Title: Personality determinants in attitudes toward disability
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097870/00001
 Material Information
Title: Personality determinants in attitudes toward disability
Physical Description: iv, 159 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Noonan, John Robert, 1940-
Publication Date: 1966
Copyright Date: 1966
 Subjects
Subject: Attitude (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
People with disabilities -- Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 129-138.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097870
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000565790
oclc - 13584703
notis - ACZ2209

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text















PERSONALITY DETERMINANTS IN

ATTITUDES TOWARD DISABILITY












By
JOHN ROBERT NOONAN, JR.


A DIssERTATION I'RESENTED TO THE CRF.,rLiA lT COUNCIL 01
THE UNIVERSITY OF I LORDD,
IN PA.JRTL4L FULFLLLNMEN'T 01 THE BEQi DEGREE 01 DOCTOR 01 PHILOOPHV












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


Dec-rmber, 1966















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The author wishes to express gratitude to Dr. Hugh C. Davis,

the chairman of his supervisory committee, who provided reliable

clarification and direction for the writer throughout the study.

To Dr. John R. Barry, original chairman of the committee, gratitude

is expressed for aiding the writer in his initial formulation of

the problem and for his constructive criticism in the planning of

the study. Dr. Henry S. Pennypacker, Dr. George H. Dunteman, Dr.

John T. Stone, and Dr. Louis D. Cohen are also thanked for their

comments and criticisms of various aspects of the dissertation.

Finally, the writer would like to express gratitude to his wife,

Doxie, who was an invaluable aid in every phase of the study, par-

ticularly so in the collection and scoring of the data.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . .

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION--STATEMENT OF

II LITERATURE REVIEW . .

III INITIAL HYPOTHESES . .

IV INSTRUMENTS . . .

V METHOD . . . . .

VI RESULTS OF INITIAL SAMPLE

VII RESULTS OF CROSS-VALIDATIOI

VIII DISCUSSION . . . .

IX SUMMARY . . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . .

APPENDICES . . . . . .

A LETTERS TO THE STUDENTS .

3 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE RATERS

C INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF


GRANOFSKY PICTURES . .


PROBLEM .











SAMPLE .













SCORING THE


D MODERATOR CORRELATIONS FOR THE CROSS-
VALIDATION SAMPLE . . . . .


: : : : : :


N










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Canonical Vectors of the
Initial Sample . . . . . ... .63

2. Nine-Variable Correlation Matrix
of the Initial Sample . . . .... .66

3. Correlations Between Field-Independence
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . .. .73

4. Correlations Between Social Conformity
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . . 74

5. Correlations Between Authoritarianism
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . 75

6. Correlations Between Ego-Strength
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . 76

7. Correlations Between Body-Satisfaction
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . 77

8. Correlations Between Body-Concern and
Attitudes Toward Disability . . ... .78

9. Correlations Between Social Desirability
and Attitudes Toward Disability . . 79

10. A Comparison of Relationships Found to Be
Significant in the Initial Sample with Those
Relationships Under the Same Moderator
Conditions in the Cross-Validation Sample 87

11. Nine-Variable Correlation Matrix of the
Cross-Validation Sample . . . ... .91

12. Canonical Vectors of the Cross-
Validation Sample . . . . . ... .97












CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM


in the last two decades, the field of vocational rehabilitation

has made tremendous strides. With the passing of Public Law 565 in

1954, the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration was put on a firm

financial and administrative foundation. Since that time, there has

been a major Increase in research In rehabilitation, in the number of

professional specialists who work with the disabled, and in the facili-

ties needed to care for and train disabled people.

Despite the many improvements which have occurred, several basic

problems remain which interfere with the goals of rehabilitation.

One which continues to exist, and which appears to be particularly

resistant to change, is the negative, aversive way in which many people

respond to visibly physically disabled people (those Individuals whose

disabilities are readily apparent, e.g., amputees, disfigured people,

cripples, etc.).

It is obvious that these negative attitudes are injurious to the

disabled person who is attempting to rise above or compensate for his

handicap. They have been shown to be a major factor in hiring prac-

tices, as it is generally accepted that unwarranted discrimination

exist in the employment of the disabled (Federation Employment and

Guidance Service, 1959; Jennings, 1951; Noland and Bakke, 1949;

Schletzer, et al., 1961). Rickard, et al. (1963), found that











although all disabled groups were subject to expressed prejudice from

employers, some were discriminated against much more than others.

The groups could be ranked according to the amount of discrimination

expressed toward them.

Attitudes of non-disabled people toward the physically disabled

are also of utmost importance in the day-to-day experiences which are

so crucial in influencing and forming the disabled person's feelings

about himself. There are countless descriptions of the frustrations

which disabled people encounter, and of the self-depreciation and

social withdrawal that inevitably follow (Wright, 1960; Barker, et al.,

1953; Dembo, et al., 1956).

Thus, the evil of discriminatory attitudes is twofold. The dis-

abled Individual is externally hindered in his efforts to "rise above"

his handicap by the vocational limits which his environment imposes

and which restrict the alternatives available to him in his quest for

fulfillment. He is hindered internally by the way he has learned to

view himself as the result of being the object of discrimination and

avoidance on the part of non-disabled people. Since he often sees

himself in an unnecessarily self-depreciating and limited way, the

realization of whatever true potential he might have is an extremely

unlikely occurrence.

Although much has been written about the negative attitudes which

are expressed toward the disabled, very few conclusive empirical studies

have been found to explain their etiology. Siller (1963 a, 1963 b) has

stressed the need for research into the personality factors involved in











how individuals relate to disabled people, but has bemoaned the lack of

a theoretical basis from which to attack the problem. Although it is

questionable whether theoretical bases are actually lacking (a thorough

review of the literature would suggest the contrary), Siller's studies

in this area seem to make that assumption. Granofsky (1956) also recog-

nized that empirical studies investigating personality variables in this

area were virtually non-existent. Although his major interest was in

whether negative attitudes toward the physically disabled could be modi-

fied by social contact, he did make an attempt to deal with personality

variables in the non-disabled. His study, which also could be charac-

terized as lacking in theoretical foundations, uncovered no relation-

ship between any certain personality variables and specific attitudes.

This study is an attempt to investigate and evaluate the various

theories which have been put forth as explanations of discriminatory

attitudes toward individuals possessing a visible physical disability.

An attempt will be made not only to appraise the validity of the various

theoretical approaches, but to give some indication of their relative

importance and degree of interrelation. Many studies have been done

attempting to establish a relationship between one variable, such as

prejudice, and attitudes toward the disabled. Since it is extremely

unlikely that any single variable can be cited as the determiner of

negative attitudes, these studies appear to have barely scratched the

surface. The present study will attempt to establish and describe inter-

actions and interrelations among those variables which have been con-

sidered important in the dynamics of negative attitudes. This study,







4


then, will not only serve to evaluate the theories which have been put

forth, but will hopefully result in a dynamic, rather than static,

appraisal of those personality variables which play a role in attitudes

toward physically disabled people.

The first step will be to review the studies which demonstrate the

presence of negative attitudes toward the disabled. When this has been

completed, the various theories purporting to account for this behavior

will be examined.











CHAPTER II


LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Studies Demonstrating the Existence of Negative Attitudes Toward

the Physically Disabled.

As early as 1921, Perrin had noted that the physical character-

istics and appearance of an individual "constitute a large group of

the total series of effects produced by that individual upon others."

In one of his initial studies in the area of interests, Strong

(1931) found that while a mildly favorable verbalized attitude was

expressed toward crippled and blind people, a more unfavorable attitude

was expressed toward deaf-mutes. Although the overall results indi-

cted generally positive verbalizations toward the disabled, there

was evidence of underlying biases and hostility.

Orgel and Tuckman (1935) investigated the kinds of nicknames given

to one another by a group of children living in an orphanage. They

found that the nicknames given by boys referred to physical defects

in 31.9% of the cases, and the nicknames of girls referred to physical

defects in 30.9% of the cases. Also, practically all of the nicknames

were derogatory, producing resentment.

Using college students in a study of verbally expressed attitudes

toward the disabled, Mussen and Barker (1944) directed them to rate

disabled people according to 24 personality traits. The data indicated

that these verbalized attitudes were generally favorable. However,










once again there was evidence of generalized attitudes or biases toward

the disabled, suggesting that they were being perceived in a stereotyped,

often degrading, manner.

Ray (1946) supported this finding of generalized public attitudes

in a study In which high school students served as subjects. The sub-

jects were asked to rank photographs of six college men according to a

list of behavioral personality traits. Half of the group was presented

with a photograph of an individual in a wheelchair; the other half was

presented with the same photograph with the wheelchair blocked out.

The results indicated that disabled people are perceived differently

(in a stereotyped manner) than non-disabled persons, i.e., they are

judged to be more conscientious, to feel more inferior, to be more un-

happy, etc.

In a study involving social distance, Rusk and Taylor (1956) found

that 65% of 50 college students would not marry a person with an ampu-

tated leg, and 50% would not date such a person. Also, 85% would not

marry, and 72% would not date a deaf person.

Himes (1960) supported Rusk and Taylor's findings in a study in

which the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (Bogardus, 1927) was adapted

for use with blind students and collegiate normals. He was able to

show that the more intimate the proposed relationship with a blind per-

son, the more clearly and intensely he is rejected by his normal counter-

part.

Using sociometric choices and lists of positive and negative traits,

Force (1956) found that physically handicapped children were not as well










accepted as normal children. The degree of disability was less Import-

ant than how the various disabilities were perceived by the normal sub-

jects.

In summarizing this group of studies, Barker and Wright (1954)

state that although public, verbalized attitudes toward the disabled

may be mildly favorable, an appreciable minority will openly express

negative attitudes, and a majority of individuals will reveal them in-

directly.

These studies have indicated the presence of underlying negative

attitudes toward disabled people. The various authors have not at-

tempted to explain their findings, only to show that these feelings

exist. The next group of studies will focus on attempts to explain

why these attitudes exist. Also, studies which support or contradict

the various hypotheses will be presented.

B. Theoretical Approaches Attempting to Explain Negative Attitudes

Toward Disability.

I. Theories and studies attributing negative attitudes to incon-

sistencies In the non-disabled's perceptual field. The first attempt

to understand why non-disabled people react in a negative manner toward

disabled people was made by Winkler (1931). He proposed that, because

of the unusual postures and movements of the crippled, such a person

serves as a strange, disturbing emotional stimulus. The behavior

aroused is that of suspicion and aversion, since there is little possi-

bility that the physically normal individual can establish an empathic

relationship with him. Winkler tested his hypothesis by displaying










actions pictures of healthy and disabled persons to 200 physically

normal subjects who were to judge the pictures with respect to charac-

ter and personality traits. Significantly more unfavorable judgments

were made of the pictures of disabled children, even though some of

these were not consciously recognized by the subjects as being disabled.

Schauer (1951), on the basis of psychiatric observations, felt

that it was the novel sight of a blind person which aroused fear in

normal people, thus lending some support to Winkler's views. He stated

that vague feelings of something "not being right" were the source of

the fear.

In his theoretical framework involving neurophysiological concepts,

Hebb (1946) has attempted to explain fear responses to strange objects

and persons. His explanations remind one of Winkler's previously de-

scribed hypothesis. He postulates that a fear response occurs when on

object is seen which is like familiar objects in enough respects to

arouse habitual processes of perception, but in other respects arouses

incompatible processes. As in Winkler's theory, the inconsistency be-

tween expectancy and experience arouses fear, avoidance, and rejection.

The emphasis is on the effect of the individual's perceptual field on

his behavior. Personal responsibility for behavior is minimized, as

the individual is seen as a somewhat passive victim of the field.

Neither Hebb nor Winkler, however, is able to explain the individual

differences in reactions to the disabled, i.e., why some non-disabled

people are negatively affected by the visibly disabled, whereas others

are not, or at least, are affected in different degrees.










Another theoretical approach which is consistent with those of

Winkler and Hebb is that of Heider (1958), who contends that the nega-

tive impact of visibly disabled people is the result of dissimilarity

or unfamiliarity. He argues that the novel or different is experienced

as not fitting the structure of the matrix of the life space, as not

fitting one's expectations.

2. Studies and theories attributing negative attitudes to cultural

conformity. Several theorists have contended that attitudes toward the

disabled are culturally determined. Hanks and Hanks (1948), holding

this view, have outlined five status categories in which certain dis-

abled have been observed in various societies. These are: pariah,

economic liability, tolerant utilization, limited participation, and

laissez-faire.

Investigating 27 cultures, Jaques (1960) found that socioeconomic

factors play a major role in treatment of the disabled. Disabled

persons received protection in societies characterized by more pre-

dictable sources of livelihood, such as herding and agriculture, as

opposed to societies dependent on fishing, hunting, or gathering.

Mobility was another factor in the treatment of the handicapped, with

disabled persons receiving protection in the more stable societies.

Kolb (1959) recognized the importance of cultural attitudes in a

review of body-image disturbances by stating that a satisfactory social

adaptation among those with bodily defects depends more on cultural

dictates than upon the presence of the impairment.

MacGregor and Schaffner (1950) attribute much of the motivation of










patients requesting plastic surgery to cultural factors. They state

that most patients either wish to conform to cultural standards of physi-

cal beauty, to correct a deformity which might handicap social and eco-

nomic achievement, or to eliminate a socially perceptible trait which

may produce negative pre-judgments of their character or personality.

The ability of physical traits to influence people's judgments of per-

sonality has been described by Wright (1960), and labeled "spread."

Richardson, et al (1961), found a consistent preferential order

when children were asked to rank pictures of other children with physi-

cal disabilities. This order was stable across various subcultures,

seemingly determined by the broader cultural context.

This finding (that the pervasive cultural context is the important

determiner of reactions to disability), was indirectly supported by

Dow (1965), who found that social class was not a significant factor in

the conditioning of negative attitudes. He had hypothesized that the

reaction to disability was conditioned by the relative emphasis attached

to physique, and that this varied inversely with social class level.

Thus, the lower class would be expected to react more severely to physi-

cal impairment than would the middle or upper classes. His hypotheses

were not supported by the data, i.e., there was no significant class bias.

Trippe (1959) suggests that present cultural attitudes toward the

handicapped stem from earlier periods when such persons were a threat

to society. They could not produce goods or services, and reduced the

availability of already scarce necessities of life without themselves

contributing any material help to society.










Greenmum (1958) and Handel (1960) have attributed negative atti-

tudes toward the deaf and blind, respectively, to current cultural

beliefs, standards, and values. These cultural norms are particularly

important in the development and encouragement of stereotyping. Cowen

and Cowen (1964) found cultural differences in the attitudes of college

students to blindness and deafness, American students being more favor-

able to the blind while French students were more favorable toward deaf-

ness.

3. Theories and studies attributing negative attitudes to authori-

tarianism. Another group of theorists and researchers holds that dis-

abled people constitute a minority group. Like most minority groups,

they are subject to authoritarian attitudes (primarily manifested as

prejudice), are related to in a negative manner, and arouse hostility

and threat in certain members of the population. Dembo, et al., explain

that if a non-disabled's normal physical state is to be of value to him,

it is necessary for the abnormal physical state of the disabled to be

of lesser value. This process Is termed "devaluation." Through the

devaluation process, the disabled person is seen as being of less value,

and consequently is rejected by himself and others.

Gellman (1959, 1960) stresses prejudice as the source of rejection

of the disabled. He contends that this prejudice is a result of social

norms and customs, child rearing practices stressing health and normalcy,

and the non-disabled's own fear of being handicapped. Discriminatory

actions on the part of the non-disabled are classified into three groups:

(1) acquiescence to group standards, (2) displaced reaction to frustration,










(3) alleviation of personal fears and insecurities.

Cowen,et al. (1960), in developing an Attitudes Toward Blindness

Scale, found that negative attitudes toward blindness correlated sig-

nificantly with anti-minority, anti-Negro, pro-authoritarian attitudes.

Expanding Cowen, et al.'s study to Include disability in general,

rather than limiting it to blindness, Christie, et al. (1958), were

unable to provide support for the previous finding. No significant

correlations were found between the California F. Scale (Adorno, et

al, 1950) and the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale

(Yuker, et al., 1960).

On the basis of these studies, it would appear that blindness is

subject to authoritarian attitudes, but that disability in general is

not. One must question, however, whether something as diverse and

vague as "disability," which can range from the incapacitating to the

minute, and from the visible to the invisible, can be adequately

measured In an objective, uni-dimensional scale. Bell (i962), and

Siller and Chipman (1964) have previously raised this question. This

problem will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter IV (INSTRUMENTS),

since the ATDP will serve as one of the criterion instruments in this

study.

Granofsky (1956) tested the hypothesis that negative attitudes

toward the disabled were a form of prejudice, but that they could be

modified by social contact. He found that when attitudes were negative

prior to contact, eight hours of contact with disabled people did not

significantly modify them. In this study, the author developed a










Pictures Test to measure attitudes toward the disabled. Since It will

be utilized in the present study for that purpose, it will also be

described in detail in Chapter IV.

Somewhat contradictory to Granofsky's findings but consistent with

his hypothesis, Bateman (1962) found that contact and interaction with

blind children raised sighted children's ratings of them. Also, Wolman

(1958) found that blindness did not prevent a child from being accepted

by his sighted peers.

Rickard, et al. (1963), developed a social-distance scale to

measure prejudice toward disabled applicants for employment. All dis-

abled groups used in the study were found to be subject to expressed

prejudice. The disabilities could be ranked in terms of amount of preju-

dice expressed toward them.

Whiteman and Lukoff (1962) found evidence for the stereotyping of

blind people, i.e., seeing them as possessing certain traits, abilities,

and gifts. In a previous study Lukoff and Whiteman (1961) had found

that the term "blind people" encouraged negative stereotyping, but

"blindness" did not. There was a strong readiness to perceive blind

people as unhappy and lacking in Independence.

Jordan (1963) prefers "disadvantaged group" to "minority group" as

a description of the physically handicapped. Although he does present

a valid argument for his point of view, he admits that prejudice is

expressed and discrimination practiced toward the physically disabled.

Very probably the most in-depth explanation of the dynamics In-

volved in prejudice toward visibly disabled people is given by Adorno,










et al. (1950), who states:


The fact that the authoritarian person's helplessness as
a child was exploited by the parents and that he was forced
into submission must have reinforced any existing antiweakness
attitude. Prejudiced individuals thus tend to display "nega-
tive identification" with the weak along with their positive
though superficial identification with the strong. (Pg. 387.)

His orientation in interpersonal relations is thus toward
getting power by associating with the powerful and influential,
or at least toward participating in the power of those who
have it. Admiration for the strong and contempt for the weak
accompany this attitude. High scorers show predominantly what
may be called hierarchical conception of human relationships
whereas those who score low conceive of an equalitarian mutual-
ity in such relationships. (Pg. 413.)


Rusalem (1950), Koenig (1949), and Dubrow (1965) hold essentially

the same view as Adorno, et al. Chesler (1965) has provided empirical

evidence supporting the above theoretical approach, I.e., that physi-

cally disabled people are subject to prejudice (which he defines as

attitudinal and behavioral predispositions) in much the same way as

are ethnic minorities. He constructed an Intergroup Relations Scale,

which Is a modification of the Anti-Semitism Scale (Levinson and San-

ford, 1944) and the Negro and Minority Subscales of the California

Ethnocentrism Scale (Adorno, et al., 1950), and found that it corre-

lated -.52 with the ATDP. The ATDP correlated -.45 with the Race sub-

scale, -.40 with Religion, -.43 with Nationality, and -.46 with Social

Class, all of which were significant at the .01 level.

4. Theories and studies attributing negative attitudes to a lack

of ego-strength. Siller (1959, 1962, 1963a, 1963b) believes that the

degree and fixity of the individual's balance of self to object cathexis











is a major determinant of reaction to personal disability and the dis-

abled. This balance is represented in his theory by degree of ego

strength. Thus, a positive self-image and attainment of stable object

relationships are necessary for the acceptance of the disabled. Con-

versely, low ego-strength, poor self-acceptance, insecurity, and anxiety

are negatively related to acceptance of disabled people.

In attempting to verify this theory, he administered the Atti-

tudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale, the Gough Adjective Check-

list, his own Social Distance Scale and Feeling Checklist, and several

other scales. Although his results are fairly vague, he did find that

college subjects are more accepting than non-college subjects. There

were trends indicating that security, affiliation, and ego-strength are

positively related to acceptance of the disabled. Siller also felt

that his data lent support to the hypothesis that a negative self-

Image and disturbed object relations are conducive to an aversive re-

action to the disabled.

Although It was completed before Siller began his work, a study by

Steingisser (1954) does lend support to Siller's general hypothesis.

He found that individuals who were well adjusted (as measured by a dis-

crepancy between ideal and actual self) had more positive attitudes to-

ward the blind than a poorly adjusted group.

5. Theories and studies attributing negative attitudes to body-

anxiety and concern. The fifth group of theories and studies which

attempt to arrive at some explanation of negative attitudes toward the

disabled are those which are concerned with the body feelings, concepts,










and/or image of the non-disabled. That is, the theorists of this point

of view believe and attempt to show that non-disabled people react nega-

tively to visibly disabled people because of problems related to their

own bodies. In the classic treatise on body-image, Schilder (1950)

contends that a disabled person's physical difference creates uneasi-

ness because It does not fit with a well-ordered body image. A person's

unconscious body image may be threatened by the appearance of someone

with a deformity or missing part, since he identifies to some extent

with this person. He states:


It is obvious that interest in particular parts of one's
own body provokes interest in the corresponding parts of
others. Between one's own body and the bodies of others,
there exists a connection. (Pg. 225.)

There is a continual interchange between our own body-
image and the body-image of others. What we have seen in
others we may find out in ourselves. What we have found
out in ourselves we may see in others. (Pg. 227.)


Menninger (1949) states that unconscious awareness of one's self

as a complete unit includes a belief that all parts of the body are

sound and function normally. Since the loss or the crippling of a

part of the body signifies not only a physical wound but also a signifi-

cant psychological wound, the sight of a disabled person evokes an image

of this loss, thus constituting a threat to the non-disabled person.

In orthodox psychoanalytic theory, the castration complex is

cited as the explanation of the negative, hostile reactions to visibly

disabled persons. Maisel (1953) states that the loss of any part of

the body, or the sight of such a loss, may stir up archaic castration










fears. The Oedipal taboo is recalled, along with the father's potential

revenge--that of cutting off or mutilating the phallus.

Several studies have attempted to investigate the body-image of

the non-disabled as a factor in rejection of the disabled. Masson (1963)

attempted to find whether the definitness of the non-disabled's body

boundaries was related to acceptance or rejection of the visibly dis-

abled. Using the Fisher-Cleveland (1958) system of obtaining body bar-

rier and penetration scores from the Rorschach, he hypothesized that

persons with vague, indefinite body boundaries would be less accepting

and would manifest greater anxiety concerning the disabled than would

persons with definite, firm boundaries. Acceptance and rejection of the

disabled were measured by subjects' responses to the Granofsky Pictures,

a TAT-like instrument in which visibly disabled people were depicted.

His hypotheses were not supported. As was stated earlier, this instru-

,ent will be dealt with in much greater detail in Chapter IV, as it is

intended to serve as one of the criterion instruments in the present

study.

Kaiser and Moosbrucker (1960) demonstrated empirically the relation-

ship between attitudes toward disabled people and concommitant physical

reactions in the non-disabled by correlating the ATDP with GSR reac-

tions to photographs of the disabled. They found that physically normal

college subjects scoring more than I standard deviation below the mean

on the ATDP showed more extreme GSR reaction to the photographs than

did subjects scoring more than 1 standard deviation above the mean.

Centers and Centers (1963b) investigated whether the presence of










amputation represents a threat to the bodily integrity of the non-

amputee. They found that peer group children expressed more rejecting

attitudes toward amputee classmates than toward non-amputee classmates.

Also, the amputee children were often considered the saddest children

in the class. The same authors (1963a) found similar results with

parents of malformed children. There were substantial correlations be-

tween responses to their children's bodies and responses to their own

bodies on the part of the parents of these children. Little or no cor-

relation in this respect existed for parents of normal children.

Epstein and Shontz (1962) investigated the relation between body

satisfaction and dissatisfaction, as measured by Secord and Jourard's

Body-Cathexis Scale (1953), and attitudes toward the disabled. The

authors of this study constructed their own test to measure "vital

interpersonal relationships" between non-disabled and disabled persons.

They found that satisfaction with one's own body was related to accept-

ance of the disabled.













CHAPTER III


INITIAL HYPOTHESES


On the basis of the literature review, there seem to be five

major personality constructs, each representing a distinct theoretical

approach, which have been considered to be of primary importance in

attempting to explain negative attitudes toward the physically disabled.

From each theoretical position a hypothesis can be generated stating a

relationship between any one personality variable and attitudes toward

physically disabled people.

These five initial hypotheses are over-generalized and admittedly

predict nothing about the interrelations or dynamic interaction of the

personality variables which contribute to the formation and existence

of the negative attitudes. Their primary value is to provide a frame

of reference from which these interactions can be investigated.

Thus, the initial sample of subjects will be tested on the basis

of these five general hypotheses. In analyzing the data, more subtle

relations between the various predictors and the criterion will be

noted. The interrelations which are found will provide a basis for

the subsequent refinement of hypotheses and cross-validation of the

initial findings.

The procedure will be explained in more detail in the METHOD

section. Let it suffice for now to present the initial hypotheses

which are based on theoretical positions stated in the literature and










which provide a means for investigating more thoroughly the components

of attitudes toward the disabled.

These initial hypotheses will be presented in the same order in

which the corresponding theoretical positions were presented in the

literature review section.


A. Hypothesis I--The Field-Dependency Hypothesis.


The first theoretical approach purporting to account for the nega-

tive feelings and attitudes which many non-disabled people have toward

the visibly physically disabled is that which attributes this behavior

to the Inconsistency between the non-disabled's expectation and his

actual experience. Thus, because of the somewhat strange, unusual

sight of a disabled person, the non-disabled's perceptual field (and

current experience) is in disagreement with what he has come to ex-

pect on the basis of his everyday experience. As a result, he is un-

sure how to react to what he sees, the confusion leading to anxiety

and aversion on his part.

This approach is represented by such diverse theories as those of

Hebb (1946), Winkler (1931), and Helder (1958), which have the basic

communality of emphasizing the effect of the incongruity of the indi-

vidual's perceptual field on his behavior. It seems that these theories

are all dealing with, although from differing viewpoints, the concept of

field-dependence. Witkin, et al. (1954), have defined field-dependence

as the manner of relating to or construing the environment in such a

way that the individual's behavior is determined almost exclusively by











his perceptual field. There is extensive investment in the field, and

behavior is strongly affected by environmental context.

Field-dependent people have been described as being more attentive

to the appearance of others, and tend to be better at recognizing people

they have seen only briefly before (Witkin, et al., 1962). This hypothe-

sis is supported by the studies of Konstadt and Forman (1965), Crutch-

field, et al. (1958), and Messick and Damarin (1964). They express

"impressions" of others in terms of physical features and gross be-

havior rather than in terms of personality characteristics. Thus, the

amount of psychological disturbance aroused by a visibly disabled person

might be a function of the extent to which the individual in which the

disturbance is aroused is field-dependent. Individuals who are able

to function with relative freedom from their environment should not be

as strongly affected by an inconsistency in this environment as would

individuals whose frame of reference is external and whose behavior is

largely determined by the environment.


B. Hypothesis II--The Cultural-Conformity Hypothesis.


A second approach toward explaining negative attitudes toward the

disabled deals with the concept of cultural conformity. Irrational

feelings and attitudes, according to this point of view, are a function

of conforming to the prevailing attitudes of the society. Kolb (1959),

Trippe (1959), Jaques (1960), and Hanks and Hanks (1948) are among

those who would contend that negative attitudes toward the disabled are

the result of the emphasis in our society on such things as physical










beauty, health, wealth, and the value of work.

Individuals who tend to conform to society's rules, conventions,

attitudes, values, etc., would, therefore, be predicted to react nega-

tively to visibly disabled people, since this is passively condoned by

the values of our culture. Those people who are not as unquestioning

or conforming would not be predicted to behave as aversely toward the

disabled, since they do not feel as strongly the need to behave in a

manner consistent with society's conventions.


C. Hypothesis Ill--The Authoritarianism Hypothesis.


Dembo, et al. (1956), Gellman (1959, 1960), and Adorno, et al.

(1950) are most representative of the third group of theorists--those

who would attribute negative attitudes toward the disabled to the

dynamics of authoritarianism. Since the disabled people are a minority,

and are visibly associated with "the weak," they arouse hostile, nega-

tive reactions in people who, in order to enhance themselves and main-

tain psychological equilibrium, must associate themselves with "the

strong," the successful, and the majority.

Thus, these theorists would contend that individuals who are highly

authoritarian ethnocentricc, anti-minority, power-oriented, etc.) would

react in an Irrationally negative, hostile manner toward visibly dis-

abled persons. Individuals who could be described as equalitarian, or

who are not as authority-oriented, would not be as threatened by "the

weak" or the minority that disabled people represent. Therefore, there

should be a minimal arousal of hostility, devaluation, and aversion on










their part.


D. Hypothesis IV--The Ego-Strength Hypothesis.


Siller's (1959) theory of ego-strength as the crucial factor in

acceptance of the visibly disabled people is typical of the fourth

theoretical approach attempting to account for negative reactions to-

ward them. He contends that an individual with satisfactory ego-

strength (stable object relations, a positive self-image, minimal

anxiety, a sense of security) will be acceptant of visibly disabled

people. Conversely, people with negative self-images, feelings of in-

security, etc. would, through what Siller terms narcissistic regression,

react negatively toward disabled persons.

The depth of this narcissistic regression is supposedly dependent

on the balance of self to object cathexis in the individual. Attitudes

become more negative as the regression becomes deeper.


E. Hypothesis V--The Body-Concern Hypothesis.


Finally, there are those theorists who feel that the body-image

and body-feeling of the non-disabled are of utmost importance in their

attitudes toward the disabled. Schilder (1950), and Menninger (1949)

are the leading proponents of this point of view. These theorists

would hold that individuals who are high in body preoccupation and

anxiety (thus investing a large amount of energy, attention, and inter-

est in their bodies) should attend to and be more affected by the sight

of a disabled person than an individual who is not as body-oriented.











Since it is not as likely that body anxiety or conflict would be

aroused in the less body-preoccupied person, he should not be as

threatened by a visibly disabled person, and thus should be more ac-

ceptant of him than an individual with high body-preoccupation. Also,

individuals who are low in body-satisfaction would be less acceptant

of the disabled than persons who are highly satisfied with their

bodies. Since people who are highly satisfied with their bodies have

been found to be more secure (Jourard and Secord, 1955 ; Secord and

Jourard, 1953) than those who are low in satisfaction, it is reasonable

to predict that they will feel less threat and less need to reject and

avoid disabled people.

In summary, there are five initial hypotheses being tested in this

study. They are:


(1) Negative attitudes toward visibly physically disabled people

are a function of the extent of field-dependence on the part of

the non-disabled. The more field-dependent an individual is, the

less acceptant of the disabled he will be.

(2) Negative attitudes toward physically disabled people are a

function of the need for social conformity on the part of the non-

disabled. The more willing an individual is to acquiesce to the

conventions and values of society, the less acceptant of the dis-

abled he will be.

(3) Negative attitudes toward the disabled are a function of the

extent of authoritarian attitudes on the part of the non-disabled.

The more authoritarian an individual is, the less acceptant of










the disabled he will be.

(4) Negative attitudes toward physically disabled people are a

function of the degree of ego-strength on the part of the non-

disabled. The less ego strength an individual possesses, the

less acceptant of the disabled he will be.

(5) a. Negative attitudes toward physical disability are a

function of the degree of conscious body-satisfaction possessed

by the non-disabled. The less satisfied he is with his own

body, the less acceptant he will be of the disabled.

b. Negative attitudes toward physical disability are a

function of the amount of unconscious concern and anxiety the

non-disabled person harbors for his own body. The more somatic

anxiety and concern that are present, the less acceptant he will

be of the disabled.


To repeat what has been stated earlier, and perhaps clarify this

somewhat, these initial hypotheses will serve three main purposes.

First, by testing these hypotheses it will be possible to evaluate the

relative validity of each of the five theoretical constructs and their

respective approaches as an explanation of negative reactions to dis-

abled people. Secondly, some measure of the interrelation of the pre-

dictor variables will be forthcoming. Finally, and most importantly,

they will provide a vehicle for investigating the more subtle relations

between the predictors and criterion. This will make It possible to

formulate more specific hypotheses and determine and predict how these

variables interact to produce negative attitudes toward physically

disabled people.













CHAPTER IV


INSTRUMENTS


Each of the theoretical approaches, and related hypotheses, em-

phasizes the importance of a particular personality construct in the

formation and existence of negative attitudes toward the physically

disabled. Thus, there are five independent variables, or predictors,

and one dependent variable, or criterion. This section will describe,

and provide pertinent data on, the instruments used to measure these

variables. They will be presented in the same order in which their

related hypotheses and literature were presented.


A. Predictor Instruments.


1. Field-Dependence. In this experiment, field-dependence was

measured by the Barrett-Frutcher Chair-Window Test (Barratt, 1955).

This test is actually constructed to be a measure of field-independence

rather than dependence. It is a paper-and-pencil test of 32 items in

which the subject's task is to determine through which of the five

windows one would have to look to see a chair from the angle shown in

each picture. The subject's score is the number of items to which he

responds correctly. Thus, scores can range from 0 to 32, the higher

scores indicating field-independence.

Barratt (1955) reported a reliability coefficient of .89 with this

instrument. The type of reliability was not reported. Young (1959)











found that the Chair-Window Test correlated -.49 with Jackson's

Embedded Figures (a short form of Witkin's original test) and -.35,

-.33, and -.48 with three forms of the Rod and Frame test of Witkin.

All coefficients were significant at the .01 level.

These negative correlations were predicted since high scores on

Witkin's instruments are indicative of field-dependence whereas on

the Barratt-Fruchter they indicate field-independence. The Barratt-

Fruchter is particularly valuable because it can be administered to

groups, and unlike the majority of Witkin's tests, does not require

extensive equipment.

2. Social Conformity. Bass' Social Acquiescence Scale was used

as a measure of social conformity (Bass, 1956). This is an instrument

composed of 56 statements in the form of proverbs, adages, sayings, etc.,

to which subjects are to indicate whether they agree, disagree, or are

uncertain about each statement. Since the individual's score is equal

to the number of times he has indicated agreement, scores can range

from 0-to 56, with the higher scores indicating social acquiescence or

conformity.

Bass defines social acquiescence as the tendency to agree with or

to accept a wide variety of generalizations. An individual who obtains

a high score is described by Bass as "outward-oriented, unsensitive,

none-intellectual, socially uncritical--and unquestioning conformer to

social demands placed on him."

In Bass' original study of this scale he reported a split-half

reliability of .92 with 100 college students. The proportion of 300










proverbs accepted by a subject was used as a gross measure of the

criterion against which the final, 56-item scale was developed by item

analysis. Two hundred college students were ordered according to these

criterion scores. The performance of the upper 25% of the subjects was

contrasted with that of the lower 25% on each of the 300 statements.

Fifty-six items emerged which were accepted by at least 40% more of

the upper than of the lower criterion group.

In the same study, Bass reported that Southern salesmen, who are

most likely to display Fromm's "marketable personality," show more

social acquiescence than any other group (Southern college students,

Midwestern college students, Northern salesmen). Also, Southern College

students, who are considered to be more readily acceptant of the tradi-

tional and conventional, had a greater tendency to acquiesce than Mid-

western students.

Shaw (1961) found that the Social Acquiescence (SA) Scale correlated

positively and significantly with the F Scale and the Individual Promi-

nence scale. There was a significantly negative correlation between

the SA scale and the Concept Mastery Test.

Producing additional data for the validity of this scale, Fisher

(1964), with 49 men and 49 women subjects, found a significant, posi-

tive correlation between the SA scale and religiosity. The Religious

scale of the Vernon-Allport-Lindzey study of values, self-ratings of

religiosity, and frequency of church attendance were taken as indices

of religiosity.

3. Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism was measured by means of










the California F scale (Adorno, et al., 1950). This scale came about

as the result of an attempt to measure prejudice without appearing to

have this aim and without mentioning the name of any minority group.

The F scale is a 30-item, Likert-type scale on which the subject

indicates the degree to which he agrees or disagrees with each item on

a 6-point continuum. Responses can range from "strong support" (+3)

to "strong opposition" (-3), with higher positive scores Indicating

increasing authoritarianism. These responses are converted into scores

by a uniform scoring system, ranging from a score of 1 for -3 to a

score of 7 for +3. The number 4 is assigned when an item is omitted.

The sum of an individual's scores on the single items is then divided

by 30 (number of items on the scale) to arrive at one overall score

for each person on the scale. Scores may range from 1.00 to 7.00.

Adorno, et al. (1950), reported an average test-retest reliability

of .90 for this scale, with a range from .81 to .97 for various groups.

The authors interpreted this to mean that the scale could place indivi-

duals along a dimension with a small margin of error. They stated that

the score attained by an individual could be relied on in the sense that

chance errors of measurement have been minimized. The original vali-

dation of the F scale was done primarily by case studies, interviews,

and projective techiques. Clinical syndromes were painstakingly con-

structed and related to scores on the scale. Although this method ad-

mittedly was largely intuitive, numerous empirical studies have since

supported the original findings and substantiated the validity of the

F scale (e.g., Flowerman, et al., 1950; Scodel and Mussen, 1953;










Campbell and McCandless, 1951; Milton, 1952; Radke-Yarrow and Lande,

1953; Kates and Diab, 1955).

Some criticism has been made in recent years concerning the validity

of this scale. Since each item on the scale is worded so that agreement

indicates authoritarian attitudes, it was felt by some (Cohn, 1953; Bass,

1955; Chapman and Campbell, 1957; Jackson and Messick, 1957; Zuckerman

and Norton, 1961) that a large part of the variance could be attributed

to an acquiescent response set, and the scale was, therefore, invalid.

The presence of acquiescence was usually demonstrated by constructing

a "reversed" F scale, in which authoritarian attitudes would be indi-

cated by disagreement with the items, and not finding the expected nega-

tive correlations.

Christie, et al. (1958), have challenged this approach (construct-

ing reversed scales) on the grounds that the reversed items may be

grammatically opposite, or logically opposite, but very seldon are

psychologically opposite, and thus should not be expected to yield a

negative correlation. Thus, according to Christie, et al., studies

making use of a reversed scale are most often not a fair test of the

hypothesis.

The original authors of the scale (Adorno, et al., 1950) realized

that the items were negatively worded, and admitted that the argument

against using all negative items is that it might produce a "set" or

mechanical tendency to consistently agree or disagree. They answered

this argument on several grounds:


I. Most individuals show variability of response, as indicated










by the item intercorrelation averaging .3 to .4.

2. There is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme
position.

3. Very similar results were obtained when an all-negative
scale was inserted randomly into a longer series containing
positive items.

4. Since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not
necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final
test is the validity of the scale. The authors felt that this
had been convincingly demonstrated.


The authors expressed two major reasons for using only negative

items: (1) they tend to be more discriminating (this has recently

been supported by Gage and Chattcrjee, 1960); (2) they can express sub-

tle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which

most prejudiced people feel they must maintain.

Another group of studies defending the F scale has contended that

acquiescence set, in itself, is an indicator of authoritarian attitudes,

and thus does not detract from the validity of the scale. Leavitt, et

al. (1956), state that the F scale confounds form and content variables,

but in the "right" direction. Authoritarian people, as measured by the

scale, agree more with authoritative statements; therefore, a portion

of the discriminatory power of the scale derives from its form, in

addition to its content. Gage, et al. (1957), hold a very similar

view. Messick and Jackson (1958) state that the acquiescent response

set operates to increase the discriminatory power of the scale, rather

than render it invalid. Further support for this point of view comes

from Messick and Frederikson (1958), Zuckerman and Eisen (1962),

Chapman and Block (1958), and Weatherley (1964).











In view of this research, it appeared that the California F scale

does provide a valid and reliable measure of authoritarian attitudes,

despite the presence of acquiescent response sets, and thus could be

used in this study.

4. Ego-strength. To arrive at a measure of ego-strength, the

Barron Ego-Strength Scale (Barron, 1953) was used. This scale is com-

posed of 68 items drawn from the MMPI. An individual's score on this

instrument is equal to the number of responses made in a predetermined,

"healthy" direction. Scores can range from 0 to 68, with high scores

being indicative of ego-strength.

Barron states that this instrument "appears to measure the various

aspects of effective personal functioning which are usually subsumed

under the term ego-strength." He contends further that high scorers

are characterized by the "capacity for personal organization." Among

the characteristics which are collectively referred to as ego-strength,

and which he found to correlate with the prediction scale, are physio-

logical stability and good health, a strong sense of reality, feelings

of personal adequacy, permissive morality, lack of ethnic prejudice,

emotional outgoingness, spontaneity, and intelligence.

The items for this scale were selected on the basis of significant

correlations with rated improvement in 33 psychoneurotic patients who

had been treated for six months in a psychiatric clinic. Responses

were obtained before therapy began.

The sample of 33 patients was divided into two groups: 17 patients

judged to have clearly improved and 16 who were judged to be unimproved.










Each case was Intensively studied, and two skilled judges who had

thoroughly acquainted themselves with the course of therapy were in

considerable agreement (r of .91) in their independent ratings of the

degree of improvement.

The improved and unimproved group could be distinguished on the

basis of the scale at the .01 level. Odd-even reliability of the

scale was .76, test-retest reliability after three months was .72.

The ability of the Barron Ego-Strength to predict outcome in

psychotherapy has been further validated by Wirt (1955), Barron and

Leary (1955), and Sunnett (1962). It has also been found to con-

sistently differentiate between various psychiatric patients and

normals by Gottesman (1959), Quay (1955), Taft (1957), Kleinmutz (1960),

Worrell and Hill (1962), and Tamkin and Klett (1957). Korman (1960)

found that psychiatric inpatients with high scores on the scale were

able to resolve a discrimination conflict more quickly than a low ego-

strength group, and Herron (1962a) has shown that, among schizophrenics,

extreme ego-strength scores (high and low) were significantly in agree-

ment with psychiatric ratings on prognosis. Himelstein (1964) has

found that self-referrals tend to obtain higher scores on the ego-

strength scales than those earned by referred counselees.

Recent evidence (Silverman, 1963) has shown that Barron's scale

can be used without giving the complete MMPI. Silverman found that the

two forms correlated .91 for normals and .85 for schizophrenics. The

ego-strength scale administered alone differentiated between normals

and schizophrenics at the .02 level of significance.











5. Body-concern and Body-satisfaction. Two instruments were used

to measure body-concern and body-satisfaction. The first of these was

the Homonym Test of Secord (1953). This is a list of 100 words, 75

of which are body homonyms, i.e., words which can refer either to

body parts and/or processes or to non-body concepts. An example of a

body homonym is "digit" which could be responded to with "finger" (a

body response) or -number" (a non-body response).

The list of words is read by the examiner at the rate of one every

five seconds. Subjects are instructed to write on an answer sheet the

first word which comes into their minds after the examiner reads each

stimulus word. Twenty-five words on the list are not homonyms, but

"dummy" words, which are included to destroy any set which might dev-

elop. Each subject's score is the number of body responses that are

given to the list of stimulus words.

Secord hypothesized that the greater the number of body responses

that were given by a subject, the more preoccupied and/or anxious he

was concerning his body. Using a group of 145 college students, he

extracted the 15 subjects making the highest scores and the 15 making

the lowest scores as high and low criterion groups. Secord and one

other rater were able to predict from Rorschach protocols whether or

not a person belonged to high or low homonym groups, Secord being cor-

rect on 22 out of 28 (p<.002), and the other rater correctly predicting

20 of 28 (pc.003).

The author reported an inter-rater reliability in scoring of .99,

and split-half reliabilities In two different samples of .81 and .73.










In this same study, a correlation of -.42 ( p<.01) was reported between

homonym scores and the total score on a Body-Acceptance Test, and of

-.54 (p<.01) between homonym scores and a subtest of Acceptance of Body

Build.

The second instrument, a measure of body-satisfaction, was the

Body-Cathexis Scale of Secord and Jourard (1953). This is a Likert-

type scale in which the subject must rate his satisfaction or disatls-

faction with 40 body parts or processes. Each body part is rated on a

five-point scale rating from I (complete dissatisfaction) to 5 (complete

satisfaction). The rating given to each body part is added, and the

total divided by 40 to arrive at the overall score for each subject.

The higher an individual scores, the more satisfaction is expressed

with his body. Body-cathexis was defined by the authors as the degeee

of a person's feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various

parts or processes of the body.

Secord and Jourard (1953) reported split-half reliabilities on

this scale of .78 for males and .83 for females. For 56 college females,

the Body-Cathexis (BC) Scale correlated.-.41 (p<.01) with Homonym Test

scores, indicating that body satisfaction Is negatively related to body

preoccupation and anxiety. The BC scale also correlated -.37 with the

Maslow test of insecurity. Jourard and Secord (1955), in a further

study, found that with males the BC scale correlated .58 with a Self-

Cathexis (SC) Scale; with females the correlation was .66 (both p<.01).

Johnson (1956), in cross-validating several of these findings,

found an inverse relationship between attitudes toward the body and the











number of symptoms reported. More specifically, with males there was

a correlation of -.33 (p4.O5) between Body-Cathexis and symptoms checked

on the Cornell Index. With females this relationship was -.40 (p<.01).


B. Control Instrument


One of the primary dangers in administering a group of personality

inventories or attitude scales is that the results may be confounded

by various response styles on the part of the subjects (Jackson and

Messick, 1958). That is, a subject's responding on these instruments

may be attributable to some extent to such tendencies as his wanting

to appear liberal, needing to avoid extremes, etc., thus detracting

from the results that might have been obtained had the subject been

less confounded in his responding to the item content.

Taylor (1961) has warned that in studies where there are several

samples of self-attitudes or attitudes toward others, a tendency to

find positive correlations between various measures of personality

traits may accrue largely because of the willingness of a subject to

ascribe socially desirable attitudes to himself, or to present himself

in such a light. Edwards (1953, 1957) has voiced similar opinions,

stating that social desirability may be viewed as a characteristic of

test items, and is often a major determiner of a subject's responding

to a personality inventory.

Although a recent study by Siller and Chipman (1964) found that

influence of response sets are usually negligible in this type of ex-

periment, the possibility existed that the social desirability variable











could confound and interfere with the results obtained in this experi-

ment (due to the fact that several of the instruments were self-rating

or attitude scales). It was,therefore, decided to include a measure

of this variable in the test battery as a "control." That is, it was

felt that the results of the study could be evaluated more accurately

if some estimate of the extent of social desirability response sets

were present.

A social desirability scale developed by Crowne and Marlowe (1960)

was chosen as the instrument to include for this purpose. The authors

considered their instrument to be superior to that developed by Edwards

(1953) primarily because of the fact that the item content of their

scale was much broader than that of Edwards, which referred almost ex-

clusively to the presence or absence of symptoms and complaints.

Edward's scale was described by them as a measure of the extent to which

an individual is willing to admit to symptoms of maladjustment. Content

of this nature makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine

whether subjects' responses are due to social desirability, or to a

genuine absence of symptoms. The achievement of high social desirability

scores may reflect the low frequency of pathological symptoms rather

than the need of subjects to present themselves in a favorable light.

This problem is made more acute by the fact that the true frequency of

the various symptoms is not known.

In contrast to this pathology-oriented type of item, the content

of the Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale refers to behaviors which

are culturally sanctioned, but highly improbable. Thus, the rationale










here is similar to the MMPI Lie Scale, although the items are less

extreme. The ambiguity which arises from the failure to consider the

actual incidence of traits,represented in the test items are avoided.

Social desirability is defined by Marlowe and Crowne (1961) as a need

for social approval and acceptance, and the belief that these can be

attained by means of culturally acceptable and appropriate behavior.

Thus, rather than seeing the social desirability response tendency as

a function of the test item as did Edwards (1957), Marlowe and Crowne

define it as a motivational variable.

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS) is composed

of 33 items which discriminated at the .05 level or better between

high and low total scores of 76 college students. Of these items,

18 are keyed 'true" and 15 are keyed "false," with the subject's score

being the number of responses made in the keyed direction. The larger

the number of keyed responses, the stronger the social desirability

response tendencies.

Crowne and Marlowe (1960), using Kuder-Richardson formula 20, re-

port an internal consistency coefficient of .88 with this instrument,

Also, a test-retest correlation of .89 was reported in the same study.

Correlations of .35 and .56 with the Edwards Social Desirability Scale,

and of -.54 between the Social Desirability Scale and the Barron's Inde-

pendence of Judgment Scale (Barron, 1953b), have been reported (all

p<.01). Marlowe and Crowne (1961), with 57 male college students,

found that subjects with a high score on this scale expressed more favor-

able attitudes toward a boring experimental situation. Neither Edwards'










nor Barron's scales were able to make this differentiation.

Although the social desirability variable has been labeled a

"control" variable, it was treated as a predictor in the present study,

and included in that category when the results have been obtained.

However, unlike the rest of the predictors, no hypotheses were made

with respect to its relationships to the criterion, as it has not

been considered theoretically important in contributing to attitudes

toward disability. Rather, its primary importance was to serve as a

check on the relationships of the predictors to the criterion.


C. Criterion instruments


1. The Granofsky Pictures Test. The dependent variable in this

experiment, attitudes toward the physically disabled, was measured by

two instruments, the first developed by Granofsky (1956), and the

second by Yuker, et al. (1960). Granofsky's instrument is a TAT-type

projective instrument on which subjects are instructed to tell stories

to stimulus pictures in which physically disabled people are depicted.

There are 12 scenes in all, three within each of four diagnostic

groups (wheelchair, leg amputation, facial disfigurement, arm amputation).

In order to facilitate the writing of the stories, three questions

appear beneath each picture: "What is happening in this picture?"

"How did it come about?" "What will happen next?" More detailed in-

structions were given on the cover of the booklet in which the pictures

were contained.

The pictures are printed at the top of 8-1/2 x 1-inch sheets










of paper. Each picture is 4-1/2 x 6 inches, and the rest of the space

is provided for the subject to write his story about the picture. It

has been found (Granofsky, 1956; Masson, 1963) that this space is quite

adequate for recording the stories. However, subjects are instructed

to use the back side of the same sheet if more space is needed.

Since the responses elicited by this instrument are largely un-

structured, it was important that a system of quantification be devel-

oped so that they could be objectively evaluated and scored. Thus, a

scaling method was employed in which reactions to the disabled were

placed on an 8-point continuum. Different degrees of strength of nega-

tive reactions toward the disabled were represented by scores of -5,

-3, and -1, with -5 being the extreme negative reaction. Positive

reactions were scored +1, +3, and +5, with +5 being the most positive,

accepting reaction to the disabled. Neutral responses, which are

usually indicated by a factual, colorless, or descriptive response,

are scored zero. An ambivalent score, where the evidence from the re-

sponse is too contradictory to support the scoring of a negative or

positive alternative, is scored .

The components of a -5 and a +5 reaction were described and speci-

fied by Granofsky to provide weights with which to better judge the

middle range of responses. A -5 score suggests "absolute rejection,

expressions of ridicule, horror, hostility, or repugnance, and/or iso-

lation of the disabled as social outcasts." A +5 response indicates

"the admittance of the disabled to all varieties of social interactions

with the non-disabled. More than mere tolerance, it involves a










deliberate and well considered approach to the problems of accepting

the disabled."

The scoring of responses was further facilitated and clarified by

the conception and description of three theoretical qualitative cate-

gories of aspects of attitudes toward the disabled. These categories,

an evaluation category (concepts of appraisal and estimation of dis-

abled persons), a cognizance theory (reactions to the appearance of

disability), and a social interrelationships category (concepts re-

garding the degree of social rapport with the disabled), were differ-

entiated for both sides of the scale. That is, detailed descriptions

were given of positive and negative evaluation, cognizance, and social

interrelationships. It must be remembered that only one score is

given to each response. These categories are but aspects of the re-

sponse which can be objectively stated, thus facilitating scoring.

The categories are alaborated as follows:


1. Evaluation
a. Negative evaluation: Feeling of pity and over-
solicitousness toward the disabled. Regarding the dis-
abled as objects of curiosity. Pre-conceived lower
social status roles for the disabled. Over estimation
of psychological concommitants of a disability. Exagger-
ation and misconception regarding limitations set by an
injury.

b. Positive evaluation: Objective appraisal and realis-
tic sympathetic evaluation of the disabled. Assessment
of psychological concommitants of a disability in a
practical way. Realistic estimation of limitations of
a disability. Acceptance of the disabled on an equal
social status footing with the non-disabled.

2. Cognizance
a. Negative cognizance: Undue awareness and occupying











one's self with the appearance of disabilities. Call-
ing particular attention to the disabilities. Over-
estimation of unsightliness of a disability.

b. Positive cognizance: De-emphasis of properties of
disabilities, assignment of minor role to appearance of
disability.

3. Social interrelationships
a. Negative social interrelationships: Setting apart
of the disabled from other people. Resistance or reluc-
tance to admit them to participation in various kinds of
social relationships. Feelings of uncomfortableness, un-
easiness, and anxiety and embarrassment in the presence
of the disabled.

b. Positive social interrelationships: Admittance of
disabled to a variety of social interactions with the
non-disabled. Expressions of feeling at ease in the
presence of the disabled.


Thus, subjects' responses to each of the 12 pictures received a

single score depending on the direction and degree of the response.

In order to facilitate tabulation of the data, the original algebraic

scores were converted to continuous numbers by uniformly adding five

points to each of the scores. The conversion system, then, was as

follows: -5 = 0, -3 = 2, -1 = 4, 0 and t = 5, +1 = 6, +3 = 8, +5 = 10.

A subject's total score could range from 0 to 120 points. Granofsky

reported an inter-scorer reliability of .76 for the Pictures Test,

indicating that the judges were evaluating the expressed attitudes to-

ward the disabled in an objective, consistent, and stable manner.

In order to arrive at a suitable criterion against which to vali-

date his instrument, Granofsky contacted 82 new members of the 52 Associ-

ation, a non-profit, volunteer organization in New York City which pro-

vides placement, counseling, and entertainment services for disabled










veterans. These subjects were chosen because their reactions to

physically disabled people could be observed and rated by supervisors

while in the actual situation. To arrive at an empirical measure of

this reaction, Granofsky developed a behavior-rating scale, whose ob-

jective was to secure a set of items which would sample various as-

pects of manifested behavior toward the disabled. Each of the Items

was considered as descriptive of a possible characteristic trend in the

person which would be expressed often enough behaviorally to permit ob-

servation by the supervisors. Fifteen items were eventually decided

upon, five in each of three subscales (evaluation, cognizance, social

interrelationships). An objective scoring system was decided upon

which resulted in one total score for each individual on the scale.

The validity of the Pictures Test, determined by the correlation

between the subjects' scores on this instrument and their score on the

behavior-rating scale, was found to be .56. A validity coefficient of

this degree (.56), while not extremely high, is considered to be sub-

stantial enough to be of use in research of this type (Bell, 1948;

Cronbach, 1960).

Correlations of the pictures of each of the four diagnostic sub-

groups with the criterion produced the following coefficients: Wheel-

chair group, .58; leg amputation group, .56; facial disfigurement, .40;

arm amputation, .36. Application of Hoyt's (1941) analysis of variance

technique, which computes the proportion of total variance that is true

variance, resulted in a reliability coefficient of .84.

Masson (1963), in a study investigating the relationship between










body-image (as measured by the body-barrier and penetration system of

Fisher and Cleveland, 1958) and attitudes toward the disabled, made

use of Granofskys instrument. Although he was unable to find a sig-

nificant relationship between the two variables, he did report an

inter-rater reliability of .84 with the Pictures Test, thus providing

further evidence that the pictures can be rated in a reliable, con-

sistent manner.


2. The ATDP Scale. This instrument is a Likert-type scale in

which the subject responds to the statements by expressing his degree

of agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale ranging from "I agree

very much" to "i disagree very much." To date, three different forms

of the scale have been developed, the original scale being composed of

20 items, and two subsequent scales of 30 items each. Form B, one of

the 30-item scales, is considered superior by its authors in terms of

its correlation with other scales (Block and Yuker, 1966).

In order to bolster the criterion, thus insuring that attitudes

toward disability are being adequately measured, Form B was added to

the battery as a second criterion instrument.

Each statement in the scale suggests that disabled persons are

either the same as physically normal persons, or that they are dif-

ferent. The statements cover two aspects of this problem. Approxi-

mately one-half are worded to point out similarities or differences in

"personality" characteristics, while the others suggest the need or

lack of need for "special treatment" for the disabled. The following










statements are illustrative of each type: (personality)--"Most dis-

abled persons worry a great deal"; (special treatment)--"You should

not expect too much from disabled persons."

The reliability and validity of the three scales have been deter-

mined for both disabled and non-disabled persons, the original disabled

group consisting of 248 workers at Abilities, Inc. (a manufacturing

firm employing severely disabled persons), and the non-disabled group

consisting of 625 Hofstra College students.

Validity was examined in terms of interrelationships that might

be predicted to exist between ATDP scores and other measures of be-

havior. Thus, evidence that this instrument measures what it purports

to measure was obtained through construct validation. With disabled

persons, the ATDP score was found to be positively related to satis-

factory work performance (p<.05), job satisfaction (p<.01), and intel-

ligence (p<.05). Females scored higher (were more acceptant) than

males (p<.05). Scores on this scale were found to be negatively re-

lated to anxiety (p<.01), and age (p<.05). The authors state that a

high score on this instrument by disabled persons indicates self-

acceptance, whereas with non-disabled people it would indicate accept-

ance of the disabled (a low score, conversely, would indicate a preju-

dice of the disabled).

In investigating the performance of non-disabled persons on this

scale, It was found that they score significantly lower (less accept-

ant) than the disabled (p<.001). It was also found that the ATDP was

positively related to the amount of contact that the non-disabled person










had had with disabled people (p<.001). No correlation was found be-

tween the ATDP scale and the Edwards' Social Desirability Scale, sug-

gesting that responses to this scale are not significantly determined

by such a response set. The authors also provide evidence that the

ATDP scale is difficult to fake in a given direction.

Since Form B (one of the 30-item scales) of the ATDP was utili-

zed in this experiment, only that scale's reliability data will be

presented. Split-half reliabilities for Form B have been found to be

.814 (N = 139) and .792 (N -50). The following correlations were re-

ported between Form B and Form A (Equivalent Form reliability):

.831 (N = 57), .721 (N =84), .412 (N = 58). In two different samples

Form B has correlated .762 (N = 40) and .572 (N = 81) with the original

20-item form of the ATDP. All of the above data has been collected

with non-disabled subjects. Although no test-retest reliability

coefficients were reported for Form B, a coefficient of .70 was found

with the original form with a period of four months between testing.

In this study, the directions for taking the ATDP scale were

slightly modified. This was done by explicitly defining to what types

of disability the term "disabled persons" refers. Since a pilot study

indicated that subjects felt that this term was too vague (could refer

to anything from deafness to quadriplegia), it was felt that specifying

the disability to include only amputation, wheelchair confinement, and

facial disfigurement should lead to increased reliability. Bell (1962)

and Siller and Chipman (1964) have previously discussed this apparent

weakness In the ATDP.











It was felt that adding the ATDP scale to the Pictures Test would

result in a measure of the criterion which would be broader and more

inclusive than either measure alone. Since the two instruments appear

to tap quite different levels of functioning (Granofsky Pictures--

unconscious feelings and reactions; ATDP--conscious opinions, beliefs),

the probability that attitudes toward physically disabled people were

being reliably and validly measured should be increased by taking both

instruments into consideration.

In summary, then, there were six instruments used to measure the

prediction variables, one control instrument (thus resulting in seven

predictors), and two instruments to measure the criterion variable.

The five initial hypotheses, stated in terms of the instruments used

to measure the variables, are repeated below.


1. The Barratt-Fruchter Chair-Window Test was used as a measure

of field-dependence. A low score on this instrument should be associ-

ated with negative attitudes toward the disabled, as indicated by low

scores on the Granofsky Pictures and the ATDP scale.

2. The Social Acquiescence Scale was used to measure social con-

formity. A high score on this scale should be associated with negative

attitudes toward the disabled.

3. The California F Scale was used as a measure of authoritarian

tendencies. A high score on this scale should be associated with nega-

tive attitudes toward the disabled.

4. The Barron Ego-Strength Scale was used to measure ego-strength.

A low score on this scale should be associated with negative attitudes







48


toward the disabled.

5. The Homonym Test and the Body-Cathexis Scale were used to

measure body-concern and body-satisfaction respectively. A high score

on the Homonym Test and a low score on the Body-Cathexis Scale should

be associated with negative attitudes toward the disabled.












CHAPTER V


METHOD


A. Subjects.


The subjects used in this experiment were female college students

who were enrolled in either of two beginning psychology courses.

College students were selected as subjects for three basic reasons:

1. They possess sufficient intellectual and verbal ability

to understand the directions to the various tests and the items

contained in each, and to respond adequately to the demands for

expression inherent in several of the instruments.

2. It was felt that they represented a reasonably healthy,

statistically normal population which, as a group, would not

be expected to harbor attitudes in either an extreme positive

or negative direction.

3. They were accessible due to the fact that they were required

to participate in a certain number of psychological experiments.

In order to keep the subject population as homogeneous as possible

with regard to sex, thus avoiding any additional variance that might

result from differences in performance due to sex of the subject, it

was decided to limit the study to subjects of one sex. Since the

Granofsky Pictures Test, one of the criterion instruments in the study,

was originally validated on female subjects, it was felt that females










would be more appropriate subjects than males.

The class rolls for Psychology 201 and 202 were obtained, each

girl's name in the two classes was recorded, and an attempt was made

to find the mailing addresses of as many of these potential subjects

as possible. A total of 295 mailing addresses were eventually obtained,

and a letter was sent to each student.

Since a copy of the general form letter appears in Appendix A, it

will be stated here only that the letter informed them of the following:


1. Their selection as participants in the study.

2. The time and place that they were expected to attend.

3. The general nature of the experiment.


Of the 295 subjects who originally received letters, 41 did not

participate in the study. The majority of these 41 informed the in-

vestigator that they had fulfilled their experimental requirements for

their particular course and did not wish to participate in this study.

A small minority did not attend the experiment and failed to inform the

examiner in advance that they would not participate.

Of the remaining 254 subjects, four neglected for unknown reasons

to take at least one of the instruments that were included in the

battery. In addition, the tests of ten other subjects were disregarded

due to the incompleteness and/or lack of seriousness with which various

tests (in most cases the Granofsky) were taken. The test data gathered

from the remaining 240 subjects were considered adequate and valid for

the purposes of this experiment.










Although the subjects ranged in age from 17 to 44, 92% of them

(N=221) were aged 18 through 20. The mean age was 19.55 years, and

the mode was 19 (N = 80).

When the data collection was completed, a second letter was sent

to each participant explaining the purpose and rationale of the study

and thanking them for their cooperation. A copy of this letter

appears in Appendix A.


B. Collection of Data.


The data from the 240 subjects were collected by dividing them in-

to large groups and administering the complete battery to each group In

one evening. Four sessions of group testing were needed to complete

the administration of tests to all of the subjects. The sessions were

held approximately one week apart, with an average of 60 participants

per session. Although the testing time ranged from 105 to 165 minutes,

depending primarily on how long it took subjects to complete the Gran-

ofsky, most subjects completed all nine of the tests In approximately

120 minutes.

A definite order was followed in the administration of the instru-

ments. This order was as follows:


1. Secord's Homonym Test.

2. Barratt-Fruchter Chair-W-indow Test.

3. Barron's Ego-Strength Scale.

4. Bass' Social Acquiescence Scale.

5. California F Scale.











6. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.

7. Granofsky Pictures Test.

8. ATDP.

9. Body-Cathexis Scale.


Secord's homonym Test was administered first to insure that sub-

jects' responses to the stimulus words would be as naive and free of

set as possible. Since several of the instruments centered around,

or were concerned with, aspects of the body, it was felt that administer-

ing this test later in the battery would influence the results obtained

with it.

Because it requires rather intense concentration and sustained

attention, the Chair-Window Test was administered as early as possible,

while the subjects were still very alert. It was felt that immediately

following the Homonym Test was the best time to administer this instrument.

The next four instruments were administered in their particular

order for no definite reasons. However, since it was considered import-

ant to administer the Homonym Test and the Chair-Window as early as

possible, and because it was felt that the Granofsky Pictures Test

would drain most of the subjects' motivation to perform, it seemed logi-

cal to place them between the first two tests and the Pictures Test.

Also, since they are all relatively short and do not require a great

deal of effort from a subject, it was felt that the subject could still

be reasonably fresh by the time she was to begin responding to the

Pictures Test. Approximately 60 minutes had passed by the time the first










six instruments had been administered.

The ATDP and the Body-Cathexis Scale were kept until last be-

cause the experimenter felt that the focus of these tests (disabled

people and the state of one's body respectively) might possibly inter-

fere with subjects' performances on the Granofsky had they been ad-

ministered prior to It.


C. Scoring of Data.


I. Objective Tests. All instruments in this battery, excepting

the Granofsky Pictures Test, were objective tests of various kinds.

The method for scoring these tests has been previously discussed in

the INSTRUMENTS chapter.

These tests were scored by the experimenter and an undergraduate

assistant. It was not felt that each test must be scored by both in-

dividuals because of the clearness and simplicity of the various scoring

procedures. However, 20 protocols of each instrument, originally scored

by the assistant, were rescored by the experimenter to serve as a

measure of the accuracy and reliability of the original scoring. On

these 160 protocols (8 tests, 20 protocols per test), containing approxi-

mately 8,000 items, only 14 errors were found. It was felt on the basis

of this negligible percentage of errors (less than .002%), that the

reliability of scoring the objective tests has been demonstrated to be

sufficient for the purposes of this study.


2. Projective Tests. The Granofsky Pictures Test, as has been

previously discussed in the chapter on INSTRUMENTS, is a relatively










unstructured, open-ended test, requiring a paragraph-length response

from the subject. Since the subject must invest his own attitudes,

feelings, and beliefs into his response rather than merely responding

Yes or No, True or False, etc., to a statement, this instrument can be

considered to be a projective technique.

Since responses of a subjective, open-ended nature are elicited

by the test, a problem of translating the material into measures en-

abling quantitative analysis arises. Although the general method of

scoring these protocols was discussed in the INSTRUMENTS chapter, and

thus will not be presented again, it is necessary to demonstrate, simi-

larly to the objective tests, that this test was reliably scored in the

present study. Unless the Pictures Test can be shown to have been

scored in a consistent, communicable manner, its value as a measure of

the criterion (attitudes toward disabled people) as seriously lessened.

In order to show that the basis upon which subjects' responses to

pictures of visibly disabled people was consistent, undimensional, and

capable of being communicated to other scorers, the scores arrived at

by the experimenter were correlated with those of another judge who

was following the same general directions for scoring. Since it is

necessary in scoring these responses not to take them at face value,

but rather to look for deeper, dynamic attitudes and feelings, it was

felt that the second judge should be experienced in interpretations on

this level. Ideally he should be of at least as advanced a level of

training and experience as the experimenter. For this reason, a fellow

intern in Clinical Psychology was selected for the task.







55

The two judges first separately scored subjects' responses to the

pictures on 15 randomly selected protocols (180 stories) with their

only guideline being the "Instructions to the Raters" (Appendix B),

outlined in Granofsky's (1956) original study. There had been no dis-

cussion between the raters concerning scoring procedures prior to this.

On this first training session of 15 protocols, the judges agreed

on 79 of 180 possible responses (43%), with a correlation (Pearson

product-moment) of .67 in their scoring (complete data on inter-scorer

reliability is found in Appendix C). Although this was encouraging

evidence that the system for scoring these responses could be communi

cated from one rater to another, it was felt that the correlation would

have to be considerably higher if this instrument was to be a useful

criterion measure.

Following this initial scoring of protocols, the judges conferred

and discussed their rationale and frame of reference leading to their

scoring of the various responses. Particular attention was given to

those responses which varied greatly In the scores given to them by

the raters.

A second training session of 15 protocols was then randomly selected

and separately scored In the same manner as the first group. This time

there were 92 agreements (51%), and a correlation of .76 between scorers.

Although this Is as high as the interscorer reliability recorded by

Granofsky (1956) in his original study, it was felt that it was possible

to arrive at a still higher level of scoring consistency, thus further

insuring that the criterion would be represented as reliably and











consistently as possible.

The two judges then conferred again, following much the same pat-

tern as the previous discussion. After this second meeting, it was felt

that the judges were ready for a final, 'official" scoring session.

This time 40 responses were randomly selected from the protocols and

separately scored by the judges. On this third session, agreement was

found on 24 (60%) of the responses, and a correlation of .84 was re-

corded. This is the same inter-rater reliability that Masson (1963)

reported, and was considered sufficiently high for the purposes of this

study.

The experimenter, having demonstrated that the responses were

being consistently and undimensionally scored, then proceeded to score

all of the protocols. The subjects were randomly divided into initial

and cross-validation samples after all of the tests, both objective

and projective, had been scored.


D. Analysis of Data.


The analysis of the data that had been collected and scored could

be viewed as a two-step procedure. First, it was necessary to arrange

the data in such a way that the appropriate statistical procedures could

be performed. Secondly, it was necessary to apply these statistical

methods to test the initial hypotheses and enable the experimenter to

derive and evaluate the more subtle interactions that were present in

the data.

Since the plan of the study was to test the initial hypotheses that










had been developed on the basis of previous literature, extract from

the data the more subtle interactions occurring between variables,

develop more refined hypotheses based on these interactions, and test

these hypotheses, It was felt that two distinct samples would be needed.

The Initial sample would be instrumental in testing the initial hypothe-

ses and formulating the second-level, interactive ones. The second, or

cross-validation sample would be used to evaluate this second group of

hypotheses. Thus, the first step in the analysis of the data was to

divide it into two large groups, or samples.

This division was done in random fashion by assigning a number to

each subject, placing these numbers in a container, and drawing them

blindly until the samples were complete. All data from all subjects

had been collected and scored before this division into the two samples

was made. It was decided to include 150 subjects in the initial sample,

and 90 In the cross-validation sample.

Since sample size is inversely related to the size needed in a

statistical relationship for that relationship to be significant, it

was felt that it would be appropriate for the initial sample to be

larger than the cross-validation sample. That is, since the initial

sample was seen primarily as a means of developing and refining hypothe-

ses, making its size very large would result in more statistically sig-

nificant relationships to evaluate in the second sample. The cross-vali-

dation sample, being smaller, would require statistical relationships

to be larger if they were to be significant. Thus, any relationships

which might be found to be significant solely by chance in the initial










sample, because of the size of the sample, would most probably be dis-

carded in the cross-validation sample because of the more stringent

criteria of significance due to the smaller sample size. Those re-

lationships which were "true" or meaningful (significance due to actual

relationship of the variables rather than to chance or sample size)

would be more likely to hold up upon cross-validation.

Thus, the initial sample was seen as a means of developing, stating,

and producing a number of relationships which would hopefully be meaning-

ful as well as significant. The cross-validation sample was viewed as

a means of supporting or contraindicating the findings of the first

sample. The relative sizes of the two samples were chosen with these

goals in mind.

Since one of the statistical procedures which was to be used re-

quired that subjects in a particular sample be divided into high,

medium and low on the basis of certain variables, the number of subjects

in that sample would have to be sufficiently large to permit adequate

tests of the hypotheses after the divisions were made. Since a sample

size of 30 is generally considered large enough for this, an overall

N of 90 was felt to be sufficient to provide tests of the three subdivi-

sions of data.

The initial sample was made larger than this minimum of 90 because

of the previously stated purpose for which that sample was intended.

That is, because the primary purpose of the initial sample was to dev-

elop hypotheses to be retested with more stringent criteria for signifi-

cance, the larger size of that sample made it more likely that any










meaningful relationships present in the original data would be brought

to light. At this stage of developing hypotheses, it was felt that it

was better to include more statistically significant interactions than

might be meaningfully warranted, than to be overly stringent and thus

unnecessarily risk the exclusion of some relationships which might be

meaningful and which might be upheld in the cross-validation sample.

Thus, an initial sample of 150 subjects was decided upon, resulting in

subdivisions of 50 for certain statistical analyses.

The five basic, original hypotheses were tested by simply correl-

ating the predictor variables with the two criterion instruments. By

also correlating the predictor and criterion variables with each other,

an intercorrelation matrix was arrived at which provided measures of

the extent to which each variable (or instrument) was related to every

other variable. The correlation coefficients in this matrix were based

on a sample of 150. Although these correlations provide only a limited

amount of information in themselves, they do provide data which, with

more refined procedures, can be viewed, analyzed, and interpreted In

such a way as to generate more refined hypotheses for testing.

In this study, a procedure using moderator variables (Saunders,

1956), was utilized to break down the data In such a way that inter-

active effects could be studied and hypotheses developed on the basis

of these interactions. The particular situation in which the use of

moderator variables is applicable Is that in which the relationship

between two or more given variables is found to vary as a function of

changes In the value of a character of one or more other variables.










For example, if Variable A Is found to minimally correlate with

Variable B, subgroups may be isolated within this overall relationship

which show highly differential patterns of validity or degrees of rela-

tionship. The best way to isolate these subgroups, thus in effect

sorting heterogeneous aggregates of individuals into homogeneous ones,

may be through the use of a third, moderator variable (e.g., Variable

C). Thus, if Variable B is divided into subgroups of high, medium and

low on the basis of the relative performance of subjects on Variable C,

and then the scores of the subgroups are correlated with their corres-

ponding scores on Variable A, some highly varying relationships can be

extracted. These interactions can then be tested out on a subsequent

sample to help determine whether a significant, meaningful relationship

exists between the variables in question.

Thus, if Variable A Is found to correlate .10 with Variable B, we

have only the information that these variables do not appear to be

related to any significant degree. However, if we divide Variable B

into subgroups of high, medium and low on the basis of subjects' per-

formances on Variable C, and then correlate scores between Variable A

and Variable B within the three subgroups, we might find that the re-

lationship varies greatly under these different conditions. For example,

In the subgroup of individuals who scored "high" on Variable C, Variable

A and Variable B may correlate .30. In the "medium" group the correl-

ation might be .03. In the low group it might be -.48. Thus, the

relationship between A and B could possibly vary dramatically under

different conditions, providing a great deal more useful information










than the initial overall correlation between the variables. This was

the technique used in this study to study interactive effects between

the variables, and to break down the overall correlations into relation-

ships which often varied considerably. All Interactions found to be

significant in the initial sample were then stated as hypotheses and

re-examined in the cross-validation sample.

In Banas' (1965) discussion of moderator variables, he states that

they can be chosen on either an empirical or a rational basis, with

rational selection being preferred. Since each of the predictors in

this study has been thought to be of theoretical importance in the

dynamics of attitudes toward disabled people, it is likely that the

resultant attitude would be a function of interactions among them.

Thus, it was felt that utilizing the predictors as moderators for each

other would provide the greatest amount of pertinent information. To

this extent, selection was rational in the present experiment.

The attempt was made in this study to divide the samples into equal

subgroups, that is, into subgroups of 50 subjects each in the initial

sample and of 30 subjects each in the cross-validation sample. However,

this was not always possible due to tie scores in many instances.

For example, if a subgroup in the initial sample consisted of 48

subjects, and the next score was attained by eight subjects, those eight

subjects would begin the next subgroup. Rather than arbitrarily placing

two of those subjects into the preceding subgroup, it wad decided to

make the divisions "natural" and as close to even as possible. Thus,

a typical division might be 52, 49, 49 for high, medium and low, rather










than 50, 50, 50.

The final statistical methodology used in this experiment was

originally described by Hotelling (1936) and termed the "canonical

correlation" by him. This concept is defined by Cooley and Lohnes

(1962), as the maximum correlation between linear functions of two

sets of variables, such as two sets of measurements made on the same

subject. In this experiment, the two sets of variables or measurements

would be the predictor and criterion instruments.

Thus, a linear function is developed for each set of variables.

The problem Is to find two sets of weights which, when applied to the

variables, maximizes the correlation between the linear functions.

Thus, a correlation coefficient is derived which provides the infor-

mation of whether one set of variables (e.g., the predictors) is sig-

nificantly related to the second set (e.g., the criteria). In addition,

through the process of weighting, some measure of the importance of the

variables in each set is arrived at. It is thus possible in the present

study to attain some estimate of the relative importance of the pre-

dictors, and thus of the theoretical approach which each represents in

contributing to attitudes toward disability.

Since both multiple predictors and criteria were present in this

experiment, the canonical correlation was considered most appropriate

for the purposes discussed above. If there had been only one criterion,

the problem would have been one of multiple regression.

Due to their complexity and length, all analyses in the present

study were done by means of electronic computers.













CHAPTER VI


RESULTS OF INITIAL SAMPLE


The maximum canonical correlation of the initial sample was .47,

which is significant at the .001 level. Therefore, there Is at least

one significant way in which the predictors relate to the criteria.

The personality constructs resulting from the various theoretical ap-

proaches can be said then to be significantly related to attitudes to-

ward visibly disabled people as they are measured in this study. Since

the number of possible pairs of linear combinations is equal to the

number of predictor or criterion measures (whichever is smaller), a

second combination was developed in this study, which had two criterion

measures. However, the correlation in this instance (.20) was not

significant.


TABLE I

CANONICAL VECTORS OF THE INITIAL SAMPLE


Predictors Criteria

-.68 Authoritariantsm .87 ATOP
.46 Social Desirability .26 Granofsky Pictures
.34 Field-Independence
.27 Body-Satisfaction
-.12 body-Concern
.02 Ego-Strength
.02 Social Conformity










The contribution which the individual variables made to the sig-

nificantly related canonical variates is presented in Table 1. The

loadings reveal that authoritarianism is the primary variable in pre-

dicting attitudes toward disability. The tendency to respond in a

socially desirable manner is the most important positive predictor,

suggesting that some of the relations between predictors and criteria

in this study may be heavily influenced by this response bias,, with

field-dependence and body-satisfaction also appearing relatively high

in predictive importance.

The ATDP scale appears considerably more important than the Gran-

ofsky Pictures Test as a measure of the criterion in this sample, as

its relative weight is much greater than that of the latter instrument.

On the basis of the nine-variable correlation matrix (Table 2)

derived from the initial sample (N = 150), most of the initial hypothe-

ses were supported to some degree. Hypothesis three was most strongly

supported as authoritariansim, as measured by the California F Scale,

correlated in a negative, highly significant (p(.01) manner with both

measures of attitudes toward disabled persons. This would indicate,

consistent with the hypothesis, that highly negative attitudes toward

disabled people are directly related to the degree of authoritarianism

on the part of the non-disabled.

Hypothesis 5, which dealt with the relationship between the non-

disabled individual's feelings about his own body and his attitudes

toward physically disabled people, received somewhat inconsistent support.

Body-satisfaction, as measured by the Body-Cathexis Scale, was found to










correlate significantly (p,.05) with both criterion measures, thus

supporting Hypothesis 5a, but no significant relationship between

anxiety and concern about one's own body, as measured by the Homonym

Test, and attitudes toward the disabled was found, thus not supporting

Hypothesis 5b. Thus, the data would suggest that some positive re-

lationship exists between the degree of conscious satisfaction an in-

dividual has with his body and the manner in which he reacts to disabled

people; the greater the self-satisfaction, the more acceptant and posi-

tive the reaction to disability. On the basis of the initial data,

however, there appears to be no relationship between any type of more

basic, unconscious somatic concerns and attitudes toward disabled

people. Conscious attitudes and feelings about one's body, then, would

appear to be more important in determining one's reaction to this type

of stimulation.

Hypothesis 1 (the more field-dependent an individual is, the less

acceptant of the disabled he will be) and 4 (the less ego-strength an

individual possesses, the less acceptant he will be) were also supported

by the data, although in neither case could the support be considered

strong. A significant, positive relationship (p<.05) was found between

field-independence, as measured by the Chair-Window Test, and one of

the criterion measures for attitudes toward disability (ATDP scale),

but the second criterion measure (The Granofsky Pictures) was virtually

unrelated (r = .02) to field-independence as it was measured here.

A very similar situation is found with the relationship between

ego-strength and attitudes toward disabled people. Once again, the


















































0

0
I



0 -
* *


NO0
0 -
I I


o o


0






*


- O
I I


LA rf


I


CO -." C0

I


- O O LO
* *


1,


a-

C,



c m
0




I_
L.












CLO
.-

ro









o- *o
- L0






I
0 U 4.J
0 00


\D IFCO m1


u> c
c 4 E 0

Ec i c u
) 0 O -c ro
C. 4- 4. 4-

O C L CO)
0 0 cL wo 0 41c

V \7 I V)
Q. m. "0 3 0 ( u I
; U10 -0
0 o < U
U. fL < ,, m


- N m --f L1n vo3 r- wo cm>


LL.
0
x

-L'


II









uJ


-z
0 Z












-Z


I "
I-


N4 0%
0 0
I


- N r .- .\










ATDP correlated significantly (p<.01) with the predictor variable,

as measured by Barron's Ego-strength Scale, but only a minimal cor-

relation could be found between the Granofsky and the Ego-Strength

Scale. Thus, there is slight, tentative support for the possibility

of positive relationships between ego-strength and attitudes toward

disabled people. The relationship between ego-strength and attitudes

toward disability, as well as that between body-satisfaction and atti-

tudes toward the disabled, is made to seem ever more tentative, how-

ever, by the fact that social desirability correlated .22 (p4.01) with

the ATDP, .19 with the Ego-Strength Scale (p<.05), and .17 (p<.05)

with the Body-Cathexis Scale, suggesting that some degree of the cor-

relations of these predictor variables with the ATDP scale might be

attributable to this response style.

No support was given to Hypothesis 2 (the more socially conforming

an individual is, the less acceptant of the disabled he will be).

Although the relationship between social conformity, as measured by

Bass' Social Acquiescence Scale and the two criterion measures was in

the right direction (i.e., a negative correlation between social con-

formity and attitudes toward the disabled), It was not of such a degree

as to be considered significant at the .05 level.

Thus, as a way of summarizing the findings with respect to the

initial hypotheses, they are restated below with a note added to each

describing whether each particular hypothesis was supported by the data,

and if so, the degree of the support.

The more field-dependent an individual is, the less acceptant of










the disabled he will be. Slightly supported by the data, as a cor-

relation of .20 (pc.05) was found between the Chair-Window Test (a

measure of field-independence) and the ATDP scale.

Hypothesis 2. The more socially conforming an individual is, the

less acceptant of the disabled he will be. Not supported by the data.

Hypothesis 3. The more authoritarian an individual is, the less

acceptant he will be of disability. Strongly supported, as the Calif-

ornia F Scale correlated -.331 and -.251 (both p<.01) respectively

with the ATDP and the Granofsky Pictures.

Hypothesis 4. The more ego-strength an individual possesses, the

more acceptant of disability he will be. Slightly supported, as a

correlation of .23 (p4.01) was found between the Ego-Strength Scale

and the ATDP.

Hypothesis 5. (a) The more consciously satisfied an individual

is with his body, the more acceptant of disabled persons he will be.

Strongly supported, as the Body-Cathexis Scale was found to correlate

.20 and .16 (both p<.05) with the ATDP and the Granofsky Pictures, re-

spectively. (b) The more anxious and concerned an individual is about

his body, the less acceptant of the disabled he will be. Not supported

by data.

The highest intercorrelation between any two of the predictor

variables was that of authoritarianism with social conformity, which

yielded a coefficient of .46 (p<.01). This would suggest that conformity

to society's dictates is positively related to the degree of authori-

tarian attitudes present within an individual, i.e., highly conforming










people would also tend to be highly authoritarian.

This finding is consistent with the views of Adorno, et al.

(1950), who, in discussing the relationship between authoritarianism

and conformity, state:


Prejudiced subjects tend to report a relatively harsh
and more threatening type of home discipline which was ex-
perienced as arbitrary by the child. Related to this is a
tendency apparent in families of prejudiced subjects to base
interrelationships on rather clearly defined roles of domi-
nance and submission in contradistinction to equalitarian
policies. Family relationships are characterized by fearful
subservience to the demands of the parents and by an early
suppression of the impulses not acceptable to them.

The goals which such parents have in mind in rearing
and training their children tend to be highly conventional
The status-anxiety so often found in families of prejudiced
subjects is reflected in the adoption of a rigid and ex-
ternalized set of values: what is socially acceptable and
what is helpful in climbing the social ladder is considered
"good," and what deviates, what is different, and what is
socially inferior is considered "bad". . (Pg. 385.)


Recent studies by Bass (1956), Shaw (1961), and Vaughn and White

(1966) have also reported significantly positive relationships between

these two variables.

Authoritarianism, in this matrix, was found to be negatively

related (r = -.30) to ego-strength (p<.01). This also is consistent

with the views expressed by Adorno, at al., who state:


Low scorers (i.e., low authoritarians) often tend toward
a more successful integration of the various aspects of their
personalities, they tend to remain less immature and less in-
fantile. They thus turn out to have more capacity for sus-
tained effort, more ability to postpone pleasure for the sake
of internalized values, more ability to assume responsibility,
and more emotional maturity. The absence versus the presence










of any or all of these characteristics may be summarized
as a "weak" versus a "strong" ego.

The fact that low scorers manifest relative strength of
the rational tendencies as compared to the irrational may be
due to their attempt to master and sublimate rather than
escape the unconscious. Thus, the low scorer's adaptation
to reality is more flexible in spite of the more open con-
flict and anxiety which accompanies the greater awareness
of existing problems. (Pg. 457.)


Barron (1953a) has reported findings which also support the re-

sults of the present study.

Although a significant (p<.01) positive relationship is found

between body-satisfaction and ego-strength (r = .32), the relatively

high correlation of both of these variables with the socially desir-

able response set (both p<.05) suggests that the strength of this

relationship may be due to a large extent to the fact that they are

both susceptible to this bias.

Since four out of the five hypotheses were to some degree sup-

ported (although the possibility existed that a socially desirable

response set may have contributed somewhat to some of the significant

relationships), and all of the correlations between predictors and

criterion were in the predicted direction, it was felt that a closer

examination of the data was certainly warranted. A more detailed look

at the data would also provide a great deal more information and clari-

fication of the interrelationships of the nine variables.

As has been previously explained, a method of arranging and analyz-

ing the data utilizing moderator variables was the procedure by which

this examination would take place. By means of this procedure, 126










correlations between the various predictors and each criterion, thus

resulting in a total of 252 correlation coefficients, could be deter-

mined. Each predictor variable was correlated with each criterion

variable when each of these criterion variables was divided into high,

medium and low on the basis of subjects' performances on each of the

predictors, which in effect served as moderators for each other. For

example, a variable such as social conformity was correlated with

attitudes toward disabled people when this criterion was divided into

high, medium and low on the basis of subjects' relative standing on

each of the other predictors, such as body-satisfaction, ego-strength,

authoritarianism, etc., in turn, until each predictor had served as a

moderator for every other predictor.

The relationship between each predictor and each criterion instru-

ment could be viewed under 18 different conditions (six other predictors

serving as moderators, each under high, medium and low conditions), in

addition to the initial overall correlations previously discussed.

The information concerning these Interactions is presented in

Tables 3 to 9. Of the 252 coefficients attained by this method, 49 are

significant at the .05 level. Twenty of these significant correlations

were significant at the .01 level. Since only 13 correlations would

be expected to be significant by chance at the .05 level, and only

three at the .01 level, the number that were found to be significant

represents a genuine departure from chance. Since only one significant

correlation was in a direction opposite to that which was predicted,

evidence is provided for the meaningfulness, in addition to significance











of the relationships.

The finding (on the basis of the initial correlation matrix and

canonical correlation) that the single most Important predictor of

attitudes toward disability was the degree of authoritarianism of the

non-disabled was supported by the subgroup correlations. Of the 49

statistically significant relationships isolated by this technique

between predictor and criterion instruments, 17 had authoritarianism

as the predictor. (See Table 5.)

In several instances the use of a moderator variable did not sig-

nificantly change the overall relationship between predictor and

criterion. This was most apparent when either social conformity

(Table 2) or body-concern (Table 8) was the predictor. In others the

relationship was considerably clarified. For example, the overall

relationship between ego-strength and attitudes toward the disabled

was one which originally appeared minimally statistically significant

and lacking in Informational value. When subgroups were Isolated by

the use of moderator variables, the relationship was seen to vary

considerably depending on the condition under which it was examined.

An example of this can be seen by consulting section C of Table 6.

As shown in this table and in Table 2, the overall correlation

between ego-strength and the respective criterion measures was .23

(p<.01) with the ATDP scale and .09 with the Granofsky Pictures Test.

When authoritarianism was the moderator, as shown in Table 6, Section

C, a definite pattern in the relationship between the predictor and

criteria emerges. Thus, for subjects who are highly authoritarian,





















>.0
c-


LL. U .1-
0 i/
U') wl'-





I L.
U l O ,







0

I u







0 0 M


0..
4J
I CA

U L.





4C1
I L/


S- .




0- L)0




O U. -..
in C



L. t




) 0 1
o '-












0
C


I I


04
--4c.I


O \D0 0m M O
CM 04 0 000
O ** 0I
I


co 6









04 %D
- M 0\D
. .


-0- T
- O 00--


E



) 0
,- 0

I--
cc


- CM
0--











II


r-=- 0%
00o
I


cn-o 3



















0-
LL C %
LI '0 Q




0 u m
V) *- -

0


I C
>. L. -.







0 U Ca
u


c
0
C

I 4











1 Mi .


Ul L. -,
4J
0 h








Em
I r
.0 C U1

















u
L. La
0
Le
0I 0
iJ








6OCLa.


C








CI I

o L-
0


- IM
I II


N C
O M
** *


r -.- -t










oFo
I o










000
000






















*
0 -







E

o-c 3
O o

I-


00 r-.. cl




-00



CO I. 1

I I











SI


Sco


.- ,
0o-
I I I









I I










Ln

I


>- E

4- CO. -O
a --
0 C)

10


r"

E
X
0
L.
a
0
E





0
Q.
0.
4-


3

























r
U
10
0


L
0

0J

0
L
-o








4c
0





-c
10


UU




V


















4 -

U. 0
U SB U)
Uv )

0



C

S 0


u


C
0
I Aj
>. u ----
0 4 U)%


4-
IA
U)




0 cn


4.J
(UI


0

*0










0
I-
L,.


E

4-.>--

0






..)
0
U-

XO -
C L










uO
1- 0


I I


g






11..
IN f .4'












Ill
- n





*' 4- 0
*- .3' ft

lia













.1'
-!:










N *
- t ft





C.I I I-



.ic
CM r. e
I-l- f
* *


E

,-






o D 0A N
















--m










C'4
I I




















* *


I
I I


> E


0 c 0


c'










76






LL. .0
U do CO 3" CO 0 -
0 L-ut -O o D oo
&-,




( * * *
VI I
a









% >. .M





0-- In w
-J C C_ CMD 100
C) I I


0





0
": L
In u >0 to C *,n *
I- 0 Uo FCo OO 01
S *c** *-* *
In 0 4f I
Q 1U in
1- 10

- -

Im- C U m1p mo
U 0 rA o C1 m a 0 c



Qo 0



--
SL- N ON -CL








cm r
a).c





S.V n r *








-. l- 1'



,- 2-
I 1O=- L. ) r G0 0 4.
04-- * *











> Z. CC a C
w 0 0


0 0

in 0 o- -
z <*- c:- com-s- c1- .0
o L.-o 04-0
I- 4 l0. )






o o

'U 0 0


















>-




u M
-0 L

CL



S 0








-I












SEU u

U 0
-c.-.--













C
I I


m o
o


0-
I CO




/I)



.- C-
4-1
Cie


c

0

>


77









o0 o -D D
* * * *


-0-


SC 0
* *


CoM0 C L
CON- nC -0
* . *


CND



















-
e

0

-CO


ND








--0














I


















4- 0
0 M 0
*










Cr
.




















o V m mN CO N
4C3
l>. U CU0 QT aDCOr-




10 e ca 04 0 0 0 N
L1 -- * * *






in 1 I I




-. a "-l r, 1





1 r_ 0- 0 C C4 OM Lt
0 m % . .. .
V I I I I




1/ I u I I
3V

0 E
TO
< 0
OI oCa N A C-o -CO a L.
S- Lo Or CD 0- L
I 4-' W CL I I SI





L r






Q I I II I
C O



M Eu --
i - U . . .
I 0 I I I


tO c
4JL I I0
w u
I U E --0 OO






w 'a 1 4, -
0 0 m-


Z0


mI i . l
o --




0 I0 4- C
a 3- N 0 0
oL- I I i -
o 0 0 Z




0 -go

v o o o
**zs cs-i
Q (3
S <^


















C









0






4j
Ur





01

U L.
4-l



E
I I1I

310


C "E







u 0-'-
o- 4.
00 c
U)i






I 0-'

S- C L.



C


C
0
a-



> I- Z

0


00
* *
I


C'!J00


o0 -
0C M
*e















a,
N







CM
*4


oM ao.




















--0



















0
0-0





CMC! C





0 C


E
3
-C -

ZE


E
S.-



I-










correlations of .28 (p<.05) between the ATOP scale and ego-strength

and of .15 between the Granofsky and ego-strength are found. For

subjects who are moderately authoritarian, the relationship changes to

a negative one (-.09 correlation with ATDP, -.19 with Granofsky). In

the final subgroup, composed of low authoritarians, the relationship

reverts to one that is very similar to that of the high authoritarian

group. In this instance, correlations of .27 (p(.05) and .17 are

found between the ego-strength scale and the ATDP and Granofsky respec-

tively.

Thus, the moderator in this instance was instrumental in eliciting

a pattern in the relationship between the predictor and criteria that

added considerable informational value to the original overall corre-

lation.

Since the plan of the present study was to develop more refined

hypotheses of the relationships between the various predictors and

criteria on the basis of thoriginal sample, any discussion or attempted

explanation of the findings at this point will be very limited. Rather,

the current emphasis will be on the presentation of the hypothese re-

sulting from this sample, with comments of an elaborative or explana-

tory nature being presented as appears appropriate in the course of

stating the refined hypotheses.

The hypotheses, which are listed below, represent significant inter-

actions between various predictors and at least one of the criterion

instruments in the initial sample. That is, the correlations that

were found to be statistically significant have been selected from the










data and restated in the form of hypotheses to be re-evaluated in the

cross-validation sample. They are as follows:

1. Social conformity (Table 4) is negatively related to atti-

tudes toward disability when the non-disabled individual is characteri-

zed by either of the following: (a) Moderate body-concern, (b) Moderate

field-independence.

2. Body-satisfaction (Table 7) is positively related to attitudes

toward disabled people when the non-disabled Individual is characterized

by the following: (a) High ego-strength, (b) Moderate body-concern,

(c) Moderate field-independence, (d) Moderate social conformity, (e) High

authoritarianism.

3. Ego-strength (Table 6) is positively related to attitudes to-

ward disabled people when the non-disabled individual is characterized

by the following: (a) High field-independence, (b) Low authoritarianism,

(c) Low social conformity, (d) Moderate body-satisfaction, (e) High body-

concern, (f) High authoritarianism. Also, a significantly positive

relationship between ego-strength and attitudes toward disability is

associated with low social approval needs (as shown by low scores on

the social desirability scale).

4. Authoritarianism (able 5) Is negatively related to attitudes

toward disabled people when the non-disabled person is characterized by

the following: (a) Moderate field-independence, (b) Low field-inde-

pendence, (c) Low ego-strength, (d) Moderate body-satisfaction, (c) Low

body-satisfaction, (f) Moderate body-concern, (g) Moderate social con-

formity, (h) Low social conformity, (i) High ego-strength.











5. Body-concern and anxiety (Table 8) is negatively related to

attitudes toward disability when the non-disabled individual is char-

acterized by the following: (a) Low ego-strength, (b) Moderate body-

stisfaction, Body-concern was found to be positively related to atti-

tudes toward disability when the non-disabled was characterized by

high social approval needs (reflected in the tendency to score highly

on the social desirability scale).

6. Field-independence (Table 3) is positively related to attitudes

toward disability when the non-disabled individual is characterized by

the following: (a) Moderate ego-strength, (b) Moderate body-concern

(c) High Authoritarianism. Low social desirability response tendencies

are also associated with a positive relationship between this predictor

and the criteria.

The social desirability response tendency (Table 9) was found to

be positively related to attitudes toward disability when the non-dis-

abled individual was characterized by: (a) Moderate social conformity,

(b) Moderate field-independence, (c) Low field-independence, (d) Low

ego-strength, (d) High authoritarianism. Thus, a positive, significant

correlation between social desirability and attitudes toward disability

would seem to be associated with the basically "unhealthy" poorly inte-

grated individual who behaves in an acceptant manner because of his

need for social approval rather than for any genuine interest in the

welfare of the disabled.

it appeared that one subgroup of each of the moderator variables

was particularly effective in enhancing the relationship between the











predictors and criterion. For example, the characteristic of being

moderate in degree of field-independence was associated with a signi-

ficant negative correlation between social and conformity and attitudes

toward disability, and significant positive correlations between this

criterion and body-satisfaction, authoritatianism, and social desira-

bility motives. Other medium subgroups which proved effective were

those of social conformity, body-concern, and body-satisfaction. Ego-

strength and social desirability were the variables whose low subgroups

resulted in more significant relationships than their high or medium

subgroups. Authoritarianism was the only variable in which the high

subgroup was most important in precipitating significant correlations.












CHAPTER VII


RESULTS OF CROSS-VALIDATION SAMPLE


As has been previously stated, the primary purpose of the second

cross-validation sample was to evaluate the hypotheses which had been

developed on the basis of the initial sample. Thus, the major focus

of this chapter is the presentation of data pertinent to the inter-

active hypotheses which were stated in Chapter VI.

Rather than presenting the complete moderator analysis of the

cross-validation sample in this chapter, as was done for the initial

sample in the previous chapter, only those interactions which were

found to be significant in the initial analysis and restated as

hypotheses are examined. The complete analysis can be found in

Appendix D.

In this second moderator analysis, 37 subgroup correlations of a

possible 252 were found to be significant at the .05 level. Of these

8 were significant at the .01 level. Although these figures are some-

what smaller than those presented following the analysis of the initial

sample, they are considerably larger than the number of significance

that would be expected by chance (13 at the .05 level, 3 at the .01

level). The smaller number of significance was in fact predicted

because of the more stringent criteria for significance due to the

smaller sample size in this sample.

The data comparing the relationships that were found to be










significant in the initial sample with those same relationships in

the cross-validation sample ae found in Table 10. Of the 40 hypothe-

ses resulting from the 49 significant correlations found in the first

sample, 12 were supported in the second sample. Eight of these sup-

ported hypotheses had authoritatianism as a predictor, thus reinforc-

ing the initial sample's finding that it was the most important of the

5 personality constructs, and thus of the 5 respective theoretical

approaches in predicting attitudes toward disability. Since an assump-

tion of this study was that the two criterion measures were viewed as

two aspects of the same thing (attitudes toward disabled people)

rather than as 2 independent, separate criteria, a significant corre-

lation between a predictor and either of the 2 criterion instruments

in the initial sample was considered to be supported if that predictor

was found to be significantly related to either of those instruments

In the second sample. An example of this is found in Table 10,

Section A. In the initial sample, social conformity was found to be

significantly related to attitudes toward disability, as measured by

the Granofsky Pictures, when the individuals were characterized by

medium body-concern. In the cross-validation sample, social conformity

was once again found to correlate significantly with attitudes toward

disability under that particular moderating condition, but in this

Instance the ATDP Scale was the criterion instrument with which it was

significantly related. Although the predictor correlated significantly

with different criterion Instruments in the two samples, the hypothesis

generated in this instance was considered to be supported.










It can be seen upon examining Table 10, Section A, that both

hypotheses concerning the relationship of social conformity to atti-

tudes toward physically disabled people were supported. Thus, it can

be stated with some degree of confidence that the degree of social con-

formity which is present in individuals who are moderately concerned

about their bodies or who are neither strongly nor minimally dependent

on their perceptual field for behavioral direction, is inversely re-

lated to their atittudes toward disability. That is, for these indiv-

iduals, low social conformity needs would be associated with positive

attitudes toward the disabled, and strong needs for conformity would

be indicative of aversion and discrimination of them.

In addition, 8 subgroup correlations involving social conformity

were found to be significant in the second sample that were not sig-

nificant in the Initial one. Since they cannot be given as much weight

as those correlations found to be significant in both samples, they

will not be examined in detail. This finding is mentioned primarily

to emphasize the extent to which this variable increase in predictive

importance in the second sample. The complete list of correlations

can be found in Appendix D.

In contrast to these results, none of the 5 hypotheses relating

body-satisfaction to attitudes toward disability were supported by

the cross-validation data. This is shown in Section B of Table 10.

In fact, the overall positive relationship that was found between the

Body-Cathexis Scale and the criterion in the initial sample, and which

is shown in the correlation matrix of that sample (Table 2), was










87





/) Z z z z z z


uI
a-



0







-J


-u,



IL
-V)





In
<



"o
-z





- 0
-

0 <





I-o
- w
20




zo
















-Jz
20














- =
00























0
m
0 2

- 0
S0
04



a
a
E u














(_)


in
4-
0
A. c
a to
I--


c u
0 O
- E
41 L
00 "
*- 4 D
















Im
UC









C





0- W
I







mel

- c
0 C
0 0



































0
4-1
c
O 0
Eu
O






















L



a.


s-

Q. C






- t







I I











. I
II


CM






















00

U,


L 0


>
-a








InI
4+-
0
0. C
o (0














I I


-o


in
4-
0
m %












0 *
i L






II


E
in
m
m
L.
Co

L
0
cm 41
mu


c
0

4-
U

I n
> *-
0 TI
Ca L)


LAO --0

I I


a. cm













o m
.D


-CM


in

0
- c
mQ


%D m\
CI 0 C
I I I


I I-














C 4-
aI
0 C C
u >.


C L
o O

-0 0
C 0
0
El E-


ci.- e i
ELL Zvn


E
-L
O 0
- 4-
o C
O 0
tL1 u-


?:
r--
CM o
* *


4-I

E
L
0
4-
C
O
0




E u
ca)
c W
rv


E
L-
0
4-
c
0



u
om









88





Z Z Z Z VZ ) ) V) Z ) V) Z


4-
0
A. m
Q 0
it Cg


14-
0
O C
C m
cm


- LA N 3-
00 -0
*


* *


0
u

a.
I-



7



O
r--


4 M







-


L.


0
u'Q




0



30
3 iU


00 o0rl

I I I I


>

E
L
O
4-


0
a
u

E-
*3 .
0a U
) 0
X Ln


c
0
4-
u





E
.-


vt,

D4
C)
-- >


E
I in
LC
0 e


4-
0
CO
rm a


1n
4-
0
a C





m 0






*-


4l
0
a. C
Srg

< L











N -


-0
0-
*


4 -_
N-
I I


4-
O. C
C 5













i i


4-
0
O
C
'- 1-
<










(M o
- C


4-
0
a. c













An
I I


0
O
io i














a m


O

It
4-
0







4 (






0 -


m 0


--o


I ,


N -


, ,-


a


1e i5,
6- A1~
r1 3e


C

c0



ca
-E >
in "
*= <


C
0



4-

*-
0
EU)

*-a-
SQ


E
,

C
0




L
0

0 4-


.r
4-



4-
U)
c~o
0
uir











89





(/) tI Z 4 )/ Z Z 2 z
0 %0 1 1 eI1 %0 %I %1


CIf
C 41
0 c







C
LE


LW
LJ C






























S.-
C


0


























































u
4...







-U C







e0
- OI




01
Cu





















L.


L.
0t


7-

4-
0
IL C
. (

<











o m

I I


0
aO C








r 0







II













I I


m4-
0
9L C
















I I
I'









r-"4y


* *


In
'4-

Q. C

a c5
Q (
< U


0
O
9L c
1- '1












LAN
I a











00 01,
N-















4-

-c






(
--


Io U
S V)s


0 D

I I


C
0


u
4-
(n
41




fg o
o- ..

^<


| 0















* u
.-
4.

-o






0
ID




-0
.- o
x w


I--
** *
II I


-N
I I


- N 0M n -
Ln M C4 CM

II I I


0.4
**
I I













I !


-
*I


7-

4.1
.0








0
2- '
o o
-j Iv


00 0,0

I I


E
In

C



4-1

L
0

*m


J :

* *















r. r. -
Z z z z z z


00 0- 0
0- ON
I


U.
Ln
L&-
0
Q C
Q (0
'- L.
< C7










ol 0

I










m a.
N-YO


Un

O
>.




Cl m
0








I-





Lf CO


in
4-
0

I- L.
< CD


in
%4-
0
O -


40


-e0 f MN OfCN N-
mO -(o (MO -0
I


N COG%1 0
CN N 4 N C
c *
N, rd -~


4--
E

4-






Q 0
:O
" u
5" /3


E


r3
L.


0
- C

*- -a


f 0
* *


















-c

C
L.
4J

U0
30
-J uj


c-
C









L


C
0,
u
c
0




*E ,S


eN-
mro
** *


C-
0

en



WO


4-l.
0
r z



tn





L.
Q.











O
a-







0 CL
Un










)4-J
0
tn :








0.10
CL
On










0 .-
4-1





0
0m a



O 4*

CI-'




C 4-
O m
na
4cJ


J= >


-0o
..1"e

























-4







*1
04
- e'J


0 00
0

I I






- LA 00co
0 0

I








C1
M
*


0 OD -

IC








o m
- 00
I


-3- I- (M M 0 -
--0- 0 0

I I I I


r'4
c

i


CO









0




r-o
I








0












I


N c

I -







0-


- c rCl _-r L %D r- CO m


CL

0
a.

0

o
-0 M



0
*-


. 0 .

L 0-
- 41 0

-0 L
(D 4-<


>.0 0

Ol
04. *L


\O r-oo 0


U >
EIE

C) .- I-


F *- .c
oom



0) u 4-
OCL





0 0 0

) 01 <


c
0

u
.m

C:.
o -


I *-

0"0
n0o
CO


- 4N c _.; LA










reversed in the second sample. It can be seen in Table 11, which

contains the correlation matrix of the cross-validation sample, that

body-satisfaction correlated -.08 with the Granofsky Pictures and -.07

with the ATDP Scale in that sample. This is contrasted with its cor-

relations of .20 and .16 with the respective criterion instruments in

the initial sample. This finding suggests that conscious satisfaction

with one's body is either not related in any meaningful way to one's

attitude toward disability or that an individual's rating of his body

is confounded by so many factors that it is unlikely that an adequate,

relatively "pure" measure of this relationship can be obtained. Since

the results will be discussed in detail in Chapter VIII, any attempts

to account for the results of this study in the present chapter will

be minimal. However, It can be stated on the basis of the Instruments

used that no relationship appears to exist between conscious satis-

faction with one's body and attitudes toward the physically disabled.

A similar conclusion is easily reached with regard to the re-

lationship between ego-strength and the criterion, as only one of nine

hypotheses developed from the initial sample was supported by the cross-

validation sample (Table 10, Section C). Thus, ego-strength, as repre-

sented by Barron's scale, appears to be of minimal value in predicting

attitudes toward disability. On the basis of the cross-validation

findings with the respective instruments, it would appear that only

in the case of highly field-independent individuals would degree of

ego-strength be an effective predictor of acceptance of disability.

Consistent with previous findings in the initial sample (correlation










matrix, canonical loadings, moderator analysis) authoritarianism re-

mains the most reliable predictor of attitudes toward disability,

that is, high authoritarianism has been consistently fonnd to be nega-

tively related to attitudes toward disabled people. Of the 11 hypothe-

ses developed from the initial sample relating this predictor to the

criterion measures, 8 were supported by the cross-validation data

(Table 10, Section D). These data suggest that Individuals who are

characterized by low body-satisfaction and a moderate degree of

anxiety and concern about their bodies, a tendency toward field-in-

dependence, a tendency toward having low social conformity needs, and

high ego-strength, would express attitudes toward disability which

would be inversely related to the degree of authoritarianism that they

could be characterized by. Thus, for these individuals, a low degree

of authoritarianism would be associated with positive attitudes toward

the disabled. Conversely, high authoritarian tendencies would suggest

negative, aversive attitudes on their part.

Of the three hypotheses relating body-concern, as measured by

Secord's Homonym Test, to attitudes toward disability, one was supported.

Thus, this variable, as in the cases of body-satisfaction and ego-

strength, appears minimally important as a predictor of attitudes. Only

when individuals are moderate in the extent to which they are consciously

satisfied with their own bodies, is unconscious somatic concern negatively

related to attitudes toward individuals with a physical disability.

(Section E of Table 10).

None of the four hypotheses generated by the final predictor










(field-independence) were supported by the data of the cross-valida-

tion sample, suggesting that no consistent relationships exist between

this variable as it is measured here and attitudes toward disability.

Also, none of the statistically significant subgroup correlations

between social desirability and the criteria that were found in the

initial sample were supported in the second sample. On this basis, it

would appear that there is an absence of any consistent interactive

relationships between this control instrument, the predictors, and

the criterion instruments. It should be noted, howe,.er, that the

social desirability scale was found to have a significant overall cor-

relations (r = .22, p.05) with the Granofsky Pictures Test in the

cross-validation sample (Table II). Thus, whereas in the initial

sample it appeared as if the ATOP scale might have been susceptible

to this response bias since it correlated significantly with the

Marlowe-Crowne scale in that sample, the Granofsky appears more likely

to have been Influenced by it in the second sample.

As in the initial sample, the Barron Ego-Strength Scale was found

to correlate significantly with the Social Desirability Scale. As is

shown in the matrix of the cross-validation sample, the correlation in

this instance was .24 (p.O05). Thus, once again this variable's re-

lationships with other variables must be evaluated in light of its

apparent vulnerability to the social desirability response tendency.

Since the Granofsky Test and Barron's E-S Scale are the only two instru-

ments to correlate significantly with social desirability in the second

sample, it would appear as if the influence of this control variable is











not extensive in that sample.

Other than the significant correlation found between social

desirability and the Granofsky Pictures, only two of the predictors

were found to be significantly related to attitudes toward disability.

The strongest relationships between any predictor and criterion were

once again found to involve authoritarianism as the predictor. In

the cross-validation sample, correlations of -.32 (p<.01) between the

California F Scale and the ATOP Scale and of -.26 (p(.05) between it

and the Granofsky were found. These results are extremely consistent

with the overall correlations between the measure of authoritatianism

and the two criterion instruments that were reported in the initial

sample.

Social conformity was also found to correlate significantly over-

all (p(.05) with both criterion instruments (r = -.24 with the ATOP;

r = -.21 with the Granofsky). The findings of the correlation matrix

of the cross-validation sample together with the findings derived from

the moderator analysis of that sample suggest that this instrument may

possess considerably more predictive power than was shown on the basis

of the Initial sample.

Body-satisfaction, ego-strength, and field-dependence, all of

which were to some degree significantly related to the criteria in the

initial sample, were not found to possess overall significant corre-

lations with either criterion instrument in the cross-validation sample.

Thus, the tentative importance attributed to these variables as predic-

tors of attitudes toward the disabled in the initial sample must be




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs