Results also indicated that a hierarchy of disabilities might be situationally determined
(cf. Richardson, 1983; Tringo, 1970;Yuker, 1983).

Connotative Meanings and Disabiligy

Prior to Strohmer, Grand, and Purcell (1984), Britton and Thomas (1972) also
asserted the usefulness of a multidirectional model when considering social interactions
between persons with disabilities and their able-bodied peers. Research in the1960s

brought about some concern regarding the underlying reasons that rehabilitation clients

with later-life disabilities tended to be less likely to succeed in their rehabilitation
programs than clients with early-life disabilities (see, Perlrnan & Hylbert, 1969; DeMann,
1963). In response, Thomas and Britton (197 I) examined the connotative meanings that
clients assigned to speciﬁc rehabilitation concepts in order to identify similarities and
diﬂ‘erences in the personal value-systems of adventitiously and congenitally disabled
clients. Forty-two vocational rehabilitation clients completed the semantic differential
(Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) that is a technique that measured the individual
connotative meanings of select concepts (e.g., having a job, helplessness, not needing to
depend on others). Results indicated signiﬁcant variability between individual
perceptions of the concepts used. Thomas and Britton suggested that results ﬁom
frequent use of the semantic differential could provide rehabilitation counselors with
important insights into the value-systems of individual clients. Such insight might aid
counselors and clients in identifying problem areas, assessing attitude changes, and
directing treatment programs.

Later, Thomas, Butler, and Davis (1979) performed factor analyses of 12
rehabilitation concepts (e.g., depending on the government to take care of you, having a
disability) across 76 semantic differential scales (e.g., strong—weak, positive—negative,
stable—changeable). A primary purpose of the study was to identify the dimensions
through which persons with disabilities connotatively structure their worlds. Results
ﬁom a sample of 102 vocational evaluation clients identiﬁed three major dimensions: (a)
attractiveness, (b) dynamism, and (c) morality. Attractiveness, which seemed to reﬂect
Osgood’s (1957) evaluation factor, was the most dominant factor accounting for 27.7%

of the variance. Dynamism was the second most dominant factor accounting for 7.3% of

45

the total factor variance and was comparable to Osgood’s original activity factor.
Morality accounted for 5.8% of the total variance and added a new dimension to the
original work by Osgood.

One conclusion that Thomas et a1, expanded on was an apparent “shift” from earlier
studies in which the dominant factor (i.e., evaluation) reﬂected qualities of moral
goodness or badness whereas, in their study, the dominant factor (attractiveness) “seemed
to have a more hedonistic quality,” and reﬂected qualities of pleasure, interest, and
success (p. 53-54). They speculated that such a shift has implications not only for people
with disabilities but also for society in general. Speciﬁcally, the waning inﬂuence of the
work ethic and other Judeo-Christian values against an increasing materialistic society

that may form the basic structure of a person’s perceptual system.

Gender, Disabilig, and Self-Coasaiouaness.

Charmaz (1995) noted that, “experiencing an altered body means more than having
or acquiring one” (p. 662). Employing the qualitative strategies and methods of
grounded theory, which allows for the analysis to evolve as data are collected; Charmaz
conducted an extensive series of interviews with white women about their personal
experiences with a chronic illness. What emerged was a three-stage process of
adaptation: (1) experiencing and deﬁning impairment for oneself, (2) continually
assessing the altering body and identity in relation to losses and gains and, (3) not

struggling against the illness but ﬂowing with the experience of it.

The author concluded that this process provides a person with the opportunity to

unify the body with the self—the objective with the subjective. One emphasis was

46

placed on surrendering to the illness and, as opposed to being ravaged by sickness,
adapting to what one has and who one may now become. Such adaptation was posited to
lead to self-responsibility permitting illness—and ultimately, death—to be a part of life

for the person with the illness as well as the survivors.

As similarly articulated by Zola (1991), Charmaz (1995) placed a necessity on
women (and all individuals) with chronic illness or disability striving toward a sense of
wholeness or “balance” between the personal experience of their conditions and the
social and environmental contexts they enter (cf. Trieschmann, 1999, 1988).

‘ However, achieving such balance in social contexts historically has not been an
easy task for able-bodied women, and even tougher for women with disabilities (Bryan,
1999). According to Bryan (1999), 51 percent of the population in the United States is
female; yet, due to continued discrimination by males, women are still considered a
minority. Added to this statistic, women experience disabilities at a greater rate than do
men (Bryan, 1999). Furthermore, Bryan explained, 50 percent the people with work-
related disabilities in the 16-64 age group are also women. Thus, Bryan considered the
tremendous implications for the symbolic [social] interactions that involve women with
disabilities in social contexts. For instance, women with disabilities are subject to the
same social images and stereotypes portrayed everyday in the media as are women
without disabilities; and the stereotype of women being the “weaker, more dependent
sex” may become more steadfast when it is linked with the stereotype of dependence that
is generally associated with people with disabilities (see Bryan, 1999). The

minority/majority assumptions of the theory of objective self-awareness (Duval &

47

Wicklund, 1972) are deeply embedded within the discriminating interactions that occur

between men and women.

Chang, Tai Hau, and Mei Gou (2001) hypothesized that a high level of public self-
consciousness during social interactions would alter an individual’s public expression of
beliefs about work- and domestic-related gender roles. The authors sampled 156 students
(60% female) from two American Midwestem universities. Using a quasi-experimental
pre-and post-test method, the authors obtained scores from the Revised Self-
Consciousness Scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985) and the Gender Role Egalitarian Test
(Chang, 1999). A prepared statement was presented to both groups concerning pre-rest
responses and was intended to intuit social expectations from an authority group. Public
self—consciousness was induced in the treatment group by the presence of the professor in

the room and by videotaping the procedure.

Chang et al.’s hypotheses were supported as high public self-consciousness did alter
expressed gender attitudes toward work-roles. That is, post-test results indicated a
signiﬁcant increase in expressed egalitarian views about gender work-roles ﬁom pre-test
results. What this implied for the present investigation was the apparent “ease” with
which an induced state of high self-focused attention can alter the salience of stereotypic
beliefs about one’s own gender.

Likewise, Schonert-Reichle (1994) investigated gender differences in the
relationship between depressive symptomatology, social class, and egocentrism during
adolescence. The author sampled sixty-one 12-17 yr olds (29 males, 32 females) and

found that females regarded themselves signiﬁcantly higher in uniqueness and self-

48

consciousness than males. Gender differences emerged with respect to the relationship
between dimensions of adolescent egocentrism and depressive symptomatology.

Similarly, Cash, Cash, and Butters (1983) investigated contrast effects on the self-
evaluations of physical attractiveness. F iﬁy-one non-disabled female college students
rated their own attractiveness and a body satisfaction questionnaire after exposure to
photographs of same-sexed attractive, unattractive, and professionally attractive (i.e.,
models) stimulus persons. In small groups, participants completed the Self-
Consciousness Scale (F enigstein et al., 1975) and then went to cubicles to individually
view one of the three booklets of stimulus photographs and provide 10-point ratings to
the photos on a questionnaire.

As was expected by the authors, after exposure to attractive stimulus persons,
participants rated their own physical attractiveness lower than participants exposed to
unattractive stimulus persons. Results from the professionally attractive condition did not
reveal signiﬁcant high or low ratings. Cash et al. explained that this ﬁnding was
consistent with F estinger’s (1954) proposition that people are more likely to compare
themselves with like others, such as those one might typically meet on a daily basis.

Cash et al. reported no signiﬁcant relationship between self-perceived attractiveness
and public self-consciousness; however, they did similarly ﬁnd that high social anxiety
correlated with less positive self-appraisals of physical attractiveness. To address this
point the authors suggested ﬁrture researchers use a larger sample and in speciﬁc
contexts. They asserted that the effects of social context on self-perceptions of physical
attractiveness would depend on the association between an individual and a given

context. One implication ﬁom this is the nature of the social context and what persons

49

comprise it (i.e., ﬁiends, strangers, etc). Thus, Cash et al. concluded that, within given
situational and behavioral contexts, various responses like, avoidance and intimidation
could result.

Another recent study stands out that addressed individual meaning attributed to a
disabling condition. Gordon, Feldman, and Crose (1998) examined individual meanings
and the experience of chronic illness for 40 women. The authors suggested that one’s
beliefs about body integrity, identity, and personal values become tentative issues upon
learning of a chronic health condition. Qualitative analyses revealed that the construction
of personal meaning regarding chronic illness was emotional and value-laden. The threat
of social stigrnatization (i.e., being given the label of disabled) elicited strong reactions
from the participants. Results from this study implied that rehabilitation counselors need
to understand how persons with a chronic illness may view their difﬁculties. The authors
cautioned against generalizing and making assumptions about persons with the same
illness.

A second implication was the threat of labeling and possible subsequent
stigrnatizing effects. Gordon et al. reported that some of the women remained reasonably
strong and self-suﬂicient and questioned the extent to which they were disabled.
Consequently, their acceptance of certain assistive aids was hindered. Likewise, many of
the women were severely limited in their lives but still behaved that these limitations

alone did not constitute a view of the self as disabled.

50

Research in Social Psychology

An ample social psychology literature exists that addresses the social interactions
between persons with and without disabilities. Various foci have been the personal
experience of disability, social images of disability, disability spread and stigma, and
general physical attractiveness and self-evaluations. This literature is complemented by
other social psychological research that, while not disability oriented per se, remains
highly analogous because it speciﬁcally addresses situational variables and decision-
making. Included are such research topics as the relationships between self-
consciousness and shyness, objective self-awareness and individuation, choice of social
situations, and the meanings of role identities. One study in particular (Scheier, 1980)
addressed the effects of self-consciousness on the expression of personal beliefs and,
therefore, stands as a conceptual model for the present investigation.
Self-Cpnsciousness and the Expression of Personal Be_li_e_t_‘§

Scheier (1980) examined the effects of self-consciousness on attitudinal
consistency. Participants completed the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, et al,
1975) and a brief scale that measured attitudes toward the eﬂ‘ectiveness of physical
punishment as a child-rearing technique. Several weeks later, participants were asked to
write an essay restating their opinions on punishment, as well as discuss these beliefs
with a partner. A treatment group was comprised of participants who anticipated
discussing their beliefs with another who disagreed, while a control group consisted of
participants told nothing about their discussion partner.

Scheier’s hypotheses were constructed around the attitudinal consistency of the

participants. He expected participants high in public self-consciousness to express less

51

extreme beliefs when anticipating discussing the topic with a disagreeing partner. He
also expected that the consistency between personal belief and the expression of that
belief would be more stable for participants low in public self-consciousness. Support for
these hypotheses was obtained. Moreover, even those participants high in public self-
consciousness, but given no information about their partner’s opinion, also tended to
temper their beliefs. Thus, Scheier concluded that anticipated social interaction might be
all that is necessary to cause high publicly self-conscious persons to temper their beliefs
(cf. Duval & Wicklund, 1972).

Scheier’s results imply that public (and private) self-consciousness needs to be
taken into account when considering the beliefs of persons across situations, as well as
the validity of a person’s self-reports (p. 520). These results also raise many questions
about social differences that manipulate situational contexts, roles, and behavioral
expectations lending support the present investigation (e.g., status, appearance, and
physical ﬁrnctioning).

Personal and Bodily Experience of Disabilig

Zola (1991) stressed that how a person with a chronic illness or disability
experiences his or her body is imperative to understanding how she or he, in turn,
experiences the world. His goal was to emphasize that one’ s own body is the reference
point by which one can know the world and realize personal ability and potential.
Employing feminist philosophy to articulate his point, he described a personal experience
regarding his childhood after contracting polio. At the age of sixteen, and “in his best
interest,” doctors recommended that he be institutionalized rather than return to a home

that required navigating stairs (p. 3). Zola declined the recommendation and reported the

52

beginning of a lifelong process of understanding the need to validate oneself and one’s
needs in the face of others, however well intentioned they are.

The comparison Zola made between feminist philosophy and the experience of
impairment was that too often authority ﬁgures (e. g., doctors) or a majority population
are given so much power that an individual may abide by their recommendations
regardless of his or her personal appraisals. Very often an individual will take-for-
granted that some authority ﬁgure or social norm always provides the best advice. Zola
emphasized that recognizing this tendency in ourselves involves “something deeper, a
change in consciousness” (p. 5). What this means is that persons with chronic illness or
disability (and the professionals working with these individuals) need to be very
cognizant of the ease with which they might “believe” something (e. g., a social label or
opinion) and not realize the power and control that such a belief relinquishes.

The implication for the present investigation lies in the implicit phenomenology of
objective self-awareness. The person who is objectively self-aware is theorized to
experience an mtaﬂljty of his or her personal beliefs and, thus to temper those beliefs to
more closely align with those of a majority. In effect, to turn power over to another.

Cahill and Eggleston (1995) examined the stigma associated with using a
wheelchair. Their data were drawn from interviews, participant observations, and
previously published autobiographical accounts. The focus of this qualitative
investigation was not hog wheelchair users deﬁned their public experiences but rather

the social deﬁnitions of wheelchair users—the “interactional traﬁic” that occurs between

peOple, (pp. 683-4).

53

What they found was that wheelchair users’ experiences unpredictably ranged
through various degrees of civil inattention (e.g., the salesclerk of a store acting as though
he didn’t see the wheelchair user) to unfounded kinship claims (i.e., uninvited
conversational overtures). Within these social experiences, Cahill and Eggleston
identiﬁed three distinct types of people who may interact in some way with wheelchair
users: (1) the categorically known, (2) the knowing and, (3) the unknown. Brieﬂy,
categorically known individuals are those persons whose social role is immediately
apparent such as a waitperson or salesclerk. A knowing person is one who, through
familial ties, ﬁiendship, education, or some special circumstance, is intimately aware of
the life of a wheelchair user. The unknown are those persons who a wheelchair user does
not categorically or personally know yet may be occasionally asked for assistance or
oﬂ’er unsolicited assistance.

To articulate their results ﬁlrther, Cahill and Eggleston employed the concept of
“liminality” that Turner (1979) and Gennup (1960) and Murphy, Scheer, Murphy, and
Mack, (1988) deﬁned as a deﬁnitional “gray area” that is characteristic of social
situations rather than individuals. Cahill and Eggleston (1995) asserted that wheelchair
users were “betwixt and between” any clear social deﬁnitions of sickness and health (p.
695). Conﬂict was said to arise from the clash between socially expected, actual, and
desired identities of both, wheelchair users and others in given social contexts. Though
extremely condensed, the central point the authors made was that diﬂ’erent situations (and
personal needs) require different behaviors, abilities, and ﬁrnctioning ﬁom all peOple.
Therefore, resultant situational deﬁnitions and identities are vicariously determined by

context.

54

hn_ages of Dimility and Disabiliy Spraag

Olldn and Howson (1994) conducted two studies to examine the attitudes of non-
disabled people toward people with visible disabilities. In the ﬁrst study, participants
completed a modiﬁcation of the Social Distance Scale (SDS) and Form B of the Attitudes
Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The
participants were also asked to complete the phrase, “when I think of the term ‘disabled
person,’ I usually think of someone who has the following disability: ”.

Results from the SDS in the ﬁrst study supported previous research on the presence
of “stigma hierarchies” (see, Asch, 1984; Tringo, 1970). As hypothesized by the authors,
ATDP scores were negatively correlated to SDS scores suggesting the two instruments
were measuring different aspects of attitudes toward speciﬁc disabilities. The responses
for the images of disability question revealed four basic categorical images that were
evoked: (a) wheelchair, 58%; (b) extremity, 17%; (c) blind or visually impaired, 10%;
and ((1) other, 15%. The “other” category was comprised of vague responses such as
“mental, emotional, or general physical disability.”

In a follow-up investigation using an older sample, Olldn and Howson (1994)
replicated their previous study providing more strength to their ﬁndings regarding a
hierarchy. Citing previous authors (Hahn, 1993; Livneh, 1982; and Tringo, 1970); Olkin
and Howson purported that the notion of aesthetics offered the clearest explanation for
their results. According to a model of aesthetics, any deviation in appearance, ﬁrnction,

and communicability “ﬁ'om a total gestalt of the whole and beautiﬁrl body” would result

in a lower social ranldng (p. 93).

55

The concept of disability spread (Dembo, Leviton, & Wright, 1956; Wright, B. A.,
1983) asserts the power for one characteristic of a person to evoke assumptions about the
person in general. To investigate the salience of the spread effect, Liesener and Mills
(1999) tested two hypotheses. The ﬁrst hypothesis posited a tendency for persons with a
disability to be spoken to like a child—a phenomenon that Gouvier, Coon, Todd, and
Fuller (1994) referred to as “motherese,” (p.263). The second hypothesis was that the
provision of individuating information about the person with a disability would reduce
spread.

To test their hypotheses, 72 participants provided verbal directions over an intercom
to a live, but non-present individual, whose picture the student was shown. Participants
were asked to direct each person, representing four conditions, from one room in the
building to another room in the building. The independent variables were the number of
words used to explain the directions and voice amplitude. The four conditions were non-
disabled adult, wheelchair-adult, non-disabled child, and wheelchair-manager which was
distinctive because, in the photo, the individual was wearing a T-shirt which read
“Manager Youth Orchestra,” in order to convey the idea that the person “was not
dependent or cognitively impaired” (p. 2085).

Liesener and Mills’ ﬁrst hypothesis was supported. Speciﬁcally, those results ﬁ'om
the wheelchair-adult condition would be similar to the non-disabled child condition in
voice amplitude and amount of words used. Regarding the second hypothesis, it was
expected that results from the wheelchair-manager condition would be similar to the
results of the non—disabled adult condition and that both would diﬂ’er from the

wheelchair-adult condition. Signiﬁcant support for this hypothesis was not obtained, as

56

the means for both wheelchair conditions were similar and both diﬂ‘ered from the non-
disabled adult condition. Thus, the authors concluded that the provision of individuating
information (i.e., the manager’s T-shirt) was not a successﬁrl method of deﬂecting
disability spread. Liesener and Mills speculated however, that the T-shirt markings might
not have been a strong enough draw away from the wheelchair. Moreover, it is
conceivable that what the wheelchair symbolizes in our society has a greater effect on
attitude than a job title.

It is important to note that while Liesener and Mills study does provide implications
for rehabilitation theory and research (e.g., social symbols and attitudes) it might not
accurately reﬂect the lives of persons with disabilities. The majority of persons with
disabilities who are of working age do not work, let alone, hold a managerial position,
and this number is likely to increase as our population ages (Rehabilitation Services
Administration, 1999). Therefore, if the expectation that a job title would reduce spread
eﬁ’ect had been supported, for whom would this generalize to? In effect, such a result
could be seen to support a myth that a person with a disability must be “above-average”
in order to be socially accepted.

Ph i A ' ess and Self-Ev u tion

Because physical attractiveness is considered an important dimension on which
social comparisons are made, Thornton and Moore (1993) hypothesized that exposure to
highly desirable and physically attractive persons would momentarily aﬂ‘ect individual
self-concept. They ﬁrrther hypothesized that public self-consciousness would increase
with such exposure. With non-disabled samples, three sequential studies were conducted

using head-and-shoulder photographs of attractive and unattractive stimulus persons to

57

address these hypotheses, detect speciﬁc components of self-esteem, and to account for
emerging confounds. The participants were asked to complete, among others, the Self-
Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al. 1975).

In each study public self-consciousness did increase as expected when comparisons
with attractive stimulus persons were made. In keeping with self-consciousness theory,
Thornton and Moore explained that the increased awareness of oneself as a social object
might have contributed to the heightened social anxiety that was also discovered in some
of the results. The authors speculated that this increase in public self-consciousness and
social anxiety may have been the result of upward comparisons “where one apparently
falls short of some standard...” (p. 480, cf. Duval & Wicklund, 1972). As a result of an
increased self-focused attention, the authors suggested that publicly self-conscious
persons might tend to be more aware of situational standards and expectations and that
ﬁrrther research on the effect self-consciousness has on self-evaluations was warranted.
Clearly, Thornton and Moore’s ﬁndings and suggestions are analogous to the theory of
objective self-awareness and the intent of the present investigation.
WW

Bruch, Hamer, and Heirnberg (1995) examined how shyness and public self-
consciousness contributed to dysﬁrnctional social interactions. Eighty-six undergraduate
male college students participated in the study that focused on individual initial reactions
when meeting one of three female interaction partners. From photographs, another group
of young males, not involved in the study, had previously rated all three females as being

above average in physical attractiveness.

58

Although the authors found no data to support the hypothesis that shyness and
public self-consciousness would interact contributing to social dysfunction, they did
report a personal concern with the protection of certain social identities. Since these
results were obtained from male participants interacting with an attractive female, one
possible implication regarding a male’s social identity might be the ﬁ'equency with which
a particular male would approach an attractive female, and under what social conditions.
Speciﬁcally, the different reasons that a male might approach an attractive female (e.g.,
to invite to a movie, ask directions, or interview for a job) will likely hold diﬁ’erent
personal meanings for the male. This suggests that speciﬁc social identities (i.e.,
physically attractive or competent) may feel threatened and, for a male high in public
self-consciousness, certain situations may be avoided altogether. Thus, a particular
individual may be considered shy because he or she avoids certain situations when, in
actuality, he or she feels compelled to again “settle for less” as previously described.
seem—mum‘

Davis (1961) articulated four basic threats to the sociability of persons with a
visible disability. These are a disability’s (1) tendency to become the exclusive focal
point of the interaction, (2) its potential for inundating expressive boundaries, (3) its
discordance with other attributes of the person and, (4) its ambiguity as a predictor of
joint activity.

Brieﬂy, these threats are essentially concerned with a person’s impairment being
the focus of attention; with able-bodied persons feeling so uncomfortable that they

“overplay” certain outward expressions such as laughter, deﬁne another by his or her

59

disability, and feeling uncertain how to include, or not include, someone with a disability
in certain activities.

Davis’ four threats to sociability hold implications for what he called “normalizing
the situation,” (p. 127). When the sociability of a person with a visible disability is
threatened in one or more ways, the person is rendered incapable of transcending the
impairment and disavowing the deviance (p. 127). Thus, persons in a given situation feel
constrained by a non-normal context and causal attributions are placed upon the one with
the visible impairment.

Objective Self-Awareness and Individuation

Ickes, Layden, and Barnes (197 8) hypothesized that increasing a person’s objective
self-awareness (OSA) would lead to an increase in individuation. Individuation was
referred to as a high degree of self-focused attention resulting in a person’s feeling
phenomenologically unique and distinct ﬁ'om the social and physical environment (p.
147). The authors hoped that patterns would also emerge in their results that might offer

insight into the phenomenology of the state of objective self-awareness.

The data obtained ﬁ'om twenty female and twenty male undergraduates provided
substantial evidence to suggest that high objective self-awareness does increase an
individuated conception of the self. Seven of the twenty-one main eﬂ‘ects tested were
statistically signiﬁcant. For example, high OSA participants used more words to describe
themselves, and their summed responses indicated more individuation (i.e., responses
were less general). This conclusion supports the basic elements of Duval and Wicklund’s

(1972) theory of objective self-awareness, which posited that an individual high in OSA

60

will focus upon him or herself as being unique to a situation and, therefore, responsible

for any disturbance or deviance during social interaction.

Choice of Situations and Social Intqaction

Diener, Larson, and Emmons (1984) articulated three reasons that may explain why
choice of situations is not solely a person factor, but rather a person, environment
interaction. First, that choice of situations results from person variables interacting with
environmental and situational pressures. Second, that the overall context of a situation
also affects choice. Finally, some situations may be more available to some persons,

regardless of personality.

Mth particular relevance to the third point listed above, people rarely are absolutely
free to choose situations thus; the authors suggested, “in such an area where individuals
are partly coerced by their environment and partly ﬂee to choose, interactions may be
especially important” (p. 582). To investigate the possible relation between personality
and how people spend their time, Diener et al. examined two models of person x
situation interaction. In the ﬁrst model, the authors predicted a relationship between
personality and choice of situations; secondly, it was predicted that when this relationship
was congruent a person would eXperience positive affect. Thus, their investigation

focused on behavioral choice of and aﬂ‘ective response to situations.

Over a six-week period, forty-two participants completed mood and activity reports
twice daily at randomly scheduled times. Activity reports were also completed on type of
situations which were deﬁned as either: (a) sociaL actual interaction, (b) semi-social, one-

way interaction, (c) presence, being near others but not interacting, and, (d) alone. Also,

61

activity categories such as work, recreation, and maintenance were reported. -
(Maintenance consisted of daily living activities such as eating or showering). All reports
were analyzed along with results previously obtained from Form B of the Personality
Research Form (Jackson, 1974) and the extraversion subscale of the Eysenck Personality

Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968).

Many results were unexpected and even contradictory. In their ﬁrst model for
example, the authors found that personality predisposition did seem to inﬂuence the
choice of situations (e.g., person with high extraversion scores recreated more often
socially than alone). On the other hand, extraversion correlated nonsigniﬁcantly with
choosing to be in social situations and the need-for-aﬁiliation correlation was opposite of
expectation. Diener et al. concluded that in addition to personality factors many other

factors could overshadow its inﬂuence.

Results ﬁom their second model offered some support to the hypothesis that setting
might inﬂuence affect and interact with personality factors. However, the authors
reported that “either a person’s long-term predispositions or the events happening to the
person that have long-lasting eﬁ‘ects seem to be the strongest determinants of affect,” (p.

589). Clearly, a disability or chronic illness will have such long-term effects.

Investigating Situatipns and Situation Pergption

Magnusson and Ekeharnmar (1975) stressed an urgent need for a systematic study
of situations and how people perceive them. Following an interactionist perspective (i.e.,

a person x situation model), the authors explained that to better understand behavioral

62

patterns, research should focus on individual adaptation to various situations paying

particular attention to the meanings a person gives to the situation (pp. 1147-8).

The authors examined the relationship between individual perception of stressﬁrl
situations and individual reaction. They expected individual mean reaction scores to be
more similar for multiple situations perceived as similar than multiple situations
perceived as different. For the ﬁrst three groups of situations (labeled threat of
punishment, threat of pain, and inanimate threat), results were as anticipated. That is,
situational factors were of great importance for determining behavior and similar

situations were grouped together.

However, for the fourth group of stressﬁrl situations, labeled ego threat, perception
data did not correspond with reaction data. The authors speculated that one explanation
for this could be that the situations comprising the fourth group (e.g., speaking before
one’s peers and athletic competition) all demanded individual achievement. Such
demands can be perceived as challenging and desirable or anxiety provoking and less
desirable. Thus, the authors concluded that what is characteristic of an individual is the

pattern of reactions across situations that hold diﬁ‘erent meanings for him or her.

Meaninga of Role Identitias

Simon (1997) examined four theoretical approaches to conceptualizing and
assessing meaning and then addressed the qualitative descriptions that individuals
attached to certain role identities (e. g., spouse, parent, and worker). Four themes

emerged from the qualitative and quantitative analyses of data from forty participants.

63

First, people vary considerably in the personal meanings that they attach to diﬂ‘erent
role identities. Second, Simon discovered that these meanings are based on the perceived
advantages and disadvantages of involvement with a particular role (e.g., rewards derived
from ﬁrlﬁlling social expectations). The third theme to emerge was that although most
meanings tended to be shared by women and men, some meanings did reﬂect gender
differences based on perceived advantages and disadvantages a particular role (e. g.,
“mother”). Finally, Simon found that meanings attached to certain role identities were
associated with psychological symptoms and gender diﬂ’erences. As an example Simon
explained that while most meanings regarding employment were positive, one meaning

was consistently negative for women—that of being less available to their families.

Simon’s ﬁndings indicate that people may have an implicit need to move ﬁ'eely
between situations and the anticipated and expected roles within them. As discussed
previously, the notion of persona suggests that a person may highly desire opportunities
to be recognized as competent in multiple roles rather than being relegated to one social

role, especially an unwanted role.

Summary

As is evident ﬁom the reviewed research, rehabilitation scholars have long stressed
the necessity to investigate the phenomenology of persons with disabilities. As is also
evident, people are theorized to attribute personal meanings based on how they interpret
information in the environment. Present experience becomes past experience engrained
into memory and pe0ple are apt to make judgements about a current situation by how it

relates to those memories. Thus, if a current situation conjures up a negative memory

64

then an individual may choose to avoid the situation altogether and risk forfeiting new

opportunities.

The literature suggests that what people t'hl_n_k they see in a particular situation will
determine what meanings they attribute to it. Whatever is the general focus of attention
(which is typically some characteristic or object that deviates from social expectation)
seems to draw causal attributions and subsequently, in the case of a disability, reinforces
misinterpretation by virtue of its “unidimensional” nature—its narrow focus. Because
of some distinguishing characteristic (e. g., disability or gender differences), when a
person senses that he or she is the focus of others’ attention, it can become more diﬁcult
to express what he or she believes. As a result, the individual feels responsible for the
“social discrepancy” and may then choose to engage in situations that promote speciﬁc
roles or identities which are less disadvantaging. For the male or female with a disability
(or chronic illness) this may mean a drastic limiting of possible opportunities to become

involved with. As a result, adjustment to life with an impairment may be rocky at best.

Public self-consciousness was found to be higher in persons with disabilities in
general and women with disabilities in particular. It was reported that women are still
discriminated against by men, and more women have disabilities than men. It follows
then that women are subject to experiencing greater levels of negative social attention. In
some situations it was found that several women would even alter their expressed
opinions in order to reduce or avoid such negative social situations and the resulting
emotions. Similarly, some women were found to report less positive feelings about their
own attractiveness when they compared themselves with other women. Moreover, public

self-consciousness may increase in situations as a result of “sensing” to be the focus of

65

attention as well as “upward comparisons” when the person feels that he or she falls short
of some social expectation. Resultant to an increased public self-consciousness, an
individual (presumably primarily a female) is likely to become more self-evaluative and

consequently more individuating, which can be seen as possibly creating a destructive

cycle of self-consciousness-leading-tp-distinction-leading-to-gzeater-gelf-conaciousness-

 

laading-to-ﬁrrther—distinction. Feeling that one belongs to a group is clearly important
and some persons will (however unconsciously) temper their beliefs across situations in

order to feel less distinct.

The following methodology will explain the process by which this investigation
addressed the phenomenology of persons with a visible disability. The study focused on
the effect of induced objective self-awareness and gender on 1) the meanings that people
attribute to different disability-related concepts and, (2) the self-reported job-hunting

assertiveness.

66

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Do meaning attributions and assertiveness behaviors differ for persons with visible
disabilities when self-consciousness is induced, and if so, how? These were the basic
questions put forth by this investigation. A 2 x 2 x 2 multivariate analysis (MANOVA)
and follow-up 2 x 2 x 2 analyses of variance (ANOVA) were the primary analyses
conducted, as these were the appropriate methods for assessing statistical signiﬁcance
among group diﬂ'erences on multiple, continuous variables when there are at least two
independent variables with two categories each (Newton & Rudestarn, 1999; Pedhazur.&
Schmelkin, 1991). The independent variables and their categories were 1) the inducement
of OSA (induced in a experimental group vs. not induced in a control group),

2) the participant’s level of PSC (high vs. low) and, 3) Gender (male vs. female).

Desjga

This investigation employed the methods and assumptions of the quantitative
research design paradigm. A between-groups, within-subjects experimental design was
used to detect differences between individual meaning attributions and assertive job-
hunting behaviors alter the inducement of OSA on a treatment group. The independent
variable was operationalized via the presence of a video camera and television monitor.
As previously discussed, this technique has been reliably demonstrated to enhance the
effects of self-consciousness in previous experiments and to generate individual opinion
change (see Chang et al, 2001; Duval & Wicklund, 1972). The dependent measures were

the mean differences between the control and treatment groups for individual and group

67

connotative meanings attributed to a visible disability and self-reported job-hunting

assertiveness. The speciﬁc research questions were as follows:

1.

Are the meaning attributions for persons with visible disabilities who
score high in public self-consciousness diﬁ'erent than for persons with
visible disabilities who score low in public self-consciousness?

What is the effect on the meaning attributions of persons with visible
disabilities when objective self-awareness is induced?

Is the job-hunting assertiveness for persons with visible disabilities who
score high in public self-consciousness different than for persons with
visible disabilities who score low in public self-consciousness?

What is the effect on job-hunting assertiveness for people with visible
disabilities when objective self-awareness is induced?

Does gender interact with induced objective self-awareness on meaning

attributions and job-hunting assertiveness?

The following hypotheses were examined:

Hypothesis 1: The meaning attributions for persons with visible disabilities who score

high on public self-consciousness will be less positive than for those

who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 2: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible

disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will
have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions than persons who

score low on public self-consciousness.

68

Hypothesis 3: Persons with visible disabilities who score high on public self-
consciousness will report less assertive job-hunting behavior than those
who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 4: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible
disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will
report signiﬁcantly less assertive job hunting behaviors than persons

who score low on public self-consciousness.

Hypothesis 5: Females will have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions and
less assertive job-hunting behaviors than males after the inducement of
objective self-awareness.

P ici s

The results of a power analysis (Kraemer & Thiemann, 1987) for independent mean
diﬁ‘erences indicated that a minimum of 28 persons per group were recommended to
investigate the psychological phenomenon under study when p < .05, power is set at .70
and, the eﬂ‘ect size is at .45.

Thirty-three persons per group (5 extra per group) with a visible disability were
recruited from ﬁve separate sites in the lower central portion of Michigan. These sites
included four ﬁeld ofﬁces of the Michigan Department of Career Development-
Rehabilitation Services (MDCD-RS) as well as the Michigan Career and Technical
Institute (MCTI) that is a career training and support service operated by MDCD-RS.
There were two reasons for sampling ﬁ'om these sites: 1) to ensure proper variability and
enhance generalizability of the results across lower Michigan and, 2) the practical issue

of locating persons with visible disabilities. Recruited were females and males with either

69

an acquired or congenital visible disability. Persons who are blind were not recruited for
this particular study because the video intervention would not be usable with people with
this disability. Also, for two reasons, steps were not taken to control for race. First, the
mq'on'ty of persons with disabilities in Michigan are either Aﬁican American or
Caucasian, and as our society is multicultural, to have included only one race would not
appropriately reﬂect the society at large, hindering generalizability. Second, the practical
issues of participant availability and forced exclusion would make controlling for race
extremely problematic.

Although it could be argued that experiential/phenomenological differences exist
between persons with congenital or acquired disabilities that might conceivably aﬁ‘ect
results, a practical issue existed here as well regarding participant availability. Moreover,
as this investigation was concerned with the eﬂ’ects of selﬁconsciousness on meaning
attribution and subsequent behavior, then ‘yariant phenomenology” had to be the
necessary ingredient for this experiment to adequately detect self-consciousness effects
during a social event.

Also, for similar reasons as stated above, age was minimally restricted. Participant
availability and an appropriate sample to generalize to the local society were unavoidable
issues. Therefore, only persons eighteen years old or older and without a legal guardian
were recruited.

Instrumentation:

The instruments used in this study are included in Appendix A.

70

Sc

VC

pm
mi
befc

I Chi

then
the s

met

“80"]!

The Self-Consciousness Scale-Reviaaa

 

Scheier and Carver (1985) revised the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein,
Scheier, & Buss, 197 5) to make it more suitable for the general population. The original
version was constructed using college students, and as a result other populations did not
easily understand some of the terms used. The authors reported that overall, the
psychometric prOperties of the revised scale compared extremely well to the
psychometric properties of the original. Internal consistency for the revised scale was
higher than for the original. The Cronbach alphas obtained were; for the private subscale,
.75, for public .84, and for the social anxiety subscale .79 (the original scores were .69,
.79, and .71 , respectively). Test-retest correlations with a 4-week interval determined
that the revised scale possesses reasonable stability across time. Correlations were for the
private subscale .76, for public .74, and for social anxiety .7 7. Some examples of the
revisions to the scale are, from the original public subscale “One of the last things I do
before I leave my house is to look in the mirror”, to the revised “Before I leave my house,
I check how I look”.

The revised scale was employed because it offers a more common usage of terms
therefore reducing the risk of participants misconstruing the basic intent behind each of
the scale’s items. Due to the more common terminology, the revised scale expedited the
process for the participants, taking less of their time.

Scoring was rather straightforward. The possible responses for each item are the
same and had been pre-assigned a value that was added together at the conclusion. The
responses and their scores are “Not at all like me” = 0; “Just a little like me” = 1;

“Somewhat like me” = 2; and “A lot like me” = 3. There are 7 items on the public

71

subscale so the total range of scores is 0 — 21 with higher scores indicating higher levels
public self-consciousness.
The Semantip Differential Technique

Over the past four decades, the semantic differential technique (Osgood, 1952;
Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) has proven to be the most reliable and valid method
for measuring individual connotative meanings (Thomas, Butler, & Davis, 1979). The
technique is also extremely ﬂexible and highly generalizable. To use the technique,
investigators select general but discriminating concepts that are relevant to their area of
study. To illustrate, “having a visible disability” is an example of a concept used in this
study as it is a relevant topic for rehabilitation in general and for persons with a disability
in speciﬁc (see below). Bipolar adjective scales are then selected for their applicability to
the target population (e.g., “good—bad”, and see below). Participants are given a
concept (i.e., “having a visible disability”) and asked to place an x in the one space along
the bipolar scale that they feel best represents their belief about the concept (see
Appendix B). One concept is listed at the top of each page followed by the series of
bipolar scales being used in the study.

Ten concepts (Table 3.1) representing four content areas (social interaction,
employment, education, and disability) were employed in this study. The concepts were
rated across a series of ﬁfteen bipolar adjective scales which represented three of the
dimensions of connotative meaning put forth by Thomas et al. (1979) for their
applicability to persons with disabilities (attractiveness, dynamism and, morality). The

concepts were chosen because of their relevance to rehabilitation, social situations and

72

interaction, personal meanings, and for their potential to discriminate between social

factors affecting public self-consciousness.

Table 3.1
Disability-Related Concepts

 

Concepts

 

1. Having a visible disability 6. Going out with ﬁiends
2. Meeting new people 7. Person without a disability

3. Seeking more education 8. Applying for a job

4. Myself as I am 9. Meeting an attractive person

5. Having a job 10. My ideal self

 

The ﬁfteen adjective scales were selected on the basis of their relevance to the
concepts and were adapted ﬁom select studies indicating sizeable factor loadings on the
attractiveness, dynamism and, morality dimensions of connotative meaning (Thomas et
al., 1979; Snider & Osgood, 1969; Osgood et al., 1957). The scales and their
representative dimensions and factor loadings as reported by the above authors are listed

in Table 3.2 below.

73

Table 3.2
Three Semantic Dimensions, their Polar Scales, and Factor Loadings

 

 

Polar Scales
Attractiveness: Q_mar_n_is_m: _lvl_or_ali_ty_;
Valuable — Worthless (.79) Complex — Simple (.73) Good — Bad (.41)
Successful - Unsuccessful (.83) Active — Passive (.98) Serious - Hmnorous (.66)
Pleasurable - Painﬁrl (.86) Excitable — Calm (.73) Clean — Dirty (.37)
Interesting — Boring ( .83) Stable - Changeable (-.60) Reputable - Disreputable (.40)
Meaningful — Meaningless (.41) Fancy - Plain (.69) Grateful - Ungrateful (.38)

 

To score the diﬁ‘erential, the spaces along the bipolar scales were assigned values
ﬁom I to 7 with a score of 7 given to the end of the scale that indicated the most
“positive,” the most “attractive,” and the most “active” for the individual respondents.
The middle space was assigned the value of 4 to represent “neutral.” The scores were
then summed for each concept taking into account the reverse ordering of some scales.
The total scores for each concept ranged ﬁ'om the low 15 (a score of 1 x 15 scales) to the
high of 105 (15 scale scores of 7). A score of 60 represented the middle—that is, total

neutral—score.

Assertive Jab-Hunting Survey

Becker (1980) constructed this 25-item questionnaire to assess individual
assertiveness in job-hunting behaviors (Corcoran & Fischer, 1987). Speciﬁcally, it
addresses the extent to which respondents act on their environment to obtain information

about jobs and to contact persons in organizations regarding possible openings. The

74

questionnaire was designed to reﬂect such activities as interviewing, soliciting
recommendations and, resume’ writing.

Normed on 190 male and female college students (ranging from freshman to
graduate level students), the questionnaire has good internal consistency with a
coefﬁcient alpha of .82 and a test-retest reliability of .77 after a 4-week interval.
Concurrent validity was established with a signiﬁcant correlation between previous job-
hunting experience and individual scores on the questionnaire. The instrument was also
found to be sensitive to change with signiﬁcant pre- to post-test changes for persons in
job-hunting classes. No other validity information was reported.

The sentence structure of some of the items in the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey
was considered potentially problematic for a participant who may have low reading
ability (e.g., “Would mention only paid work experience”). Therefore, the author
(Becker) of the survey was contacted for permission to enhance the structure of the items
in order to increase reading comprehension (e.g., “During an interview, I would mention
only paid work experience and not other experience even if I thought it was related”).
Additionally, Item # 23 “Figure there’s nothing else to do” was omitted ﬁom the ﬁnal
version used in this study because it was felt to connote a feeling of apathy rather than
assertiveness (or the lack thereof). The author approved these changes.

Scoring of the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey was done on a 6-point scale ranging
from 25 —- 150 total points. From a range of choices (e. g., 1 = very unlikely; 6 = very
likely), respondents selected the one that they believe best reﬂected how they would

behave. Scoring was reversed for items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, I4, 15, 17, 19, 20, and

22, 23, 24, and 25. Responses are then summed to produce a total score, and the higher
scores indicate more assertive behavior.
Manipulation Check

A manipulation check of the independent variable was conducted to ensure that
treatment conditions varied along the intended dimensions and were implemented in the
intended fashion. This was done to verify that the experimental manipulation (i.e., the
video camera to induce self-consciousness) had been adequately designed (Heppner,
Kivlighan, & Warnpold, 1992). Ten participants from the Ann Arbor, Jackson, and
Lansing MDCD-RS ﬁeld omces volunteered for this portion of the investigation. A
comparison of the mean scores for public self-consciousness and job-hunting
assertiveness indicated that the experimental manipulation did appear to achieve the
anticipated eﬁ‘ect. Mean scores indicated that PSC in the treatment group (x = 18.0) was
higher than the control (x = 16.8) and reported job assertiveness in the treatment was
lower than control (x = 91.2 and x = 94.4, respectively). This supported the hypothesis
that as PSC increased a participant’s job assertiveness would decrease.

Procedure

1.328.ng

The purpose of this investigation was to examine what affect an induced state of
self-consciousness would have on the meaning attributions and job-hunting assertiveness
of persons with visible disabilities. Subsequent to the experimental inducement of OSA,
there were three goals for this study. First, to identify which situations (e. g., going out
with ﬁiends, applying for a job, etc.) would consistently receive lower meaning

attribution scores from participants resulting from the inducement of OSA. Second, to

76

examine the extent to which a person’s job-hunting assertiveness would decrease as a
result of induced OSA and, third to investigate to what degree gender might interact with
induced OSA

This study utilized participant self-reports to acquire data because of the
phenomenological nature of the research questions. All participants were voluntary and,
in order to achieve the necessary sample size (N = 28 per group), each person was paid
$10.00 for his or her participation upon completing all of the questionnaires.
Data Collection

Over a four-month period during spring 2001, the investigator made weekly and bi-
weekly visits to four separate ﬁeld ofﬁces of the Michigan Department of Career
Development-Rehabilitation Services (MDCD-RS) and one visit to the Michigan Career
and Technical Institute (MCTI), which is a vocational training and support service
operated by MDCD-RS. The ﬁve sites are located in cities across the lower central
portion of Michigan and included Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Lansing, and
Plainwell.
The four MDCD-RS sites all held weekly or biweekly new-client orientation meetings,
during which the investigator would inform clients of the $10.00 incentive and introduce
the study as an examination of the beliefs, meanings, and behaviors that people with
visible disabilities give to different situations (e.g., meeting new people, applying for a
job, etc).

Following orientation and a short brealg each volunteer for the study received two
copies of a consent form that had been approved by the University Committee on

Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) located on the campus of Michigan State

77

{Ct
Vic

quz

are!
no

COm

University (see Appendix B). The consent form provided a second and more detailed
explanation of the study without risking response bias and was read out loud as the
participants followed along. The consent form also highlighted the possibility that some
of the sessions would be videotaped. Those persons who still wanted to participate in the
study signed one consent form, which was immediately ﬁled away by the investigator,
and kept the second for their own records.

Assignment between the treatment and control conditions was alternated for each
site visit in order that each site provided treatment and control data. The conditions of
each session were reasonably consistent across all sites. Participant groups at all MDCD-
RS sites ranged in sizes ﬁom 4 — 8, while the two groups ﬁom MCTI were larger (8 & 11
participants). At all sites, participants were seated beside each other at long tables facing
the video camera and television monitor (treatment condition only) or the ﬁont of the
room (control condition). The rooms were private, well lighted, and accommodating.

It should be noted that none of the sessions were actually videotaped (this was
explained to each participant during their ﬁnal debrieﬁng). The reason for this was
technological—only one site had equipment that allowed the investigator to effectively
video-record a session, and since this would not provide adequate sample data, any
qualitative analysis of videotape was omitted all together from the ﬁnal analysis.

Next, numerically coded folders containing the four questionnaires were passed
around and verbal instructions were given for each of the forms. The participants were
informed that the entire process would last approximately 30 minutes and that after they

completed the questionnaires the investigator would meet with them brieﬂy in private.

78

At this time (in the treatment condition only) the investigator would turn on the video
camera that projected the group’s image onto a television screen allowing each person to
view him or herself while taking the questionnaires. The investigator was present at each
administration for two reasons, I) to answer any questions that arose and, 2) to ensure
experimental conditions remained consistent lessening the threat of random error.

Across all administrations, the participants asked few questions. However, the most
consistently asked question was to deﬁne the word “reputable” in the bipolar scale
reputable — disreputable from the semantic differential. The persons asking this question
were advised to consider it in terms of “respectable”. Two other participants needed
assistance writing their responses due to an impairment that impacted their ﬁne motor
coordination.

As each participant ﬁnished, the questionnaires were scanned for completeness and
if blank items were discovered the person was asked to return to that item. Then, each
person was escorted out of the room where they were debriefed regarding the purpose of
the television and video camera and paid $10.00. As mentioned, it was explained at this
time that the session was not videotaped as had been indicated at the outset. Instead, it
was simply important that the person could see him or herself on the television while
seated in a group of others. Then, each person was given the opportunity to ask any
question or state any concern. There were no concerns presented but the participants
frequently wanted to discuss how they have been affected by self-consciousness in the

past.

79

Val

ind

W
A 2 x 2 x 2 multivariate analysis (MANOVA) and a series of 2 x 2 x 2 analyses of

variance (ANOVAs) were run to test the hypotheses of group differences after the

inducement of OSA.

80

Chapter 4
RESULTS
Participants

Eighty-ﬁve individuals from ﬁve locations across the lower central portion of
Michigan volunteered to complete the questionnaires. This yielded a total of 66 usable
individual questionnaires for the ﬁnal analyses from persons who met the criterion for
possessing a visible disability. A total of 19 individual questionnaires were judged
unusable for three distinct reasons; 1) questionnaires were incomplete, 2) participants
recorded a non-visible disability (e.g., substance abuse) other than that initially described
to the investigator and, 3) based on clinical judgment, a participant was considered to
possess cognitive diﬁculties sufﬁcient enough to impact his or her responses.

F orty-seven of the participants included in the ﬁnal analyses were ﬁ'om four ﬁeld
ofﬁces (Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Jackson, & Lansing) of the Michigan Department of
Career Development-Rehabilitation Services (MDCD-RS). The remaining 19 were ﬁom
the Michigan Career and Technical Institute (MCTI). Persons at the MDCD-RS ﬁeld
oﬁces were contacted during regularly scheduled new client orientation meetings over a
period of four months. MCTI has no such orientation so the staff organized three
separate sessions during a one-day visit for the investigator to meet and recruit
participants. Treatment integrity (i.e., instruments, instructions, and administration) was
maintained at all ﬁve sites (see Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

The Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and Jackson ﬁeld ofﬁces held morning orientation
sessions for an hour and a half that enabled the investigator to easily recruit participants

immediately following their meeting. However, orientation at the Lansing oﬂice lasted

81

one full day and, even with the monetary incentive, participants were reluctant to return
on a later date to complete the questionnaires. As a result, with only one successﬁrl site
visit (4 volunteers but only two usable questionnaires), Lansing is underrepresented in
this study. However, approximately equal numbers of participants were recruited from
the other four sites that surround the Lansing area: 15 from Ann Arbor, 13 from Jackson,
17 from Grand Rapids and, 19 from Plainwell (MCTI).

Descriptive statistics (e.g., age, gender, race, etc) were compiled for the sample and
are provided in Table 4.1, below. Table 4.2 displays sample statistics for disability type.
As indicated in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, all of the demographic variables were partitioned into
multi-level categorical variables during data input.

WM

Participants were between the ages of 19 and 62. Individual ages were categorized
into ﬁve blocks of ten beginning with the youngest age meeting the criteria for the study
(e.g., 18 — 27, 28 — 37, etc, see Table 4.1). The largest age group in the samme (34.8%)
was composed of 23 persons 38 — 47 years old while 17 individuals between the ages of
28 — 37 (25.8%) comprised the second largest age group. The third largest group (19.7%)
was made up of 13 participants 38 — 47 years old. The fourth and ﬁfth largest groups,

respectively, were made up of the youngest (8 persons 18 - 27 year olds) and oldest

82

Table 4.1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

 

Variable N Percent
Age Levels
= 18 — 27 8 12.1

2 = 28 — 37 17 25.8

3 = 38 — 47 23 34.8

4 = 48 - 57 13 19.7

5 = 58 - 67 5 7.6
Gender Levels

0 = Male 39 59.1

1 = Female 27 40.9
Race/Nationality Levels

1 = Aﬁican American 37 56.1

2 = Asian 1 1.5

3 = Caucasian 24 36.4

4 = Latina/Latino 2 3.0

5 = Native American 2 3.0

6 = Other 0.0
Disability Levels

0 = Congenital 18 27.3

1 = Acquired 48 72.7
Highest Level of Education Completed

1 = Grade School 2 3.0

2 = High School 37 56.1

3 = 2-Years College 15 22.7

4 == 4-Years College 9 13.6

5 = Graduate School 3 4.5

 

(5 at 58 - 67) participants to complete the questionnaires and accounted for 12.1% and
7.6% of the sample.

For the variables of gender and race/nationality, males (59.1%) comprised the
majority of the sample and females accounted for 40.9%. Just over ﬁfty-six percent
(56.1%) were Aﬁican-American and 36.4% were Caucasian. Thus combined, Aﬁican

Americans and Caucasians accounted for 92.5% of the sample. The categories of

83

Latino/Latina and Native American each represented 3.0% of the sample and the
remaining 1.5% of the sample was Asian.

F orty-eight participants (72.7%) possessed acquired disabilities and the remaining
18 individuals (27.3%) reported congenital disabilities. Just over halfof the sample
(56.1%) reported that their highest level of education completed was high school. Fifteen
participants (22.7%) had completed two years of college while nine persons (13.6%)
reported that they had completed four years of college. Three participants (4.5%) have

completed graduate school and the remaining 3 .0% (2 people) reported that they had not

 

 

attended high school.
Table 4.2
Disability Types of the Sample
Variable N Percent
Musculoskeletal and Connective 29 43 .9
Tissue Disorders
Mental Disorders 3 4. 5
Nervous System Disorders 27 40.9
Visual Disorders (e. g., retinal detachment) 1 1.5
Dermatological Disorders 2 3 .0
Respiratory Disorders 1 1.5
Orthopedic Disorders 1 1.5
Birth Defects 2 3 .0
Totals 66 100

 

84

Disal
described
dsme dis<
such cont
rheumatic
disorders
made up
entire 3211
diagnosis
represen‘
of a visit
individu;
Widpa
Manual r
dlSOFders
Persons 1

resPirate

Disability type was classiﬁed into eight separate categories (Table 4.2, above) as .
described by Falvo (1991). Twenty-nine persons with musculoskeletal and connective
tissue disorders comprised the largest group (43.9%). Included in this category were
such conditions as scoliosis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic lupus erythematosus,
rheumatic disease, and limb amputation. T wenty-seven participants with nervous system
disorders such as spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy
made up the next largest group (40.9%). These two groups accounted for 84.8% of the
entire sample. The remaining 15.2% break down as follows: Three individuals reported a
diagnosis of major clinical depression (categorized as mental disorders; Falvo, 1991) and
represented 4. 5 % of the sample. Major depression was considered to meet the criterion
of a visible disability for this study based on the visually evident depressed affect of the
individuals, their sluggish behaviors, poor hygiene, and the considerable weight of two
participants (the third participant was extremely thin) (cf. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, 1994). Massive scarring (i.e., dermatological
disorders) was reported by and evident on two participants accounting for 3 .0%, and two
persons (3.0%) reported birth defects. One individual (1.5% of the sample) possessed a
respiratory disorder that was visible because of the use of an artiﬁcial larynx against a
tracheotomy that produced an electronic sound as the person spoke. One person (1 .5%)
categorized with a visual disorder was included because the condition itself was retinal
detachment due to degenerative changes in the retina of one eye. Finally, one participant
reported the condition talipes, which includes various forms of “club-feet” (orthopedic

disorders 1.5%).

85

These sample data are comparable to population statistics for Michigan in a number
of ways. First, as can be seen ﬁom Table 4.1, the majority of the sample was composed
of persons between the ages of 28 — 47. This range is comparable to statistics from the
Michigan Census Bureau (2001), which indicated that the largest percentage (37.2%) of
the adult population in the state falls within the 25 -— 49 age range. Second, although
Michigan’s female population is slightly larger than the male population (51% and 49%,
respectively), according to the 1990 United States Census, males make up the majority of
persons with disabilities in Michigan (United States Census Bureau, 2001). This census
statistic is reﬂected in the present sample.

A third comparison between the sample data and population statistics is the highest
level of education completed. As indicated in Table 4.1, the majority of the participants
(56.1%) reported that high school was the highest level achieved, and an additional 3%
stopped after grade school for a total 59.1%. This statistic also reﬂects Michigan Census
Bureau data indicating that 63.8% of persons with a work disability, a mobility limitation,
or a self-care limitation ended their formal education at either the grade school or high
school levels. A combined 36.3% of the sample (24 people) either completed or are
currently seeking a two- or four-year college degree and 4.5% (3 participants) reported
that they had earned a graduate degree. The percentages for college-educated individuals
are less reﬂective of Michigan Census data that revealed only 7.7% of the disabled
population had completed college. As a result, the sample in this investigation has
reported achieving a higher level of education than the general population in Michigan.

According to Census data, Caucasians over the age of 18 account for 82.1% of the

population in Michigan while Aﬁican Americans make up 13.1% (United States Census

86

Bureau, 2001). As Table 4.1 indicates, the sample percentages do not reﬂect these
statewide statistics. Instead, Aﬁican American participants outnumbered Caucasians by
19.7%. However, according to demographic data reported by the MDCD—RS ﬁeld
ofﬁces, Aﬁican Americans typically comprise the majority of people seeking their
services. Thus, while the sample may not reﬂect Michigan’s general population, it does
more closely resemble the state percentages for people with disabilities—per
race/nationality. Speciﬁcally, 19% of Michigan’s Aﬁican American population has a
disability while only 9.8% of the Caucasian population has a disability (Michigan Census
Bureau, 2001). From this perspective, the sample data for these two categories of race
and nationality do appear to reﬂect Michigan’s disabled population.

There is some variability between the Census and sample data for the Asian, Native
American, and Latina/Latino categories as well. Latinas/Latinos and Native Americans
accounted for the next highest percentages of the sample (3% each) and, according to
Census data, persons of Hispanic origin represent 2.7% of Michigan’s total population
and Native Americans account for only .5%. The Asian population is larger than the
Native American at 1.8% of the total population, and it comprised 1.5% of the sample.

Manipulation Check of the Independent Variable

As pointed out in the literature review, the use of a video camera to induce self-
consciousness in persons with visible disabilities has not previously been performed.
Therefore, a manipulation check of this independent variable was necessary to ensure that
treatment conditions varied along the anticipated dimensions and were appropriately
implemented. To detect the eﬁcacy of the experimental manipulation, the hypotheses

that public self-consciousness (PSC) scores would be higher in the treatment condition

87

and, likewise, that job-hunting assertiveness (JHA) scores would be lower in the same
group were tested. A visual comparison of the means between a treatment group (5
persons with a visible disability) and a control group (5 matching persons) indicated that
a video camera might indeed be an effective method for inducing self-consciousness. As
Table 4.3 indicates, the hypotheses that PSC would be higher and JHA lower in the
treatment condition was supported. With a mean of 18.0 the treatment condition was 1.2
points higher in self-consciousness than the control (16.8) and 3 .2 points lower in

assertiveness (94.4 > 91.2). As a result of this data the experiment proceeded without

 

 

adjustment.
Table 4.3
Manipulation Check Group Mean Comparisons

Group N x SD
Treatment 5

Public Self-Consciousness 18.0 2.34

Job-Hunting Assertivene 91.2 12.4
Control 5

Public Self-Consciousness 16.8 2.9

J ob-Hunting Assertiveness 94.4 15.7

 

Frequency Distributions of the Independent Variable
A ﬁequency distribution of scores on PSC revealed non-normal distributions, as
most participants in both groups scored high in self-consciousness. The total mean score
for PSC was 16.76 (note in Figure 4.1 that the SPSS program rounded this up), the
median was 18.00, and the mode was 21.00 (the highest possible score for the subscale).
The mean for the treatment condition PSC was 17.2, and the mean for the control only
PSC was 16.3. Combined or separate, these means are considerably higher than those

obtained from the sample in Scheier and Carver’s (1985) revision of the Self-

88

Consciousness Scale (see Chapter 2). For men and women in Scheier and Carver’s
sample, the mean was 13.85. Median and mode were not provided in the revision.
Therefore, to allow for statistical testing, PSC scores were split at the median between the
scores 17 and 18, which meant that persons scoring 4 -17 scored low in self-
consciousness (4 was the lowest score indicated), and persons receiving a score of 18 -
21 were considered to have high self-consciousness.

Figure 4.1
Histogram of Total PSC Scores

 

 

 

 

 

Std. DUI I 3.77
Man I 16.8
N I aaoo
5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
PSCSCORE
Results of the Analyses of Variance

To assess the statistical signiﬁcance of an induced state of objective self-awareness
(Group), a participant’s level of public self-consciousness (LevelPSC), and Gender on his
or her meaning attributions and job-hunting assertiveness behaviors, a 2 x 2 x 2
MANOVA and a series of 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVAs were conducted on all of the variables.

The results are provided below beginning with those obtained from the MANOVA The

89

ANOVA results for the 10 meaning attribution variables and the job-hunting
assertiveness variable are displayed next. As will be seen, the results for the ﬁrst and
second research hypotheses (the 10 meaning attribution variables) and the third and
fourth research hypotheses (job-hunting assertiveness) indicated that the predicted
signiﬁcant effects were not achieved. (For a more detailed display of the individual
ANOVA results please refer to Appendix G).

Mm’pg Attributions Hypotheses

The two hypotheses investigating meaning attributions were as follows:

1: The meaning attributions for persons with visible disabilities who score

high on public self-consciousness will be less positive than for those
who score low on public self-consciousness.

2: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible
disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will
have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions than persons who

score low on public self-consciousness.

The initial step in interpreting MANOVA results is to consider the Box’s Test of
Equality of Covariance Matrices (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). This test was not
signiﬁcant at p < .001 (p = .016) and the assumption of equal variances has not been
violated, therefore robustness is assumed and Wilk’s A is the appropriate statistic for
interpreting multivariate results.

As can be seen in Table 4.4, no signiﬁcant main effects were found for Gender,
Wilk’s A = .698, F(11, 48) = l.888,p > .05, LevelPSC, Wilk’s A = .828, F (1 1, 48) =

.904,p > .05, or Group, Wilk’s A = .833, F(l 1, 48) = .873, p > .05.

9O

Table 4.4

 

Multivariate Results for Control and Experimental Groups,
High and Low Public Self-Consciousness, and Gender.

 

 

Eﬂ’ect Value F Sig. Eta
Intercept
Wilk’s Lambda .006 686.7% .000 .994
Gender
Wilk’s lambda .698 1.8883 .065 .302
LevelPCS
Wilk’s Lambda .828 .904a .544 .172
Group
Wilk’s Lambda .833 .873a .572 .167
GendeﬂLevelPSC
Wilk’s Lambda .860 .707a .725 .140
Gender‘Group
Wilk’s Lambda .865 .684a .747 .135
LevelPSC‘Group
Wilk’s Lambda .902 .4733 .911 .098
Gender‘Group“
LevelPSC
Wilk’s Lambda . 921 .3753 .960 .079
a = exact

Desigp: Intercept+Gender+LevelPSC+Group+Gender*LevelPSC+Gender* Group+LevelPSC*
Gender‘Gmup
p < .05.

Additionally, the effect size for gender indicates that only 30% of the multivariate
variance is associated with this factor. Much less multivariate variance is associated with
the LevelPSC and Group factors, 17% and 16%, respectively.

No signiﬁcant interaction effects were found for Gender*LevelPSC, Wilk’s A =
.869, F(11, 48) = .707,p > .05, Gender’Group, erk’s A = .865, F (1 1, 48) = .684,

p > .05, LevelPSC*Group, Wilk’s A = .902, F(11, 48) = .473, p > .05, or Gender“

Group‘LevelPSC, Wilk’s A = .921, F (1 1, 48) = .375,p > .05.

91

H1

Hz
3.(
65‘
Di:
Me

2.5

The obtained multivariate results do not support the predictions of signiﬁcant group
diﬂ’erences between the control and experimental conditions for the 10 meaning
attributions, the job-hunting behaviors, or a gender interaction.

As can be seen in the ANOVA Table 4.5 below, mean differences between
high and low PSC were discovered in both the control and treatment conditions.
However, statistical signiﬁcance was not achieved for any of the 10 meaning attributions
when p < .05. Speciﬁc results were as follows: Having a Job F (1, 65) = .189, p = .665,
Having a Vlsible Disability F (1, 65) = .037, p = .848, Meeting New People F (1, 65) =
3.024, p = .087, Seeking More Education F (1, 65) = .052, p = .820, Myselfas I am F (1,
65) = .033, p = .857, Going out with Friends F (1, 65) = .571,p = .453, Person without a
DisabilityF(1, 65)=1.103,p = .291, Applying for a JobF(1, 65) = .555,p = .459,
Meeting an Attractive Person F (1, 65) = .098, p = .755, and My Ideal SelfF (1, 65) =
2.566, p = .115 (Main effect results for LevelPSC and interaction effect results for
Group*LevelPSC are provided as well, and are likewise not signiﬁcant). As the ANOVA
results indicate, it cannot be concluded that the treatment had any real effect on the

participants’ meaning attributions as was predicted.

92

Table 4.5

 

Connotative Meanings for 10 Disability Concepts: Control and Treatment Groups,
Subdivided According to High or Low Level Public Self-Consciousness

 

CONTROL TREATMENT F TESTS

High PSC Low PSC High PSC Low PSC LevelPSC Grojup Grottp‘ievelPSC

Have Job 84.47 82.06 85.79 84.14 .769 .189 .022
Vis Dis 56.07 62.11 58.00 61.57 1.950 .037 .701
New People 74.80 75.06 80.16 81.07 .041 3.024 .340
Seek Edu 86.60 86.78 87.05 86.43 .108 .052 .001
Selfas I am 72.33 75.33 68.63 77.36 4.038 .033 .149
Go Out 74.93 76.44 73.42 73.29 .788 .571 .438
PWOD 79.27 74.33 74.42 72.21 1.510 1.103 .039
Apply Job 77.93 79.11 80.53 84.50 1.032 .555 .215
Attract 74.53 79.33 79.21 77.00 .888 .098 2.232

Ideal self 85.67 85.72 79.26 85.21 .827 2.566 .521

 

‘1‘ = signiﬁcant p < .05

Variabla Labels: Have Job = Having a Job; VisDis = Having a Visrble Disability; New People = meeting
New People; Seekedu = Seeking More Education; Selfas I am = Myselfas I am; Go Out = Going out
with Friends; PWOD = Person without a Disability, Appy Job = Applying for a Job; Attract = Meeting an
Attractive Person; Ideal Self = My Ideal Self.

J ob-Hunting Assertiveness Hypotheses
The two hypotheses investigating job-hunting assertiveness were as follows:

3: Persons with visible disabilities who score high on public self-
consciousness will report less assertive job-hunting behavior than those
who score low on public self-consciousness.

4: When objective self-awareness is induced in persons with visible
disabilities, persons who score high on public self-consciousness will

report signiﬁcantly less assertive job hunting behaviors than persons

93

dete
obje

beha

P=,0{

who score low on public self-consciousness.
Table 4.6 contains the ANOVA results for the effect that induced OSA had on the
participants’ reported job-hunting assertiveness behaviors. No signiﬁcant effect was
detected, F (1, 65) = .026, p = .873 when p > .05. It cannot be concluded that induced

objective self-awareness had any eﬁ’ect on the participants’ reported job-hunting

 

 

 

behaviors.
Table 4.6
Reported Job-Hunting Assertiveness: Control and Treatment Groups,
Subdivided According to High or Low Level Public Self-Consciousness
CONTROL TREATMENT F TESTS
High PSC Low PSC High PSC Low PSC LevelPSC Gmatp Group*LevclPSC
Job Agni 88.80 97.61 91.11 95.07 2.580 .026 .700

 

1“ = signiﬁeantp < .05

The Gender Hypothesis

A ﬁnal hypothesis addressing the effect that gender would have is as follows:
5). Females will have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions and
less assertive job-hunting behaviors than males after the inducement of
objective self-awareness.

The AN OVA results (Table 4.7) for the ﬁfth research hypothesis revealed that, by
itself, gender had a signiﬁcant effect on 3 out of the 10 meaning attribution variables.
Wlth alpha set at p < .05, gender had a signiﬁcant effect on the meaning attributions of
Going out with Friends F (1, 65) = 7.039, p = .010, Applying for a Job F (1, 65) = 7.999,

P = .006, and Meeting an Attractive PersonF(1, 65) = 6.834,p = .011.

94

_- ._~ Ta

‘-

However, the predicted interaction (gender* group) was not signiﬁcant for the 10

meaning attribution variables Having a Job F (1, 65) = .362, p = .550, Having a Visible

DisabilityF(1, 65) = .348,p = .558, Meeting New People F (1, 65) = .743,p = .392,

Seeking More EducationF(l, 65)=1.013,p = .318, Myselfas I am F(1, 65)=1.175,p

= .283, Going out with Friends F (1, 65) = .627, p = .432, Person without a Disability F

(l, 65) = .009,p = .924, Applying for a Job F (1, 65) = .261,p = .611, Meeting an
Attractive Person F(1, 65) = .729, p = .397, and My Ideal SelfF(1, 65) = 1.171, p =
.284 when p < .05. (Interaction eﬁ‘ects are also provided for Gender*Group*LevelPSC

and Gender*LevelPSC. As can be seen, no signiﬁcant interactions resulted).

Table 4.7

 

Gender Differences in Connotative Meanings for 10 Disability Concepts

 

 

 

Males Females
F Gender*Gror_rp Gender*LevelPSC (_3e_n_dcr*e__6m*melPSC
Have a Job 84.31 83.85 .002 .362 .015 .009
Vis Dis 59.59 59.22 .317 .348 .180 .745
New People 79.49 75.22 1.602 .743 .009 1.780
Seek Edu 86.44 87.19 .076 l.013 .067 .726
Selfas I am 75.62 69.59 2.499 1.175 .360 .041
Go Out 78.10 69.44 7.039” .627 1.231 .042
PWOD 74.62 75.63 .032 .009 .423 . 180
Apply Job 83.92 75.30 7.999" .261 .066 .283
Attract 81.03 72.93 6.834" .729 1.702 .576
ME 85.82 80.74 3.264 1.171 .054 .091

** = signiﬁeant p < .05
Variable Labels: Have Job = Having a Job; VisDis = Having a Visible Disability; New People = meeting
New People; Seekedu = Seeking More Education; Selfas 1 am = Myselfas I am; Go Out = Going out
with Friends; PWOD = Person without a Disability, Appy Job = Applying for a Job; Attract = Meeting an
Attractive Person; Ideal Self = My Ideal Self.

95

trealr

when

As illustrated in Table 4.8, gender likewise did not signiﬁcantly interact with the
treatment effect for job-hunting assertiveness as was predicted F (1, 65) = .028, p = .868,

whenp > .05.

Table 4.8

 

Gender Differences in J ob-Hunting Assertiveness

 

Males Females
F Gender‘Groap Gender‘LevelPSC GepdeﬂGWIeveIPSC

Mn 92.87 93.67 .056 .028 .262 .012
" = signiﬁcant p < .05

96

__,__,1

on 1
will
any .
Sle-t‘
feels
liew
self-h
or she
Ofres‘
Or her

group

Sample
DM,
1989) 1.-
not bee]
check w

con31.81131

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION

This study was designed to examine the effects of induced objective self-awareness
on meaning attributions and job-hunting assertiveness behaviors for persons with a
visible disability. The study also explored whether participants’ gender would moderate

any observed effects. The construction of the study was guided by the theory of objective

- Mm]

~r
_‘ t

self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972). The theory asserts that when an individual
feels an induced state of OSA during a social interaction then that person will begin to
view him or herself in the same way they think others are viewing them. Sparked by this
self-focused attention, the person is now prone to feel singled-out in a group because he
or she is more aware of differences that may distinguish them from the rest. Attributions
of responsibility follow this self-focused attention, and the person begins to feel that his
or her differences are the cause for any dissonance experienced within the context of the
group.

A unique feature of this study was the use of video equipment to induce OSA in a
sample of persons with visible disabilities. Prior research (see Buss, A. H., 1980; Buss,
D. M., & Scheier, 1976; Carver & Scheier, 1978; Chang et al, 2001; Samuel & Dollinger
1989) has determined this a reliable method of inducing OSA. However, this method has
not been used on a sample of persons with visible disabilities, therefore a manipulation
check was designed. The results of the manipulation check (see Chapter 3) were

consistent with previous research and the investigation proceeded unaltered.

97

Three questionnaires were used to measure 1) level of public self-consciousness, 2)
individual meaning attributions for disability-related concepts, and 3) job-hunting
assertiveness behaviors. A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA and a series of 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVAs were
run on each meaning attribution variable and the job-hunting behavior. Gender was also
investigated for the presence of an interaction effect when OSA was induced.

Following a strategy described by Cone and Foster (1994), the discussion below
will ﬁrst summarize the research hypotheses and the lack of statistical support they
received. Next, these results will be interpreted in context to the theory of objective self-
awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) and previous research in self-consciousness. Then,
there are a number of limitations to this investigation that will be examined. Finally, the
results will be considered in terms of their implications for rehabilitation counseling
practice, education, and future research.

Summary of Findings

This investigation centered around ﬁve research hypotheses that were constructed
based on the theory that an enhanced state of self-focused attention could impact meaning
attributions and assertiveness behavior. It was predicted that mean diﬁ'erences would
reveal less positive meaning attributions and less assertive job-hunting behaviors among
persons with visible disabilities after OSA was induced. Next, it was hypothesized that
females would have signiﬁcantly less positive meaning attributions and less assertive job-
hunting behaviors than males after OSA was induced. As will be discussed below, no
signiﬁcant mean differences were discovered for any of the 10 meaning attribution

variables or the job-hunting assertiveness variable. Likewise, gender did not signiﬁcantly

98

.f‘

interact with the experimental condition to affect meaning attributions or job-hunting
assertiveness. Below is a detailed discussion on the hypotheses.
Hypotheses for Meaning Attributions

It was hypothesized that signiﬁcant mean differences would be detected between
high and low levels of public self-consciousness for the 10 meaning attribution variables.
While mean differences were apparent between high and low levels of public self-

consciousness for most of these variables, none of them achieved statistical signiﬁcance.

if; ‘7 47m

As a result, it cannot be concluded that induced objective self-awareness signiﬁcantly
affected the connotative meanings that participants attributed to either of the 10 disability
concepts.

However, before getting into a discussion on this lack of signiﬁcance, it is
necessary to consider certain other elements regarding these data. To begin, there are no
ﬁrm norms from which to compare data from the semantic diﬂ'erential (i.e., the 10
meaning attributions), as it is a technique that was originally constructed to be highly
adaptable to different research nwds and professional disciplines. Still, some inference is
possible regarding the generally “positive tone” of the individual scores. As was
described in Chapter 3, the scores for each concept of the semantic diﬁ‘erential could
range from a low of 15 to a high of 105, with a score of 60 indicating the middle or
“neutral” score. Simply stated, the higher above 60 that one scores on a concept, the
more connotatively positive are the meanings he or she gives to that concept. The score
of 60 can thus conceivably be viewed as the midpoint that separates positive connotations

from less than positive, perhaps even “negative”, connotations.

As was illustrated in chapter 4, all but two of the means for the disability concepts
were above 60. For the variable Having a Visible Disability, in both the control and
treatment groups, the means fell slightly above or below the neutral mark of 60. This
indicates that, regardless of any treatment effect, the persons sampled generally attributed
less positive meanings to the presence of visible disabilities than they attributed to any
other concept.

In contrast, the largest group means (i.e., most positive) were revealed for the
variable Seeking More Education (in both groups as well). This ﬁnding suggests that the
persons who were sampled placed the most positive meaning on the idea of enhancing
their education. Additionally, virtually all of the other meaning attributions revealed
means that where substantially higher than the neutral mark of 60. What this indicates is
that, except for actually h_avi_ng a visible disability, the participants were generally
positive toward the disability-related concepts employed in the semantic diﬂ‘erential.

Considering the Lack of SigniﬁcamEﬂ‘ects on Meaning Attributigns.

 

First, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibility that the experimental
manipulation was not strong enough to induce a state of objective self-awareness in this
sample and, consequently, individual meaning attributions were not signiﬁcantly
affected. This may be due to the lack of an able-bodied cohort. It is conceivable that the
presence of able-bodied participants may have enhanced the OSA treatment eﬁ‘ect to the
point that signiﬁcant differences were discovered. As posited in objective self-awareness
theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), critical self-evaluations will most likely ensue when
one person’s differences (i.e., visrble disability) are sufﬁciently unique ﬁ'om others that

the resulting “uniqueness” increases his or her social discomfort. Thus, since all of the

100

participants had some type of visible disability, the visible diﬂ‘erences among them may
not have been “unique” enough to suﬁciently stimulate objective self-awareness. (Refer
to Appendix F to see how all of the meaning attributions ranked in this investigation).

The lack of signiﬁcant eﬁ‘ects may also in part be due to the possibility that the
visibly disabled persons who were sampled are typically high in public self-
consciousness, and were therefore less aﬁ‘ected by the experimental manipulation. As
described in Chapter 4, the self-consciousness means for the participants were
substantially higher than those obtained from the norming sample used in Scheier and
Carver’s (1985) revision of the Self-Consciousness Scale. (Recall ﬁ'om Chapter 4,
Scheier & Carver’s sample x = 13.85 vs. the present sample x = 16.76). As the frequency
distribution in Chapter 3 indicated, the majority of participants in both groups reported
high levels of PSC. Indeed, the most frequently occurring score was 21.00, which
indicates that the participant reported feeling higheg level of public self-consciousness
measured by the scale.

This possibility is further supported by the fact that approximately one-quarter of
the treatment participants reported to the investigator during their debrieﬁng that, “the
TV camera didn’t bother me at all.” Another group of treatment participants also
reported that they had been involved in “experiments like this before.” Additionally, it
should be noted that, throughout the administrations, the investigator witnessed few
participants actually Mid—118 at their image on the television screen. Most persons simply
looked at the forms as they completed them and a few others sat with a hand across their
eyes in what appeared to be a “shielding position”, suggesting that the person may have

been “avoidin ” seeing their image on the television.

10]

 

HMeses for JoQHunting Assertiveness

It was hypothesized that participants with a high level of public self-consciousness
would report signiﬁcantly less assertive job-hunting behaviors than persons with low
public self-consciousness when OSA was induced. While mean differences were
apparent, they were not statistically signiﬁcant. As a result, the treatment did not
signiﬁcantly aﬁ‘ect the participants’ reported job-hunting assertiveness.

The author of the Assertive Job-Hunting Survey (Becker, 1980) did not provide
normative data with which to make sample comparisons. However, as described in
Chapter 3, the individual scores could range from 25 - 150, with 85 representing the
middle score, or “average” assertiveness. As was illustrated in Chapter 4, participants in
both groups scored substantially higher than 85, which suggests that the persons in this
sample are more assertive when seeking employment than the “average person”. The
lowest mean was revealed for persons in the control condition who reported high levels
of self-consciousness, suggesting that they were the least assertive group in the sample.
Still, this group scored much higher in assertiveness behaviors than what might be
considered average. One way to consider this ﬁnding is in terms of the diﬂiculty that
many persons with disabilities have in ﬁnding employment. It is reasonable to think that
the realistic (perhaps even urgent) need to obtain employment simply outweighs any
impact self-consciousness may have thus, as emerged ﬁ'om this sample, job—hunting
assertiveness is higher than average out of necessity. Another way to consider this
ﬁnding is sociologically, as it is generally expected that the unemployed seek to change
that status, therefore it is conceivable that some, if not many, of the participants were

merely reporting higher assertiveness regardless of their actual behaviors. A ﬁeld

102

experiment where the assertiveness behaviors of a group of persons with disabilities are
investigated over a longer duration. may effectively respond to these issues.
onsid ' the Lack of Si ' cant Effects on J ob.hun ' Assertiveness.

There are a few possible ways to interpret the lack of a signiﬁcant treatment effect
on job-hunting assertiveness. One-way is in terms of participant attention and
concentration. This survey was the third and ﬁnal questionnaire and it directly followed
the semantic differential, which was the most cumbersome form to complete. During the
ﬁnal debrieﬁng some participants told the investigator that [the diﬁ‘erential] was long and
pretty repetitive. Though no administration ever ran longer than 45 minutes, it is possible
that by the time the participants reached the assertiveness behavior survey, they were
simply tired or even bored with the process and perhaps thinking about leaving.

A second way to interpret the lack of signiﬁcance on assertiveness behaviors is the
self-report nature of the survey. Quite ﬁ'ankly, “saying” and “doing” are two diﬂ‘erent
things. How a person might report he or she would behave in a particular situation may
not ﬁrlly or adequately reﬂect their behavior during the actual event. Thus, while the
video equipment may not have been stimulus enough to manifest a signiﬁcant effect on
paper, it might have been sufﬁcient to affect actual behaviors. .

The Interaction Hypothesis

A ﬁfth hypothesis asserted that gender would signiﬁcantly interact with the
experimental manipulation. This hypothesis did not receive the predicted statistical
support and it cannot be concluded that an interaction existed. This lack of a signiﬁcant
interaction challenges research cited in Chapter 2. Two studies in particular reported that

high levels of public self-consciousness in females altered their public expressions of

103

 

beliefs (Chang et al., 2001), and lowered ratings of their own attractiveness (Cash, Cash,
& Butters, 1983). A contrast emerges however because these studies employed non-
disabled females within whom self-consciousness was signiﬁcantly induced, while the
present study used only visibly-disabled participants who were typically high in self-
consciousness and unaﬂ‘ected by the OSA condition. Moreover, women were reported to
be generally higher in PSC than males, and persons with disabilities were typically higher
than the able-bodied. Extending these ﬁndings, it is conceivable that the females with
disabilities sampled here were already high enough in PSC that the experimental
manipulation simply had no eﬁ‘ect.

It should be noted that adventitious ﬁndings were discovered for gender alone. It
was revealed that gender had a signiﬁcant effect on 3 of the 10 meaning attributions. At
the .05 level, gender had a signiﬁcant effect on Going out with Friends, Applying for a
Job, and Meeting an Attractive Person. Males scored higher on all three variables than
did females indicating that males attributed signiﬁcantly more positive meanings to each
variable than females.

In summary, while the predicted signiﬁcant results were not achieved, some
interesting and potentially useﬁrl information can be gleaned from these data. First, it is
noteworthy that the visibly disabled participants in this study reported higher levels of
public self—consciousness than were revealed for the sample used by the authors of the
revised scale (Scheier & Carver, 1985). As was mentioned, Scheier and Carver did not
include persons with visible disabilities in their sample. Moreover, as was discussed in
Chapters 1 and 2, researchers in rehabilitation and social psychology have not

speciﬁcally addressed the self-consciousness of people with disabilities. As a result,

104

there is inadequate information ﬁ'om which to compare how self-consciousness effects
may diﬂ‘er between the able-bodied and disabled populations. Thus, a self-consciousness
scale that is normed on persons with disabilities seems in order.

A second interesting ﬁnding was revealed from the generally positive tone that was
conveyed through the meanings that participants attributed to 9 out of the 10 semantic
differential concepts. Only the means for the concept Having a Visible Disability were at
or below a score of 60, which served as the midpoint between positive connotations and
less than positive connotations. All of the other means indicated that the persons sampled
in this study attributed meanings that were positive in nature.

The treatment effect was not strong enough to signiﬁcantly affect individual job-
hunting assertiveness as predicted. In fact, the job assertiveness scores for the majority of
the participants were substantially higher (i.e., indicating more assertiveness) than the
average score. The visibly disabled participants in this study thus reported more
assertiveness in their job-hunting behaviors than what might be expected for the average
person.

Assumptions and Limitations

This study was limited in a number of ways by assumptions made early on. The
foremost assumption was that video equipment would induce a state of objective self-
awareness in a sample of people with visible disabilities. The use of video, mirrors, and
voice recordings have all proven to be reliable methods for inducing an enhanced state of
self-focused attention on a variety of population samples (Buss, A. H., 1980; Carver &
Scheier, 1978; Chang et al., 2001; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Geller & Shaver, 197 5;

Moklund & Duval, 1971). Results from a manipulation check of this independent

105

 

variable suggested similar eﬁ‘ects would be detected a sample of persons with visible
disabilities. However, such was not the case for the formal investigation. While the
hypothesized mean differences were obtained, the lack of predicted statistical
signiﬁcance greatly limits the efﬁcacy of this study.

A second limitation results from the absence of an able-bodied cohort ﬁom which
to compare data. This may further explain the lack of a signiﬁcant treatment eﬂ‘ect.
More importantly, the absence of able-bodied participants did not allow the theory of
objective self-awareness to be fully operationalized. Thus, had there been signiﬁcant
results obtained, it may have been diﬂicult to distinguish these results ﬁ'om an actually
induced state of OSA (as the theory is deﬁned) vs. a chronic disposition of high PSC.
Additionally, without the presence of able-bodied participants during the questionnaire
administrations, the visible disabilities between those present were apparently not
“different” enough to induce objective self-awareness as theorized by Duval and
Wicklund (1972). That is, without able-bodied participants, recall of negative stigma
experiences did not occur.

This leads directly to a third limitation for the study. The overall small sample size
(N = 66) limited the power of the statistics to detect anything but strong eﬁ‘ects.
Likewise, aﬁer partitioning gender, the small cell Ns presented an added threat to
obtaining valid results.

The instruments pose a fourth limitation (see Appendix-A). Particularly, the
Semantic Differential Technique (Osgood et al, 1957) and the Assertive Job-Hunting
Survey (Becker, 1980) proved to be problematic. Prior to administration, the semantic

diﬁ‘erential was reduced in size from 20 concepts and 18 scales to 10 concepts and 15

106

scales. Yet, as some participants explained, it remained a cumbersome process. The
impact of this seems apparent in a few of the completed differentials, as some of the
responses are strildngly similar across all of the concepts. This suggests that participants
may have quickly lost interest in the questionnaire or perhaps the investigator
inadequately described its value. Consequently, internal reliability is threatened as it is
uncertain whether “true” individual meanings were reported.

While internal consistency and concurrent validity are strong, measurement issues
still exist for the Job-Hunting Assertiveness Survey (Becker, 1980). The survey was
normed on undergraduate and graduate level college students who do not reﬂect the
education level or the life-experiences for the majority of this sample. Furthermore, the
survey does not specify whether persons with disabilities were included in this process.
Therefore, it cannot be said with conﬁdence that this survey accurately reﬂects the job-
hunting assertiveness of persons with disabilities.

A ﬁfth limitation to this investigation was the lack of pre- and post-test measures.
By contrasting the results of a pre-test with those of a post-test helpful evidence could
have been obtained about the eﬂ‘ects of induced OSA.

Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Education
The current rehabilitation curriculum includes extensive coursework in the
psychosocial aspects of disability with a focus on stigma and general misconceptions
about disability. In such a course, an opportunity for each student to study his or her own
value—systems (such as with a semantic diﬂ‘erential) could provide useﬁrl experience in
understanding the impact that meaning attributions have on behavior. For example,

students may identify for themselves particular situations where they feel highly self-

107

conscious. Whole-class or groups discussions could help them clarify what meanings
they attribute to these situations and, in turn, consider how these meanings determine
their behavior. Students may also be able to identify speciﬁc situations that they
typically avoid and then follow this up with discussions on “why” the situation is avoided
and what is gained and lost as a result of this avoidance. Apropos of this educational
implication, such a lesson that stresses relating material to a student’s own life is referred
to as “meaningful learning” (Ormrod, 2000), and this seems quite ﬁtting.

Thus, in keeping with the assumptions of meaningful learning, there are at least two
important beneﬁts from such a classroom experience. First, is the likelihood that the
student would gain a greater understanding of individual phenomenology and self-
consciousness and their potential impacts on behavior (e. g., adjusting to different
situations) and second, that the student-turned-practitioner could provide greater
assistance to rehabilitation clients in doing the same. One result of such increased self-
awareness is arguably an increased self-determination, which is a primary consideration
of rehabilitation counselors.

Implications for Rehabilitation Counseling Practice

The “hierarchy” of the semantic meaning attributions (Appendix-F) provides what
may be some useﬁrl information about the persons sampled in this study. As can be seen,
of all the meaning attribution variables, Seeking More Education had the highest overall
positive meanings for both males and females. Having a Job and My Ideal Self had the
second and third highest overall means, respectively. Indicated here is that the persons
sampled placed the greatest positive connotation on advancing their education. Thus, one

implication might be that rehabilitation counselors be very familiar with local and

108

statewide opportunities that might provide interested clients and their families with
assistance toward this option (e. g., ﬁnancial assistance, on-campus accommodations such
as housing, scholarships).

Conversely, the variables Myselfas I am and Having a Visible Disability received
the least overall positive meaning attributions from both males and females (9" and 10‘“,
respectively). Considered together, the low means for these two variables imply that
obstacles to a positive (perhaps even healthy?) self—image may exist whether
phenomenologically or otherwise. It is uncertain exactly what the participants were

viewing as least positive—that they have a disability that is visible to others or that they

 

have their own disability. Thus, the conﬁrmation of this for a particular client (using an
appropriate reﬂective counseling intervention such as Person-Centered) may provide a
rehabilitation counselor with worthwhile information about personal and/or social factors
that could impact adjustment.

Likewise, understanding client value-systems through the use of a semantic
differential may help to identify areas of psychosocial distress and perhaps areas of social
avoidance (e. g., Going out with Friends). Assuming that induced objective self-
awareness does impact meaning attribution for persons with disabilities, then identifying
situations that a client consistently attributes negative meanings to may suggest areas for
possible treatment intervention. For instance, if a client aﬂirms that having a job is
important yet attributes negative meanings to applying for a job on a semantic diﬁerential
the implied contradiction could indicate an area of high anxiety or stress.

The above implies a ﬁnal consideration. That is, the examination of client value-

systems and meaning attributions could provide to rehabilitation counselors and their

109

clients some clariﬁcation of the phenomenological experience of disability in different
social situations. Exploring the subjective experience of a client (whether positive or
negative) in a given situation could conceivably illuminate the particular person,
environment factors across many situations that interact to induce objective self-
awareness in persons with visible disabilities.

Suggestions for Future Research

The results ﬁ'om this investigation suggest a number of possibilities for enhancing
the treatment effect for this population and ﬁrrther studying the phenomenology of
disability. First, for two reasons, where possible it is strongly recommended that an able—
bodied cohort be included to 1) fully operationalize the theory of objective self-awareness
and, 2) to establish an environment that more closely resembles the multicultural (i.e., the
“multi-diﬁ‘erent”) environment of everyday life. In particular, it is one thing for a person
with a disability to remember a stigma experience but something altogether different to
be with others where the possibility seems more real.

Next, it may help to limit sample variability even more. This could be
accomplished in many ways such as limiting disability type, education level, or race.
Certainly limiting these factors would lessen the threats to internal validity; still, on the
other hand, it does seem possible that too many limitations here would not provide a
sample that is representative m of the society-at-large. Thus, a lack of diversity
could likewise threaten external validity by ﬁrrthering the distance between a person’s
actual life-experience and the experiment. For example, without a diverse sample, the
highly inﬂuential components of physical attractiveness and “aesthetics” in society, as

reported by Thornton and Moore (1993) and Hahn (1993), would be forfeit. Since this is

110

a phenomenological investigation, one way to address this problem may be to include a
qualitative element to the study. Perhaps a longitudinal design employing grounded
theory would allow a researcher to actually observe and analyze the effects of OSA on a
person in-situ. At the very least, it may be possible for the investigator to provide
participants with materials to record their phenomenological experiences moments after

they have occurred similar to the investigation of social interaction and choice of

situations by Diener, Larson, and Emmons (1984; see Chapter 2).
Similarly, it may be possible to distinguish between “types of stigma-experiences”,

their impact on PSC, and subsequent meaning attributions. For instance, ﬁrst comparing
samples of only Aﬁican-Americans and induced OSA with only Caucasians and induced
OSA, and next looking for signiﬁcant effects using a racially combined sample. These

results may suggest interaction effects between race and disability that are speciﬁc to

certain social or vocational situations.
0n the other hand, as recommended by rehabilitation scholars (Grand, Bernier, &

StI‘Ohmer, 1982; Wright, B. A., 1983, 1980), investigating the elements that comprise

diﬁ‘el’ent situations and how these elements inﬂuence attitudes would provide important
information to help clarify what about a particular situation causes a person with a
disability to attribute the mgr positive and negative meanings. That is, examining what

Situational factors most induce individual objective self-awareness.

Finally, it may be worthwhile to limit the semantic differential content areas and

examine one at a time. For instance, construct a differential using only the content area of

Socral Interactions and investigate interaction eﬂ‘ects between select categorical variables

(e.g., disability type) and meanings attributed to particular social events (e. g., buying

111

groceries, going to a movie, going out to eat, or inviting someone on a date). Particularly
in a longitudinal study, understanding the impact of objective self-awareness in speciﬁc
social situations may illuminate phenomenological “themes” in an individual’s behaviors
and/or decisions (i.e., avoidance behaviors). Thus, if these social activities are
meaningﬁll to persons with disabilities, and objective self-awareness is inhibiting them in
these situations, then the feelings they experience could conceivably impact situated self-
efﬁcacy and self-image. The discomfort experienced as a result of objective self-
awareness may be enough for them to “do without” such activities and settle for less than
is satisfactory. Thus, detecting the presence of such themes in individual
phenomenology and subsequent behavior may indicate which situations or activities are
generally avoided due to objective self-awareness.
Conclusion
This study examined what effect an induced state of objective self-awareness might
have on the meaning attributions and job-hunting assertiveness behaviors of a sample of
persons with visible disabilities from lower, central Michigan. Four research hypotheses
asserted that mean differences would exist for participant meaning attributions, and that
Signiﬁcant treatment effects would be revealed for their self-reported job-hunting
assertiveness. A ﬁfth research hypothesis asserted that a signiﬁcant interaction eﬂ‘ect
heme“! gender and the treatment would occur.
while some mean differences were apparent between the control and treatment
gr 0°93, none were statistically signiﬁcant. Induced objective self-awareness did not have
a stz’IiStically signiﬁcant eﬁ‘ect on individual meaning attributions or job-hunting

assertiveness as predicted. Likewise, gender did not have the predicted signiﬁcant

112

interaction with the treatment. However, adventitious ﬁndings revealed that gender alone
had a signiﬁcant eﬁ‘ect on tluee disability-related concepts. ‘

It is conceivable that the lack of predicted signiﬁcant effects is due in part to the
possrbility that the visibly disabled participants in this study (particularly the females)
typically have higher levels of public self-consciousness than able-bodied persons. As a
result, future research that attempts to induce objective self-awareness in a sample of
persons with disabilities will need to design a stronger manipulation than the one
employed in this investigation as well as include an able-bodied cohort.

Regardless of this lack of signiﬁcance, a number of interesting ﬁndings emerged
from this study. For instance, the need to more ﬁrlly integrate persons with disabilities
with the able-bodied into studies on self-consciousness and social interaction.
Furthermore, as realized in this investigation, the lack of public self-consciousness scores
normed on a sample of persons with disabilities greatly inhibits opportunities to enhance
awareness and understanding of the phenomenological aspects of disability.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that the visibly disabled participants in this study were
typically higher in self-consciousness than the able-bodied sample employed in the
scale’s revision. Another interesting ﬁnding was the hierarchy of meaning attributions
that emerged out of the semantic differential. Except for two concepts, the participants’
meaning attributions were connotatively more positive than might be considered average
(that i8, as the semantic diﬂ‘erential is scored). Likewise, the scores from the job-hunting
assertiveness scale indicated that the more assertiveness in seeking employment than was

Predicted.

113

Finally, though lacking statistical signiﬁcance, the results of this study support
work cited in Chapter 2 that emphasized a focus on the phenomenological aspects of

social interactions between persons with disabilities and the able-bodied.

all” "'-".-.l""_" I

114

APPENDICES

115

 

APPENDIX —A

The Public Self-Consciousness Subscale

116

INSTRUCTIONS:

The information you provide on this questionnaire is strictly conﬁdential. Please do not
write your names on it. The purpose of it is to study how people feel about themselves.

5

M
l 'T

On the next page you will ﬁnd 7 statements. Please indicate the extent to which each of
the statements is most like you. There are no right or wrong answers so be as honest as
possible.

Please respond to each statement separately—try not to let your answers to one question
inﬂuence answers to another question.

Place an “X” in the space that best reﬂects how you feel.

It will look like this:

1). “Statement 1”.
This statement is:

__A lot like me; __Somewhat like me; __Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

117

1). I’m concerned about my style of doing things.
This statement is:

_A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

2). I care a lot about how I present myself to others.
This statement is:

__A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

3). I’m self-conscious about the way I look.
This statement is:

___A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; ___Not at all like me

4). I usually worry about making a good impression.
This statement is:

_A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

5). Before I leave my house, I check how I look.
This statement is:

_A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

6). I’m concerned about what other people think of me.
This statement is:

_A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

7). I’m usually aware of my appearance.
This statement is:

__A lot like me; _Somewhat like me; _Just a little like me; _Not at all like me

118

‘.I‘.~.ar1r.1r.-n‘
_1 - ‘1» 0.‘_.

 

 

APPENDIX-B
The Semantic Differential Technique

Disability-Related Concepts

119

INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of this questionnaire is to study the meanings of certain
things by asking people to judge particular concepts against a series of descriptive scales.

On each page of this booklet, you will ﬁnd a different concept to be judged. Beneath
each concept will be a set of scales. Please rate each concept on all of the scales by how
closely you think the concept relates to you at the present time.

IMPORTANT: Please mark all scales only once, and in the middle of the space not on
the edges.

For example, if you think the concept at the top of a page is very closely related to you
then mark the scale with an X like this:

“Concept”

fair X : : : : : : :unfair

_ﬁ

 

OR

fair : : : : : : X :unfair

 

If you believe the concept is quite related to you then mark the scale like this:

“Concept”

fair : X : : : : : :unfair

 

 

OR

fair : : : : : X : :unfair

——f—\—

 

If you feel the concept is only slightly related to you then please indicate it as follows:
“Concept”

fair : : X : : : : :unfair

_ d_—

 

OR

fair : : : : X : : :unfair

 

And, if you consider the concept is neutral, then please mark the middle space:
“Concept”

fair _ : : : X : : : :unfair

—I—-_

 

 

120

Concept 1:

Valuable

Simple

HAVING A JOB

Worthless

Complex

 

Good
Pleasurable
Passive
Seﬁous
Excitable
Successﬁll
Insane
Plain
Meaningful
Reputable
Avoid
Interesting

Stable

Bad

Painful
Active
Humorous
Calm
Unsuccessful

Sane

 

Fancy
Meaningless
Disreputable
Pursue
Boring

Changeable

 

Beautiﬁrl

Grateﬁll

Clean

121

Ugly
Ungrateﬁrl

Dirty

Concept 2:

Plain
Clean
Good
Successful
Avoid
Passive
Serious

Excitable

HAVING A VISIBLE DISABILITY

Fancy

Dirty
Bad

Unsuccessful
Pursue
Active
Humorous

Calm

 

Meaningful
Valuable

Insane

Meaningless
Worthless

Sane

 

Pleasurable
Stable
Reputable
Simple
Interesting
Ungrateful

Beautiful

122

Painful
Changeable
Disreputable
Complex
Boring
Grateﬁll

Ugly

Concept 3:

Beautiful
Serious
Meaningful
Clean
Good
Avoid
Plain
Excitable
Passive
Successful
Valuable
Simple

Insane

MEETING NEW PEOPLE

Ugly
Humorous
Meaningless
Dirty

Bad

Pursue
Fancy

Calm
Active
Unsuccessﬁrl
Worthless
Complex

Sane

 

Interesting

Stable
Pleasurable
Ungrateﬁrl

Reputable

123

Boring
Changeable
Painful
Grateful

Disreputable

Concept 4:

Valuable
Simple
Good
Pleasurable
Passive
Serious
Excitable
Successful

Insane

SEEKING MORE EDUCATION

Worthless
Complex

Bad

Painful
Active
Humorous
Calm
Unsuccessful

Sane

 

Plain
Meaningﬁrl
Reputable
Avoid
Interesting
Stable
Beautiful
Grateful

Clean

Fancy
Meaningless
Disreputable
Pursue
Boring
Changeable
Ugly
Ungrateful

Dirty

 

124

Concept 5:

Plain

MYSELF AS I AM

Fancy

 

Clean

Dirty

 

Good

Bad

 

Successful

Unsuccessful

 

Avoid

Pursue

 

Passive

Active

 

Serious
Excitable

Meaningful

Humorous
Calm

Meaningless

 

Valuable

Worthless

 

Insane

Sane

 

Pleasurable

Painful

 

Stable

Changeable

 

Reputable

Simple

Disreputable

Complex

 

Interesting

Ungrateﬁll

Boring

Grateﬁll

 

Beautiﬁrl

125

Ueg

Concept 6:

Beautiful
Serious
Meaningful
Clean
Good
Avoid
Plain

Excitable

GOING OUT WITH FRIENDS

Ugly
Humorous
Meaningless
Dirty

Bad

Pursue
Fancy

Calm

 

Passive
Successful
Valuable
Simple

Insane

Active
Unsuccessﬁrl
Worthless
Complex

Sane

 

Interesting
Stable
Pleasurable
Ungrateﬁrl

Reputable

126

Boring
Changeable
Painﬁrl
Grateﬁrl

Disreputable

..t --.1

Concept 7:

Valuable
Simple
Good
Pleasurable
Passive
Serious

Excitable

PERSON WITHOUT A DISABILITY

Worthless
Complex
Bad
Painﬁll
Active

Humorous

Calm

 

Successful

Insane

Unsuccessﬁrl

Sane

 

Plain
Meaningﬁll
Reputable
Avoid
Interesting
Stable
Beautiﬁll
Grateﬁll

Clean

127

Fancy
Meaningless
Disreputable
Pursue
Boring
Changeable
Ugly

Ungrateﬁrl

Dirty

Concept 8:

Plain

APPLYING FOR A JOB

Fancy

 

Clean

Dirty

 

Good

Bad

 

Successful

Unsuccessful

 

Avoid

Pursue

 

Passive

Active

 

Seﬁous

Humorous

 

Excitable

Calm

 

Meaningful

Meaningless

 

Valuable

Worthless

 

Insane

Sane

 

Pleasurable

Painful

 

Stable

Changeable

 

Reputable

Disreputable

 

Simple

Complex

 

Interesting

Boring

 

Ungrateﬁrl

Grateful

 

Beautiful

128

Ugly

Concept 9:

MEETING AN ATTRACTIVE PERSON

Beautiful

Serious

Ugly

Humorous

 

Meaningful

Meaningless

 

Clean

Good

Avoid

Dirty

 

Bad

 

Pursue

 

Plain

Fancy

 

Excitable

Calm

 

Passive

Active

 

Successﬁrl

Unsuccessﬁrl

 

Valuable

Worthless

 

Simple

Complex

 

Insane

Sane

 

Interesting

Boring

 

Stable

Changeable

 

Pleasurable

Painful

 

Ungrateful

Grateful

 

Reputable

Disreputable

 

129

Concept 10:

Valuable

Simple

MY IDEAL SELF

Worthless

Complex

 

Good
Pleasurable
Passive
Serious
Excitable
Successful

Insane

Bad
Painﬁrl
Active
Humorous
Calm
Unsuccessﬁrl

Sane

 

Plain
Meaningﬁrl
Reputable
Avoid
Interesting
Stable
Beautiful
Grateful

Clean

130

Fancy
Meaningless
Disreputable
Pursue
Boring
Changeable
Ugly
Ungrateful

Dirty

 

APPENDIX-C

The Assertive Job-Hunting Survey

131

INSTRUCTIONS:

The purpose of this questionnaire is to better understand how people feel about job
related situations. The information you provide on this questionnaire is strictly
conﬁdential. Please do not write your names on it.

On the next two pages you will ﬁnd 25 statements. Using the scale provided, please
indicate whether you think that the item reﬂects how you would or would not act in a job-
hunting situation. There are no right or wrong answers so be as honest as possible.

Please respond to each statement separately—try not to let your answers to one item
inﬂuence answers to another item.

132

For each of the following items, please indicate in the space provided how likely you
would be to respond to a job-hunting situation using the scale below.

8.

9.

11.

1 = Very Unlikely
2 = Rather Unlikely
3 = Unlikely

4 = Likely

5 = Rather Likely

6 = Very Likely

. Would mention only paid work experience.

Reluctant to ask for more information.

Would ask employers if they knew of other employers.
Downplay my qualiﬁcations

Would rather use an employment agency.

Would contact employee to learn more about organization.
Hesitate to ask questions when interviewed.

Avoid contacting employers because they’re too busy.

Would leave or arrange another appointment.

10. Experienced employment counselor knows best.

Ifemployer too busy, would stop trying to contact.

12. Getting job largely luck.

l3” """I

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

1 = Very Unlikely
2 = Rather Unlikely
3 = Unlikely
4 = Likely
5 = Rather Likely
6 = Very Likely

Would directly contact employer, rather than personnel.

I am reluctant to ask professors or supervisors to write letters of
recommendation for me.

Would not apply unless had all qualiﬁcations.

Would not ask for a second interview.

Reluctant to contact employer unless there’s an opening.

Would ask employer how to improve chances for another position.

Feel uncomfortable asking ﬁiends for job leads.

Better take whatever job I can get.

If personnel didn’t refer me, directly contact the person.
Would rather interview with recruiters.

Figure there’s nothing else to do.

Check out openings before deciding what to do.

Reluctant to contact someone I don’t know for information.

134

APPENDIX-D

Consent Form

135

7“”!

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a doctoral candidate in the Rehabilitation Counselor program at Michigan
State University. Currently, I am conducting an investigation on how persons with
disabilities feel about certain topics that relate to the lives of many of us. Included are
topics, like employment, school, going out with ﬁiends, and interviewing for a job, to
name a few. I request your service in completing this study. Below please ﬁnd a brief
explanation of this study and what I am asking. While immediate beneﬁts cannot be
guaranteed, the long-range beneﬁts of such a study may provide a greater understanding
of the beliefs that persons with disabilities may have and how this can help or hinder

them in achieving their goals.

This investigation looked at the personal meanings that you give to speciﬁc topics
(or situations) that may affect persons with disabilities at onetime or another. It will also
ask how you feel about yourself in certain situations. Finally, this experiment will ask
you about what you have done or might do in particular job-hunting situations.

I am asking for approximately 30 to 45 minutes of your time to ﬁll out three (3)
questionnaires. You will be paid $10.00 for your time in ﬁnishing all three
questionnaires. Also, you are free to withdraw from this study at any time with no
penalty of any kind. Your decision will be ﬁrlly supported. However, I am unable to pay
you unless all of the forms are completed. Some of you will be video-recorded. The
video is used simply to document this type of process and to provide me with visual
information from which to draw further conclusions.

After you complete the forms, I will be available to talk with you and to answer
any questions you may have about this study. Should you want further discussion I will
be prepared to refer you.

No names will be asked for—all of the questionnaires are coded for conﬁdentiality

and organization purposes.

I am available through the Oﬂice of Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at (517)
355-1838 or at (517) 333-9649. Should you have any questions regarding your rights as

136

 

a research participant contact David E. Wright, PhD. Chair, University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects, Michigan State University (517) 355-2180.

The investigator is a Ph.D. candidate and will keep this information conﬁdential
protecting your privacy to the maximum extent allowable by law. The investigator will
securely hold the information, including the videotapes, for an indeﬁnite amount of time
and it will be used in the investigator’s dissertation and possibly reports written for
publication in rehabilitation journals. Only the investigator, and perhaps occasionally his
supervisor, will view the videos solely to provide additional support to the written data.

No persons will be identiﬁed in these reports.

The undersigned agrees to participate in this research study:

Please sign your name

 

. Please print your name

 

Date \/ /

_II—a—

Thank You very much,

ﬁnd”?! Phemister Nancy Crewe, PhD.
”V97311gato, Universi 1y Advisor
(51 )355-1333 (517)355-1838

”lag; pherr—liste@msu.edu
M“: gan State University

Michigan State University

137

APPENDIX-E

Demographic Questionnaire

138

Demographic Information:

For the purposes of understanding the general characteristics of the people involved in

this study, please provide the following:

*Do Not Put Your Names on This or Any Form.

1). Your Current Age:
2). Your Sex (circle one): M or F

3). Your race/nationality (please put a check):

Aﬁican—American , Asian , Caucasion , Latina/Latino , Native American .

4). Highest Level Of Education Completed Or Currently Enrolled In (circle one):
Grade School 2 Years College
High School 4 Years College

Graduate School

Please brieﬂy explain your general work experience and present job, if employed:

 

 

 

 

 

139

Please brieﬂy explain your education and/or work goals:

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding your primary (or only) disability, were you born with it or did you acquire it
later?
__I was born with my primary (or only) disability.
___I acquired my primary (or only) disability later.
--How old were you when you acquired it?_____

--What type of disability is it and how did you acquire it?

 

 

Thank you.

140

APPENDIX-F

Total Mean Rankings of Meaning Attribution Variables

141

Below is the ranked order of the total mean scores for the 10 meaning attribution
variables as used with the semantic differential from the most positive attributions to the

least positive attributions. (Recall that the scores for the differential ranged from 7 low —

 

 

 

105 high).
Ml; Total Mean Score
Most Pos_itive Attribution
1. Seeking More Education 86.74
2. Having a Job 84.12 1
3. My Ideal Self 83.74
4. Applying for a Job 80.39
5. Meeting New People 77.74
6. Meeting an Attractive Person 77.71
7. Person Without a Disability 75.03
8. Going out with Friends 74.56
9. Myselfas I am 73.15
10. Having a Visible Disability 59.44

Least Positive Attribution

142

APPENDIX-G
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for each of the 10 Disability

Concepts, Job-Hunting Assertiveness, and Gender Variables.

143

Deecrlptlve Statletlce

Dependent Variable: HAVEJOB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC GENDER Mean Std. Deviation N
=oon 0: 4-17 0=male 80.83 9.72 6
1 =temale 82.67 13.63 12
Total 82.06 12.20 18
1=hlgh18-21 0=male 83.80 10.92 10
1 = female 85.80 5.89 5
Total 84.47 9.36 15
Total 0 = male 82.69 10.26 16
1 = female 83.59 11.77 17
Total 83.15 10.90 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 84.64 8.67 11
= female 82.33 6.43 3
Total 84.14 8.08 14
1=high18-21 0=male 86.17 11.96 12
1 = female 85.14 10.84 7
Total 85.79 1 1 .26 19
Total 0 = male 85.43 10.31 23
1 =female 84.30 9.45 10
Total 85.09 9.93 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 83.29 8.95 17
1 =female 82.60 12.33 15
Total 82.97 10.49 32
1=high 18-21 0=male 85.09 11.29 22
1 = female 85.42 8.76 12
Total 85.21 10.33 34
Total 0 = male 84.31 10.25 39
1 = female 83.85 10.79 27
Total 84.12 10.39 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Etfects
Dependent Variable: HAVEJOB
Type III Sum
_Sguroe of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 175.394a 7 25.056 .212 .981
Intercept 375489.590 1 375489.590 3182.284 .000
GROUPS 22.346 1 22.346 .189 .665
LEVELPSC 90.792 1 90.792 .769 .384
GENDER 214 1 .214 .002 .966
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC 2.581 1 2.581 .022 .883
GROUPS ‘ GENDER 42.708 1 42.708 .362 .550
LEVELPSC ' GENDER 1.742 1 1.742 .015 .904
9:33;; LEVELPSC 1.031 1 1.031 .009 .926
Error 6843.636 58 1 17.994
Total 474060.000 66
Corrected Total 7019.030 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = -.093)

144

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: VISDIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSCf GENDER Mean Std. Deviation N
0 = control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 63.67 14.21 6
1 = female 61.33 11.76 12
Total 62.1 1 12.25 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 57.80 10.10 10
1 = female 52.60 16.82 5
Total 56.07 12.36 15
Total 0 = male 60.00 11.71 16
1 = female 58.76 13.51 17
Total 59.36 12.49 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 62.45 7.99 11
1 = female 58.33 8.96 3
Total 61.57 8.04 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 56.42 12.04 12
1 = female 60.71 14.64 7
Total 58.00 12.83 19
Total 0 = male 59.30 10.54 23
1 = female 60.00 12.73 10
Total 59.52 1 1 .05 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 62.88 10.17 17
1 = female 60.73 11.03 15
Total 61.88 10.46 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 57.05 10.96 22
1 = female 57.33 15.40 12
Total 57.15 12.47 34
Total 0 = male 59.59 10.89 39
1 = female 59.22 12.99 27
Total 59.44 1 1 .70 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: VISDIS
Type ill Sum -
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
corrected Model 635.718‘3 7 90.817 .638 .723
Intercept 186624.938 1 186624.938 1310.673 .000
GROUPS 5.285 1 5.285 .037 .848
LEVELPSC 277.663 1 277.663 1.950 .168
GENDER 45.087 1 45.087 .317 .576
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC 99.756 1 99.756 .701 .406
GROUPS ' GENDER 49.516 1 49.516 .348 .558
LEVELPSC ' GENDER 25.680 1 25.680 .180 .673
9223;; LEVELPSC 106.097 1 106.097 .745 .992
Error 8258.539 58 142.389
Total 242075.000 66
Corrected Total 8894.258 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .071 (Adjusted R Squared = -.041)

145

Dggndent Variable: NEW PEOP

Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_GROUPS LEVELPSL GENDER Mean Std. Deviation N
0 = control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 77.00 8.85 6
1 = female 74.08 13.73 12
Total 75.06 12.12 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 78.50 11.08 10
1 = female 67.40 9.02 5
Total 74.80 1 1.47 15
Total 0 = male 77.94 10.02 16
1 = female 72.12 12.64 17
Total 74.94 1 1.65 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 82.36 14.25 11
1 = female 76.33 2.08 3
Total 81.07 12.78 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 78.92 13.94 12
1 = female 82.29 7.27 7
Total 80.16 11.80 19
Total 0 = male 80.57 13.88 23
1 = female 80.50 6.67 10
Total 80.55 12.04 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 80.47 12.59 17
1 = female 74.53 12.23 15
Total 77.69 12.58 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 78.73 12.43 22
1 = female 76.08 10.82 12
Total 77.79 1 1 .79 34
Total 0 = male 79.49 12.36 39
1 = female 75.22 11.43 27
Total 77.74 12.09 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: NEW PEOP
Type III Sum
Source of Squares d1 Mean Square F ﬁg;—
'Corrected Model 1106.447‘ 7 158.064 1.093 .380
Intercept 317005.845 1 317005.845 2191.413 .000
GROUPS 437.462 1 437.462 3.024 .087
LEVELPSC 5.974 1 5.974 .041 .840
GENDER 231.711 1 231.711 1.602 .211
GROUPS ‘ LEVELPSC 49.246 1 49.246 .340 .562
GROUPS ' GENDER 107.416 1 107.416 .743 .392
LEVELPSC ' GENDER 1.232 1 1.232 .009 .927
92233:; LEVELPSC 257.533 1 257.533 1.780 .187
Error 8390.174 58 144.658
Total 408393.000 66
Corrected Total 9496.621 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .117 (Adjusted R Squared = .010)

146

Dependent Variable: SEEKEDU

Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC r GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0=control 0=low4-17 0=maie 85.50 14.32 6
1 =femaie 87.42 12.65 12
Total 86.78 1 2.84 1 8
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 84.80 8.56 10
1 = female 90.20 10.71 5
Total 86.60 9.32 15
Total 0 = male 85.06 10.60 16
1 =female 88.24 11.85 17
Total 86.70 11.20 33
= treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 86.82 9.44 11
1 = female 85.00 6.93 3
Total 86.43 8.75 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 87.92 9.07 12
1 = female 85.57 9.03 7
Total 87.05 8.88 1 9
Total 0 = male 87.39 9.05 23
1 = female 85.40 8.07 10
Total 86.79 8.69 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 O = male 86.35 10.97 17
1 = female 86.93 11.56 15
Total 86.63 11.07 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 86.50 8.78 22
1 = female 87.50 9.59 12
Total 86.85 8.94 34
Total 0 = male 86.44 9.65 39
1 = female 87.19 10.53 27
Total 86.74 9.95 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: SEEKEDU
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F 8L
rrected Model 147.537a 7 21.077 .194 .985
Intercept 400320.626 1 400320.626 3693.063 .000
GROUPS 5.676 1 5.676 .052 .820
LEVELPSC 11.735 1 1 1.735 .108 .743
GENDER 8.283 1 8.283 .076 .783
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC .142 1 .142 .001 .971
GROUPS ‘ GENDER 109.787 1 109.787 1.013 .318
LEVELPSC ' GENDER 7.280 1 7.280 .067 .796
ngxggé LEVELPSC 13.398 1 13.398 .124 .726
Error 6287.084 58 108.398
Total 503035.000 66
Corrected Total 6434.621 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8~ R Squared = .023 (Adjusted R Squared = -.095)

147

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: SELFASAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ GROUPS LEV ELPSC GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0=controi 0=low4- 17 0=male 81.50 15.95
1 = female 72.25 18.29 12
Total 75.33 17.65 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 76.50 11.57 10
1 = female 64.00 20.19 5
Total 72.33 15.48 15
Total 0 = male 78.38 13.09 16
1 = female 69.82 18.63 17
Total 73.97 16.51 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 77.09 12.92 11
1 = female 78.33 16.07 3
Total 77.36 12.98 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 70.58 12.92 12
1 = female 65.29 13.34 7
Total 68.63 12.97 19
Total 0 = male 73.70 13.05 23
1 = female 69.20 14.69 10
Total 72.33 13.50 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 78.65 13.73 17
1 = female 73.47 17.50 15
Total 76.22 15.57 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 73.27 12.41 22
1 = female 64.75 15.67 12
Total 70.26 14.03 34
Total 0 = male 75.62 13.10 39
1 = female 69.59 16.98 27
Total 73.1 5 1 4.99 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: SELFASAM
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Waded Model 1722.314‘1 7 246.045 1.103 .370
Intercept 285614.418 1 285614.41 8 1286.534 .000
GROUPS 7.282 1 7.282 .033 .857
LEVELPSC 896.494 1 896.494 4.038 .049
GENDER 554.723 1 554.723 2.499 .1 19
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC 33.118 1 33.118 .149 .701
GROUPS ’ GENDER 260.828 1 260.828 1.175 .283
LEVELPSC " GENDER 79.842 1 79.842 .360 .551
Fggggga LEVELPSC 9.017 1 9.017 .041 .841
Error 12876.171 58 222.003
Total 367774.000 66
Corrected Total 14598.485 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .118 (Adjusted R Squared = .012)

148

 

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: GOOUT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC ﬁ GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0 = control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 82.83 9.43 6
1 = female 73.25 16.16 12
Total 76.44 1 4.73 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 80.40 13.87 10
1 = female 64.00 9.67 5
Total 74.93 14.65 15
Total 0 = male 81.31 12.11 16
1 = female 70.53 14.90 17
Total 75.76 14.48 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 73.73 16.13 11
1 = female 71.67 10.21 3
Total 73.29 14.73 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 77.83 9.74 12
1 = female 65.86 16.90 7
Total 73.42 1 3.72 19
Total 0 = male 75.87 13.04 23
1 = female 67.60 14.88 10
Total 73.36 13.93 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 76.94 14.51 17
1 = female 72.93 14.85 15
Total 75.06 14.58 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 79.00 11.57 22
1 = female 65.08 13.81 12
Total 74.09 13.94 34
Total 0 = rnaie 78.10 12.80 39
1 = female 69.44 14.67 27
Total 74.56 14.1 5 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: GOOUT
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
rrected Model 2021.402‘ 7 288.772 1.524 .177
intercept 289553.985 1 289553.985 1527.731 .000
GROUPS 108.240 1 108.240 .571 .453
LEVELPSC 149.285 1 149.285 .788 .378
GENDER 1334.194 1 1334.194 7.039 .010
GROUPS ‘ LEVELPSC 82.968 1 82.968 .438 .511
GROUPS ' GENDER 118.890 1 118.890 .627 .432
LEVELPSC ‘ GENDER 233.223 1 233.223 1.231 .272
9233528 LEVELPSC 8.000 1 8.000 .042 .838
Error 1 0992.856 58 1 89.532
Total 379927.000 66
Corrected Total 13014.258 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .155 (Adjusted R Squared = .053)

149

 

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: PWOD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC _ GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0 a control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 74.67 13.52 6
1 = female 74.17 10.21 12
Total 74.33 11.01 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 78.90 14.43 10
1 = female 80.00 12.45 5
Total 79.27 13.35 15
Total 0 = male 77.31 13.79 16
1 = female 75.88 10.86 17
Total 76.58 12.19 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 72.82 12.32 11
1 = female 70.00 7.55 3
Total 72.21 1 1 .27 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 72.67 14.10 12
1 = female 77.43 14.44 7
Total 74.42 14.02 19
Total 0 = male 72.74 12.98 23
1 = female 75.20 12.83 10
Total 73.48 12.78 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 73.47 12.36 17
1 = female 73.33 9.65 15
Total 73.41 1 1.00 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 75.50 14.26 22
1 = female 78.50 13.1 1 12
Total 76.56 13.74 34
Total 0 = male 74.62 13.33 39
1 = female 75.63 11.39 27
Total 75.03 12.49 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: PWOD
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F SJQ__
orrected Model 520.022El 7 74.289 .448 .868
Intercept 300538.682 1 300538.682 181 1 .242 .000
GROUPS 182.959 1 182.959 1 .103 .298
LEV ELPSC 250.580 1 250.580 1 .510 .224
GENDER 5.390 1 5.390 .032 .858
GROUPS ‘ LEVELPSC 6.483 1 6.483 .039 .844
GROUPS ' GENDER 1.504 1 1.504 .009 .924
LEVELPSC ‘ GENDER 70.203 1 70.203 .423 .518
9238358 LEVELPSC 29.790 1 29.790 .180 .673
Error 9623.917 58 165.930
Total 381694.000 66
Corrected Total 10143.939 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .051 (Adjusted R Squared = -.063)

150

Dependent Variable: APPLYJO

Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC; GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0=control 0=low4-17 0=maie 85.67 9.48 6
1 = female 75.83 13.19 12
Total 79.11 12.72 18
1=high18-21 0=male 81.80 12.87 10
1 = female 70.20 16.30 5
Total 77.93 14.65 15
Total 0 = male 83.25 11.54 16
1 = female 74.18 13.89 17
Total 78.58 13.42 33
1=treatment 0=low4- 17 0=male 86.64 7.12 11
1 = female 76.67 5.69 3
Total 84.50 7.87 14
1=high18-21 0=maie 82.33 11.95 12
1 = female 77.43 12.27 7
Total 80.53 1 1 .97 19
Total 0 = male 84.39 9.96 23
1 = female 77.20 10.38 10
Total 82.21 10.48 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 86.29 7.74 17
1 a female 76.00 11.89 15
Total 81.47 11.05 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 82.09 12.08 22
1 = female 74.42 13.88 12
Total 79.38 13.07 34
Total 0 = male 83.92 10.50 39
1 = female 75.30 12.58 27
Total 80.39 12.09 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: APPLYJO
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Wed Model 1532.765‘ 7 218.966 1.595 .155
intercept 337557.323 1 337557.323 2458.664 .000
GROUPS 76.212 1 76.212 .555 .459
LEVELPSC 141.675 1 141.675 1.032 .314
GENDER 1098.150 1 1098.150 7.999 .006
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC 29.579 1 29.579 .215 .644
GROUPS ' GENDER 35.836 1 35.836 .261 .611
LEVELPSC ‘ GENDER 9.062 1 9.062 .066 .798
9223323 LEVELPSC 38.878 1 38.878 .283 .597
Error 7962.993 58 1 37.293
Total 436066.000 66
Corrected Total 9495.758 65

 

 

a. R Squared = .161 (Adjusted R Squared = .060)

151

Dependent Variable: ATTRACT

Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC _ GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0=control 0=low4-17 0=maie 83.33 13.11 6
1 = female 77.33 13.99 12
Total 79.33 13.63 18
1=high18~21 0=maie 81.20 11.57 10
1 = female 61.20 21.74 5
Total 74.53 17.79 15
Total 0 = male 82.00 11.78 16
1 = female 72.59 17.61 17
Total 77.15 15.59 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 77.82 11.55 11
1 = female 74.00 9.17 3
Total 77.00 10.87 14
1 = high 18 - 21 O = male 82.67 12.67 12
1 = female 73.29 15.74 7
Total 79.21 14.23 19
Total 0 = male 80.35 12.13 23
1 = female 73.50 13.57 10
Total 78.27 12.77 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 79.76 12.02 17
1 = female 76.67 12.95 15
Total 78.31 12.36 32
1 =high18-21 0=maie 82.00 11.92 22
1 = female 68.25 18.60 12
Total 77.15 15.82 34
Total 0 = male 81.03 11.86 39
1 = female 72.93 15.96 27
Total 77.71 14.15 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: ATTRACT
Type ill Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Sguare F Sig. _
orrected Model 2149.399“ 7 307.057 1.639 .143
Intercept 310822.971 1 310822.971 1659.381 .000
GROUPS 18.432 1 18.432 .098 .755
LEVELPSC 166.379 1 166.379 .888 .350
GENDER 1280.015 1 1280.015 6.834 .01 1
GROUPS " LEVELPSC 418.015 1 418.015 2.232 .141
GROUPS ‘ GENDER 136.503 1 136.503 .729 .397
LEVELPSC " GENDER 318.803 1 318.803 1.702 .197
nggggn LEVELPSC 59.301 1 59.301 .317 .576
Error 10864.132 58 187.313
Total 411599.000 66
Corrected Total 13013.530 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .165 (Adjusted R Squared = .064)

152

Descriptive Statistics

Dependent Variable: iDEALSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0 = control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 87.50 8.48 6
1 = female 84.83 11.73 12
Total 85.72 10.58 18
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 86.40 9.94 10
1 = female 84.20 5.72 5
Total 85.67 8.60 15
Total 0 = male 86.81 9.14 16
1 = female 84.65 10.14 17
Total 85.70 9.58 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 86.91 7.62 11
1 = female 79.00 19.16 3
Total 85.21 10.61 14
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 83.50 14.54 12
1 = female 72.00 19.10 7
Total 79.26 16.84 19
Total 0 = male 85.13 11.63 23
1 = female 74.10 18.34 10
Total 81 .79 14.63 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 87.12 7.67 17
1 = female 83.67 12.90 15
Total 85.50 10.42 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 84.82 12.46 22
1 = female 77.08 15.83 12
Total 82.09 14.01 34
Total 0 = male 85.82 10.58 39
1 = female 80.74 14.38 27
Total 83.74 12.43 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: iDEALSE
Type Iii Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F L
orrected Model 1314.345a 7 187.764 1.248 .292
Intercept 367659.747 1 367659.747 2444.245 .000
GROUPS 385.938 1 385.938 2.566 .1 15
LEVELPSC 122.821 1 122.821 .817 .370
GENDER 490.917 1 490.917 3.264 .076
GROUPS * LEVELPSC 62.701 1 62.701 .417 .521
GROUPS ‘ GENDER 176.172 1 176.172 1.171 .284
LEVELPSC " GENDER 8.131 1 8.131 .054 .817
fagggggﬁ LEVELPSC 13.715 1 13.715 .091 .764
Error 8724.276 58 1 50.41 9
Total 472883.000 66
Corrected Total 10038.621 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .131 (Adjusted R Squared = .026)

153

 

 

Dependent Variable: JOBASSE

Descriptive Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUPS LEVELPSC f GENDER Mean Std. Deviation
0 = control 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 99.67 8.59 6
1 = female 96.58 18.68 12
Total 97.61 15.80 18
1=high18-21 0=maie 88.80 14.95 10
1 = female 88.80 18.20 5
Total 88.80 15.44 15
Total 0 = male 92.88 13.72 16
1 = female 94.29 18.33 17
Total 93.61 16.03 33
1 = treatment 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 95.64 8.09 11
1 = female 93.00 10.82 3
Total 95.07 8.34 14
1=high18-21 0=maie 90.33 12.65 12
1 = female 92.43 13.35 7
Total 91.11 12.58 19
Total 0 = male 92.87 10.82 23
1 = female 92.60 12.04 10
Total 92.79 1 1.01 33
Total 0 = low 4 - 17 0 = male 97.06 8.24 17
1 = female 95.87 17.12 15
Total 96.50 12.95 32
1 = high 18 - 21 0 = male 89.64 13.43 22
1 = female 90.92 14.87 12
Total 90.09 13.74 34
Total 0 = male 92.87 11.92 39
1 = female 93.67 16.05 27
Total 93.20 13.65 66
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: JOBASSE
Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. ‘
orrected Model 846.863ll 7‘ 120.980 .623 .735
intercept 462662.246 1 462662.246 2382.406 .000
GROUPS 5.007 1 5.007 .026 .873
LEVELPSC 501 .027 1 501 .027 2.580 .1 14
GENDER 10.943 1 10.943 .056 .813
GROUPS ' LEVELPSC 135.963 1 135.963 .700 .406
GROUPS ' GENDER 5.384 1 5.384 .028 .868
LEVELPSC ' GENDER 50.876 1 50.876 .262 .611
92:33:23 LEVELPSC 2.263 1 2.263 .012 .914
Error 1 1263.576 58 194.200
Total 585365.000 66
Corrected Total 12110.439 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .070 (Adjusted R Squared = -.042)

154

REFERENCES

Alanazi, F. (2001). The revised self-consciousness scale: An assessment of factor
structure, reliability, and gender differences in saudi arabia. Social Behavior and

Personality, 29, 763-780.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). The_dipgnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4“: Ed). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Antonak, R, & Livneh, H. (1991). A hierarchy of reactions to disability. International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 14, 13-24.

Asch, A (1984). The experience of disability. American chholpgist, 39, 529-536.

Barker, R G., Wright, B. A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M. R (1953). Adjustment to

physical handicap and illneg A survey of the social psychology of physique and
Q'sabiligg. (2ml ed.). New York: Social Science Research Council.

 

Batavia, A. (1993). Relating disability policy to broader public policy: Understanding the
concept of handicap. Policy StudiesJourrLal, 21, 73 5-739.

Baumeister, R. F. (Ed). (1986). Public self and private self. New York: Springer-Voting

Becker, H. (1980). The assertive job-hunting survey. Measurement and Evguation in
Guidance 13, 43-48.

 

Bracken. B. (Ed). (1996). The h_apdbook of self-concept. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.

Britton, J. 0., & Thomas, K. R (1976). Rehabilitation counseling practice: Some
sociological insights. Journal of Applied rehabilitation counseling, 7, 34—39.

Britton, J. 0., & Thomas, K. R. (1972). Modifying attitudes toward the disabled.
American Archives of Rehabilitation Therapy. 112-114.

 

Bruch, M., Hamer, R., & Heimberg, R (1995). Shyness and public self-consciousness:
Additive or interactive relation with social interaction. J ourn_al of Personality, 63, 47-
63.

Buros, O, K. (Ed). (1965). The sixth mental measurgents yearbook. Highland Park,
NJ: The Gryphon Press.

Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxieg. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Company.

Buss, A. H., & Scheier, M. (1976). Self-consciousness, self-awareness, and self-

155

 

 

attribution. Joumol of Reseorch i_n Personality. 76. 463-468

Cahill, S., & Eggleston, R. (1995). Reconsidering the stigma of physical disability:
Wheelchair use and public kindness. The Sociological Qoartﬂy, 36, 681-698.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (1978). Self-focusing effects of dispositions] self-
consciousness, mirror presence, and audience presence. J ournol of Personality god

Social psychology, 36, 324-332.

Cash, T. F ., Cash, D. W., & Butters, J. W. (1983). “Mirror, mirror, on the wall. . .?”:
Contrast effects and self-evaluations of physical attractiveness. anality ad Social

Psychology Boﬂgio, 9, 351-358.

Chang, L. (1999). Gender role egalitarian attitudes in Beijing, Hong Kong, Florida, and
Michigan. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 30, 722-741.

Chang, L., Tai Hau, K., & Mei Gou, A (2001). The effect of self-consciousness on the
expression of gender views. Journal of Applied Social Pgohology, 31, 2, 340-351.

Charmaz, K. (1995). The body, identity, and self: Adapting to impairment. Ih_e
Sociologioﬂ Qogrjerly, 36, 657-680.

Cogswell, B. E. (1968). Self-socialization: Readjustment of paraplegics in the
community. _T_l_i_e Jourrol deelLabilitatiop, 34, 11-13, 35.

Cogswell, B. E. (1965). Socialization into a role: A study of the rehabilitation of
paraplegios. Published doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina.

Cone, J ., & Foster, 8. (1994). Dissertations Ed theﬂ from star_'t to ﬁnig. Washington,
D. C .: American Psychological Association.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature Ed the soci_al order. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons.

Corcoran, K., & Fischer, J. (1987). Measures for clinical practice: Aosourceboolo New
York: The Free Press.

Creelman, M. (1966). The exporimontal investigation of meaning ; A review of tho
literaturo. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the
visibly handicapped. Social Problems 9 120-133.

 

De Mann, M. (1963). A predictive study of rehabilitation counseling outcomes. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 10, 340-343.

156

 

 

 

De Muralt, A. (1974). The idea of phenomenology: Husserlian exemplao'sm. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.

Dembo, T., Leviton, G. L., & Wright, B. A (1956). Adjustment to misfortune: A
problem of social-psychological rehabilitation. Artiﬁcial Limbs, 3, 4—62.

Diener, E., Larson, R, J ., & Emmons, R A. ( 1984). Person x situation interactions:
Choice of situations and congruence response models. J ourn_al of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 580-592.

Dunn, M. (1977). Social discomfort in the patient with spinal cord injury. Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 58. 257-260.

Duval, S. (1971). Causal attribution as a function of focus of attention. Unpublished
manuscript. University of Texas.

Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A (1972). A theory of objective self-awgeness. New York:
Academic Press.

Ellis, A. (1973). Humanistic pgchothmpy: A ratiooﬂ-orpotive approaoh. New York:
The Julian Press, Inc.

Eysenck, H., & Eysenck, S. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck personality inventogr. San
Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Falvo, D. (1991). Medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Fenigstein, A. (197 9). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal
of Pmnality and Social Pachology, 37, 75-86.

Fenigstein, A, Scheier, M., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Hmao Relations, 7, 117-
140.

Fichten, C., Amsel, R, Robillard, K., Sabourin, S., & Wright, J. (1997). Personality,
attentional focus, and novelty eﬁ‘ects: Reactions to peers with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 42, 209-230.

Fichten, C., Lennox, H., Robillard, K., Wright, J., Sabourin, S., & Amsel, R (1996).
Attentional focus and attitudes toward peers with disabilities: Self focusing and a
comparison of modeling and self-disclosure. J o of A lied Rehabilitati n

W 30-38.

157

 

Fichten, C., Robillard, K., Tagalakis, V., & Amsel, R. (1991). Casual interaction between
college students with various disabilities and their nondisabled peers: The internal
dialogue. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36, 3-20.

Fichten, C., & Amsel, R. (19883). Thoughts concerning interaction between college
students who have a physical disability and their nondisabled peers. Reﬁilitation
Counseli_ng' Boﬂm' 32, 22-40.

Fichten, C., Amsel, R, Bourdon, C., & Creti, L. (1988b). Interactions between college
students with physical disabilities and the professors. Journal of Appliﬂ

Rehabiligtion Qounselr_r_ig,' 19, 13-19.

Fischer, C. (1989). Personality and assessment. In R. Valle and S. Hailing (Eds),

Ernstential-phenomenological pogspe_ctives in pﬂchology: Exploring the brgdth of
huoyao emrienoo. 276-289. New York: Plenum Press.

Fischer, J ., & Corcoran, K. (Eds). (1994). Measures for clinical practice: A sourceboojl;
New York: The Free Press.

Freidson, E. (1966). Disability as a social deviance. In M. B. Sussman (Ed). Sociology
go rehQilitation. The American Sociological Association.

Gadamer, H. (1976). Philosophical homengtios. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.

Geller, V., & Shaver, P. (1976). Cognitive consequences of self-awareness. Joom_al of
Experimental Social Pachology, 12, 99-108.

Gennup, A (1960). The rites of pasgge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Got‘ﬁnan, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the maggoroent of smiled identity. New York:
Simon and Schuster Inc.

 

Gordon, P. A, Feldman, D., & Crose, R. (1998). The meaning of disability: How women
with chronic illness view their experiences. The Journal of Rehabilitatjop, 64, 5-11.

Gordon, C. (1968). Self-conceptions: Conﬁgurations of content. In C. Gordon and K.
Gergen (Eds). The selfin social interaction. New York: Wiley.

Gouvier, W. D., Coon, R C., Todd, M. E., & Fuller, K. (1994). Verbal interactions with
individuals presenting with and without physical disability. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 39, 263-267.

Grand, S., Bernier, J ., & Strohmer, D. (1982). Attitudes toward disabled persons as a
function of social context and speciﬁc disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27, 165-
173.

158

Golin, A (1970). Stimulus variables in the measurement of attitudes toward disability.
Rehabm' 'tation Counseling Bulletm,’ 14, 20-26.

Hahn, H. (1993). The politics of physical difference: Disability and discrimination. In M.

Nagler (Ed). Perspectives on disability, 145-165. Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets
Research.

Harvey, D., & Greenway, A. (1984). The self-concept of physically handicapped children
and their non-handicapped siblings: An empirical investigation. 1m of Child
Pychology and chhigry gd Allig Disciplines, 25, 273-284.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

Heise, D. (1965). Semantic differential proﬁles for 1,000 most ﬁequent english words.
Psychological Monogrgaphs, 79, 1-31.

Heppner, P., Kivlighan, D., & Wampold, B., (1992). Rﬂamh design in counseling.
Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Hershenson, D. B. (1992). Conceptions of disability: Implications for rehabilitation.

Rehabilitgion Counseling Bulletio, 35, 154-161.

Hewitt, J. p. (2000). Self and socioty: A symbolic interactionist social psychology, (8‘h
ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hewitt, J. P. (1984). Self and sociog: A smabolic interactionist WON
ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 

 

Ickes, W., Layden, M. A, & Barnes, R (1978). Objective self-awareness and
individuation: An empirical link. Joumal of Personalig, 46, 146-161.

Inoue, S. (1980). Interactions and interpretations in everyday life. In N. K. Denzin (Ed).
Studies in mm interaction: A rese_arch Annual. (V 01. 3). 4-16. Greenwich, CN:
JAI Press.

Jackson, D. (1974). Personalig research form manoal. Goshen, NY: research
Psychologists Press.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Kelly, G. A (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. (Vol. 1). New York: Norton.

Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How mgiy subjects: Statistical power analysis
in research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

159

Krahe, B. (1992). Personalig and 5&3] psychology: Towards a mthesis. London: Sage
Publications.

Krahe, B. (1990). Situation cogm'tion aodcoherence in personalig. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

 

Laing, R D. (1967). The politics of experience. New York: Ballantine Books.

Laing, R D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. (1966). W New York:
Harper and Row.

Laing, R D. (1965). The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness. New
York: Penguin Books.

Lewin, K. (193 5). W New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liesener, J ., & Mills, J. (1999). An experimental study of disability spread: Talking to an

adult in a wheelchair like a child. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2083-
2092.

Linkowski, D., & Dunn, M. (1974). Self-concept and acceptance of disability.
Roﬂilitation Counseling Bullet—in 18, 28-33.

Livneh, H., & Antonak, R (1997). Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and
disability. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Livneh, H., & Antonak, R (1990). Reactions to disability: An empirical investigation of
their nature and structure. Journals of Applied Roﬂbilitation Counseling, 2], 13-21.

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

Magnusson, D. (Ed.). (1981). Toward a psychology of situations. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Magnusson, D., & Ekehammar, B. (1973). Perceptions and reactions to stressful
situations. J ourn_al_of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1147-1154.

Maki, D. R, & Riggar, T. F. (1997). Rehﬂilitation cogseling: Profession and pgctice.
New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Marinelli, R P. (1974). State anxiety in interactions with visibly disabled persons.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 18,72-77.

May, R. (1983). The discovery of beiogLNew York: W. W. Norton and Company.

160

May, R, Angel, E., & Ellenberger, H. (eds). (1958). Existence: A new dimension in
psychology and psychiag. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind- self and socieg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mertler, C ., & Vannatta, R (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods.
Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.

Merleau-Ponty, M (1989). Phenomenology and po rooption. Gainesville, FL: The Florida
State University Press.

Michigan Census Bureau. (2000). Michigan disability census data. [On-Line]. Available:
www.factﬁnder.census.gov/

Moos, R (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care
settings. Journal of Vocational Bemvior, 31, 231-247.

Murphy, R, Scheer, J ., Murphy, Y., & Mack, R (1988). Physical disability and social

lirninality: A study in the rituals of adversity. Social Science and Medim' e, 26, 235-
242.

Newcomb, T. (1959). Sociﬂ psyohology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Newton, R, & Rudestarn, K (1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Olkin, R, & Howson, L. (1994). Attitudes toward and images of physical disability.
Joornal of Social Behavior mpmma 81-96.

 

 

Ormrod, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J ., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Ozer, D. (1986). onsisten in erso ' :A methodolo 'cal framework. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.

Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An
integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Perlman, L., & Hylbert, K. (1969). Identifying potential dropouts at a rehabilitation
center. Rehabilitation CounselingBulletin, 13. 217-225.

Pervin, L. (1981). The relation of situations to behavior. In D. Magnusson (Ed), Towargd
a pgchology of situations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

161

Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1999). Basic vocational rehabilitation services.

[On-Line]. Oﬁices of Spooial Education and Rehabilitative Services. United States
Dopartment of Education. Available: www.cdgov/oﬁices/OSERS/RSA/rsahtml.

Richardson, R (1983). Children’s values in regard to disabilities: A reply to Yuker.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 72-77.

Rommetveit, R (1981). On meanings of situations and social control of such meaning in

human communication. In D. Magnusson (Ed), Toward a psychology of situations.
241 -256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Russell, B. (1940). An ingtray' into mm’ag and truth. New York: Norton.

Saﬁlios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The m’ology and social pgchology of Q'sabiligg and
rehabilitation. New York: Random House.

Samuel, V., & Dollinger, S. (1989). Self-focused attention and the recognition of
psychological implications. Jooraal of Psychology, 123, 623-635.

Scheier, M. F. (1980). Effects of public and private self-consciousness on the public

expression of personal beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social chhology, 39, 514-
521.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A revised version
for use with the general public. Journal of Applied Social Pachology, 15, 687-699.

Schlenker, B. (1986). Self-identiﬁcation: Toward an integration of the public and private
self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed), Public self and private self. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Schonert-Reichle, K. (1994). Gender differences in depressive symptomatology and
egocentrism in adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence. 14. 49-65.

Sethi, M., & Sen, A. (1981). A comparative study of orthopedically handicapped children
with their normal peers on some psychological variables. Personality Study aod ﬁtoup
Behavior, 1, 83-95.

Shaﬁ‘er, J. (1978). Humanistic pgchology. Englewood Cliﬁ‘s, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Shibutani, T. (1961). Socigy and personality: An intmctionist approach to socig
psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Shontz, F. (1991). Six principles relating disability and psychological adjustment. In R. P.

Marinelli & A. E. Dell Orto, (Eds), The psychological and social impact of disability.
(3rd ed), 107-111. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

162

Shontz, F. (1975). The pyohologig aspects of physigai illness and disabilay' ' . New
York: Macmillan.

Simon, R W. (1997). The meanings individuals attach to role identities and their
implications for mental health. JoumaLof Health and Social Behavior. 384 256-274.

Smith-Hanen, S., S. (1976). Socialization of the physically handicapped. Joumal of
Applied raﬁbilitation Cooasoling, 7, 131-141.

Snyder, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technigoe. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.

Snyder, M. (1983). The inﬂuence of individuals on situations: Implications for
understanding the links between personality and social behavior. Journal of

Pergnality, 51, 497-5 16.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personalioz
and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Spinelli, E. (1989). The interpreted world: An introduction to phenomenological
psychology, London: Sage Publications.

Strohmer, D. C., Grand, 8., & Purcell, M. (1984). Attitudes toward persons with a
disability: An examination of demographic factors, social context, and speciﬁc
disability. Rehabilitation Psﬂhology, 29, 131-145.

Sussman, M. B. (Ed). (1966). Sociology and rehabilitation The American Sociological
Association.

Thornton, B., & Moore, S. (1993). Physical attractiveness contrast eﬂ‘ect: Irnplications
for self-esteem and evaluations of the social self. Personality _aao Social Psychology
Bull ° 19 474-480.

Thomas, K. R, Butler, A. J ., & Davis, R. M. (1979). Semantic differentiation of meaning
with the physically disabled. Rehabilitation Counseling Bullo’o'o, 23, 48-57.

Thomas, K. R, & Britton, J. O. (1971). Connotative meaning as a function of

adventitious vs. congenital disability. Journal of Applied RehQilitation Counseling._1_,
4 1 -45.

Trieschmann, R (1999). The energy model: A new approach to rehabilitation. In R P.
Marinelli & A. E. Dell Orto, (Eds), The pﬂchological and sociﬂ impact of disability.
(4“1 ed), 55-64. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Trieschmann, R. (1988). Spinal cord injories: Psychological, social, and vooational
rehabilitation. (2mi ed). New York: Demos.

I63

Tringo, J. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. JouM of
Sm'al ﬂucatioa, 4, 295-306.

Turner, V. (1979). “Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage.” In W.
Lessa, & E. Vogt. (Eds) Reader in Comparative Religion. (4th ed) 79-91 New
York: Harper and Row

United States Census Bureau. (2000). United states disability data. [On-Line]. Available:
www.census. gov/hhes/www/disable/census/tables/tab l st.html.

Valle, R, & Hailing, S. (Eds). (1989). Existential-phenomenological perspectivos in
psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Vash, C. L. (1981). The pgchology of digbility. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.

Watson, D., & Friend, R (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Cogdting and Cm '@ Pgohology. 33, 448-457.

Watts, A W. (1961). Psychotherapy east and west. New York: Mentor.
Watts, A W. (1951). The wisdom of hwy . New York: thage Books.

Weinberg-Asher, N. (197 6). The effect of physical disability on self-perception.
Rehabilitadon CounselingBulletin. 20, 15-20.

Wesolowski, M., & Deichmann, J. (1980). Physiological activity and attitudes toward
disabled persons. Rehﬂilitation Coonseling Bulletin. 23, 218-226.

Whiteman, M., & Lukoﬂ‘, I. (1965). Attitudes toward blindness and other physical
handicaps. Joumal of Social Psychology, 66, 135-145.

Wicklund, R. A, & Duval, S. (1971). Opinion change and performance facilitation as a
result of objective self-awareness. Journg of Experimenarl Social Psychology, 7, 319-
342.

Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability. A psychosocial approach. (2“d ed). New York:
Harper Collins.

Wright, B. A. (1980). Person and situation: Adjusting the rehabilitation focus.
Archives of Physical Madam e and Rehabilitatioo, 61, 59-64.

Wright, G. N. (1980). Totd rehabilitation. Boston: Little, Brown.

Yuker, H. (1983). The lack of a stable order of preference of disabilities: A response to
Richardson and Ronald. Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 93-103.

164

Zola, I. K. (1991). Bringing our bodies and ourselves back in: Reﬂections on a past,
present, and ﬁrture “medical sociology.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32. 1-
l6.

Zweig, D., & Brown, S. (1985). Psychometric evaluation of a written stimulus
presentation format for the social interaction self-statement test. Cogr_1itive Therapy

W2. 285-295.

165