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

1989, Rehabilitation Psychology

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