j’ooumal of Adolescence 1984, 7, 99-117
School children’s attitudes towards the handicapped
ADRIAN FURNHAM+ AND MAUREEN GIBBS”
This study set out to determine the attitude of a group of normal British 13-year-old school children towards handicapped people while avoiding problems of previous research. As has been shown in previous studies it was demonstrated that the children’s attitudes to the physically handicapped were more positive than those towards the mentally handicapped. Whereas there were very few sex differences indicating that males were more negative to the handicapped in general than females, there were a number of contact differences. Children who knew or interacted with a handicapped person were by-and-large more positive in their attitudes than those who had little or no contact with handicapped people. The results of this study are discussed in terms of the integration of handicapped and non-handicapped school children.
INTRODUCTION
Legislation, both in Britain and the United States of America, has recently attempted to encourage more integration between disabled/handicapped
people and “normal” non disabled/handicapped people (Altman, 1981; Warnock, 1978). In Britain an act was passed in the mid 1970s to the effect
that handicapped pupils in England and Wales were to be educated in
ordinary, as opposed to special, schools (Warnock, 1978). Warnock (1978) emphasized the importance of the contribution of parents,
non-teacher professionals, teachers, doctors and the general public in the
successful integration and progress of the handicapped children. Likewise Altman (1981) highlighted the importance of various groups with regards to
their attitudes towards the handicapped. She argues that there are three different levels of personal interaction with individuals whose attitudes affect
the handicapped person’s self-concept and degree of socialization. The levels
are firstly in their relationships with peers and significant others such as family or close friends; secondly in their interaction with professionals such as doctors, social workers, teachers, councillors and employers who are the
Reprint requests should be directed to Dr Adrian Furnham. Department of Psychology. I’niversity College London, 26 Bedford Way, London \VCr
or~o--ll)jIi~~:0200qy + 1) $03.oo:c 0 ICJ& 'l‘tw .\swtatwn for the Ikchmric Study of .kh~kscentr
99
IO0 .I. FL K\H:iRI .\%I) ;\I. C;IBHS
important elements in influencing their life direction; and thirdly in their relation to the general public whose reaction to their presence in public places
is part of their evervday life experiences. \Yarnock (19$3),- because of her primary interest in the education of
handicapped children, acknowledges the importance of the primary level mentioned by Altman (1981). She states that the attitudes of other children
in the school will affect the success of arrangements for those Lvith disabilities
or significant difficulties. She also stresses the point that other pupils should be helped to understand that while having special needs handicapped
children are in other respects no different from themselves. Bv this she
acknowledges that close friends and peers play an important role in the acceptance or rejection at school which in turn criticallv affect the success or
failure of any integration scheme. Though the official policy has long been moving away from special and
institutional care for the disabled, towards the ideal of “Integration” in the
community, a recent study by M:eir (1981) indicates that public feelings are
far less sympathetic than one would hope. He investigated the percentage of
population in agreement with the \Varnock (1978) recommendation that physically and mentally handicapped children should as far as possible be
educated in normal schools. The results sho\ved onlv ~4 per cent agreement . . for the mentall?; handicapped whereas agreement for the physicall> handicapped averaged higher at 71 per cent. He also found that middle-class
individuals were more biased towards integration than working-class people.
The survey produced the conclusion that far more work had to be done in
putting across the case for integration. There is a farily considerable literature on children’s attitudes towards the
handicapped (Altman, 198 I). ‘l-he research methods carried out so far on
children’s attitudes towards the handicapped have mainly been picture ranking and sociometric analyses. There have been problems with both these
procedures.
The picture ranking experiment, s have been found to lack subtletv
(Matthews and W’estie, 1966) and to elicit reaction to the condition rather
than to the individual who has this condition. \Yhiteman and Lukoff (1965)
have shown that attitudes towards a handicapping condition are more negative than attitudes towards single individuals who exhibit these handicaps. More negative attitudes were found in conjunction with handicaps that were most threatening to the children’s self-concept. For example boys showed greater concern with functional limitations of arms and legs and g&s responded more to appearance defects. nIenta1 handicap is
considered more threatening to the self than physical handicap and hence is treated more negatively (Freed, 1964).
Sociometric and contact studies have also been widely used in the analysis
sc11001, C~lII,I>KEN’S ;\‘I”rI’I’~~I~ES ‘I‘OK.\Kl)S ‘I‘lIE I1.\NI>IC’.\PPEI) 101
of normal subjects reaction to mentally retarded individuals, as this relates to
the debate as to whether special classes or integration into normal schools
provides the best education system for these children. Extensive work in this
area has produced contradictory and equivocal findings, where for Instance
Johnson (1950) and Rucker, Howe and Snider (1969) found that retarded children were rejected more than non retarded children, Lapp (1957) found no significant difference at all. However to summarize the sociometric and
contact studies it seems that regardless of the educational model (e.g.
integration, separated resource rooms) handicapped children are not as well
accepted as the non handicapped children though it does seem that contact marginally leads to more positive attitudes.
Self-report questionnaires, though by far the most popular technique for
attitude assessment generally (Ahman, 1981) have not been widely used in
children’s attitude assessment. ‘The majority of these self-report studies
focused on different aspects of attitudes towards disabled people; affective
components of beliefs; social distance responses; and ranking of types of
handicaps. Two independent variables have consistently shown to drfferen-
tiate between various attitudes towards disabled people. The degree of
contact with disabled people is a variable which has the usual and predictable
result that closer contact leads to more positive attitudes. However the definition of this contact and its effects on attitudes is still somewhat unclear
(Gaier, Linkowski and Jacques, 1968). A second variable that appears to influence attitudes towards disabled
people is sex differences with females expressing more favourable opinions
than men (Siller and Chipman, 1964; Greenbaum and IYang, 1965). Age,
education and socio-economic level differences however did not appear to
influence attitudes towards the disabled (Altman, 198 I).
The problems of these self report studies are clearly outlined in Altman (1981) who places them into five categories: subject samples are unrepresen-
tative of the population (high school, university students teachers or social
workers); lack of a unified definition for the concept of contact (duration,
type, etc.); the multidimensionality of the attitudes towards disabled people is often ignored and unidimensronal interpretations produced; social
desirability may produce biases in people’s responses; and finally and
probably most importantly the ambiguity of the attitude object (i.e. the
handicapped person). Any label given to the attitude object might produce the stereotyped response which is not an adequate measure of the true
attitudes. The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of school children
towards the mentally and physically handicapped, using a self-report questionnaire technique, which hopefully avoided the problems outlined by Altman (1981) and Furnham and Pendred (1983).
I02 A. FURNHAM AND M. GIBBS
Previous studies would suggest that attitudes would be more sympathetic
to physical rather than mental, and non-observable rather than observable, handicaps. Murphy, Dickstein and Dripps (1960) compared different disabilities: crippling, sensory and brain related handicaps and found more
negative attitudes to the brain related or mental handicaps. Freed (1964) using
the Yuker, Block and Campbell (1960) Attitudes Towards The Disabled
Persons Scale (ATDP) found that attitudes towards mental handicap were
more negative than those to alcoholism and physical handicap. Also physical
handicap was regarded better than alcoholism. More recently Furnham and
Pendred (1983) using an adult sample found that the mentally handicapped
were viewed more negatively than physically handicapped. Thus it is
predicted that the physically handicapped will be regarded more positively
than the mentally handicapped.
There is however some debate as to whether the observability of a handicap
alters the attitudes of individuals. Previous studies have illustrated more negative attitudes towards observable handicaps compared with unobserv-
able handicaps (Antonak, 1980; Altman, 1981), but Furnham and Pendred
(1983) detected no difference. Hence it was hypothesised that the difference, if any, would illustrate negative attitudes towards the observable handicaps
due to its increased threatening quality (Antonak, 1980; Altman, 1981).
In accordance with previous studies (Greenbaum and Wang, 1965; Weir,
1981) an overall sex difference is predicted with females expressing more
favourable attitudes than males.
Finally, the degree of contact is thought to affect attitudes whereby increased direct, equal status, contact will produce more positive attitudes in
individuals. This study attempted to deal with the problems that this
independent variable causes (Linowski, Jacques and Gaier, 1969) and hypothesizes that a high degree of contact will improve peoples attitudes
towards the handicapped.
METHOD
Subjects
There were 135 subjects of whom I I I were female and 34 were male. The subject samples were taken from two schools; a primarily middle-class grammar and a primarily working-class comprehensive school. Their ages
were between 13 and 14 years, the majority being 13 years. None of the children was handicapped in any way.
Questionnaire
Each of the subjects was given a 31 item scale which divided into three sections.
(i) Items referring to what a handicapped child can and cannot do.
SCHOOL CHILDREN’S ATTITCDES TOWARDS THE HANDIC4PPED ‘03
(ii) Items related to what handicapped children are like.
(iii) Items enquiring as to what causes the handicap.
The scale used was an adaptation from the Yuker et al. (1960) ATDP
questionnaire. It was modified initially by making the original 20 questions more applicable and comprehensible to children. Then extra questions were
added that specifically investigated attitudes about handicap causation and the abilities of handicapped children in and out of school.
A pilot study was performed to establish what types of handicap were known by children aged IO to 14 years. This was done by asking children to
list as many handicaps as possible, what it prevented a person from doing and what caused it. Extra items were based on this pilot study.
It was from the better known ones that the four handicaps were chosen for the main questionnaire. These handicaps were also required to fit the criteria
of completely separate categories, in accordance with the H code for
handicaps (Grossiord and Wood, 1974) and be grouped into physical or
mental and observable or unobservable. Hence the disablements chosen for the four conditions were deafness, mongolism, paralysis and retardation.
After completing the 3 I item scale, subjects were requested to indicate how
much contact they had had with handicapped individuals; to specify the type
of handicap; the length or type of acquaintance, the regularity of contact and the age or sex of the handicapped individual. From this information it was
possible to group subjects into those who had little or no contact with, or knowledge of, the handicapped and those who had fairly considerable and
regular contact.
Procedure
The school children were randomly given any one of the four question-
naires (each specifying one type of handicap) so that approximately 34 people completed each questionnaire. The questionnaire took about 25 to 30 min to
complete and the subjects remained anonymous. The children were specifically asked to respond honestly. The questionnaire was administered
bv class teachers in school time. The subjects appeared to have no problem
weith the task and were later debriefed.
Three separate analyses were performed on the data.
(I) Physicallmental and obse~~ablelunobserr~able differences
First a two-way (2 X 2) (physical/mental; observable/unobservable) ANOVA was computed on each of the 31 items. It revealed a significance of the physical/mental effect (total scores) with subjects being more favourable towards the physically handicapped than the mentally handicapped.
‘04 A. FURNHAIvI AND RI. GIBBS
However, no significance was found for the observable/unobservable effect. Table I shows the means and F levels for each of the items across the four
groups. Ten of the 31 physical/mental effects were significant, and the majority went in the same dtrection.
As regards items referring to what handicapped children can and cannot
do, subjects believed that children with physical handicaps could go to ordinary schools, do as well in work as normal school children and would
have higher expectations than mentally handicapped children.
Only three of the 12 items that referred to what handicapped children are like were significant. The subjects believed that physically disabled children
would make better friends, have nicer parties and be less ugly than mentally
disabled children. The significant items illustrating beliefs of handicap causation demon-
strated that whereas mental handicap was considered congenital, physical
handicap was believed to be more accident orientated.
(2) Type of h d p an ica r-et-ses knowledge of a handicap perso?!
Secondly a two-way (4 x z) (deafness, paralysis, mongolism or retardation
vs. knowledge or no knowledge of a handicapped person) ANOVA was
carried out on each of the 31 items. It revealed a number of significant
effects-attitudes were more positive towards deafness and paralysis than to
mongolism and retardation, and that knowledge of a handicapped person
produced more favourable beliefs about handicaps in general. Table 2 shows the means and 6’values for each of the items across the eight
groups. Eight of the 31 type of handicap effects were significant and I I of the
31 knowledge of handicap person effects were significant as well.
(i) Wh t h d’ a a an Icapped child can and cannot do
The type of handicap effect showed four significant items. Subjects believed that mongol and retarded children should go to special schools, would not do so well in school work, had lower expectations and were not as clever as
paralysed or deaf children. The knowledge of a handicap person effect revealed only two significant
differences, though other items went in different directions. Knowledge of a handicap person increased children’s attitudes such that handicapped children were seen as the same as anyone else and could be treated like normal
children.
(ii) What handicapped children are like
Two significant differences were found for the type of handicap effect. They implied that children felt less inclined to go to a retarded or mongol child’s party and thought they were more ugly than paralysed or deaf children.
SCIIOOI, CfJII,I)REN’S .A’I”I‘I’l-I-DES ‘I‘O\\‘.\R1)S ‘I’fIE f1.‘.NDIC‘~\t’f’~l) 10:
Table
1.
The
cel
l m
eans
an
d an
alys
is
of v
aria
nce
yesu
lts f
or- e
ach
item
foy
all
four
- gr
oups
of
han
dica
pped
pe
ople
Phys
ical
M
enta
l F
Val
ues
Obs
t N
onob
sf
Obs
N
onob
s Ph
ysic
al
Obs
erva
ble
- Pa
raly
sis
I’44
3.67
3'75
3.36
Dea
f
1.61
3'75
3.86
3.81
Mon
golis
m
Ret
arda
tion
1.69
1.46
3'7'
3.61
4'17
3'7'
3'94
3'57
Mkn
tal
Uno
bser
vabl
e P/
M
X O
/V
0.08
0.03
"37
0.06
0'00
0'22
0'57
0.91
2.46
0.72
0.03
3.98'
(IO
) Sp
ort
is r
estr
icte
d to
no
rmal
ch
ildre
n on
ly
(II)
. . . c
hild
ren
are
easy
to
ge
t al
ong
with
(12)
At
scho
ol,
. .
. ch
ildre
n ha
ve
to
(13)
.
. .
(‘4)
.
.
(IS)
M
ost
. .
.
have
spe
cial
fa
cilit
ies
child
ren
have
lo
ts
of
frie
nds
child
ren
don’
t of
ten
get
jobs
w
hen
they
gr
ow
up
child
ren
shou
ld
go t
o or
dina
ry
scho
ols
Wha
t ha
ndic
appe
d ch
ildre
n ar
e lik
e (1
6)
. .
child
ren
are
usua
lly
mor
e fr
iend
ly
than
ot
her
child
ren
(17)
M
ost
child
ren
feel
so
rry
for
them
selv
es
(18)
.
. ch
ildre
n ar
e us
ually
lo
nely
(1
9)
A.
child
w
ould
be
sp
ecia
lly
nice
to
ha
ve
as a
fri
end
(20)
Most
child
ren
wou
ld
wan
t to
go
toa
. ch
ild’s
pa
rty
3.69
3.
61
3’43
3’
43
I.38
0.
05
0’05
2.08
2.
42
2’74
2.
68
5.86
# 0.
50
I.09
3.58
3’
72
3’37
3.
68
0’53
1.
62
0.23
2.06
I’
94
1.91
2’
21
0’12
0’
25
1’19
2.81
2’
47
3’03
2.
61
0.51
2.
27
0.03
3.2
8
3’”
3.6
9
3.4
6
4.8
2*
1'25
0'02
2'33
2.69
3'09
2.96
7.08"~
0'39
1.58
mst
N
onoh
s O
hs
Non
obs
Para
lysi
s D
eaf
Mon
golis
m
Ret
arda
tion
Phys
ical
O
bser
vabl
e M
enta
l U
nobs
erva
ble
P/M
X
O/V
Phvs
ical
Sl
enta
l F
Val
ues
(21)
. .
. ch
ildre
n ar
e ve
ry
happ
y 3’
33
3’44
2’
94
3.46
(2
2)
. .
child
ren
are
mor
e ea
sily
up
set
than
ot
her
child
ren
3’83
3’
42
3 54
3’
18
(23)
.
. .
child
ren
are
ugly
2.
69
2’2
2
I’37
1.
29
(24)
M
ost
child
ren
are
mis
erab
le
2.03
2’
00
1’97
1.
96
(25)
.
child
ren
are
fun
to
be w
ith
3’39
3’
50
3’57
3’
50
(26)
M
ost
. .
. ch
ildre
n ar
e un
frie
ndly
I
75
I.78
“5
’ 1.
46
(27)
ch
ildre
n ar
e of
ten
cros
s 2.
42
2’II
2.
06
2 I2
The
ca
uses
of
han
dica
p It
ems
(I
=
alw
ays;
2
=
som
etim
es;
3 =
ne
ver)
(2
8)
. ch
ildre
n ar
e bo
rn
with
th
eir
hand
icap
1.
64
1.92
“9
7 (2
9)
Acc
iden
ts
caus
e ch
ildre
n to
su
ffer
w
ith
. .
. 2’
39
2.19
1’
97
(30)
W
rong
dr
ugs
or
vacc
inat
ions
al
lerg
ies
can
caus
e .
. .
2’00
2.
06
2.06
(3
1)
Dis
ease
canc
ause
.
2’33
2.
17
2.06
2’00
2’00
2.14
2’
21
0’99
1.64
36
.78x
* 0’
07
0.27
3’72
0’01
13.4
8***
26.9
9***
0.98
2.
64
2.88
1’
21
3‘57
0’
02
2.24
1.
08
0’01
0’
00
0’01
0.
27
0’01
0.
07
0.50
0.
97
7’3
I**’
4.
84*
1.98
3’
58
0’94
0.
04
0’00
5’
3’*
Lev
els
of s
igni
fica
nce;
*
P <
0.
05.
** P
<
0.0
1;
**+
P
<
0.00
1.
t O
hs
=
obse
rvab
le.
1 N
onob
s =
un
obse
rvab
le.
Table
2.
Co
nti
nu
ed
I:
Val
ues
Mon
golis
m
Para
lysi
s R
etar
datio
n D
eafn
ess
Typ
es
of k
now
. of
a
hand
icap
ha
ndic
ap
Inte
r-
Kno
w.
No
know
. K
now
. N
o kn
ow.
Kno
w.
No
know
. K
now
. N
o kn
ow.
pers
on
actio
n
(17)
Mos
t .
. ch
ildre
n fe
el
sorr
y fo
r th
emse
lves
(1
8)
. ch
ildre
n ar
e us
ually
lo
nely
(1
9)
A
. ch
ild
wou
ld
be
spec
ially
ni
ce
to
have
as
a fr
iend
(2
0)
Mos
t ch
ildre
n w
ould
w
ant
to
go t
o a
. .
. ch
ild’s
pa*y
(2
1)
. .
child
ren
are
very
happ
y (2
2)
child
ren
are
mor
e ea
sily
up
set
than
ot
her
child
ren
(23)
ch
ildre
n ar
e ug
ly
(24)
M
ost
. ch
ildre
n ar
e m
iser
able
(25)
.
child
ren
are
fun
to
be w
ith
(26)
M
ost
. .
child
ren
are
unfr
iend
ly
(27)
ch
ildre
n ar
e of
ten
cros
s
2’00
2’
10
2’00
2.31
3.
20
3‘00
3’75
2.
90
3.67
2.38
2.
30
3’50
3.69
3’
05
3’00
3.56
4’
05
3‘25
2.
38
2’95
1.
33
1.81
2’
20
1.58
4’00
2.
90
3’75
1.31
2'10
1.17
2'25
2’55
1’
75
1.91
"47
2.23
3'00
I'93
2.91
3'73
3'13
3'09
2.86
2.
80
2.64
2.91
3’
73
3’23
3.68
3’
13
3.64
1.
36
1.80
2.
50
2.18
1.
67
2.23
3’50
3.
80
3’27
1.68
“4
7 2’
00
2.23
1’
93
2.23
1.90
1.90
2.50
3.11
3'30
3.61
3'30
3'70
2.89
3’17
2.70
1.30
1.30
3.60
1.40
2'10
3’39
1'22
2'33
3'44
1.56
2'22
0.58
3’
19
1.15
P
1'12
9.51**
1.08
?1
c
2'00
0’54
2.
07
5 s
4.04
**
2.70
5
0’44
6
I.61
5.
43”
0.41
3 0 E
2.13
6.28
”’
0.06
g
I 2.
62**
+
2.62
1.
04
0'20
x3.06***
0.54
0.18
8.
51””
1.
53
1.29
I 2
.65*
**
0.8
I
0’97
2.
56
0.14
The
ca
uses
of
han
dica
p It
ems
(I
=
alw
ays;
2 = sometimes;
3 = never.)
Mon
golis
m
Para
lysi
s R
etar
datio
n D
eafn
ess
Typ
es
of k
now
. of
a
hand
icap
ha
ndic
ap
Inte
r-
Kno
w.
No
know
. tin
ow.
No
know
. K
now
. N
o kn
ow.
Kno
w.
No
know
. pe
rson
ac
tion
(28)
ch
ildre
n ar
e bo
rn
with
th
eir
hand
icap
1.
56
1.70
x.
92
(29)
A
ccid
ents
ca
use
child
ren
to
suff
er
with
.
. .
2’44
2’
35
2’00
(30)
W
rong
dr
ugs
or
vacc
inat
ions
alle
rgie
s ca
n
caus
e .
. 2.
19
I .8
5 2.
25
(31)
D
isea
se
can
caus
e .
. 2’
25
2.40
2.
08
Lev
els
of s
igni
fica
nce;
*
I’ <
0.
05;
** I
’ <
0.0
1; +
** P
< 0
’001
. K
nnw
. =
kno
wle
dge;
no
kn
ow.
2’00
“7
3 2’
05
2’00
2’
00
8.81
*”
5.48
# 1.
36
“95
2’20
2.
18
2’00
2’
00
10~2
8~+~
0.
38
0’ I
O
1’95
2.
00
2.09
2.
20
2.06
0.
44
5.21
* 1.
84
2’05
2’
20
2.14
2.
30
2’22
2’
43
0’01
0’
5.5
112 .\. FI:KNII.~RI ANI) n1. GIBHS
Seven of the 12 items demonstrated a significant difference whereby more
positive attitudes were found in children that had known a handicapped
person. The handicapped children were seen as more friendly, less lonely, more happy, less easily upset, less miserable, more fun to be with and less unfriendly by children that had had contact with the handicapped when
compared with those that had not.
Once again there were two significant t!-pe of handicap effects. hlongolism was seen as the most congenital, then retardation, then paralysis and finallv
deafness. The opposite was true for accidental happenings.
‘I’he knowledge of a handicapped person effect produced significant results in two of the items. It demonstrated that the more contact children had had
with the handicapped produced more accurate knowledge of various
handicap causation. For example, mongolism was more accurately rated as congenital by children that knew handicapped people than children that did not
A tvvo-way sex difference ANO\T.A was computed on each of the 3 I. ‘I’here were very few differences (7 out of 31) and they showed more negative attitudes from the males than from the females.
Boys felt that handicapped children should go to special schools rather than normal schools, (Item I: I*’ = rz.ob, d.f. 1i132, I’< 0.001) should not
have too much expected of them (Item 5, fi’ = 7.90; d.f. 11133, 1’ < 0.01)
and that they were not the same as anyone else (Item 6, fi’ = 3.99; d.f. 11133,
f’ < 0.05) more than thegirls did. Females believed that handicapped people
aremorelikelytogetjobs(Item 1~,1~‘=6.08;d.f. 1/133,1-‘< o~o~)morefun to be wrth (Item 25, h’ = 4.51, d.f. 11133, I’ < 0.05).
Due to the multidimensional quality of this scale (AAntonak, 1980, Furnham and Pcndred, 1983, Siller and Chipman. 1964) a factor analysis vvas
conrputed on the data (see Table 3). Four factors emerged that accounted for
42 per cent of the variance. The first factor was Iabelledfiie~zAhip because
most of the items referred to friend relationships of handicapped children with others. ‘I’he second factor was labelled emotionalit~~ because it concerned emotional aspects of a handicapped person’s life. The third factor contained iterns referred to school ability and expectations and was thus labelled clhilitjl. Finally the fourth factor was labelled mqyzti~it~~ due to the factor loadings.
SCHOOL CHILDREN’S ATTITI;DES TOWARDS THE H.4NDIC.APPED I I 1
Table 3. ‘4 factor- ana!\Gs (7~arima.~) 41 children’.~ attitudes towards handicapped childre?z
Factor
Items l,oading Etgen value Variance
Friendship 19 A . child would be specially nice to
have as a friend 0.x0 20 Most children want to go to a
child’s part!- 0.61
‘3 . children have lots of friends 0’59
25 children are fun to be with O.j8
10 . . children are usually more friendI\ than other children O“W
Emotionalitv 18 children are usually lone]! 0.08 22 . children are more easily upset than
other children 0.66 24 Most . children are miserable 0.0 1 17 Most children feel sort-!- for
themselves 0’40
Xbilit!
4 children should not be expected to do so well in school work as normal children 0.X.2
5 You should not expect too much from
6.26 20’0
2’74 9’0
2’27 7’3
. children I Most children should go to special
schools
Negativity 26 Most . . . children are unfriendl!
27 children are often cross
23 . children are ugly x7 n,lost . children feel sorry for
themselves
060
O’S’
O.OJ I.61
o .5 .i O’j2
0’57
5’2
A three way ANOVA was then performed on the factor scores arising from the factor analysis. There was significant knowledge of a handicapped person and also in the physical/mental person effect on the first factor. Physically handicapped children were seen to be more friendly, fun to be with and nicer to have as a friend than mentally handicapped children (b’ = 3.9 I, P < 0.05) but both were seen as more friendly by individuals that had some knowledge
1’4 .I. FI_‘KNH.~Rl z\NI) %I. GIBBS
of a handicapped person (I-’ = 7.59, 1’ < 0.001). A significant interaction
was found between the knowledge of a handicap person effect and the
observability of a handicap person effect (b’ = 1.07, P < 0.05). People with knowledge of a handicap person tended to rate observable handicaps higher
in this friendliness factor, than unobservable handicaps. The only significance found in the second factor was the knowledge of a
handicap person effect (E’ = 12.68, I-‘.< 0.001). It demonstrated that children with no knowledge were inclined to believe that handicap children
were lonely, more easily upset, miserable and feel sorry for themselves.
People with knowledge scored sery low on this factor. High significance was found for the physical/mental effect in the third
factor (&’ = 39’ I I, I-‘ < 0.001). Rlentally handicapped children \vere rated highly in this factor and the physicallv handicapped were rated very low.
Hence children felt that where as physjcally handicapped children could do
as well in school work as normal children, could have a lot expected of them,
and should not go to special schools, mentally handicapped children could
never achieve this standard of ability.
The observability effect was found to be significant on this factor (E’ = 3.90, P < 0.05) and it suggested that observable handicap people had better
ability and expectations than unobservable handicap people. The significant
three way interaction was also significant (F = 6.83, P < 0.00 I) and showed
that people with a knowledge of handicap produced lesser extremes over the
physical/mental or observable/unobservable criteria.
The fourth factor showed no significant effects on either of the three independent variable or their interactions.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study show that school children appear to have much
the same attitudes as adults with respect to how they regard handicapped
individuals. They tend to see the handicapped as “different” from themselves and hold beliefs that can be restricting to the disabled person (Furnham and Pendred, 1983). Hence integration will probably not be easy because of these
established prejudices and much work will need to be done to improve acceptance of the handicapped.
The main aim of this study was to investigate school children’s attitudes towards handicapped children as a function of the nature of their handicap, and the children’s experience of handicap itself. In accordance with previous studies (Freed, 1964; Murphy et al., 1960; Furnham and Pendred, 1983) it was found that the mentally handicapped were viewed more negatively than physically handicapped. There are several possible reasons for this finding: children, like most members of the general public, possibly have a better understanding of physical handicap than mental handicap and feel less
SCIIOOI, Cl~II,L)RE:\‘S A’l”I’1’1’1 DES ‘1’OW;~RI)S ‘I’tiE tI.\NDIC,\PI’EI) “5
inadequate in social interaction. Fear and lack of understanding probabl!
account for negative attitudes to the mentally disabled.
Indeed the conceptions the subjects appear to have about the mentall!
handicapped are that they are strange, ugly, sad and lonely. It is perhaps these, plus the threatening quality of mental handicap to the child’s self-concept (Freed, 1964), that produces such negative attitudes towards the
mentally handicapped. The observability of a handicap produced no significant differences in
children’s attitudes. Surprisinglv thev tended to express more favourable - . attitudes towards the visible handicaps implying that observable disabilities
Lvere possiblv better coped with than unobservable ones. ‘This finding
replicates the observabilitv results of Furnham and Pendred (1983) but is not
in accordance with the findings of Altman (1981) and Antonak (1980). This
is probably because the handicaps used in this studv \vere not \isuall\
offensive or frightening in any way to the children. Secondly a questionnaire
studv possiblv produces less of an observability reaction than studies using
other types of techniques such as picture ranking techniques.
Few sex differences kvere found. IHowever these items, and the trend of the
others, did fall in the predicted direction implying, in accordance with Greenbaum and \2:ang (1965) and \Veir (I~HI), that girls did tend to express
more favourable attitudes towards handicaps than boys. Whether it is b\
socialisation or some innate disposition that bovs appear more negati1.e than girls, cannot be answered by this study. lio\v;ver its implications are that
special efforts should be taken to improve bo!.s understanding of handicap
and thus aid the progress of integration.
Children with knowledge of a handicap person did, however have more
positive attitudes about handicap and disablement. ‘I’his illustrates that
official moves to bring about full integration of the handicapped will
probably, in the long run, improve public attitudes towards these disabled
individuals and hopefulls destroy the rigid negative stereotypes that exist at the present. However, cause and correlation cannot be separated in this studv : it IS quite possible that children \vith favourable attitudes towards the
handicapped deliberately exposed themselves to them, more than those not so favourablv disposed &I the handicapped.
‘I’his scale-had much in common \vith the XLI’I’P scale (l‘ukerer al., 1960) and was found to be multidimensional (,Antonak, 1980; Siller and Chipman).
Factor analvsis revealed it to have a structure much the same as the A’I’DP
itself (Fur&am and Pendred. 1983). The first factor concerning friendliness and friendship ability of the handicapped discriminated most highly in
children’s attitudes to\vards the disabled emphasizing the point made b\. :\ltman (1981) that relationships with peers are of significant importance.-
‘[‘he second factor considered irnportant bv subjects was the emotionatitx
II6 .A. FC:RNHr\hI .\SD nl. GIBBS
of handicapped children. These items were found to be a classic example of the public negative stereotypes-most handicapped people are seen as
depressed or isolated (Yuker, 1960; Altman, 1981; Furnham and Pendred,
1983). The mentally handicapped were rated higher on this factor than
physically handicapped which illustrates that more effort will be needed to
ensure the acceptance and understanding of these mentally disabled individuals. It seems therefore that these individuals will require more
guidance and reassurance to integrate successfully.
A study such as this has, of course, certain limitations: the sample was relatively small but fairly heterogeneous, thus generalizations can only be
made with caution; the categorization of the four handicaps was perhaps not
ideal and could be both refined and extended; the contact with the handicapped measure confounded both quality and quantity which could be
teased apart. Nevertheless, the study attempted to provide a measure of the
current attitudes of school children to the handicapped while avoiding some of the problems of previous research (Altman, 1981). Onlv longitudinal
studies or cross sectional studies done at various times (say every five years)
can determine the effects of integration on attitudes towards the handicapped. Until then it seems that the major handicap of disabled people
remains not so much their specific disability as the attitudes of the general
public towards them.
REFERENCES
Altman, B. (1981). Studies of attitudes toward the handicapped: the need for a new direction. Social Problenls 28, 321-337.
Antonak, R. (1980). Psychometric analysis of the attitude toward disabled person’s scale. Rehabilitution Counselling Bulletin 16, 168-176.
Freed, E. (1964). Opinions of psychiatric hospital personnel and college students toward alcoholism, mental illness and physical disability. Ps_vchological Reports 15, 168-170.
Furnham, A. and Pendred, J. (1983). Attitudes towards the mentally and physically disabled. British Journal of Medical Psychology 56.
Gaier, E., Linkowski, D. and Jacques, M. (1968). Contact as a variable in the perception of disability. Journal ofSocial Psychology 74, I 17-126.
Greenhaum, J. and Wang, D. (1965). A semantic-differential study of the concepts of mental retardation. _yOUl-?Ia/ of General I’svchology 73, 257-272.
Grossiord, A. and Wood, P. (1974). Preli&a?y draft proposals .fot- the H code .f;,t- handicaps. Geneva: W.H.O.
Johnson, G. (1950). Social position of mentally handicapped children segregated in the regular grades. .-lmerica~~Joumal of Mental Dqficierrcy 55, 61~89.
Lapp, L. (1957). A study of the social adjustment of slow-learning children who were assigned part-time to regular classes. Ameticatl _&umal of Mental D.$ciency 62, 245-262.
Linkowski, D., Jacques, nl. and Gaier, E. (1969). Reactions to disability: a thematic analysis. Journal of Social Psychology 77, 201-214.
SCIIOOL, C~1IL,DREN’S .-\‘r’I’I?‘I’DES ‘l‘O\\‘?\f<I>S TffE tI~\NI)IC.\PPEI) 11;
Rlatthews, V. and Westie, C. (1966). Preferred method of obtaining rankings: reactions to physical handicaps. :Inrc~icu~r .SocG/ogic-nl I?ee,iezc 31, 85 1-854.
%Iurphy, A., Dickstein, J . and Dripps, E. (1960). \[email protected]~ !&b~uc~fk~rJ c~rrt! th ff~ccJirrg
Impaired. New York: NRC, 1960. Rucker, C., Howe, C. and Snider, B. (1969). The participation of retarded children in
junior high academic and non-academic regular classes. ~,~wptiot~nl (‘hildturf 36, 617-623.
Schroedel. J . (Ed.) (1978). .-ltfifudes tozcnul I’r,sorrs zcith i1isnhilitir.s: .I Cimrpc~rrdi~nr o/ Related Literature. Kew York: HRC, 1978.
Siller, J. and Chipman, A. (1964). Factorial structure and correlates of the attitudes toward disabled person’s scale. ~dll~YJtiflIl~J~ c~rlri t’s~rhological .~facJsJrr~~7~~lrnt 4, 831-840. .
M’arnock, H. M. (1978). Report of the committee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and voung people. Pwlinmentnty Sessitmal Papenv (House of Commons & Command). i:olume rd.
Weir, S. (1981). Our image of the disabled and how readv we are to help. .\;,zc .SocYe!y, September 1981.
\Vhiteman, M. and Lukoff, I. (1965). Attitudes toward blrndness and other physical handicaps. Journal of Social Psychology 66, I 35-145.
Yuker, H., Block, J. and Campbell, W. (1960). ;I Scnle to .Ifccrsztr-e .-ltfj~zrtles ‘Ib?carri
Ilisahled Persons. New York: HRC.
Recommended
