Imzuég..l .111"! M if! LIE/l; W! I

38

    
   

OVERHUF. FINES ARE 23C DER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO PARENT

HANDICAPPER CHILDREN

BY

Leonard Paul Sawisch

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1978

ABSTRACT

EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO PARENT
HANDICAPPER CHILDREN

BY

Leonard Paul Sawisch

By contrasting discussions of prejudice with
current and historial conceptualizations of attitudes
toward handicappers, the opening chapters presented
fundamental paradoxes in determining the existance of
negative valuation of handicappers. The purpose of
this study was to demonstrate the negative valuation
of handicapper children, the socially stereotyped manner
in which such negative valuation occurred, and some
factors that could tend to mask or mediate the expres-
sion of negative valuation. This was done by asking
potential parents their willingness to parent various
types of children.

Two hundred twenty college students who had
expressed a desire to have children rated 11 descriptions
of children (1 tab description and 10 handicapper des-
criptions) on four scales of expressed willingness to
parent. Each scale represented a different parenting
behavior or context suggesting progressively closer

personal social distance, i.e. willingness to adopt,

Leonard Paul Sawisch

to avoid conception, to abort, and to place for adoption.
A fifth scale was used to assess attitudes toward each
of the four parenting contexts.

Results indicated the existance of common pre-
ference hierarchies (stereotyped preference patterns) in
each parenting context except place for adOption. In all
four parenting contexts, however, the tab child was
rated more positively than any of the handicapper chil-
dren. More importantly, a correlational analysis
suggested that in each parenting context the handicapper
children were responded to as components of a common
cluster distinct from the tab child. This was inter-
preted as additional evidence of socially stereotyped
negative valuation of handicapper children.

Finally, the parenting contexts were shown to be
significant factors in influencing ratings and in fact
were proportionately more influential than the child
descriptions. This was especially true of the place
for adoption context, in which very little differentia-
tion in ratings between tab and handicapper descriptions
or among handicapper descriptions occurred. Although it
was assumed that the mediation of ratings would be
directly related to the personal social distance implied
by the parenting context, this did not prove to be the

case. In general, however, the context in which

Leonard Paul Sawisch

attitudes toward handicapper children were ellicited did
prove to have a significant masking or mediating effect.
These results were discussed in the context of current
conceptions of attitudes toward handicappers, with
implications for future research, social programs, and

social change.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURE . . . . . . .
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . .
II TERMINOLOGY . . . . . .
III A DISPARITY IN THE LITERATURE
Mainstream Conceptualizations of
and Stigmatization . .
The Handicapper Literature Perspective
Implications for Self Valuation
IV THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATE NEGATIVE ATTITUDE
V THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE
NEGATIVE ATTITUDE . . .
VI EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF STEREOTYPIC
OF HANDICAPPERS . . . .
General Classification Stereotypes
Characteristic Specific StereOptypes .
General Classification Stereotypes vs
Characteristic Specific Stereotypes
VII DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES .
VIII METHOD . . . . . . . .

Subjects . . . . . .
Dependent Variables . .
Procedure . . . . . .

ii

Prejudice

REJECTION

Page

iv

10

11
15
16

19

33

39

39
40

43
46
53
S3

53
55

Chapter Page
IX RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Preference Hierarchies . . . . . . . 57
Parenting Context . . . . . . . . . 59

X DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
APPENDIX 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 81

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 Average Ranking of Child Descriptions by
Parenting Context with Kendall Coeffi-
cients of Concordance (W) . . . . . .

2 Mean Description Ratings by Context,
Indicating Significant Mean
Differences and F Ratios . . . . . .
3 Correlation Matrix For Adoption Scale . . .
4 Correlation Matrix For Avoid Conception Scale

5 Correlation Matrix For Abortion Scale . . .

6 Correlation Matrix For Place For Adoption
scale 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O

7 Squared Multiple (item-scale) Correlations
For Each Description in Each
Parenting Context . . . . . . . . .

8 Analysis of Variance Comparing Parenting
Context and Child Descriptions . . . .

9 Mean Ratings for the Expressed General
Affective Reaction to Parenting
Context Scale . . . . . . . . . .

10 Mean Inter-description Difference Analysis

of Variance with Mean Inter-description
me an s O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Page

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Page

1 Mean ratings of child descriptions by
parenting context . . . . . . . . . 68

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Paradox: In the midst of national campaigns to
promote positive attitudes towards individuals classified
as defective (e.g. the White House Conference On Handi-
capped Individuals), there are concurrent national
campaigns to "wipe out birth defects."

The ethics of eugenics and euthanasia are
classical questions in our culture (Fletcher, 1973).
Recent discussions, however, indicate a shift from
whether-or-not questions to how-do-we-decide-who ques-
tions (Ausubal, Beckwith & Kaaren, 1974; Hall & Cameron,
1976). Relative to children defined in terms of physi-
cal and/or mental characteristics considered to be
defective, the questions appear to be already answered.

Many peOple argue that all children have a right
to be born normal (e.g. Katz, 1976). This "right" is
predicated on the current social value structure which
once it defines an individual as defective, l) construes
one's life to be a tragedy (Katz, 1976); 2) conceptual-
izes one's existance as a burden on society and the
future of humankind (Etzioni, 1973); 3) sees one's
presence as a negative influence on all family members

1

(Hilbourne, 1974); 4) defines one's body as defective
(Irwin, 1976); 5) expects one's personality to invariably
be thwarted (McFie & Robertsan, 1973); 6) views one's
educational needs as creating special problems (Bartel &
Guskin, 1971); 7) construes one's emotional needs for
human love and contact to be higher than usual (Sheridan,
1975); 8) defines one's potential for meaningful human-
hood to be especially low (Hall & Cameron, 1976); and

9) even before one is considered old enough to realize
what it means to be classified defective, expects one's
parents to experience a stereotyped constellation of
negative affective and behavioral responses (Apgar,

1969; Battle, 1974; Erickson, 1974; Mercer, 1974;
Pinkerton, 1970; Poznanski, 1973).

Although this area has been accused of excessive
negative bias (Wershaw, 1963) and individuals considered
to be defective have consistently reported life satis-
faction equal to that of individuals who are not con-
sidered to be defective (Cameron, Hoeck, Weiss, & Kostin,
1971; Cameron, Titus, Kostin, & Kostin, 1973; Cameron,
1974), many pe0p1e feel it is in the best interests of
such children and society that they not be born, or if
born, not be "forced" to live (e.g. The Hardest Choice,
TIME, 1974; Shall This Child Die?, NEWSWEEK, 1973).
However, those children who have apparently been denied

this "right to be normal" are not necessarily ignored.

While other children are provided with supportive ser-
vices including formal education to facilitate their
adaptation, "defective" children are provided with
supportive services including formal special education
to facilitate their acceptance of and adjustment to
their situation; to help compensate for their defects.

This difference in emphasis further examplifies
the negative valuation of children classified as defec-
tive, and leads to the question of whether or not such
children have a right to positive self-esteem or to
positive self valuation. Note the paradox stated pre-
viously. If it was somehow better that one not be born,
or not be forced to live, then what kind of attitudes
toward that individual are justified?

It is the intent of this review to argue that
the existing literature provides only confusing and
biased answers to this question. In addition, I intend
to demonstrate why this confusion and bias exists, and
how it is manifested in expressed attitudes toward

parenting children classified as defective.

CHAPTER II

TERMINOLOGY

Because of the vast literature and research in
this area, the literature review will focus primarily
on discussion relative to individuals with physical
characteristics labeled as "defects," although it should
be noted that much of the basic tenants of this disser-
tation are equally applicable to individuals with mental
characteristics labeled as ”defects."

Individuals with physical characteristics
labeled defective are discussed in the psychological,
sociological, rehabilitation, special education, and
medical literatures under various headings. As a group,
labeled defective individuals are referred to in three
basic ways: (1) by using comparative adjectives as
nouns (e.g., "the defective," "the disabled,” "the
handicapped"); (2) by using comparative adjectives as
modifying or qualifying individuals (e.g., "defective
individuals," "disabled individuals," "handicapped indi-
viduals"); and (3) by using comparative adjectives as
modifying or qualifying characteristics of individuals
(e.g., "individuals with a defect," "individuals with a

4

disability," "individuals with a handicap"). The follow-
ing comparative adjectives are representative of those
used in this manner: defective, disabled, handicapped,
malformed, deformed, afflicted, impaired, imperfect,
invalid, limited, anomolous, atypical and exceptional.
(For additional discussion see Lacatis, 1976; Meyerson,
1971; Wright, 1960.)

Individuals not so classified are referred to in
a somewhat different manner: (1) by using comparative
adjectives as nouns (e.g., "the normals," "the able-
bodied"); (2) by using comparative adjectives as modify-
ing or qualifying individuals (e.g., "normal individuals/'
"able-bodied individuals"); and (3) by negating com-
parative adjectives, such as those listed above, with
the prefix "non" (e.g., "the non-disabled," "non-
handicapped individuals"). Three points need to be made
here. First, rarely if ever is this group referred to
by using comparative adjectives as modifying or quali-
fying characteristics of individuals, such as "indi-
viduals with a normal" or "individuals with an
able-body." Second, with the exception of the use of
the prefix "non," the number of comparative adjectives
used is limited to two, i.e., "normal" and "able-bodied."
Finally, to this author's knowledge, terminology con-
ventions for this latter group have not been directly

discussed in the literature.

A strict classification and terminology conven-
tion, usually referenced in part to Hamilton (1950),
is cited in the literature (e.g., Battle, 1974; Hawke &
Auerbach, 1975; Meyerson, 1971; Wright, 1960). This
convention, known as the Medical Deficit Model, stresses
the importance of making the following distinctions:
(l) Defect--the actual characteristic or manifestation
of abnormality, assumed to be detectable and definable

by qualified physicians. (2) Disability--the actual

 

functional impairments or limitations due to the defect,
also assumed detectable and definable by physicians.

(3) Handicap--the actual barriers imposed by the defect
or disability relative to achieving self and/or social
goals.

In fact, these terms typically are used inter-
changeably (especially "disability" and "handicap"),
even by some authors who cite this convention and request
precision in its use (e.g., Battle, 1974; Hawke & Auer-
bach, 1975). Stewart (1974) criticizes such inter-
changeability and lack of consistency. Because the
"best diagnosticians" often disagree, Stewart especially
criticizes research claiming distinctions between groups
supposedly classified according to the Medical Deficit
Model. Calling those who continue to misuse labeling
the "worst enemies," Stewart, claims this practice is

indicative of a pervasive lack of commitment on the part

of professionals to the real welfare of those being
labeled. When classification is deemed necessary, as
when determining needs for services, Stewart suggests it
be based on relevant behaviors, not body types. (For

an example of one such behavioral classification, see
Carlson, 1976.)

Aside from criticisms of inconsistency and lack
of objectivity, attention has been focused on the nega~
tive connotations of this terminology and resultant
stigmatization. Jones (1972) makes two interesting
observations with regard to stigmatization. First, few
systematic inquiries have been made into how labeled

children themselves perceive the labels. Jones notes

 

that children are aware of the negative connotations,
but often reject them as being descriptive of themselves.
Second, while there is research evidence and widespread
agreement (especially in special education) that deficit
labeling can result in lowered self-esteem and lowered
expectancies for labeled children, suprisingly few
teachers actually attempt to help students deal with this
negative influence, nor are they themselves profession-
ally prepared to deal with it.

Though not cited by Jones or most others who
have investigated this area, a potential solution to

this problem appeared almost 30 years ago. Noting the

emphasis on psychological counseling to deal with low
self-esteem, Brown (1948) reports that he and his col—
leagues found semantic training to be a highly effective
therapy technique. Brown claims low self-esteem in most
cases occurs because individuals confuse labels and
terminology with the characteristics they are meant to
signify and thus generalize the negative connotations to
the actual characteristics. With appropriate semantic
training, this problem, and thus low self-esteem, is
avoided. Brown also suggests that professionals receive
this training as they often make the same mistake. (See
also Lilly White, 1958.)

Throughout the remainder of this dissertation I
will use terminology developed and used in the State of
Michigan by politically and socially active individuals
with physical and/or mental characteristics labeled as
defective by wider society. These individuals refer
to themselves (when such classification is deemed neces-
sary) as "handicappers." Most dictionaries define
"handicapper" as one who determines or assigns advantages
and disadvantages, consistent with this group's goal of
not only labeling themselves, but defining themselves
(Taylor & Gentile, 1976). As a noun, the term Handi-
capper denotes a social classification rather than a

physiological evaluation and thus was chosen as the most

appropriate terminology for Michigan's Public Act 220,
the ”Handicapper Civil Rights Act" (effective April,
1977).

To maintain the integrity of this new terminology,
the non-handicapper population will be referred to as
"tabs" (temporarily able-bodied) indicating, in the
spirit of the more classic terminology, their potential
to become handicappers. (Logically, of course, all
individuals, relative to their current styles and modes
of functioning, are temporarily able-bodied.) Finally,
those physical and/or mental characteristics labeled as
defects by the tab majority and used to classify indi-
viduals as handicappers will be referred to as "charac-

teristics" or as "defining characteristics."

CHAPTER III

A DISPARITY IN THE LITERATURE

The negative attitudes and discrimination faced
by handicappers in our society are well documented (see
Boyd & Hartnett, 1975; Horn, 1976; Johnson & Heal, 1976;
Morgan, 1976; Parks, 1975). Given the amount of funding
and the number of programs and professionals in the area
(see Gellman, 1974), and the prOportion of handicappers
estimated in the population (25% of American adults and
15% of American children; Gliedman & Roth, 1976), one
might expect the handicapper literature to indicate a
fair understanding of both handicappers and attitudes
toward handicappers. However, Gliedman and Roth (1976)
contend that when the handicapper literature is compared
to the mainstream of psychological and social psychologi-
cal literature, this does not seem to be the case.

Gliedman and Roth claim that the handicapper area
is forty years behind the times, dominated by "living
fossils” of out-dated theories and methodologies. They
suggest that the disparity between the handicapper and
mainstream literatures can be understood in terms of
prejudice toward the stigmatization of handicappers.
Ironically, this point can be clarified by contrasting

10

11

discussions of the underlying dynamics of prejudice and
stigmatization in the mainstream and in the handicapper
literatures.

Mainstream Conceptualizations of Prejudice
and Stigmatization

 

 

Stimulated by a desire to understand the elitist
practices of facist Germany and Italy and to draw possi-
ble parallels with treatment of Jewish, Black, and other
minority citizens in America, investigations of the
underlying dynamics of prejudice and stigmatization
significantly increased after World War II. Initially,
Adorno and others focused on the authoritarian person-
ality (e.g., Adorno, Fenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, &
Sanferd, 1950), assuming that certain personality types
embodied and embracedethnocentrimnand racism, or preju-
dice in general. Currently prejudice is veiwed as a
product of socio-cultural factors that perhaps result in
specific personality types.

Goffman (1963) provides a widely cited discussion
of prejudice through the process of stigmatization. He
contends that nearly everybody at some point has the

experience of playing both the role of stigmatized

 

individual (and/or group member) and the role of

stigmatizing individual (and/or social agent). However,

 

Goffman notes that people have a tendency to make either/

or attributions concerning stigmas and stigmatization,

12

and thus a tendency to deny that their insight into

this process is due to a commonality of experiences.

For this reason, when he defines stigmas (i.e. defining
characteristics) as attributes that are deeply dis-
crediting, Goffman cautions that specific situations and
related norms must be considered, i.e., "a language of
relationships, not attributes, is needed" (p. 3). At
best, one can only discuss how often an individual or

an attribute will be stigmatized.

Although Goffman describes three different types
of stigmas (body attributes, character attributes, and
tribal attributes like race or religion), he explains
that for each the same sociological features are found.
"By definition, of course, we believe the person with a
stigma is not quite human" (p. 5). Based on this
assumption, a stigma-theory is constructed to explain
the inferiority and thus justify discrimination and
mistreatment. Goffman further notes that when a stig-
matized individual defends against mistreatment, it may
be seen as a direct expression of his or her defect,
and therefore additional justification for the original
mistreatment.

Prejudice through stigmatization is thus a
social phenomenon, assumed to exist to the extent
classification/justification norms are learned and

applied. Such norms both encourage classification by

13

certain defining characteristics and justify attribu-
tions of inferiority and sub-humanhood based on these
characteristics. Because of underlying similarities,
these norms or stigma-theories can be reduced to a common

structure composed of two paradoxical rules.

RULE ONE: It is abnormal for the abnormal to
to be normal, i.e., it is normal for the abnormal to
be abnormal. Using the concept of competency as an
example, the stigmatized individual is expected to either
be incompetent or over-competent, but never simply com-
petent. Stereotypes of blacks often describe them as
incompetent intellectually and over-competent sexually.
Similarly behavior may be qualified in terms of defining
characteristics such as "Amelia Erharts's transatlantic
flight was an outstanding achievement, for a woman."

RULE TWO: It is abnormal for the abnormal to
not want to be normal, i.e. it is normal for the abnor-
mal to want to be normal. In direct contradiction to
rule one, the stigmatized person is expected to have
strong motivation to be normal. A classic example is
Freudian sex role identification for women, where the
young female is assumed to realize she is abnormal with-
out a penis, and wanting to be normal, is motivated by
penis envy to identify with her mother. Females who do

not show penis envy (i.e., don't want to be normal) are

l4

assumed to be maladjusted. Similar logic explains why
blacks were expected to use skinlighteners, why tomboys
are more acceptable than sissies, and why homosexuals
who do not seek a cure are considered by many to have

a double need for therapy.

Application of these rules occurs once the
attribution of inferiority and sub-humanhood is justi-
fied by the presence or assumed presence of the defining
characteristics in question (Hentig, 1948). The purpose
is obvious; any behavior of a stigmatized person can
be considered abnormal (Dunham, 1962). By extension,
any attitude toward and/or treatment of such individuals
can be justified (see Hoyt, 1973, for excellent examples
in employment situations).

Defining characteristics, then, play a central
role in the prejudice process. Allport (1957) also
notes the tendency to justify prejudice on the "objective"
basis of defining characteristics. Like Goffman, Allport
cautions that identified defining characteristics pro-

vide a condensation point for negative attitudes and so

 

aid, rather than account for prejudice. "The repug-
nance we feel is only slightly, if at all, traceable
to the visible difference--our rationalizations to the

contrary not—withstanding" (p. 137).

15

The Handicapper Literature
Perspective

 

 

In discussing negative attitudes and behaviors
in the handicapper literature, the role of defining
characteristics is conceptualized differently. Wright
(1960, 1974) among others (e.g., Davis, 1961; Dembo,
et al., 1973), refers to the "spread phenomena." This
assumes that negative attitudes toward the defining
characteristic are themselves justified (i.e. , the charac-
teristics are objective manifestations of inferiority) ,
but are inappropriately spread (or generalized) beyond
it. Basically this means that negative attitudes do not

simply arise from external sources and condense around

 

defining characteristics; the process is assumed to work
in reverse with appropriate negative attitudes arising
from some intrinsically inferior quality of the defining

characteristic and then spreading beyond it.

 

In a series of studies, Whiteman and Luckoff
found that the defining characteristic "blindness" was
rated significantly more negative than a person with
the characteristic, "blind person" (Luckoff & Whiteman,
1961; Whiteman & Luckoff, 1960, 1962). Using "amputee"
and "person missing a leg" Siller (1965) reported
similar findings. In an expanded study, Whiteman and
Luckoff (1965) reported similar findings with "physical
handicap/physically handicapped person" and "blindness/

blind person," and noted the characteristics alone were

16

significantly different from each other, but ratings of
persons with the characteristics were not. These data
have been used as indirect support for the spread pheno-
menon, indicating that a negative attitude toward a
defining characteristic does not directly parallel nega-

tive attitudes toward a person with the characteristic.

Implications for Self Valuation

 

The implications of this difference in perceived
role of defining characteristics for self valuation go be-
yond theory and so should be discussed. Using the spread
model, an individual must accept a certain amount of in-
feriority. In addition the individual must accept that a
certain amount of negative social reaction is appropriate,
specifically when related to defining characteristics. The
person need not accept total inferiority and so must guard
against spread. Using the Goffman or prejudice model an
individual need not accept any inferiority. The person need
only accept, specifically relating to defining characteris-
tics, difference from (not inferiority to) social norms.

These two orientations of self valuation relate
to the history of various minority groups in this
country. Premovement behaviors such as use of hair
straighteners and skin lighteners by blacks, passive
compliance to submissive roles by females, and extensive
analysis and therapy by homosexuals are consistent with

accepting a certain amount of self inferiority and

17

negative social treatment as justified. Movement be-
haviors such as Black Power, WOmen's Rights and Gay
Pride are consistent with accepting difference from but
not inferiority to social norms.

Clearly this later orientation is more conducive
to development and maintanence of positive self-esteem.
Those using the spread approach do not totally ignore
this point; they often condone a practice of degradation
and devaluation of others (usually other handicappers)
as an alternative:finrdeveloping and maintaining positive
self-esteem (see Bettelhiem and Janowitz, 1950, for
discussion of condoned prejudice as a homeostatic
technique).

Claiming that everybody has defects of some sort,
and "I'm not quite O.K., but then you're not quite O.K.
either" orientation is prompted in the handicapper
literature. Of course if everyone has a defect it
would make no logical sense to bother classifying
children or adults as defective in the first place.
Because this orientation relies on the acceptance of
self inferiority, it seems more likely to encourage
prejudice than to build or maintain self-esteem.

Wright (1974) uses this self inferiority, other
inferiority orientation to encourage integration of
different handicappers in rehabilitation settings, but

concedes that this is difficult to maintain outside the

18

rehabilitation setting. She claims that neither negative
attitudes nor derogatory comparisons on physical bases
can be totally eliminated because tabs invariably view
handicappers from a "biologically advantaged" position.
Handicapper children are similarly encouraged to use
this self defeating orientation through comments like:
“be thankful you are only (defining characteristic), and
not worse off like children who are (different defining
characteristic)."

While many lay individuals and professionals
condone this derogation, it takes on special signifi—
_cance within and between handicapper sub-groups. Blind
separatists claim "Blindness is a characteristic, thank
God we're not crippled or deaf, etc." Deaf separatists
claim "Deafness is a damn inconvenience, but thank God
we're not blind or crippled, etc." Dwarf separatists
claim "We're not crippled or handicapped, we're just
little people." However, even among separatist leaders
it is common knowledge that degradation of handicappers
exists within sub-groups (Safilios-Rothschild, 1968),
such as blind vs partially sighted; oralists vs

manualists; and achondroplasts vs midgets.

CHAPTER IV

THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATE NEGATIVE
ATTITUDE

Underyling the different conceptualizations of
the role of defining characteristics is the assumption
of actual inferiority vs assumed or prescribed inferior-
ity. The Goffman model assumes that negative attitudes
(NA) are a function of prejudice and stigmatization
(P,S), or NA = f (P,S). The Wright model assumes that
negative attitudes are a function of appropriate nega-
tive attitudes (ANA) and a function of spread of appro-
priate negative attitudes, or NA = f (ANA) + s (ANA).
The Wright model posses two unique constraints; how
much negative attitude is appropriate and how is the
apprOpriate negative attitude justified. The question
of how much negative attitude is appropriate has been
a point of contention since the beginning of the formal
study of handicappers.

In 1940 Krammerer claimed to do the first
empirical investigation of the psychology of "crippled"
children. Reviewing the last twenty years of what he
called the untested "Literature of Opinion,” Krammerer

noted general agreement that "crippling" resulted in

19

20

personality maladjustment. However, he noted a split
over why it resulted. About half the authors reviewed
used an Adlerian organic inferiority approach, assuming
that any organic inferiority intrinsically caused
maladjustment. The remaining authors assumed that mal-
adjustment was in large caused by "unwise" social and
familial influences. All the authors, including
Kammerer, did agree on the need to cure patients of
organic deficits, and the need to facilitate adjustment
to those deficits that could not be cured.

The closing of World War II brought further
establishment of a funded national policy concerning
handicappers i.e., rehabilitation (Safilios-Rothschild,
1971). The goal of rehabilitation was to cure individ-
uals of as much differentness as possible, then help
develop salealbe work skills on the basis of what could
not be cured. This further established medical pro-
fessionals as the experts in the handicapper area, and
clearly cast handicappers as "medical problems." In
addition to providing the framework for more funded and
formal study of handicappers, a major precedent of
discrimination was established.

While thousands of jobs were created by the
federal subsidies to the rehabilitation industries,
these new jobs were ironically closed to handicapper

applicants, especially at administrative levels. This

21

precedent was not significantly broken until 1975, when
pressure from a group of radical handicappers at Berkley
resulted in the appointment of Ed Roberts as California's
Executive Director of Rehabilitation (Downey, 1975).

Early in 1948 the Journal of Social Issues de-
voted its entire fourth issue to an overview of the
growing field of the psychology of handicappers, replete
with the same theoretical split noted by Krammerer. As
an addition, many of the non-Adlerian authors claimed to
base their perspectives on the work of Kurt Lewin. As
before, the disagreements were over the relative influ-
ence of social factors on the process of adjustment to
biological deficits.

Because these early experts agreed on the essen-
tial organic inferiority of defining characteristics (as
reflected in the early federa1.programs). they also agreed
on the existance of appropriate negative attitudes.
Their major difference was the amount of spread each
side would allow. The Adlerian authors believed appro-
priate negative attitudes were strong enough to justify
self-rejection and maladjustment. Therefore there was
little justification for explaining negative attitudes
and behaviors in terms of prejudice and stigmatization,
or even spread; i.e., NA = f (ANA).

The social and Lewinian authors contended that

the intrinsic impact of appropriate negative attitudes

22

did not account for everything. To these authors the
Adlerian approach seemed to avoid social factors by
allowing too much spread. As with Wright, however, the
social and Lewinian authors assumed a significant amount
of negative attitude as appropriate, given that their
attention to social factors was primarily applied to
facilitating the acceptance/adjustment process, rather
than focusing on changing social values. (If NA = f
(ANA) + s (ANA), then the relative emphasis on individual
adjustment vs social change must depend on the amount of
negative attitude assumed to be appropriate.)

There is ample evidence that this early theo-
retical disagreement is not yet resolved. Stappleworth
(1974) accuses special education of a similar lack of
emphasis on social influences as characterized by the
Adlerian authors, suggesting it is past time to analyze
the environment with the same intensity as deficits
purportedly caused by internal factors. More impor-
tantly, medical rehabilitation facilities have been
especially slow to consider social factors in early
rehabilitation (Haber & Smith, 1971). Significant
empirical investigations of such social influences are
relatively recent (e.g., Bynder & New, 1976; Clum,

1975; Hawke & Auerbach, 1975; Hyman, 1975; Lane, Dorfman
& Demopoulos, 1974; Wan, 1974). According to Jones

(l972)‘at least special education teachers are cognizant

23

of the existance and impact of the stigma faced by their
students, even if very few offer assistance with how to
deal with it}(see also Chaiklin & Warfield, 1973).

This historic emphasis on adjustment and its
contemporary manifestations has also come under strong
attack. Gliedman and Roth (1976) claim that "adjustment
psycholgoists" in the name of helping handicappers,
"systematically set out to mutilate the spirit of their
clients" (p. 29. In particular, Gliedman and Roth con-
tend that the authors claiming to base their adjustment
approaches on Lewinian models are prime examples of the
handicapper area being behind the times (i.e., Barker
et al., 1953; Battle, 1974; Dembo et al., 1973; Kissin,
1971; Meyerson, 1948, 1971; Wright, 1960, 1974).
{Ironically, they note, the actual writings of Lewin
clearly call for handicappers to fight for changes in

.

the culture; not to adjust to the culture.‘

.4

vb ,,

During the 1950's the question over the amount
of negative attitude assumed to be appropriate took on

an additional form centered aroundw@hether or not handi-

"‘\
7

cappers could be considered a true minority.f Though
this debate received increased attention throughout the
1960's due to increased attention to minorities in
general, Ehe :issue still remains} One side of the
debate contends that the noted similarities between

handicappers and other minorities do not warrant

24

according handicappers real minority status (e.g.,
Alberecht, 1976; Barker et al., 1953; Davis, 1961;
Dembo et al., 1973; Jordan, 1963; Kriegel, 1969;
Langer, Fiske, Taylor, & Chanowitz, 1976; Meyerson, 1948;
1971; Roeher, 1961; Telford & Sawrey, 1967; Wright, 1960,
1974). The other side contends these similarities do
warrant, with some qualifications, according handicappers
minority status (e.g., Berreman, 1954; Cameron et al.,
1971; Chesler, 1965; Conine, 1969; Downer, 1975; Fordyce,
1968; Gellman, 1959; Gliedman & Roth, 1976; Goffman,
1963; Yuker, Block, & Young, 1970; Zych & Bolton, 1972).
It is in fact this issue which underlies Gliedman
and Roth's criticism of the handicapper area in general.
Most programs, policies and professionals relating to
handicappers reflect the classical Wright typological
approach with a heavy emphasis on the need to facilitate
the acceptance/adjustment process. With general recog-
nition and acceptance of the minority status of handi-
cappers, this heavy emphasis on adjustment would be seen
as prejudicial. Specifically, the problems faced by
handicappers would then be perceived as social problems
to be ameliorated through social action; rather than
medical and related problems which must be dealt with

via the acceptance/adjustment process.

25

The essence of this 25-year-old controversy is
well illustrated by contrasting the views of Gliedman
and Roth with those of Alberecht (1976) and Langer et
a1. (1976). {Because they believe attitudes toward true
minorities are characterized by Open hostility (explained
by prejudice), Alberecht and Langer et al., like Wright,
claim handicappers are not a true minority. These
authors contend that attitudes toward handicappers are
characterized by ambivalence and so are best explained
by spread. (Specifically, handicappers (or at least their
defining characteristics) are novel stimuli; their
presence causes a break in expectancies and thus
increased orientation or emphasis on their differentness.
This over-emphasis can result in inappropriate expec-
tancies and behaviors (i.e., Spread). However, under-
lying attitudes are assumed to be positive in general.
Apparent negative attitudes and behaviors, such as
complete avoidance, are merely the manifestations of
this ambivalent approach/avoidance conflict.

[This would explain, for example, why handicapper
children are apparently treated more positively than
handicapper adults; i.e., general expectancies relative
to children are considerably less stringent and demanding
than expectancies relative to adults. Supposedly, this
discrepancy between treatment of handicapper adults and

children does not exist relative to members of true]

26

minorities, (Battle, 1974; Jordan, 1963; Roeher, 1961;
Siller, 1975; Telford & Sawrey, 1967).

While many other differences have been noted, the
apparent lack of open hostility and presence of ambiva-
lent attitudes and behaviors represent the most consis-
tent themes sited to reject handicapper minority status.
Based on their own and other empirical observations
(e.g., Comer & Piliavin, 1972; Kleck, 1968; Kleck & Horn,
1975; Kleck, Ono, & Hastorf, 1966; Luckoff & Whiteman,
1961; Whiteman & Luckoff, 1960, 1962, 1965), Alberecht
and Langer et al. conclude that neither an Adlerian
Type approach based on an intrinsic fear of becoming a
handicapper (e.g., Novak & Lerner, 1968) nor a preju-
dice type approach based on learned hostility (e.g.,
Goffman, 1963) explain actual attitudes and behaviors
as parsimoniously as a novelty/spread approach.

Predictably, these authors recommend that the
public be educated to form more realistic expectancies.
This they assume will reduce the novel stimulus value
of handicappers and thus minimize spread of appropriate
negative attitudes. In addition they recommend handi-
cappers be educated to realize and accept that most
apparent negative social responses are simply a func-
tion of their own novel stimulus value. By under-
standing the real reasons for apparent negative social

reactions, personal adjustment will be enhanced and, by

27

controlling breaks in expectancies, the probability of
positive social interactions will be increased.

Gliedman and Roth (1976) strongly support the
minority status of handicappers, claiming that the
pervasive prejudice toward handicappers is due to the
paradoxical role of handicappers in the mainstream of
society. Based on Talcott Parsons' description of the
sick role in America, they contend that handicappers are
cast in a variant sick role. Lpnce classified as "sick,"
handicappers are relieved of all adult responsibilities
and expectancies (i.e., a loss of power and control),
as are all sick individuals. However, as other sick
individuals are redefined as powerful in that they are
expected to concentrate all their energies on "getting
well," handicappers are not expected to have this power
or control, i.e. they are defined as powerless all the
way around.

The variant sick role is a stigma theory. Once
the attribution of inferiority is made--once the handi-
capper is classified as "sick" or as having something
medically "wrong,"--application of the two stigma rules
becomes justifiable. Because the attribution of infer-
iority is based on a relatively stable characteristic,
it is abnormal for the individual to become normal. By
not expecting or allowing the individual to assume adult

responsibilities (or child responsibilities related to

28

becoming an adult), the individual cannot be an adult
(i.e., normal). This is stigma rule number one. Para-
doxically, by attributing the responsbility of "getting
well" to the individual, the variant sick role implies
it is inappropriate for a handicapper to not want to

get well (i.e., normal), which is rule two.

In view of this analysis, the apparent lack of
hostility and presence of ambivalance may be due to
social sanctions against open expressions of hostility
and negative attitudes toward individuals who are sick
and thus not responsible for their immediate behavior.
Ferina et a1. (1966) have noted that social constraints
can significantly reduce such expressions in limited
situations without actually changing underlying atti-
tudes. As Goffman noted, "The attitudes we normals
have toward a person with a stigma, and the actions we
take in regard to him, are well known, since these
responses are what benevolent social action is designed
to soften and ameliorate" (p. 5).

Note for example unwritten rules like "don't
hit kids with glasses," "don't fight with girls," and
"don't make fun of crippled kids, they can't help it."
DeBartolo (1975) humorously illustrates such a sanction
in a recent satire. When a probing reporter asks if a
scientist did indeed have the body of a fly, the

scientist's brother responds, "Well, he wasn't exactly

29

Mr. America. But I don't think it's nice to point out

 

defects in other peOple!" (emphasis added by DeBartolo).

 

In this context the common advice to handicapper chil-
dren that teasers are only showing their ignorance takes
on a second meaning. Teasers are not ignorant because
they treat handicappers as if they are inferior; teasers
are ignorant because they apparently do not know that

there is a social sanction against openly indicating the

 

inferiority or defects of handicappers. Among others,
activists in the women's movement claim that such covert
hospitality can be more detrimental than overt hostility
because it is harder to Openly detect and thus harder

to directly confront.

The sick role analysis also provides an alternate
explanation for the noted disparity in treatment between
handicapper children and adults. Given what Gliedman
and Roth call the "myth of technology," children are
perceived more positively because they are assumed to
have greater potential for cure (i.e., more potential
control) than adults. Berreman (1954) claimed charities
are cognizant of this as indicated by fund raising
techniques of focusing on the hOpes the continued fund-
ing of research will ultimately uncover the miracle
”cure" for countless handicapper children. The poster
child used by Easter Seals Society for Crippled Children

and Adults and the pleas to help "Jerry's Kids" indicates

30

this approach is still used today. While these funds
are actually proported to be used for handicappers of
all ages, these charities typically contend that the
focus on children is the only way to raise the needed
funds. It also should be noted that campaigns to raise
funds for impoverished peOples' use a similar focus on
children for similar reasons (Cahnman, 1969).

To summarize, only when the underlying dynamics
of negative attitudes and behaviors are discussed rela-
tive to handicappers is there an assumption made about
apprOpriate negative attitudes based on an assumption
of the intrinsic or essential biological inferiority of
defining characteristics. As suggested, the last 40
years of handicapper literature can be conceptualized in
terms of these assumptions. It was shown that a Wright
approach could be used to criticize an Adlerian approach
for assuming too much appropriate negative attitude
and allowing too much spread by not considering social
factors as important influences on adjustment (adapta-
tion). Similarly it was shown that a Gliedman and Roth
approach could be used to criticize a Wright approach
for assuming too much appropriate negative attitude
and allowing too much spread by not considering preju-
dice and stigmatization important influences.

It is the contention of this author, however,

that even the Gliedman and Roth approach does not fully

31

appreciate the disparity between the handicapper and
mainstream literature. Specifically, it can be shown
that a Goffman approach can be used to criticize the
Gliedman and Roth approach for assuming appropriate
negative attitude and allowing spread by not considering
that the attributioncflfbiological inferiority is itself
prejudicial.

This is illustrated in the following quote from
their discussion of the variant sick role, "Precisely
because his biological deficit is not yet susceptible
to cure, the handicapped person 'fails' to assert a
similar mastery (succeeding at getting well) over his
'ailment' (Gliedman & Roth, 1976, p. 11)." By postu-
lating that a handicapper defining characteristic is a
”biological deficit," it is implied that it is normal
for handicappers to be abnormal (biologically inferior),
which is stigma theory rule one. By claiming that these
assumed biological deficits are "not yet susceptible to
cure,” it is implied that it is normal for handicappers
to want to be normal; i.e., handicappers would (should)
become tabs if and when their particular defining
characteristic becomes susceptible to "cure." This is
stigma theory rule two.

In a very real sense, instead of providing a new
approach to understanding prejudice toward handicappers,

Gliedman and Roth simply assume significantly less

32

appropriate negative attitude than Wright, and call for
significantly more stringent restrictions on allowing
spread, or NA = f (ANA) + s(ANA) + SP. For these
authors, and most others writing in this area, changing
the conceptualization of "biologically inferior to . . ."
to one of "biologically different from . . . " represents

too large a cognitive step (see Dobzhansky, 1973).

CHAPTER V

THE QUESTION OF JUSTIFICATION OF
APPROPRIATE NEGATIVE ATTITUDE

Unless there exists a clear and objective method
for distinguishing appropriate negative attitude from
inappropriate negative attitude, theoretically any atti-
tude or behavior can be justified by assuming it is
appropriate. However, if such a method did exist, the
noted differences among those using Adlerian, Wright and
Gliedman and Roth typological approaches could not, or
at least should not exist. Perhaps understandably, of
all those who assume some degree of biological inferiority
and appropriate negative attitude, few discuss any such
methodology.

The convention, it seems, is to use a personal
application of the Medical Deficit Model (see p. 6).
Wright, for example, explains that discrimination exists
when behavior is not based on an objective analysis of
actual limitations due to disability. Despite their
criticisms of the Wright typological approach, Gliedman
and Roth make a similar point.

In the mainstream, discrimination is assumed to

exist when behavior is not based on an objective analysis

33

34

of actual ability. While this definition can be applied
to all social out-groups, including handicappers, the
Wright and Gliedman and Roth definitions, because they
rely on the medical deficit model, seem only applicable
to handicappers.

Use of the Medical Deficit Model is not limited
to theory. The social institutions of special education
and rehabilitation use this model to justify their exis-
tance and their treatment of handicappers. Though not
directly attacking the medical deficit model, many have
called this justification into question. Bartel and
Guskin (1971) claim the special education and rehabili-
tation fields exist because society chooses to define
handicapper children as creating problems.

When Congress investigated mislabeling of 1
children in Head Start Programs (children were being
mislabeled to meet a federally mandated 10% handicapper
quota), they mandated stricter enforcement of diagnosis,
so that ng_child would be forced to undergo stigmati—
zation and discrimination by being mislabeled (LaVor &
Harvey, 1976). Implicit here is the assumption that
such stigmatization and discriminationiessomehow justi-
fied for children appr0priately diagnosed and labeled
by qualified medical professionals.

While the objectivity of medical professionals

in general has been questioned, very few have directly

35

questioned the objectivity of the medical deficit model
as applied to handicappers. Etzioni (1976) for example,
cites many cases of malpractice, including mis-diagnosis
and needless surgery, to encourage his readers to not
believe medical advice without, at the minimum, one out-
side Opinion. However, in an earlier article, "Doctors
Know More Than They're Telling You About Genetic Defectsfl
Ekzioni(l973) strongly argues that doctors should inform
every expectant parent about genetic counseling and
especially amniocentesis. This way, he claims, expec-
tant parents can avoid further contamination of the gene
pool and weakening of the species by avoiding conception
when medical professionals indicate a high risk of birth
defects, or by aborting any fetus diagnosed by medical
professionals to be defective.

Meyerson (1971) provides what is perhaps the
most direct analysis of the objectivity of the medical
deficit model as applied to handicappers. He notes
simply that "disability" and "handicap" are social value
judgments. However, Meyerson implies that this absence
of objectivity is of minor importance. Instead of
focusing on changing cultural expectancies, he focuses
on using a pseudo-Lewian model to assist disabled

individuals with adjustment to minimize handicaps.

 

 

1

In summary, handicappers are not only defined

and classified by a deficit model, they are also expected

36

to accept and adjust to a deficit model of themselves,
as well as understand the history of negative social
attitudes and discrimination through various applica—
tions of a deficit model. This deficit model is suped
ported by socially designated experts in the area; by
influential social institutions (e.g., special education,
vocational rehabilitation, the Congress of the United
States, etc.); and ultimately by the prestigious medical
profession. Traditionally, the medical profession pro-
vides the agents (physicians and diagnosticians) granted
the power to objectify attributions of biological
inferiority to the individual, or at least to certain
characteristics of the individual.

This cultural truism of intrinsic or essential
inferiority is not unique to the handicapper area.
Other out-groups in America have had to deal with attri-
butions of inferiority, supported by social institutions
and experts in the area. The Immigration laws of the
early 1900's objectified by leading biologists and
eugenicists who were funded by wealthy capitalists (e.g.,
Carnegie, Harriman, Kellog), marked a high point in the
eugenics movement against assumed inferior genetic stock.
Public outrage over the more direct eugenic efforts in

Germany, however, forced this movement underground when

America entered World War II (Ausubel, et al., 1974).

37

It is common knowledge that the 1.0. research by
Jensen and others has been used, and in some cases is
still being used, to justify attributions of biological
inferiority to blacks. Perhaps not so common knowledge
is that this same attribution resulted in 30 states pass-
ing "miscegenation" laws between 1915 and 1930; or that
in 1971, 21 states had eugenic sterilization laws similar
to the North Carolina law that resulted in the sterili-
zation of 1,620 individuals, mostly young black females,
between 1960 and 1968 (Ausubel, et a1, 1974).

Duberman (1975) has noted that in our culture,
where differences equal deficiencies, women and homo-
sexuals, among other minorities, are especially vulner-
able to victimization by attributions of biological
inferiority objectified with research relating behavior
and physiology. Duberman further observes that while
the sciences have a history of finding differences to
use as deficiencies, experts have a history of confirming,
rather than challenging dominant social attitudes.

Dunham (1962) has noted that not only are major
scientific theories (such as Darwin's theory of evolu-
tion) used extensively to objectify attributions of
biological inferiority to justify subsequent prejudice,
but major philosophical works have been used for similar
ends. The Bible, for example, has been interpreted to

objectify attributions of intrinsic inferiority of

38

females and homosexuals. In a tabloid publication, The

Christian Vanguard (1976), Biblical references are used

 

to objectify such attributions to blacks and Jews, so as
to justify such practices as feeding these people dis-
eased meats.

Obviously, deficit models are not only counter-
productive to development and maintenance of positive
self-esteem, they are also counter-productive to
develOpment and maintenance of positive group self con-
cepts and positive social attitudes. The histories as
well as the contemporary struggles of many out-groups in
this country (e.g., Latino Americanos, Native Americans,
Japanese Americans, Polish Americans, Afro Americans,
Jewish Americans, Female Americans, Elder Americans, Gay
Americans,etc.),suggest an inverse relationship between
group acceptance of deficit model attributions and group
behaviors consistent with positive self concept, such as
group pride and open, occasionally violent, opposition to
social mistreatment. Similarly, these groups begin to
receive positive treatment in the literature when group
members with positive group identity begin writing the
literature and attacking the deficit model or models

used to justify the oppression of their people.

CHAPTER VI

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF STEREOTYPIC
REJECTION OF HANDICAPPERS

General Classification Stereotypes

 

The existence of stereotyped reaction/rejection
of handicappers has a long history of documentation. It
was the postulation of a general stereotype that led to
the development of the widely used Attitudes Toward
Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell,
1960). Yuker, Block and Young (1970) provide an exten-
sive review of the literature on attitudes toward handi-
cappers, including over one hundred studies using
various forms of the ATDP scale. Based on their reveiw,
supplemented with additional studies of their own, they
conclude that the existence of an inclusive general
stereotype consistently is supported. [According to
Yuker et al., (1960) the purpose of the original develOp-
ment of the ATDP,:h1the spirit of Wright, was to provide
information to facilitate individual adjustment.)

In updating the Yuker et al. (1970) review,

Block (1974) indicates continued evidence of this general
stereotype. Based on findings that general classifica-
tion terms suggest different definitions and referents to

different people (e.g., Coet & Thorton, 1975; Coet &

39

40

Tindall, 1974; Jaffee, 1967), some have criticized the
ATDP for using general classification terminology. How-
ever, Smits, Conine, and Edwards (1971) found that dif-
ferent conceptualizations of the general term
"disability" did not contribute to any differences noted
in ATDP scores.

Based on their data, Smits et a1. conclude, as
have many others using paper-pencil paradigms (e.g.
Chesler, 1965; Conine, 1969; Jones, 1974) that handi-
cappers are a generalized out-group (i.e. stigmatized
minority). Evidence of stereotypical responding to
handicappers has also been noted in studies using
various physiological measures (e.g. Hess, 1965; Kleck,
1966; Kleck, Ono, & Hastorf, 1966; VanderKolk, 1976;
Zych & Bolton, 1972). Still other studies indicate
handicapper children learn the same stereotypes of
handicappers as do other children (e.g. Richardson,
1960; Staffieri, 1968; Cohnman, 1969; Jones, 1972;

Goldstein & Glackman, 1973).

Characteristic Specific Stereotypes

Studies using social distance rankings, while
also indicating stereotyped rejection of handicappers,
suggest specific defining characteristics play a role
in determining the degree of rejection as evidenced by

what have been called "hierarchies of preference." This

41

essentially means concordance across individuals on the
degree of acceptance/rejection by defining characteristic
descriptions in various social contexts, such as will-
ingness to educate handicapper children (e.g. Badt, 1957;
Murphy, 1960; Murphy, Dickstein, & Dripps, 1960). The
long series of such studies by Richardson and associates,
ranking pictures on the basis of friendship choices,
provide an interesting sample of this approach. In
addition to noting apparently learned preference hier-
archies in Friendship choices by both handicapper and
non-handicapper youths (e.g. Goodman, Dornbusch,
Richardson, & Hastorf, 1963; Richardson, 1971:
Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf, & Dornbusch, 1961),

social sanction mediation of hierarchy expressions were
also observed.

In addition to further documenting the existence
of preference hierarchies, other studies also have noted
the mediation of hierarchy expressions by various social
sanctions. In an attempt to investigate the relation-
ship between Richardson's paradigm and one of their
own design, Matthews and Westie (1966) report that some
of their 5th and 6th grade subjects were unwilling to
rank handicapper children, expressing both moral and
ethical reasons against such behavior, in the second
phase of the study (but not in the first phase!). It is

interesting to speculate that perhaps a process of

42

value clarification occurred between experimental
encounters. Using the Richardson technique, Richardson
and Royce (1968) and Richardson and Emerson (1970) found
that stereotyped preference hierarchies of handicappers
can strongly mediate and/or eliminate racial stereotype
expression. Though this has been recently questioned

by Katz, Katz, and Cohen (1976), Katz et al. used an
actual physical encounter that added an adult/child
interaction as a third and possibly intervening variable.
Noting that preference hierarchies are a common charac-
teristic of prejudice toward minorities, Tringo (1970)
has revealed their existence in a significantly different
paradigm.

Tringo had six subject groups (high school stu-
dents, undergraduates in various majors, education
undergraduates, physical therapy undergraduates, grad-
uate students, and rehabilitation workers) rate 21
different defining characteristic descriptions on a
nine-point social distance scale. Because of striking
similarity of means, the last five samples were combined.
But, while sample 1 means differed significantly from
samples 2-6, the stability of the preference hierarchy
was maintained. The same results were noted for sex
differences. While females were significantly more
accepting than males, a relatively common observation

in this area (Yuker et al., 1970), the hierarchy was

43

maintained. Aside from claiming that this clear hier-
archy of preference supported the existence of strong
prejudice toward handicappers, Tringo expressed special
concern that students and professionals in rehabilita-
tion services did not differ significantly from the other
samples tested.

General Classification Stereotypes

vs Characteristic Specific
Stereotypes

 

It should be noted that a rigorous application of
the medical deficit model would demand that attitudes be
a function of the specific defining characteristics in
question. The literature reviews by Yuker et al., (1970)
and Block (1974) would suggest that attitudes toward
handicappers are relatively independent of specific
defining characteristics. This is consistent with this
author's contention that the medical deficit model is
actually a stigma theory, and thus is actually incapable
of a rigorous application. On the surface, however, the
Richardson studies and the Tringo study may seem to
indicate characteristic specific stereotypes.

Actually, in reference to the earlier discussion
of Goffman, the question is not so much whether or not
there are general classification stereotypes vs char-
acteristic specific stereotypes. The real question is

are the characteristic specific stereotypes in general a

44

function of the specific characteristic (as the medical
deficit model would demand) or are the characteristic
specific stereotype really a function of (i.e. symtomatic
of) the general classification stereotypes. While Tringo
at least concludes the latter, especially in view of

the existence of preference hierarchies relative to

other minorities, there are a series of studies that

add insight to this question.

Summarizing the handicapper literature in
general, Siller (1975) claims that regardless of affect,
people apparently evaluate handicappers in a stereo-
typed framework. Based on a series of factor analytic
studies (Siller, Ferguson, Chipman, 8 Vann, 1967;

Siller, Ferguson, Vann, 8 Holland, 1967; Siller,
Ferguson, Vann, 8 Holland, 1968; Siller, 1970; Bradley,
1970; Vann, 1970; Ferguson, 1970), Siller and his
associates note that not only do responses to a wide-
range of defining characteristic descriptions demonstrate
similar underlying factors, but these underlying factors
consistently provide a significantly better statistical
"fit" to the data than analysis by defining character-
istics. Further, over 50% of the variance in these
studies was accounted for by one higher order factor

called generalized rejection. Ironically, almost in the

45

spirit of Adler, Siller claims this evidence of stable,
shared "intra-psychic" structure is not likely due to

social learning.

CHAPTER VII

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

Noted earlier, few handicappers are given the
Opportunity to work in the handicapper area, or the
sciences in general (e.g., Leonard, 1976). Growing
militancy on the part of handicappers, however, is
putting new pressures on those working in the handi-
capper area (e.g., Downey, 1975; Kellog 8 McGee, 1976).
Invariably the call is made for attitude change. At
the Michigan regional and state level White House
Conferences on Handicapped Individuals, the sessions on
Public Attitudes consistently drew the most participants.
The irony, of course, is that no one seems to really
know what positive attitudes toward handicappers are.

As long as people feel justified in believing
there is something biologically "wrong" with handicap-
pers, positive attitudes and behaviors toward handi-
cappers are not likely to be adequately defined.
Similarly, as long as a deficit model classification/
justification norm relative to handicappers is socially
condoned, handicappers can eXpect to face continued
social mistreatment and stigmatization. In a recent

controversial article, Sawisch 8 Fitzgerald (1976)

46

47

call for professionals working with handicapper children
to begin to address this concern.

Ultimately one must face the following questions:
Is it ethical to "help" children . . . to develop
physical and social skills when in adult life these
children 1) will face employment discrimination

in their efforts to find meaningful work; 2) will
face social discrimination, especially when it
comes to findings a mate, or even a date; 3) will
face housing discrimination and enforced segre-
gation from "public" buildings and transportation,
Often because these facilities are built for peOple
with what is deemed "normal" bodies and abilities;
4) will be denied, or at least over-charged for
insurance and other social amenities; 5) will be
denied "equal protection under the law" and will
likely not be expected to contribute in any meaning-
ful way to society? . . . we do not mean to imply
that helping children . . . is undesirable or
unethical. Quite the contrary. The point

simply put is that one is not helping children
unless there is some concurrent effort to insti-
tute change in the hostile physical and social
environment. If in the guise of helping, an
individual or group tends to perpetuate demeaning
attitudes toward those being "helped," one should
not be so naive as to believe that that person

or group is as humanistically concerned as is
implied (p. 120).

The Obvious omission in the Sawisch and Fitzgerald
article was in not stressing that these negative stereo-
typed valuations may impact upon handicappers at the
very youngest ages through the most intimate social
contacts--parents. This potential impact can be demon-
strated in a direct manner by asking potential parents
their expressed attitudes toward parenting various
handicapper children.

Such a parenthood related approach has not

received significant discussion in the literature,

48

though Siller (1975) has used attitude scale items con-
cerning willingness to parent. These items load heavily
on a factor called rejection of intimacy, which is
included in the higher-order factor of generalized
rejection. Siller and his associates have found rejec-
tion Of intimacy to be a significant factor relative to
attitudes toward the following handicapper defining
characteristic descriptions: Obese, facial conditions
(including facial disfigurement), blind, deaf, amputee,
dwarf, hunchback, cerebral palsy, and paraplegic.

Within this expressed willingness to parent con-
text, a number Of related points can be addressed. First,
as noted earlier, some authors feel there is a qualita-
tive difference between attitudes toward handicapper
children and attitudes toward handicapper adults. This
author contends that expressed willingness to parent
responses will suggest a general negative valuation Of
handicapper children, as compared to a non-handicapper
or tab child. More importantly, this negative valuation
and rejection, like the negative valuation and rejection
of Older handicappers, will be expressed in socially
stereotyped patterns (i.e. preference hierarchies).

Assuming attitudes toward parenting handicapper
children are expressed in a negatively stereotyped
manner, how does one explain the contention that under-

lying attitudes toward handicappers are actually

49

positive (e.g. Albretcht, 1976)? As suggested earlier,
social sanctions may actually mediate the expression of
negative valuations. In fact, it is plausable to hypo-
thesize that a social sanction is so powerful that it
may completely mediate any influences of attitudes
toward the Objects in question. (Review discussion on
pages 28 and 29.) Therefore, if attitudes toward parent-
ing handicapper children are expressed in hierarchies
Of preference, then these hierarchies should show less
differentiation as social sanctions against avoiding
parenthood become stronger.

Consider the following parenthood related behav-
iors or contexts, arranged in what appears to be
decreasing social distance, or increasing social sanc—
tions against avoiding parenthood: (though not neces-
sarily representing equal itervals) l) adopting someone
else's child; 2) avoiding the conception of one's own
child; 3) aborting one's own child; and 4) placing one's
own child up for adOption. Individuals who adOpt
children often receive social reinforcement, perhaps
because they are seen as "rescuing" children from a life
without parents. By the same token, individuals who
place children up for adoption are not socially rein-
forced, perhaps because they are seen as "committing"
children to a life without parents. Therefore, a

refusal to place any child up for adoption might more

50

clearly represent a reaction to the behavior than a
reflection of positive attitudes toward the children in
question.

It makes sense then to investigate the mediating
influences Of relevent social sanctions when attempting
to extrapolate underlying attitudes toward stimulus
Objects from actions or behaviors toward those Objects.
This has rarely been done in the handicapper literature.
The Richardson studies for example use measures within
only one behavioral context (friendship choices). The
Siller studies use measures across many behavioral con-
texts. A more realistic approach would utilize measures
within behavioral contexts and across behavioral contexts.

By asking potential parents to rate their will-
ingness to adOpt, avoid conception, abort, and place
for adOption 11 child descriptions (1 tab and 10 handi—
capper descriptions), the following hypotheses were

tested in the present study.

Hypothesis 1

If the handicapper child descriptions do
represent subgroups Of the handicapper class,
then the rankings of the child descriptions
should show evidence of a preference hier-
archy in each parenting context, as deter-
mined by Kendall's coefficient Of concordance
(W). A significant W can be interpreted as
better than chance agreement in rank ordering
among judges.

51

Hypothesis 2

 

a) The tab description should not be subject
to rejection if it is not perceived as a
representative of the handicapper class.
Therefore, the tab description should be rated
more positive in each parenting context than
any other child description, as determined by
Dunn's multiple comparison Of mean differences.
b) In terms of a correlational analysis, the
tab description should not be clustered with
any handicapper descriptions. This can be
shown by a low correlation between the tab
ratings and a scale based upon the ratings of
all the other descriptions combined (squared
multiple correlation coefficient) for each
parenting context.

Hypothesis 3

 

a) A major contention of this author is that
an expressed attitude can be influenced by
the context in which the attitude is ellicited.
An analysis Of variance across parenting
contexts should indicate that context is a
significant factor.

b) Because the idea of parenthood implies a
high degree of intimacy, the parenting con-
texts should have a proportionately larger
influence on ratings than the child descrip-
tions, as determined by comparison of eta
scores.

c) A further, more detailed hypothesis is
that the order of context influence should

be related to the social distance or implied
social sanctions associated with each parent-
ing context. As discussed earlier, the

order of influence (from least to most influ-
ence) should be (1) adoption, (2) avoid con-
ception, (3) abortion, (4) place for adoption.
This will be tested by means of analysis of
mean inter-point differences across contexts,
with less mean inter-description differentia-
tion an indication Of stronger context influ-
ence or mediation. Attitudes toward the
parenting contexts themselves will be illus-
trated by a seperate rating scale.

52

In earlier discussions a question was raised as
to the justification Of negative attitudes. For example,
how does one justify a greater willingness to abort a
child who will be deaf than a child with no apparent
physical differentness? The present study was not
designed to answer this question, but rather, to
demonstrate that this is a legitimate question to ask

in the context of social prejudice.

CHAPTER VIII

METHOD

Subjects
Two hundred twenty volunteer subjects (110

females and 110 males) from introductory psychology
classes participated in the study. All subjects were
18 or over and had expressed a desire to have children
at some point in the future. Students who were parents
or who were in the process of becoming parents were

excluded.

Dependent Variables

 

Response booklets were prepared with a direc-
tions/cover page (described below), followed by five
different attitude scales arranged in random order.

Four Of the scales deal with expressed willingness to
parent: 1) Expressed Willingness to AdOpt; 2) Expressed
Willingness to Avoid Conception; 3) Expressed Willing-
ness to Abort; and 4) Expressed Willingness to Place

for Adoption.

For each of these scales, subjects were asked
to rate 11 descriptions of children (randomized for each

scale) on a nine point scale from "I definitely

53

54

would . . ." to "I definitely would not (adopt such a
child; avoid the conception of such a child; abort such
a child; or place such a child up for adoption)."

The 11 descriptions of children include common
descriptions of 10 defining characteristics chosen two
each from five higher-order classifications suggested
in the literature: 1) Cosmetic (obese and facial

disfigurement); 2) Asthetic (dwarf and hunchback); 3)

 

 

Sensory (blind and deaf); 4) Amputee-functional (missing

an arm and missing a leg); and 5) General-functional

 

(confined to a wheelchair and crippled). Because this

 

system Of classification is based on a negative deficit
model (review terminology section) a tab or control
description was in terms of absence Of handicapper

defining characteristics (no apparent physical differ—

 

entness). Pilot data using this description indicated
a strong tabling effect at the positive end of all
scales used.

One additional scale was used. The Expressed
General Affective Reaction to Parenting Contexts scale
required subjects to rate 24 parenthood related behaviors
(Of which 8 were used for this study) on a seven point
scale from "I feel a strong negative reaction in general"
to "I feel a strong positive reaction in general."

The direction of the rating scales were counter-

balanced across all scales used to avoid response bias,

55

but are reported from low score - positive (e.g. would
adopt; would not abort) to high score - negative (e.g.
would place up for adoption; strong negative reaction).

Samples Of all scales are located in the Appendix.

Procedure

 

Subjects were run in groups of approximately 30
to 50 by one Of two female experimenters. Subjects were
first asked to read and sign experiment consent forms,
which outlined their rights. Response booklets were then
distributed. The experimenter asked subjects to read
along as she read aloud the following directions from
the first page of the response booklet.

Some peOple begin having children in their late
teens and early twenties. In order to provide
appropriate services and programs for these new
parents, we must have information about their
general feelings toward a number of different issues
related to having children. It is Often difficult,
however, to get Objective information from indi-
viduals who are already parents or are in the
immediate process of becoming parents.

Because you have indicated intentions Of someday
having children, but are not currently parents

nor in the immediate process of becoming parents,
you can help us gain a more Objective understanding
Of general feelings toward these potential issues
Of parenthood.

This booklet contains six separate parts. For
each part, you will be asked to indicate your

own personal feelings on a seven or nine point
scale. Please, this is not a test; there are no
"right" answers other than what y9u_personally
feel is right! In order to preserve your anony-
mity and to assure confidentiality of your answers,
Please DO Not Sign your booklet or give any
identifying information other than your age and

 

56

sex. If at any time, for any reason, you no longer
wish to participate in this study, Please Stop! You
will still receive complete credit for participa-
tion and the experimenter will destroy your booklet
in your presence.

The directions for each part of this study should
be self-explanatory, but if you have any questions
just raise your hand. Please read the directions
and the scales carefully before completing each
section. When you are finished,return your booklet
to the experimenter and you will be given some
parting information. Your experiment card will
then be signed. If there are no questions, you
may begin.

Upon returning response booklets, subjects were
asked to leave their name and local address if they
wished to have a summary Of results sent directly to
them. Subjects were given a card with the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of the experimenters, the
author, and the author's senior advisor; with directions
on how any questions concerning the study could be
answered and how copies of results could be Obtained.
Those individuals wishing to remain until all booklets
were returned had an Opportunity tO speak with the
experimenter and the author. After subjects were
informed of these Options, they were requested not to

discuss the nature Of the study with anyone for at

least three weeks.

CHAPTER IX

RESULTS

Preference Hierarchies

 

The first hypothesis predicted a preference
hierarchy in each parenting context for the child des-
cription rankings.

Kendall coefficients of concordance among judges
were computed for each parenting context and are summar-
ized in Table l with the average ranking of the child
descriptions by parenting context. W was significant
(p < .05) for the Adoption, Avoid Conception, and
Abortion scales, but not for the Place for AdOption
scale. Although this was a conservative test of con-
cordance (ll descriptions were ranked on the basis of
9 point ratings), the magnitude of the W's were of the
same order as those reported by Richardson et a1. (1961).
In the Richardson study, friendship choices were used
to directly rank order 6 descriptions.

Based on these results, hypothesis one was
marginally accepted. While there was evidence of a
stereotypic preference or rejection hierarchy in three
Of the four parenting contexts, the similarities in the

average rankings Of many Of the child descriptions

57

58

 

 

mo. v Q8

88. n z 888. u 3 «88. u z «88. n s
88.8 888888888 88.8 88888880 88.8 88888880 88.8 808888888
88.8 8888 88.8 888888888: 88.8 8888888883 88.8 888808888:
88.8 888888888: 88.8 888 88.8 888888888 88.8 888
88.8 08888880 88.8 288 88.8 888 88.8 88830
88.8 888 88.8 8888 88.8 8888 88.8 08888880
88.8 88830 88.8 888888888 88.8 288 88.8 288
88.8 288 88.8 88830 88.8 88830 88.8 8888
88.8 8880 88.8 08888 88.8 88888 88.8 08888
88.8 88888 88.8 8880 88.8 8888 88.8 8880
88.8 88880 88.8 88880 88.8 88880 88.8 88880
88.8 888 88.8 888 88.8 888 88.8 888
coflumopm How mooam cofluuon< :08ummocoo ©80>¢ sowumocfl

 

83V oocmpuoocou mo nonmaowmmoou

Hampcox nu83 uxoucoo mcwucoumm ho
mcoflumwuomoo UHHAO mo mcwxcmm ommno>¢

H OHQMB

59

suggested that these descriptions were not well differen-
tiated within the hierarchy. This observation, along
with the lack of a significant W for the placement scale

are discussed in relation to the remaining hypothesis.

Parenting Context

 

The second hypothesis predicted that the tab
description would be rated more positiveixxeach parenting
context compared to any other child description, as
determined by Dunn's multiple comparison Of mean differ-
ences.

Mean description ratings for each context are
given in Table 2. A subject by description analysis
of variance was computed for each parenting context.

The resulting F ratios were all significant (p < .001).
Dunn's multiple comparison procedure was then used to
compare the mean tab rating with the mean rating of
each of the other child descriptions within each con-
text. The mean tab rating was significantly more posi-
tive (p < .01) than the mean ratings of each of the
other child descriptions in the adoption, avoid con-
ception, and abortion contexts. In the place for
adOption context, the mean tab rating was more positive
than the mean ratings Of each Of the other descriptions,

but the mean differences were only significant for the

60

Table 2

Mean Description Ratings by Context,
Indicating Significant Mean
Differences and F Ratios

 

 

Context
Description Adoption Avoid Abortion Place for

Conception Adoption
Tab 2.14 1.96 1.91 2.08
Obese 4.32** 4.64** 3.09** 2.10
Face 5.12** 6.51** 4.48** 2.48**
Dwarf 5.33** 6.28** 4.08** 2.35*
Hunchback 5.63** 6.55** 4.37** 2.52**
Blind 4.82** 6.26** 4.01** 2.25
Deaf 4.77** 6.02** 3.85** 2.28
Arm 5.13** 6.41** 4.40** 2.28
Leg 5.34** 6.51** 4.63** 2.36*
Crippled 5.31** 6.85** 4.78** 2.39**
Wheelchair 5.35** 6.86** 4.75** 2.40**
F ratio 101.91+ 279.02+ 62.81+ 5.52+

 

*significantly different from tab mean, p < .05
**significantly different from tab mean, p <

+p < .001

.01

61

face, hunchback, crippled, and wheelchair descriptions
(p < .01) and the dwarf and leg descriptions (p < .05).

As predicted, the tab description was rated sig-
nificatnly more positive in each parenting context than
any other child description, with the exception of the
Obese, blind, deaf, and arm descriptions in the place
for adoption context. For these four exceptions however,
the mean differences were in the predicted direction.

The hypothesized independence of tab and handi-
capper descriptions was supported by a low correlation
between the tab ratings and a scale based upon the
ratings of all the other descriptions (squared multiple
correlation coefficient) for each parenting context.

An inter-description correlation matrix was
computed for each parenting context (see Tables 3-6).
On the whole, the correlations with the tab ratings were
lower than any of the other correlations in each con-
text. Squared multiple correlations (description -
remaining descriptions) were computed for each descrip-
tion in each parenting context (see Table 7). The
tab-scale correlations were quite low for the adoption
(.12), the avoid conception (.07), and the abortion (.30)
contexts, but was relatively high for the place for
adoption context (.60). In comparison to the other
squared multiple correlations in the place for adoption

context (Table 7) however, it was clear that the tab

8m. n mamac EmuH ©888pumncmum

 

62

8 88 8 8 38 8 0 8
88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888888883
88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888880
88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 808880888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88838

_ mm. mm. oomm

_ 88. 88880

888

 

mamom coflumopfi mom xfluumz coflumaouuoo

m GHQMB

63

 

88. u 8888808888 888888888888
3 0 8 8 88 8 8 38 8 0 s
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888088883
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888880
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 588
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 808880888
_ 88. 88. 88. 88838
_ 88. m8. oomm
_ 88. 88880
_ 888

 

maoom
so8umoocoo O8o>< Mom x8888: c08uwaouuou

8 88888

64

ha. n

88888 .8888 888888888888

 

mm. hm. hm. Hm. vm. om. mm. mm. mm.
mm. mm. Hm. mm. mm. mm. Hm. me.

am. mm. mm. mm. em. mm. on.

mm. mm. mm. vm. 8m. op.

hm. om. 8m. am. an.

85. am. on. an.

mm. hm. mo.

am. mm.

mm.

88.
mv.
mm.
mm.
mm.

mm.

8885088823
Omamm8uu
moq

End

mmoo

ocwam
xomonocsm
88830

808m

@088

88.8.

 

mamom co8uuoo¢ Mom x8888: 808888OHHOU

m magma

mm. H 8£QH< EmuH pmu8wumpsmum

 

65

0 8 8 88 8 8 38 8 0 a
88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888088883
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888880
_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 288

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 8888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 88. 88888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88. 808880888

_ 88. 88. 88. 88838

_ mm. no. 8088

_ 88. 88880

£68

 

mamom coquOOd
808 00888 808 x8888: OOHuMHoHHOO

8 88888

66

Table 7

Squared Multiple (item-scale) Correlations
For Each Description in Each

Parenting Context

 

 

Adoption Avoid Abortion Place for

Conception Adoption
Tab .12 .07 .30 .60
Obese .52 .51 .62 .86
Face .59 .84 .83 .86
Dwarf .74 .81 .80 .91
Hunchback .74 .77 .83 .90
Blind .78 .88 .83 .94
Deaf .77 .88 .85 .87
Arm .82 .89 .98 .95
Leg .85 .91 .98 .95
Crippled .75 .88 .92 .91
Wheelchair .75 .85 .92 .82

 

67

description was not clustered with any other description.
In fact, for this context, only two clusters were evi-
dent; a single item tab cluster and a 10 item handi-
capper cluster. Careful review of Table 7, as well as
Tables 3-6, indicates that these same two clusters
occurred in each parenting context.

The tab description did not cluster with any of
the handicapper descriptions in any parenting context.
The tab squared multiple correlations were clearly lower
than any of the other description squared multiple corre-
lations. In addition to the evidence supporting a single
item tab cluster in each parenting context, there was
also strong evidence of a ten item handicapper cluster
in each parenting context.

Figure one illustrates the mean ratings of the
child descriptions by parenting context. A context by
description analysis of variance was computed and is
reported in Table 8. The context, description, and
interaction F ratios were significant (p < .001). As
indicated in Figure one, the interaction occurred in
relation to the tab description. The mean tab ratings
only ranged from 1.91 to 2.14 across the parenting
contexts (see Table 2). The parenting contexts were a
significant factor as predicted.

Eta2 scores were computed and are reported in

Table 8. A review of the eta2 scores for context and

68

uxmucoo mcwucmumm >3 mcofiumfiuommo @Hflnu mo mocfiumm cmmzun.a musmwm

Hiflo xofib
Loon: 3158.0 as £2 :60 $55 1205.: .2830 008.8 08.820 2.8.
. N
\1\,.ls-|!|||\\1|‘\/ < \
cofiud0p4 808 808~m\\\\\llll. (\\
.m

:ofluuon<ullll\\\\\\\\\k

\

:o8umoocoo U8o><llllk

 

cowudov<

uxmucou 3888:8888

IV‘.’ d U M "wob—

amuusoz

w>8ummoz

nasaumm
:88:

69

Table 8

Analysis of Variance Comparing Parenting

Context and Child Descriptions

 

 

Source SS df ms F N2
1. Subjects 19025.77 219 86.88 22.6
2. Context 16606.44 3 5535.48 1290.32* 19.7
3. Description 6128.92 10 612.89 142.86* 7.3
4. Interaction 2077.05 30 69.24 16.14* 2.5
5. Residual 40393.84 9417 4.29 48.0
6. Total 84232.02 9679

 

*p < .001

70

description indicates that the context sum of squares
contributed 2.7 times as much to the total sum of squares
as did the description sum of squares. As predicted,

the parenting contexts had a proportionately larger
influence on ratings than did the child descriptions.

It was predicted that the order of context influ-
ence (from least to most influence) would be (1) adoption,
(2) avoid conception, (3) abortion, (4) place for adop-
tion. This order was tested by an analysis of mean
inter-point differences across contexts, with less mean
inter-description differentiation an indication of
stronger context influence or mediation. Attitudes
toward the parenting contexts themselves were ellicited
by a separate rating scale.

The mean ratings for each parenting context
scale item are indicated in Table 9. The order of these
means supported the predicted order. A mean inter—
description difference analysis of variance was computed
across parenting contexts (see Table 10) with the mean
inter-description difference means. The context F ratio
was significant (p < .001), but the mean ordering was
not as predicted.

For clarification, a Tukey's HSD test was com-
puted and indicated that all the means were significantly
different from each other (p < .05). The most descrip-

tion differentiation or willingness to express a negative

Mean Ratings for the Expressed General
Affective Reaction to Parenting
Context Scale

71

Table 9

 

 

Mean

Context Item Rating
Adoption Adopting 2.11
Parents adopting 1.47

Avoid Conception Avoiding conception 3.13
Parents avoiding conception 2.87

Abortion Aborting 4.69
Parents aborting 4.77

Place for Adoption Placing for adoption 4.96

 

 

 

 

Parents placing for adoption 4.80
Standardized Item Alpha .71
Table 10
Mean Inter-description Difference Analysis
of Variance with Mean Inter-description
Means
Sources SS df MS F
Context 176.82 3 58.9400 103.6034*
Subjects 352.07 219 1.6076
Residual 373.79 657 .5689
Total 902.68 879
*p < .001
Context Mean
Adoption 1.57
Avoid Conception 1.74
Abortion 1.32
Place for Adoption .57

72

valuation (i.e. least context influence) occurred in the
avoid conception context, followed by the adoption,
abortion, and place for adoption contexts. This variant
ordering was consistent with the Kendal coefficients
(Table l) and the mean ratings, as illustrated in

Figure one (see also Table 2).

An explanation for this variance from predicted
order is suggested by the earlier discussion of eugenics.
In hypothesizing the context order, it was assumed that
social sanctions for or against a particular parenting
behavior would be a simple function of the social dis-
tance implied by the behavior. However, eugenics in
relation to handicapper children has long been viewed in
a positive social light. Note for example the social
acceptance and support of March of Dimes, as well as the
proliferation of genetics counseling clinics and clini-
cians. Therefore, it may be more acceptable to express
rejection in the context of avoiding conception of
handicapper children than in the context of adopting such
children, even though adOption in general has a stronger
positive social valuation than does avoiding conception
in general.

The mean inter-description difference mean for
place for adOption indicated that very little differen-
tiation between description ratings occurred. The mean

ratings for this scale only ranged from 2.08 to 2.52

73

(see Table 2). The social sanctions against placing
one's own child up for adoption were obviously so strong
that they virtually eliminated the expression of rejec—
tion toward the handicapper descriptions, as noted

under hypotheses one and two. Although the hypothesized
order of influence was rejected, the assumption that

the behavioral context in which an attitude is elicited
can mediate the expression of that attitude was further

supported.

CHAPTER X

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to verify
the existence of stereotyped perceptions of and reactions
to handicapper children from before conception to after
birth. In the midst of national campaigns to promote
positive attitudes toward individuals classified as
defective, there are concurrent national campaigns to
"wipe out birth defects." Does society in general have
positive attitudes toward handicappers?

Are organizations that use "Pity Posters" to
raise funds for handicapper children demonstrating posi-
tive attitudes toward those children (Stein, 1976)? Can
one truly believe Baker (1975) when he claimed that
managers actually have positive attitudes toward blind
individuals; that managers simply refused to hire blind
individuals because the managers had authoritarian per-
sonalities? How can anyone accept assumptions that in
general underlying attitudes toward handicappers are
positive in view of the historical and contemporary docu-
mentation of descrimination (Boyd & Hartnett, 1975;

Horn, 1976; Johnson & Heal, 1976; Morgan, 1976; Parks,

74

75

1975), or in view of the demeaning terminology typically
used to describe handicapper individuals and groups.

There is a disparity between mainstream concept-
ualizations of prejudice and stigmatization and concept-
ualizations expressed in the Handicapper literature. It
was suggested that the isolation of the handicapper field
has supported the lack of emphasis on the possibility
that an apparently positive attitude may be masking a
negative attitude, even though some authors have dis-
cussed this posibility (e.g. Doob & Ecker, 1970; Goffman,
1963; Lacatis, 1976; Titley & Viney, 1969).

Underlying the conceptualizations of prejudice
and discrimination expressed in the Handicapper liter-
ature is the assumption of apprOpriate negative attitude.
If a negative attitude is assumed to be appropriate, then
one can claim that that attitude is not prejudicial or
discriminatory. Many of the writers who criticized
others for assuming too much appropriate negative atti-
tude might themselves be subject to the same criticism.

In the absence of a logical means to justify the
assumptions of appropriate negative attitude or the
assumption of biological inferiority, such assumptions
could be labeled prejudical. In an analysis of the
medical deficit model, which appears to be the major
referenced justification system, it was suggested that

there was no logical means to justify the assumptions of

76

appropriate negative attitude. Further, it was suggested
that the use of the medical deficit model paralleled the
use of similar deficit models in attempts to justify
prejudice and discrimination toward other minority
groups.

Regardless of how one chooses to interpret the
data, there is strong evidence in the literature of
stereotyped perceptions of and reactions to handicappers.
As Tringo (1970) noted, the existence of preference
hierarchies are a common characteristic of prejudicial
attitudes. Although in the present study the parenting
contexts had a stronger influence on ratings than did
the child descriptions, the evidence of preference
hierarchies in the adOption, avoid conception, and
abortion contexts are noteworthy. In addition to
supporting the contention of stereotypic valuations of
handicappers, even at the youngest ages, such hierarchies
add fuel to the social friction among handicapper sub-
groups. This is especially true when various subgroups
and their advocates compete for funds for social pro-
grams. Then each subgroup attempts to make a case for
hc>w it is viewed as the "worst off" group, how they
receive the most social abuse, the least employment
opportunities, etc.

While differences in stereotypes and attitudes

among subgroups are interesting, it is imperative to view

77

these differences in a larger context. When comparing
differences in attitudes toward the various handicapper
subgroups with the differences between the handicapper
class and the non-handicapper class, the subgroup dis-
tinctions seem of little significance. Relative to the
tab child, all handicapper children are valued negatively,
regardless of parenting context. Relative to the tab
child, all handicapper children seem to be perceived as
memebers of the same class.

This observation has two important practical
implications. First, in view of the similarities in
negative valuation, it is reasonable to assume that
handicapper children, regardless of their characteris-
tics, have the potential for shared negative social
experiences (see Geis, 1972; Kleck et al., 1974). It
is appalling, then, that no widespread attempts have
been, or are being made to prepare handicapper children
for these experiences (Jones, 1972). If the reluctance
to prepare handicapper children for these experiences is
a function of assuming that these children must learn
to accept a certain amount of negative attitude as
appropriate (e.g. Connors, 1976), then it is time to
bring this assumption out in the open. The struggle
against the development of prejudice will not be won

until its roots have been explored in depth.

78

The second implication applies to handicapper
adults, advocates, and programs aimed at changing
attitudes. The strong commonalities in perceptions
and valuations of the various handicapper subgroups
suggests that handicappers may be losing the battle by
fighting among themselves while wasting valuable time
attempting to change attitudes toward one subgroup at a
time rather than fighting the stereotype applied to
handicappers collectively. Results of the present study
suggest that the best that handicappers may hOpe to
accomplish is to change the relative order within the
handicapper class with a single subgroup approach.
Regardless of what any single handicapper group thinks
or wishes to believe, all handicappers are perceived as
members of the same general social class. This is what
handicappers have in common, and it is around this issue
that they must unite if they truly hope to institute
lasting social change.

Prejudice against handicappers is very real. The
present study is but one additional piece of evidence in
a long list of studies and personal experience. It is
definitely time that those individuals involved in the
handicapper area exercise extreme caution in what they
choose to label positive attitudes. It should be evident
for example that reluctance to place a handicapper child

for adoption does not necessarily indicate a positive

79

attitude toward that child. As long as there are social
sanctions against openly expressing rejection of handi-
cappers in certain contexts (e.g. "Don't make fun of
crippled people" or "Don't call them retarded if they
can hear you") handicappers will face a difficult task
in locating, isolating, and eradicating the roots of
prejudice.
I do not mean to imply that prejudice against
handicapper citizens reflects an organized master plan
to make handicappers' lives miserable. Rather I wish to
argue thattflmaprejudice against handicappers reflects a
learned or indemic prejudice. The major emphasis of
this dissertation was to encourage critical investigation
of the justification systems used to condone the con-
tinuation of prejudice toward handicappers. If we do
not institute critical investigations, then we may well
be responsible for perpetuating the status quo, where
tab children grow up to discriminate against handicappers,
and handicapper children grow up to devalue themselves.
Finally, I do not wish to assert that all parents
should give birth to a handicapper child, or at least
adOpt one. No adult should be expected or forced to
parent any child she or he does not wish to parent. How-
ever, as long as our culture supports a negative preju-
dice toward handicapper children, it is difficult for

prospective parents to make such decisions without being

80

influenced by the pervasive cultural bias against handi-
cappers. Freeing parents from this cultural influence
would be a significant step toward freeing handicappers
to determine their own personal value and their own

value to society in general.

APPEND IX

81

PARENTHOOD

 

Some people begin having children in their late teens and
early twenties. In order to provide appropriate services and
programs for these new parents, we must have information about their
general feelings toward a number of different issues related to
having children. It is often difficult, however, to get objective
information from individuals who are already parents or are in the
immediate process of becoming parents. Because you have indicated
intentions of someday having children, but are not currently parents
nor in the immediate process of becoming parents, you can help us
gain a more objective understanding of general feelings toward
these potential issues of parenthood.

This booklet contains six separate parts. For each part,
you will be asked to indicate your own personal feelings on a seven
or nine point scale. Please, this is not a test; there are no
"right" answers other than what youApersonally feel is right! In
order to preserve your anonymity and to assure confidentiality of
your answers, please do not sign the booklet or give any identify-
ing information other than your age and sex. If at any time, for
any reason, you no longer wish to participate in this study, Please
Stop! You will still receive complete credit for participation
and the experimenter will destroy your booklet in your presence.

 

The directions for each part of this study should be self
explanatory, but if you have any questions, just raise your hand.
Please read the directions and scales carefully before completing
each section. When you are finished, return your booklet to the
experimenter and you will be given some parting information. Your
experiment card will then be signed. If there are no questions,
you may begin.

82

Adoption Scale
Expressed Willingness to Adopt

Form LS753 Age Sex

 

 

Imagine you are going to adopt a child. Following is a list
of descriptions of different children available for adoption. For
each description, please indicate how you personally feel about
adopting such a child. Use the nine (9) point scale given below.
Write the number corresponding to your decision in the space pro-
vided after each description. Please rate all the descriptions
given.

definitely would adopt such a child.
probably would adopt such a child.
possibly would adopt such a child.

might adopp such a child.

am undecided.

might not adopt such a child.

possibly would not adopt such a child.
probably would not adopt such a child.
definitely would not adopt such a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I-‘qubUIO‘QCDSD
HHHHHHHHH

 

 

A) A child who has no apparentpphysical differentness.

 

B) A child who has a facial disfigurement.

 

C) A child who is confined to a wheel chair.

 

D) A child who is obese.
E) A child who is crippled.

F) A child who is missingian arm.

 

G) A child who is deaf.
H) A child who is a dwarf.

I) A child who is a hunchback.

 

J) A child who is missing a leg.

 

K) A child who is blind.

Any comments?

83

Abortion Scale
Expressed Willingness to Abort

Form LS755 Age Sex

 

 

Imagine there is a method of determining physical chacteris-
tics of your child before the child is born. Following is a list
of descriptions of different children detectable by this method.

For each description, please indicate how you personally feel about
aborting such a child. Use the nine (9) point scale given below.
write the number corresponding to your decision in the space pro-
vided after each description. Please rate all the descriptions
given.

definitely would abort such a child.
probably would abort such a child.
possibly would abort such a child.
might abort such a child.

am undecided.

might not abort such a child.
possiblylwould not abort such a child.
probably would not abort such a child.
definitely would not abort such a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmwammqmm
O
HHHHHHHHH

 

 

A) A child who will be blind.

 

B) A child who will be a dwarf.
C) A child who will be missing a leg.

D) A child who will be missing an arm.

 

E) A child who will be crippled.

F) A child who will be confined to a wheelchair.

 

G) A child who will have a facial disfigurement.

 

H) A child who will be deaf.
I) A child who will be a hunchback.
J) A child who will be obese.

K} .A child who will have no apparent physical differentness.

Any comments?

84

Place for Adoption Scale
Expressed Willingness to Place for Adoption

Form LS756 Age Sex

 

Imagine you are going to have a child. Following is a list
of descriptions of different children you could possibly have. For
each description, please indicate how you personally fee about p333
ting such a child up for adoption. Use the nine (9) scale given
below. Write the number corresponding to your decision in the
space provided after each description. Please rate all the des-
criptions given.

 

I definitely would not put such a child up for adoption.
I probably would not put such a child up for adoption.
1 ppssiblyywould not put such a child up for adoption.
1 might not put such a child up for adoption.
1 am undecided.
I
I
I
I

 

 

 

might put such a child up for adoption.

pgssibly would put such a child up for adoption.
probably would put such a child up for adoption.
definitely_would put such a child up for adoption.

HNWDUTO‘QODLD

 

 

A) A child who is deaf.

B) A child who is confined to a wheelchair.

 

C) A child who is obese.
D) A child who is a hunchback.

E) A child who is missing a lgg,

 

F) A child who has a facial disflgurement.

 

G) A child who is missing an arm.

 

H) A child who has no apparent physical differentness.
I) A child who is a gggrf,

J) A child who is Eliflé:

K) A child who is crippled.

Any counts?

85

Avoid Conception Scale
Expressed Willingness to Avoid Conceptions

Form LS764 Age Sex

 

 

Imagine there is a method of determining physical character-
istics of your child before the child is conceived. Following is a
list of descriptions of different children detectable by this
method. For each description, please indicate how you personally
feel about avoidipg conception of such a child. Use the nine point
scale given below. Write the number corresponding to your decision
in the space provided after each description. Please rate all the
descriptions given.

 

definitely would not avoid conception of such a child.
probably would not avoid conception of such a child.
possibly would not avoid conception of such a child.
might not avoid conception of such a child.

am undecided.

might avoid conception of such a child.

possibly would avoid conception of such a child.
probably would avoid conception of such a child.
definitely would avoid conception of such a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HMMDU‘O‘QCDKD
HHHHHHHHH

 

 

A) A child who will be confined to a wheelchair.

 

B) A child who will have no apparent physical different-
ness.

 

C) A child who will be a hunchback.
D) A child who will be deaf.
E) A child who will be a dwarf.

F) A child who will be missing a leg.

 

G) A child who will be blind.

H) A child who will have a facial disfigurement.

 

I) A child who will be crippled.

J) A child who will be missing an arm.

 

K) A child who will be obese.

 

Any comments?

86

Parenting Context Scale
Expressed General Affective Reaction to

Form LS771 Age Sex

 

Following is a list of behaviors relating to parenthood.
For each behavior please indicate how your personally feel about
behavior. Use the seven (7) point scale given below. Write the
number corresponding to your decisionixlthe space provided after
each behavior. Please rate all the behaviors given.

feel a stropg negative reaction toward this behavior.
feel a moderate negative reaction toward this behavior.
feel a slight negative reaction toward this behavior.
am undecided.

feel a slight positive reaction toward this behavior.
feel a moderate positive reaction toward this behavior.
feel a strong positive reaction toward this behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

l-‘NLUubU'IO‘Q
HHHHHHH

 

 

 

A) Adopting children

B) Aborting children

C) Avoiding conception of children
D) Placing children up for adoption

E) Changing the characteristics of children before
conception

F) Changing the characteristics of children before birth
G) Changing the characteristics of children after birth
H) Birth control

I) Planned parenthood

J) Parents adopting children

K) Parents aborting children

L) Parents avoiding conception of children

M) Parents placing children up for adoption

N) Parents changing the characteristics of children
before conception

0) Parents changing the characteristics of children
before birth

P) Parents changing the characteristics of children
after birth

Q) Parents practicing birth control

R) Parents practicing planned parenthood
Any comments? (write on back, please)

87

REFERENCES

88

REFERENCES

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, P., &

Sanford, R. The authoritarianpersonality.
New York: Harper & Row, 1950.

 

Albrecht, G. Reducinglpublic barriers of the severely
handicappéd¥research report R-30. Rehabilita-
tion Institute of Chicago, Northwestern Univer-
sity, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.

 

 

Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. New York:
Addison Wesley, I957.

 

Anthony, W. A. The physically disabled client and
and facilitative confrontation. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 1970, 36 (3).

 

 

Apgar, V. No one else can be as helpful. Today's
Health, 1969, 52-53.

Ausubel, F., Beckwith, J., & Kaaren, J. The politics
of genetic engineering: Who decides who's
defective? Psycholognyoday, 1974, 8 (l), 30.

 

Badt, M. I. Attitudes of university students toward
exceptional children and special education.
Exceptional Child, 1957, ll, 287-291 & 336.

 

Baker, L. Authoritarianism, attitudes toward blindness,
and managers: Implications for the employment
of blind persons. New Outlook for the Blind,
1975,68, 308-314.

 

Barker, R. G., Wright, B.A., Myerson, L., & Gonick, M. R.
Adjustment to physical handicap and illness:
A survey of the gocialpsychologygf_physigue and
disability (2nd Ed.)} New York: Social Science
Res. Council (Bulletin 55), 1953.

 

Baldwin, C. P. & Baldwin, A. L. Personality and social
development of handicapped children. Sherrick
et al. (Eds.). Psychology and the handicapped
child. U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1974.

 

89

90

Bartel, N. & Gaskin, S. A handicap as a social pheno-
menon. Psychology of Exceptional Children and
Youth (Cruickshank, 34d Ed.), 1971, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 75-114.

Battle, C. U. Disruptions in the socialations of a
young, severely handicapped child. Rehabili-
tation Lit., 1974, 3i (5), 130-140.

 

Berreman, J. V. Some implications of research in the
social psychology fo physical disability.
Receptional Child, 1954,;9, 347-350 & 356-357.

Bettelheim, B. & Janowitz, M. Social change and preju-
dice: Including dynamics of prejudice. New
York: The Free Press, 1950.

 

Block, J. Recent research with the attitude toward dis-
abled persons scale: Some research abstracts.
New York. Human Resource Center, 1974.

Boyd, W. & Hartnett, F. Normalization and its implica-
tions for recreation sources. Journal of
Leisurability, 1975, a, 22-27.

 

 

Bradley, P. A. Generalized rejection: Content or arti-
fact. Proceedings, 78th Annual Convention,
American Psyghological Association, 1970, 699-
700.

Brown, S. F. General semantics and physical disability.
Journal of Social Issues, 1948, i (4), 95-100.

Bynder, H. & New P. Time for a change: From micro to
macro-sociological concepts in disability
research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
1976, ll, 45-52.

 

Cahnman, W. J. The stigma of obesity. Sociological
Quarterly, 1968, g (3), 283-299.

 

Cameron, P. Social stereotypes: Three faces of happi-
ness. Psychology Todgy, 1974, 63-64.

Cameron, P., Hoech, D. W., Weiss, N., & Kostin, M.
Happiness or life satisfaction of the malformed.
Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention, American
Psychological Association,’1971.

91

Cameron, P., Titus, D. G., Kostin, J., & Kostin, M.
The life satisfaction of non-normal persons.
Journal of Counseling & Clinical Psychology,
1973, ll (2), 207-214.

Carlson, N. The contexts of life: A socio-ecological
model of adoptive behavior and functiOning.
Institute’for Family andChildStudy, Michigan
State University, 1976.

Chaiklin, H. & Warfield, M. Stigma management and
amputee rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Lit.,
1973, ll (6), 162-166 & 172.

 

Chesler, M. A. Ethocentrism and attitudes toward the
physically disabled. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychologxr 1965, l (6), 877-882.

 

 

Christian Vanguard. Louisiana, January, 1976, 49.

 

Clum, G. A. Intrapsychic variables and the patients'
environment as factors in prognosis. Psyghologi-
cal Bulletin, 1975, 8a (3), 413-431.

 

 

Coet, L. J. & Thornton, L. W. Age and sex: Factors in
defining the term "handicap." Psychological
Reports, 1975, ll, 103-106.

 

Coet, L. & Tindall, R. C. Definition of "handicap" as a
function of age and sex. Psychological Reports,
1974, 22' 1197-1198.

 

Comer, R. & Pellavin, J. As others see us: Attitudes
of physically handicapped and normals toward
own and other groups. Rehabilitation Lit.,
1975, 36, 206-221.

 

Conine, T. A. Acceptance or rejection of disabled per-
sons by teachers. Journal of School Health,
1969, (4), 278-281.

Conners, J., Jr. Letter to the Editor. Performance,
1976, 22 (10), 18-19.

 

Davis, F. Deviance disavowal: The management of strained
interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social
Problems, 1961, 9’(2), 120-132.

 

DeBartolo, D. The Von 6001 Papers: Mad's Don Martin
steps further out. Meglin (Ed.). New York:
Warner Communications, 1975.

 

92

Dembo, T., et al. A view of rehabilitation psychology.
American Psychologist, 1973, £8 (8), 719-722.

 

Dobzhansky, T. Differences are not deficits. Psychology
Today, 1973, l (7), 97.

Doob, A. N. & Ecleer, B. P. Stigma and compliance.
Journal of Personalityland Social PsthSlogy,
1970, 3, 302-304.

 

 

Downey, G. W. "Crip Lib": The disabled fight for their
own cause. Modern Healthcare, 1975, 21-28.

 

Duberman, M. The case of the gay sergeant. The N. Y.
Times Magazine, 1975, Section 6, 16-17 & 58-71.

 

Dunham, B. Man against myth. New York: Hill & Wang,
1962.

 

Erickson, M. P. Talking with fathers of young children
with Down's Syndrome. Children Today, Nov.-Dec.,
1974, 22-25.

 

Etzioni, A. Doctors know more than they're telling you
about genetic defects. Psychology Today, 1973,
l (6), 26-36 & 137.

Etzioni, A. Watch that doctor. Psychology Today, 1976,
l9_ (5) , 33.

 

Farina, A., Holland, C. H., & Ring, K. Role of stigma
and set in interpersonal interaction. Journal
Of Abnormal Psychology: 1966, ll (61), 421-428.

 

Ferguson, L. T. Components of attitudes toward the deaf.
Proceedings, 78th Annual Conventiony_American
Psychological Assocation, 1970, 693-694.

 

Fletcher, J. Ethics and euthanasia. American Journal of

 

Fordyce, W. E. Psychology and rehabilitation. 5. Light
(Ed.). Rehabilitation and Medicine, (Chap. 6),
1968, l2, 129-151.

 

Geis, H. J. The problem of personal worth in the physi-
cally disabled patient. Rehabilitation Lit.,
1972, §§_(2), 34-39.

Gellman, W. Roots of prejudice against the handicapped.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 1959, 35 (1), 4-7 & 25.

 

93

Gellman, W. Projections in the field of physical disa-
bility. Rehabilitation Lit., 1974, l5 (1), 2-9.

 

Gentile, E. & Taylor, J. Images, words and identity,
Michigan State University, Office of Programs for
Handicappers, 1976.

Gliedman, J. & Roth, W. The grand illusion: Stigma,
role expectations and communiEation. A paper for
the White House Conference on Handicapped
Individuals, 1976.

 

 

Goffman, E. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled
identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.

 

Goldiamond, I. A diary of self-modification. Psychology
Today, Nov. 1973, 95-97-100-102.

 

Goldstein, K. M. & Blackman, S. Generalizations regarding
deviant groups. Staten Island, N.Y.: North
Richmond Community Mental Health Center, 1973, 20.

 

Goodman, N., Dornbusch, S. M., Richardson, S. A., &
Hoster, P. Variant reactions to physical disa-
bilities. American Sociological Review, 1963,
£8, 429-435.

Haber, L. D. & Smith, R. T. Disability and deviance:
Normative adaptations of role behavior. American
Sociolggical Review, 1971, lg, 87-97.

 

Hall, E. & Cameron, P. Our failing reverence for life.
Psychology Today, 1976, 9 (11), 104-108, 113.

 

Hamilton, K. Counseling the handicapped in the rehabili-
tation process. New York: Ronald Press, 1950.

 

Hawke, W. A. & Auerbach, A. Multi-discipline experience:
A fresh approach to aid the multi-handicapped
child. Journal of Rehabilitation, Jan.-Feb.,
1975, 22-24—Eh37.

Hentig, H. Von. Physical disability, mental conflict and
social crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 1948,
i (4), 21-27.

Hess, E. H. Attitude and pupil size. Scientific Ameri-

Hilbournes, J. On disabling the normal. British Journal
of Social Work, 1973, 3, 497-507.

 

94

Horn, J. Bringing the arts to the handicapped. Psycho-
logy TOdéX} 1976, l (11), 29-30.

 

Hoyt, K. B. Career education and the handicapped person
(Ass't Commissioner for Career Ed. U. S. Office
of Ed.). Paper presented to Forum of National
Organizations, Oct. 25, 1973, ERIC-ED 108431, 1-9.

Hyman, M. D. Social psychological factors affecting disa-
bility among ambulatory patients. Journal of
Chronic Disability, 1975, ll, 199-216.

 

 

Ingwell, R. H., Thoreson, R. W., & Smits, S. J. Accuracy
of social perception of physically handicapped
and nonhandicapped persons. Journal of Social
Psychology: 1967, 13, 107-116.

 

 

Irwin, T. K. What is medicine finding out now? Family
Weekly, April 4, 1976, 4-8.

Jenkins, C. D. & Zyzonski, S. J. Dimensions of belief
and feeling concerning three diseases, polio-
myelitis, Cancer, and Mental Illness: A factor
analytic study. Behavioral Science, 1968, ll,
372-381.

 

Johnson, R. & Heal, L. Private employment agency res-
ponses to physically handicapped applicant in a
wheelchair. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counselipg, 1976, Z, 12-21.

 

Jones, R. L. Labels and stigmaixxspecial education.
Exceptional Children, 1972, ll (7), 553-564.

 

Jones, R. L. The hierarchical structure of attitudes
toward the exceptional. Exceptional Children,
1974!.19 (6), 430-435.

Jordan, 8. The disadvantaged group: A concept applica-
ble to the handicapped. The Journal of Psycho-
logy, 1963, ll, 313-322.

Journal of Social Issues, 1948, 4.

Katz, D. Boosting the odds of bringing a perfect baby
into the world. Detroit, The Free Press, Sunday,
March 28, 1976, 8-13 & 27.

Katz, P. A., Katz, 1., & Cohen, S. White children's
attitudes toward Blacks and the physically
handicapped: A developmental study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1976, gg (1), 20-24.

 

95

Kellogg, M. A. & McGee, H. The next minority, Newsweek,
December 20, 1976, 74-75.

Kissin, G. Model for communicating the dynamics of the
psychosocial adjustment of the handicapped.
Proceedings, 79th Annual Convention, American
Psychological AssociatiOn, 1971, 643-644.

 

 

Kleck, R. Emotional arousal in interactions with stigma-
tized persons. Psychological Repprts, 1966, 19,
1226. __

 

Kleck, R., Buck, P., Goller, W., London, R., Pfeiffer,
J., & Vukeevic, D. Effect of stigmatizing con-
ditions on the use of personal space. Psycho-
logical Reports, 1968, ll, 111-118.

 

Kleck, R. & Horn, J. Reaction-mathe handicapped - Sweaty
palms and saccharine words. Psychology Today,
Nov. 1975, l, 122.

Kleck, R., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. H. The effects of
physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction.
Human Relations, 1966, ll (4), 425-436.

 

Kleck, R. E., Richardson, S. A., & Ronald, L. Physical
appearance cues and interpersonal attraction in
children. Child Development, 1974, ll, 305-310.

 

Krammerer, R. An exploratory psychological study of
crippled children. Psychological Record, 1940,
1, 47-100.

 

Kriegel, L. Uncle Tom and Tiny Tim: Some reflections
on the cripple as Negro. The American Scholar,
Summer, 1969.

Lacatis, H. The semantics of labeling persons with
atypical physique. Unpublished M.A., Wayne State
University, Detroit, 1977.

Lane, M. E., Dorfman, E., & Demopoulos, J. I. Predictive
factors for success of the psychologically
disabled: Study of a socioecnomically disadvan-
taged group. érchieves of Phy. Med. & Rehabili-
tation, 1974, ll, 66.

Langer, E., Fiske, S., Taylor, S., & Charowitz, B. Stig-
ma, staring and discomfort: A novel-stimulus
hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 1976, _1_2_, 451-463.

96

LaVor, M. & Harvey, J. Headstart, Economic Opportunity,
Community Partnership Act of 1974. Exceptional
Children, 1976, gl_(4), 227-230.

 

Leonard, E. Science serving the handicapped . . . The
handicapped serving science. Performance, 1976,
ll (10), 8-11.

 

Lillywhite, H. A point of view for those working with
the handicapped. Exceptional Children, 1958,
ll, 101-105.

 

Lukoff, I. F. & Whiteman, M. Attitudes toward blindness:
Some preliminary findings. The New Outlook for
the Blind, 1961, ll (2), 39-44.

 

 

Matthews, V. & Westie, C. A preferred method for obtain-
ing rankings: Reactions to physical handicaps.
American Sociological Review, 1966, ll, 851-854.

 

McFie, J. & Robertson, J. Psychological test results of
children with thalidomide deformitics. Develop.
Med. Child Neurel, 1973, ll, 719-727.

 

Mercer, R. T. Mothers' responses to their infants with
defects. Nursing Research, 1974, ll (2), 133-137.

 

Meyerson, L. Physical disability as a social psycho-
logical problem. Journal of Social Issues, 1948,
4, 2-10.

 

Meyerson, L. SomatOpsychology of physical disability.
Psychology of Exceptional Children apg_Youth
(Cruickshank, 3rdCEd.), New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1971, 1-74.

 

Morgan, M. Beyond disability: A broader definition of
architectural barriers. ATA Journal, May, 1976,
50-53.

 

Murphy, A. T. Attitudes of educators toward the visually
handicapped. Sight-Saving Review, 1960, 30 (3).

 

Murphy, A., Dickstein, J., & Dripps, E. Acceptance,
rejection and the hearing handicapped. The Velta
Review, 1960, ll, 208-211.

 

Novak, D. W. & Lerner, M. J. Rejection as a consequence
of perceived similarity. Joprnal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 1968, 2:72)) 147-152.

 

97

Park, L. D. Barriers to normality for the handicapped
adult in the United States. Rehabilitation Lit.,
1975, ll, 108-111.

 

Pinkerton, P. Parental acceptance of the handicapped
child. Developmental Medicine and Child Neuro-
logy, 1970, E (2), 267-712.

Poznanski, E. O. Emotional issues in raising handicapped
children. Rehabilitation Lit., 1973, ll (11),
322 & 327.

 

Richardson, S. A. Some social psychological consequences
of handicapping. Pediatrics, 1963, 37 (2),
291-297.

 

Richardson, S. A. Handicap, appearance and stigma.
Social Science and Medicine, 1971, l, 621-628.

Richardson, 5. A. & Emerson, P. Race and physical handi-
cap in children's preferences for other children:
A replication in a Southern city. Human Rela-
tions, 1970, ll (1), 31-36.

 

Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H., &
Dornbusch, S. M. Cultural uniformity in reaction
to physical disabilities. American Sociological
Review, 1961, 221 241-247.

 

Richardson, 8. A., Hastorf, A. H., & Dornbusch, S. M.
Effects of physical disability on a child's
description of himself. Child Develgpment, 1964,
35, 893-907.

 

Richardson, S. A. & Royce, J. Race and handicap in
children's preference for other children. Child
Development, 1968, ll, 467-480.

 

Roeher, G. A. Significance of public attitudes in the
rehabilitation of the disabled. Rehabilitation
Lit. ' 1961’ 33 (3) p 66-720

 

Safilios-Rothschild, C. Prejudice against the disabled
and some means to combat it. International
Rehabilitation Review, 1968, ll (47, 8-10 & 14.

 

Safilios-Rothschild, C. The sociology and social psycho-
logy of disabilipy and rehabilitation. New York:
Random House, 1970.

 

 

98

Sawisch, L. & Fitzgerald, H. Shed preconceived ideas,
look, listen: A response to Sheridan's position
on the spontaneous play of handicapped children.
Child: Care, Health and Develppment, 1976, l
(4), 171-180}

 

Shall this child die? Newsweek, Nov., 1973, 70.

Sheridan M. The importance of spontaneous play in the
fundamental learning of handicapped children.
Child: Carengealth, and Development, 1975, l,
3-17.

 

Siller, J. Toward factorial indices of reactionslto the
disabled. UnpubliShed manuscript, Human Re-
sources Library, 1965.

 

Siller, J. Generality of attitudes toward the physically
disabled. Proceedings, 78th Annual Convention,
American Psychological Association, 697-698f7l970.

 

 

Siller, J. Attitudes toward disability. Draft copy,
1975.

 

Siller, J., Chipman, A., Ferguson, L., & Vann, D.
Studies in reaction to disability XI: Attitudes
of the nondisabled toward the physically dis-
abled. New York University, May 1967}

 

 

Siller, J., Ferguson, L., Vann, D., & Holland, B.
Studies in reaction to disability XII: Structure
of attitudes toward the disabled. Disability
Factor Scales - Amputation, blindness, cosmetic
conditions. New York University, November l967.

 

 

 

 

Siller, J., Ferguson, L. T., Vann, D. H., & Holland, B.
Structure of attitudes toward the physically
disabled: The disability factor scales -
Amputation, blindness, cosmetic conditions.
Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention American
PsycholcchicalAssociation, I968, 65l-652.

 

 

Smits, S. J., Conine, T. A., & Edwards, L. D. Defini-
tions of disability as determinants of scores
on the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1971, ll
(4), 227-235.

 

Staffieri, J. R. Body image stereotypes of mentally
retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
1968, ll, 841-843.

99

Stein, K. At whose expense? The Independent, 1976, l
(2). 7.

 

Stewart, L. G. We have met the enemy and he is us.
American Annals of the Deaf, December 1974.

 

Stoppleworth, L. J. Special education and reinforcement
theory: Are we reinforcing deficient behavior?
Psychology in the Schools, 1974, ll (3), 357-359.

 

Taft, L. T. Are we handicapping the handicapped?
(Editorial) Developmental Medicine and Child
NeurologY, 1972, ll, 703-704.

 

 

Telford, C. W. & Sawrey, J. M. The exceprional individ-
ual: Psychological and educational aspects.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l967.

 

 

The hardest choice. Time, March 25, 1974, 84.

Titley, R. W. & Viney, W. Expression of aggression to-
ward the physically handicapped. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1969, ll, 51-56.

 

 

Tringo, J. L. The hierarchy of preference toward disa-
bility groups. Journal of Special Education,
1970, l (3), 295-306.

Van, D. H. Components of attitudes toward the obese
including presumed responsibility for condition.
Proceedings, 78th Annual Conventiony American
Psychological Association, 1970, 695-696.

 

Vander Kolk, C. J. Physiological measures as a means of
assessing reactions to the disabled. New Out-
look for the Blind, 1976, 12, 101-103.

 

Wan, T. T. H. Correlates and consequences of severe
disabilities. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
1974, $9 (4), 234-244.

Wershow, H. J. The balance of mental health and regres-
sion, as expressed in the literature on chronic
illness and disability. Social Service Review,
1963, ll (2), 193-200.

Whiteman, M. & Lukoff, I. Attitudes of the sighted
toward blindness and physical handicap. Paper
presented’at Eastern Psychological Association,
New York, April 1960.

100

Whiteman, M. & Lukoff, I. F. Public attitudes toward
blindness. The New Outlook for the Blind, 1962,

 

Whiteman, M. & Lukoff, I. F. Attitudes toward blindness
and other physical handicaps. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1965, ll, 135-145.

 

 

Wright, B. Physical disability: A psycholggical
approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Wright, B. A. An analysis of attitudes - Dynamics and
effects. The New Outlook for the Blind, March
1974, 108-118.

 

Yuker, H. E. Selection and placement of the handicapped
worker. Industrial Medicine and Surgery, 1960,
ll, 419-421.

 

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, D. A. A scale to
measure attitudes toward disabled persons.
Human Resources Study No. 5, Human Resources
Foundation, Albertson, New York, 1960.

 

 

Yuker, H., Block, J., & Young, J. The measurement of
attitudes toward disabled persons. Human
Resources Center, 1970, Albertson, New York.

 

Zych, K. & Bolton, B. Galvanic skin responses and
cognitive attitudes toward disabled persons.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 1972, ll (4), 172-173.