College students with physical disabilities: Myths and realities (original) (raw)

Abstract

This investigation (1) explored affect concerning interaction between nondisabled individuals and people with various disabilities, (2) examined stereotyping by both disabled and nondisabled students, (3) compared aspects of the self-concepts of nondisabled and disabled persons, and (4) evaluated nondisabled individuals* beliefs about these. Results show that nondisabled college students were less comfortable with disabled than with able-bodied peers. Students with disabilities, although equally comfortable with nondisabled individuals and with those who have the same disability as they do, were as uncomfortable as able-bodied individuals with peers who have a disability different from their own. Wheelchair user, visually impaired, and nondisabled college students had similar selfesteem, social anxiety, dating anxiety, and dating behavior. When predicting the responses of others, nondisabled students scored both able-bodied and disabled peers lower on most dimensions of selfconcept than the actual scores of these groups indicate. Differences were greatest, however, between the self-concepts of people with disabilities and nondisabled individuals' beliefs about these. Furthermore, students with disabilities shared the myths believed by their nondisabled peers. As the number of individuals with disabilities enrolled in colleges and universities is increasing (Fichten, 1988), it has become increasingly important to facilitate their integration. To do this, a better understanding of the attitudes that nondisabled students and students with different disabilities have about themselves and about each other is needed. Research on attitudes of nondisabled individuals regarding people who have a physical disability suggest that both sympathy and aversion are commonplace. Numerous studies have shown that nondisabled persons evaluate individuals with disabilities more favorably than their able-bodied counterparts (e.g., Belgrave, 1985; Tagalakis et al.,1988). Data also indicate that attitudes can be polarized in either direction when the performance of the individual with a disability is of consequence to the evaluator or when ambivalent attitudes are legitimized (Carver et al., 1979; Gibbons et al., 1980). Despite this, studies demonstrating the existence

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (44)

  1. Alloy, L. B., & Ahrens, A. H. (1987). Depression and pessimism for the future: Biased use of statistically relevant information in predictions for self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 366-378.
  2. Arkowitz, H. (1981). Assessment of social skills. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 296-327). New York: Pergamon Press.
  3. Babbitt, C. E., Burbach, H. J., & Iutcovich, M. (1979). Physically handicapped college students: An exploratory study of stigma. Journal of College Student Personnel, 20(5), 403-407.
  4. Beail, N. (1983). Physical disability: The self and the stereotype. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 6, 56-57.
  5. Belgrave, F. Z. (1985). Reactions to a black stimulus person under disabling and nondisabling conditions. Journal of Rehabilitation, April/May/Tune, 53-57.
  6. Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). (pp. 38-89). New York: Academic Press.
  7. Cameron, P., Titus, D. G., Kostin, J., & Kostin, M. (1973). The life satisfaction of nonnormal persons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(2), 207-214.
  8. Carver, C. S., Gibbons, F. X., Stephan, W. G., Glass, D. C, & Katz, I. (1979). Ambivalence and evaluative response amplification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 50-523.
  9. Coopersmith, S. (1981). SEI Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  10. Crandell, J. M., & Streeter, L. (1977). The social adjustment of blind students in different educational settings. Education of the visually handicapped, Spring, 1-7.
  11. Demo, D. H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our methods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1490-1502.
  12. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1, 117-140.
  13. Fichten, C. S. (1984). See it from my point of view: Videotape and attributions in happy and distressed couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 125-142.
  14. Fichten, C. S. (1986). Self, other and situation-referent automatic thoughts: Interaction between people who have a physical disability and those who do not. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10(5), 571-587.
  15. Fichten, C. S. (1988). Students with physical disabilities in higher education: Attitudes and beliefs that affect integration. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 171-186). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
  16. Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1988). Thoughts concerning interaction between college students who have a physical disability and their nondisabled peers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 22-40.
  17. Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1986). Trait attributions about physically disabled college students: Circumplex analyses and methodological issues. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 410-427.
  18. Fichten, C. S., & Bourdon, C. V. (1986). Social skill deficit of response inhibition: Interaction between wheelchair user and able-bodied college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 326-333.
  19. Fichten, C. S., Bourdon, C. V., Amsel R., & Fox, L. (1987). Validation of the College Interaction Self- Efficacy Questionnaire: Students with and without disabilities. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28(5), 449^58.
  20. Gibbons, F. X., Stephan, W. G., Stephenson, B., & Petty, C. R. (1980). Reactions to stigmatized others; Response amplification vs. sympathy. Journaloj'ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 16,591-605.
  21. Glasgow, R. E., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). The behavioral assessment of male and female social competence in dyadic heterosocial interactions. Behavior Therapy, 6, 488-498.
  22. Gotlib, I. H., & Meltzer, S. J. (1987). Depression and the perception of social skill in dyadic interaction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 41-54.
  23. Hastorf, A. H., Northcraft, G. B., & Picciotto, S. R. (1979). Helping the handicapped: How realistic is the performance feedback received by the physically handicapped. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(3), 373-376.
  24. Katz, I., & Glass, D. C. (1979). An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter group relations (pp. 55-70). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
  25. Kemp, N. J., & Rutter, D. R. (1986). Social interaction in blind people: An experimental analysis. Human Relations, 39(3), 195-210.
  26. Kleck, R. E., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. H. (1966). The effect of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 19, 425-436.
  27. Kriegsman, K. H., & Hershenson, D. B. (1987). A comparison of able-bodied and disabled college students on Erikson's ego stages and Maslow's needs levels. Journal of College Student Personnel, January, 48-52.
  28. Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., & Barton, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 203-212.
  29. McCann, V. G. (1967). Perceptions of self-esteem in persons with chronic physical disabilities. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Kansas. Available from the Clendening Medical Library, University of Kansas Medical Center.
  30. Meighan, T. (1971). An investigation of the self-concept of blind and visually handicapped adolescents. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
  31. Ravaud, J. F., Beaufils, B., & Paicheler, H. (1987). Stereotyping and intergroup perceptions of disabled and nondisabled children: A new perspective. The Exceptional Child, 34(2), 93-106.
  32. Robillard, K. & Fichten, C. S. (1983). Attributions about sexuality and romantic involvement of physically disabled college students: An empirical study. Sexuality and Disability, 6,197-212.
  33. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self (pp. 149-174). New York: Basic Books.
  34. Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1982a). Principles of self-concept formation. In M. Rosenberg & H. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 173-178). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
  35. Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1982b). Social identity and social context. In M. Rosenberg & H. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 209-223). Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
  36. Roth, D. L., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, L. M. (1986). Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 867-874.
  37. Schroedal, J. G., & Schiff, W. (1972). Attitudes towards deafness among several deaf and hearing populations. Rehabilitation Psychology, 19 (2), 59-70.
  38. Snyder, M., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A., & Mentzer, S. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,2297-2306.
  39. Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. S. (1988). Job interview strategies for people with a visible disability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(6), 520-532.
  40. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
  41. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
  42. Weinberg, N., & Williams, J. (1978). How the physically disabled perceive their disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 44 (3), 31-33.
  43. Weinberg-Asher, N. (1976). The effect of physical disability on self-perception. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 23, 15-20.
  44. Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.) New York: Harper & Row.