Attitudes Toward Peers With Physical Disabilities at High School

Abstract

The aim of this work was to study attitudes toward people with disabilities from the viewpoint of the integrated threat theory of prejudice. This theory postulates that threat may cause negative attitudes toward a group and posits that such threat may come from different sources. To test this model, a study was carried out with high school students (N = 228), which included social dominance orientation (SDO) as antecedent variable. Perceived threat for resources and intergroup anxiety were the mediating threats investigated in this process. Results showed support for the theory: Perceived threat for resources and intergroup anxiety seemed to be effective mediators. SDO also appeared as a potent antecedent predictor of attitudes toward people with physical disabilities.

Keywords

integrated threat model SDO physical disability intergroup anxiety

Significant changes have occurred since the last century, which have affected the status of people with disabilities in society. In light of the changes in the laws concerning public education and employment, the inclusion of people with disabilities at school and at the work setting is increasing. This change in legislation promoted a high interest in searching effective methods to break down the social barriers of negative attitudes of people without disabilities.

One of the most important areas of research on attitudes toward disability has focused on the evaluation of the attitudes of people without disabilities toward peers with disabilities with regard to the normal inclusion of students with disabilities in educational settings. Prior to the 1970s, it was very rare to see children with exceptionalities educated at their homeschools along with their siblings and neighbors. Typically, they attended schools with separate classrooms where children with special needs were grouped together to learn. In the 1970s, a movement began to bring children with special needs into the regular classrooms. Inclusion assumes that children with special needs are part of the regular stream and should be treated as such. In the United States, inclusion is broadly defined as placing students with disabilities full-time in general education classrooms with special education support services provided in the general education classroom (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2002). Definitions of full inclusion, however, usually require that all students with disabilities (regardless of the type or severity) attend their neighborhood schools and be placed in general education. Moreover, general education assumes primary responsibility for all students with disabilities (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2003).

Inclusion is based on Wolfensberger’s principle of normalization (Wolfensberger, 1972; that is, all persons regardless of ability should live and learn in environments as close to normal as possible). The basic idea behind normalization is that people with special needs should be viewed in the ways in which they are the same as other people rather than in the ways in which they are different. Despite this, several studies have found negative attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the schools (Avramidis & Norwich, 2000; Sale & Carey, 1995; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Van-Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2000). As Donaldson (1980) pointed out, legislative changes that promote integration and equal opportunities for people could have unpredictable consequences among those without disabilities.

Inclusive Education in Spain

In Spain, according to the new education law established in 1985, it is mandatory, first, that children with special needs—with any kind of disability—share classroom with peers without disabilities. This implies that schools have to be provided with human and material resources that promote equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Second, this law proposes that children with disabilities have to attend specific schools and receive special education when the degree of disability is very severe so that special education is needed for them. However, these students could follow ordinary education at any point at which they reach some educative goals. Derived from this, it is assumed, third, that ordinary and special schools have to be coordinated.

Consequently, Spaniards high school students share classroom with peers with disabilities during the educational process. One goal of this law is to reduce negative attitudes against children with any kind of impairment by means of daily contact. Intergroup contact has been considered to be one of the more effective strategies for improving intergroup relationships. The “Contact Hypothesis” (Allport, 1954) has represented a popular strategy to reduce intergroup bias and conflict (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). According to Allport, the contact with individual out-group members could lead to a generally more positive attitude toward the group as a whole. This hypothesis states that simple contact between groups is not enough to promote positive attitudes. Allport identified four necessary conditions in the contact to reduce prejudice: equal group status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and the support of authorities, law, or custom. Yuker (1988) stated that to promote positive attitudes, the interaction between peers with and without disabilities should (a) involve cooperation and reciprocity, (b) be rewarding to participants with and without disabilities, (c) result in the participants getting to know one another as individuals, and (d) persist over time.

Thus, despite the purposes of the new law, some research in Spain has found that, at least in school settings, negative attitudes toward peers with disabilities remain (Marichal, Quiles, & Capilla, 1997; Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2006). Thus, some variables may interfere with the positive effects expected from inclusive education. Negative attitudes toward people with disabilities emerge early in the process of development (Krahé & Altwasser, 2006). It has also been argued that false beliefs about disabilities are acquired in childhood due to a “pervasive sociocultural conditioning” (Lee & Rodda, 1994).

Although several models of prejudice and intergroup relationships have been proposed, a large amount of them has been focused on interethnic relationships, such as subtle and blatant prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), modern racism (McConahay, 1986), and aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). A few models have been applied to study the relationships with people with disabilities. One model of prejudice that has received research attention recently has been the integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). We consider that this theory presents some advantages that make it useful to study attitudes to peers with disabilities.

The Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice

From an intergroup perspective, this theory has examined the role that threat plays in causing and maintaining prejudice. Stephan and Stephan (2000) posited that prevailing theories of prejudice did not seem to be useful to understand some of its worst consequences. Despite this, there was an increasing interest in the notion of threat that was appearing in the literature of intergroup relationships (Bobo, 1988; Eagly & Mladinic, 1989; Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Sears, 1988; Sidanius, Devereux, & Pratto, 1992). Stephan and Stephan concluded that most of this research was occurring in isolation. Moreover, a model that could be more applicable than other approaches using threats, or fear, as antecedents of prejudice seemed necessary to integrate all these efforts.

The integrated threat theory of intergroup attitudes synthesizes previous research on the relationships of threats to intergroup attitudes. The underlying thread that connects these theoretical perspectives is the idea that members of an in-group expect members of the out-group to behave in ways that are detrimental to own group. This theory focuses on four types of threats: realistic threats, symbolic threats, threats stemming from intergroup anxiety, and threats arising from negative stereotypes. First, realistic threats refer to perceptions of the members of an out-group as posing a material or physical danger to one’s well-being or continuing existence. One would expect such a threat to be a strong predictor of negative attitudes and hostility (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). We consider that this kind of threat could play an important role in the case of attitudes toward inclusive education.

A close approach to the realistic threats has been formulated by Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, and Armstrong (2001). These authors proposed the Instrumental Model of Group Conflict to examine the role of perceived competition for resources in determining negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. The model proposes that resource stress creates a competition between groups for resources. Resource stress refers to the perception that, within a society, the access to certain desired source is limited. These resources include economic advantages—job and money, and social, political, and economic power. Resource stress leads to perceived competition, in the presence of a relevant competitor present in the situation. Thus, not all out-groups are viewed as potential competitors; some of them are more salient in a certain situation such as peers with disabilities. Moreover, this resource stress can take the form of zero-sum beliefs (ZS), “beliefs that the more the other group obtains, the less is available for one’s own group” (Esses et al., 2001, p. 394). Thus, when the other group gains a benefit, it is at the expense of the one’s own group. This is the case of the money invested in social welfare policies designed to improve the situation of some groups. The money used for this purpose is not being addressed to any other issue. The Instrumental Model of Conflict suggests that any effort is valid to remove the source of competition: out-group derogation, discrimination, and avoidance. Some other attempts can entail opposition to social policies and programs that benefit other group members.

With regard to people with a physical disability, research conducted in Spain has found that perceived threat to the collective interests of people without disabilities increased negative attitudes toward people with disabilities (Ruiz & Moya, 2005). Silván-Ferrero and Bustillos (2009) showed that ZS were the best predictor of attitudes toward people with physical handicaps. This research reveals that perceived threat to resources can be a determinant explaining attitude toward this stigmatized group. Second, symbolic threats involve perceived group differences in morals, values, standards, beliefs, and attitudes. These threats arise, in part, because the in-group believes in the moral correctness of its system of values. The concept of symbolic threats in integrated threat theory is conceptually akin to the idea of symbolic and modern racism (Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1986; Sears, 1988). However, this kind of threat has not been considered in this study because it is better applied to other groups such as homosexuals. Third, intergroup anxiety refers to feelings of threat that people experience during group interactions because they are concerned about negative outcomes for the self, such as being embarrassed, rejected, or ridiculed (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The idea that intergroup anxiety has negative effects on intergroup relationships has appeared previously (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Hebl, Tickle, and Heatherton (2000) explored the awkward moments that occur in mixed interactions or interactions that involve stigmatized and nonstigmatized people (Goffman, 1963). They concluded that intergroup anxiety is present as precursor or is concomitant to each awkward moment of the interaction. With regard to physical disability, it has been found that when peers with disabilities were integrated in the classroom with students without disabilities, the latter reported higher levels of intergroup anxiety compared with students without disabilities, who did not share classroom with peers with disabilities (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2006).

The final component of the theoretical model, negative stereotypes, can create feelings of threat among in-group members, when such stereotypes serve as basis for negative expectations concerning out-group members (Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990). To the extent that the expectations are negative, conflictive or unpleasant interactions are likely to be anticipated. Negative stereotyping clearly exists with regard to people with disabilities (Goddard & Jordan, 1998) and, thus, would also be expected to influence social reactions toward this stigmatized group.

From the integrated threat theory, these four threats are used to predict attitudes toward out-groups. By using slight item variations of the core scales, the theoretical model has been successful in predicting attitudes toward a variety of groups, including immigrants, the poor, the elderly, women, members of minority groups (Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 2000; Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000; Stephan, Stephan, & Gudykunst, 1999; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999; Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998), and people with AIDS and cancer (Berrenberg, Finlay, Stephan, & Stephan, 2002).

However, Stephan and colleagues (2002; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) indicated that, unfortunately, research has paid less attention to the antecedents of perceived threat than to the four threats proposed. For example, in the above-mentioned studies, the negative experience of contact, the personal relevance of social policies favoring the out-group, and one’s own group identity were included as antecedents of threat. Stephan and Stephan (2000) suggested that it is necessary to explore other antecedents to come to a better understanding of the circumstances under which the different types of threat predict prejudice, such as knowledge about the group, for example, the level of prior conflict between groups and the relative status or power of groups. In this sense, whenever the in-group has very high status compared with the out-group, threats should be more salient. As the degree of status inequality increases, so does the salience of threats posed by the other group. For this reason, a large body of research has been focused on how inequalities are perpetuated and maintained in Western societies. Concretely, social dominance theory (SDT) postulates that societies minimize group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over the others (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). The ideologies that legitimize discrimination in all societies are defined as legitimizing myths. Ethnic prejudice, nationalism, cultural elitism, sexism, conservatism, and meritocracy are some examples of hierarchy-legitimizing myths. There are also hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, which are ideologies that promote greater social equality. In the context of people with disabilities, opposite effects of both kinds of myths could be expected. Although hierarchy-legitimizing myths can promote a less acceptance of welfare policies, hierarchy-attenuating myths can play an important role because they can promote more positive attitudes toward welfare policies, integration, promotion, or equal opportunities policies.

The SDT proposes that a significant factor is an individual differences variable called social dominance orientation (SDO) conceptualized as “the extent to which one desires that one’s in-group dominates and is superior to out-groups” (Pratto et al., 1994, p. 742). The SDO has been shown to be related to the opposition to social welfare policies in the sense that social dominators are against policies that would reduce social inequality. Thus, these individuals will favor social practices that maintain inequality between groups. The role of SDO on attitudes toward people with a physical disability has been recently shown (Duckitt, 2006). This author stated that SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups that are low in power and status.

Overview of This Research

The purpose of this research was to explore attitudes toward students with physical disabilities from the integrated threat model (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). We have tried to extend the model in two ways. First, Berrenberg et al. (2002) suggested that it would be interesting to see how well the model applies to attitudes toward other groups not yet considered. In addition, we suggest that it would be worth examining the extent to which the theory can predict attitudes toward people with a physical disability. Second, our study attempts to investigate the role of SDO as a possible antecedent of threat, which has not been tested yet. As mentioned before, the need to include more types of antecedents in the model has been noted (Stephan et al., 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). The role of ZS (Esses et al., 2001) and intergroup anxiety will be investigated as possible threats. Based on previous research in Spain (Ruiz & Moya, 2005; Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2006), we could argue that both variables can play an important role in determining attitudes toward people with disabilities. With regard to relationships established among antecedents and mediating variables, past research with ethnic groups (Esses et al., 2001) and also with stigmatized groups such as people with physical disabilities (Duckitt, 2006) has found strong correlations between SDO and ZS, and also a mediational role of ZS between SDO and attitudes toward immigration. Esses et al. (2001) argued that the group competition for resources is related to the way in which some individuals view the world in general. People who support the unequal distribution of resources, the high dominators, are more likely to perceive that competition between groups is the norm (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994). Duckitt (2006) depicted a model in which SDO caused negative attitudes toward people with physical disabilities through competitiveness. The author explained that SDO expresses competitively driven motivation to maintain or establish group dominance and superiority so that persons high in SDO would dislike and devalue out-groups that aroused their competitiveness over intergroup status or power differentials. These could be directly competing out-groups, which would activate competitive desires to establish dominance, or subordinate out-groups, which would activate competitive desires to justify and maintain relative dominance.

The relationship between SDO and intergroup anxiety has been shown recently (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2009). This may be explained because the high dominators may feel threatened when thinking about interacting with members of stigmatized groups. A possible reason may be that they avoid seeming as prejudiced people when confronted with the stigmatized, to maintain a positive in-group image.

SDT has sociobiological roots as shown by the invariance hypothesis (Pratto et al., 1994). From this hypothesis, it is postulated that there are hierarchies that exist invariably across cultures. Research on SDO has consistently shown that males tend to score higher on SDO than females (Pratto et al., 1994; Pratto et al., 2000; Pratto, Stallworth, & Sidanius, 1997; Sidanius et al., 1994; Sidanius, Levin, Liu, & Pratto, 2000; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius, Pratto, & Brief, 1995).

Derived from the current overview, our first hypothesis is addressed to find differences between genders in SDO according to the invariance hypothesis. Second, as postulated by the integrated threat model, it is expected that higher levels of SDO, ZS, and intergroup anxiety would be associated with more negative attitudes toward the target group. In addition, we hypothesize positive relationships between SDO and ZS (Duckitt, 2006; Esses et al., 2001), and positive relationships between SDO and intergroup anxiety (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2006, 2009).

Negative relationships are also hypothesized between the two kinds of threat included in our study, ZS and intergroup anxiety, and attitudes toward people with a physical disability. Finally, as predicted by the model, we expected that ZS and intergroup anxiety would mediate the relationship between SDO and attitudes toward people with physical disabilities.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A total of 228 students (151 females and 77 males), recruited from two high schools in Spain, completed the questionnaires in their classroom. Their mean age was 15.57 years (SD = 1.21). Participation in this research was voluntary, and anonymity of responses was guaranteed. All the respondents shared classes with peers with physical disabilities. The research was carried out during the normal schedule in the ordinary classroom after assuring that the students with disabilities were not present at that time. The experimenter distributed the questionnaires and informed that the purpose of the research was to analyze the perception of social groups. The scales administration was counterbalanced. Sample size determination was appropriated (n_o = 226).¹

Measures

Attitudes toward people with physical disability

Attitudes toward physical disability (Silván-Ferrero, 2006) were measured with 10 items on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher ratings indicate a more favorable attitude toward this group (Having friends with physical disabilities can be an enriching experience). Cronbach’s alpha was .71.

Intergroup anxiety

Intergroup anxiety was measured with the Spanish version of the scale (Silván-Ferrero, 2006) from Britt, Boniecki, Vescio, Biernat, and Brown (1996). This scale consists of 11 items, measured on a 7-point scale (1 = disagree; 7 = agree). Higher scores indicate more anxiety (e.g., I would feel nervous if I had to sit alone in a room with a peer with physical disability and start a conversation, or My lack of knowledge about physical disability prevents me from feeling completely comfortable around people with disabilities). Cronbach’s alpha was .80.

ZS

This scale consisted of three items adapted from Fiske, Juddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) into Spanish, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate more perceived competition over resources. An example item is as follows: The more advantages students with physical disabilities obtain from social educative policies, the less advantages for the students without disabilities. Cronbach’s alpha was .75.

SDO scale

Participants filled out the Spanish version of the SDO scale (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2007). The SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994) consists of 16 items, rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). High scores indicate a higher level of social dominance. An example item is To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups. Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .80.

Results

Previous Analysis

First, no effect of counterbalance was found. Differences between boys and girls in SDO according to the invariance hypothesis postulated in the theory were found (Pratto et al., 1994). As expected, the t-student showed differences, t(221) = 3.28, p < .001, with boys scoring higher in SDO (M = 2.96, SD = 0.74) than girls (M = 2.75, SD = 0.77).

Because this could hold some implications for the results, we conducted a two-step hierarchical regression following the procedure of Cohen and Cohen (1986). In Step 1, sex was entered as a dummy variable (0 = males, 1 = females) and the SDO measure as a continuous variable. In Step 2, the interaction between SDO by sex was introduced. The first step analyzed main effects, the second step, the interaction effects.

Step 1 did not show main effects of sex on attitudes, β = −.02, t = 0.74, ns, and we only found an effect of SDO on attitudes, β = −.29, t = 4.33, p < .0001. In Step 2, there was no effect of SDO by sex interaction (β = −.33, t = 1.08, ns).

Correlations and Mediational Analyses

As can be observed in Table 1, the antecedent, SDO, relates negatively to attitudes toward people with physical disability. This last variable also had negative correlations with the mediator variables: ZS and intergroup anxiety. The correlation between both mediators was positive. This indicates that both kinds of threats are related, as found by Berrenberg et al. (2002). The antecedent, SDO, was positively related to ZS and intergroup anxiety. This shows that higher levels of SDO are related to higher intergroup anxiety and the perceived competition for resources.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations

		1	2	3	4
1	Attitudes	1	−.32**	−.45**	−.28**
2	Intergroup anxiety		1	.41**	.20**
3	Zero-sum beliefs			1	.34**
4	SDO				1
	M	5.95	3.58	2.85	2.74
	SD	0.87	1.42	0.99	0.73

Note: SDO = social dominance orientation. The response range was from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For attitudes, higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes. For the rest of the variables, higher scores indicate more intergroup anxiety, more perceived resource stress, and more SDO.

p < .01.

To test whether ZS and intergroup anxiety were mediating the relationship between SDO and attitudes, as predicted by the integrated threat model, we followed the procedure of Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2006) because it offers the possibility of estimating simultaneously the indirect effects of the predictor on dependent variable through more than one mediator, and it can overcome the low statistical power critiques of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) estimation procedure indirect effects (for a review, see MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002).

Moreover, the use of multiple mediation methods provides additional advantages over models developed through simple mediation (see Preacher & Hayes, 2006, p. 6): (a) Testing the total indirect effect of X on Y is analogous to conducting a regression analysis with several predictors; (b) it allows one to determine the extent to which specific variables transmit the effect; (c) with multiple mediators, the likelihood or parameter bias due to omitted variables is reduced (Judd & Kenny, 1981); and (d) it specifies which mediators are more successful.

The analyses indicate that the data fit the model well (R² = .22, F = 21.54, p < .0001). SDO had a total negative effect on attitudes, β = −.29; t = 4.28, p < .0001, on ZS, β = .65; t = 5.35, p < .0001, and on intergroup anxiety, β = .26; t = 2.92, p < .005. ZS showed a total significant effect on attitudes, β = −.19; t = 4.99, p < .0001. The other mediator, intergroup anxiety, also had a total negative effect on attitudes, β = −.11; t = 2.21, p < .05.

The effect of SDO on attitudes, once the effect of both mediators was controlled, remained significant although reduced, β = −.14, t = 2.12, p < .05. This indicates that the effect of SDO on attitudes is mediated by the two kinds of threat, as postulated in the integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). These results are displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Integrated threat model and attitudes toward people with physical disabilities

Following the recommendations of MacKinnon et al. (2002) and Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2006), indirect effects of SDO on attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities were estimated using the bootstrapping approach on 1,000 subsamples. As can be observed in Table 2, the indirect effect of SDO on attitudes toward people with physical disabilities was significant because with a 95% confidence interval, these effects were not zero.

Table 2.

Indirect Effects of SDO Trough Mediators

		95% CI
	Paths c’	LL	UL
Zero-sum beliefs	−.12	−.20	−.06
Intergroup anxiety	−.03	−.06	−.02
Total	−.15	−.23	−.08

Note: SDO = social dominance orientation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the determinants of general attitudes toward disabilities applying the integrated threat model (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) because this model, which has been successfully applied to diverse groups, had not yet been tested with people with physical disabilities. In addition, some changes have been carried out on the basis of the model, such as considering a new antecedent variable: SDO (Pratto et al., 1994). Resource stress, assessed by ZS (Esses et al., 2001), and intergroup anxiety from a Person × Situation approach (Britt et al., 1996) were added as effective threats in the model.

The first goal was addressed to test the invariance hypothesis (Pratto et al., 1994). Our data replicate previous research on this hypothesis (Pratto et al., 2000; Sidanius et al., 1994; Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2007). However, the difference between boys and girls on SDO does not hold any implication for differential attitudes toward peers with physical disabilities. Our data suggest a contextualization effect of SDO, so that, when the intergroup setting is salient, participants contextualized the nonequalitarian ideal toward people with physical disabilities, in spite of the fact that peers with physical disabilities were not present during the data collection.

The second hypothesis, aimed at finding positive relationships between SDO, intergroup anxiety, and ZS, was supported. As expected, these variables also showed a negative relationship with attitudes toward people with physical disabilities. Finally, a negative relationship between the antecedent and the attitude toward people with physical disabilities was found. The relationship between SDO and ZS is consistent with prior research (Duckitt, 2006; Esses et al., 2001). Thus, high dominators and hierarchy enhancers perceive that their group is superior and deserves more resources than subordinate groups.

The positive correlation found between SDO and intergroup anxiety extends previous results (Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2009). In the present study, the high dominators might feel greater levels of intergroup anxiety when thinking about an interaction with persons having physically disabilities. This result could also be interpreted from the system-justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994). The SJT was proposed to explain how subordinate groups tend to accept system-justifying ideologies of their own inferiority that are propagated by dominant groups. More recently, several studies (Jost & Hunyady, 2002; Jost & Thompson, 2000) have proposed that the SDO captures elements of two of the motives proposed in the SJT: group and system justification motives. Thus, the highly dominant are more concerned about showing a positive image of the in-group, and at the same time, about maintaining social inequalities.

Finally, the negative weight between intergroup anxiety and attitudes is consistent with the study by Voci and Hewstone (2003) on attitudes toward immigrants in Italy. The negative relationship between ZS and attitudes also replicates previous results (Esses et al., 2001).

Altogether, the present findings show that SDO, ZS, and intergroup anxiety are contributing to shape attitudes toward persons with physical disabilities. Furthermore, the mediation analysis shows that the integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) can be applied to study attitudes toward people with physical disability. SDO can be considered as an effective antecedent of negative attitudes toward some groups. Perceived resource stress and intergroup anxiety seem to be mediating threats that can contribute to the development of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities.

From an evolutionary point of view (Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Neuberg, Smith, & Asher, 2000), it is argued that group members who are unable to reciprocate the benefits they receive will be rejected by the rest of the group. Neuberg et al. (2000) stated that stigmatization should be especially likely when material and behavioral resources are scarce. If people with disabilities are perceived as nonreciprocators, they might also be seen as a burden to society in the sense that they are obtaining benefits produced by the other group. As mentioned, SDT has sociobiological roots, as shown by the invariance hypothesis, also revealed in our data. In a more rigorous sociobiological sense, one could speculate that, in the evolutionary process, people with disabilities would be perceived by their own group as a burden, and they could even hinder group survival. Therefore, we could assume that SDO plays a central role in our research, which implies that, compared with low dominators, high dominators perceive people with disabilities as being inferior, less competent, and a burden.

The mandatory presence of students with disabilities at school may evoke in people without disabilities the belief that the other group is obtaining benefits at the expense of their own group. If schools must expend money to improve the physical environment, invest in personal resources—more teachers—this can be perceived as a material threat. This perceived threat to resources translates into intergroup anxiety when members of the other group (people with disabilities) share the same benefits as them.

Implications for Rehabilitation Counseling Practice

At the Salamanca World Conference on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), a new Framework for Action was adopted: The guiding principle is that ordinary schools should accommodate all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions. In particular, the Framework states that all educational policies should specify that children with disabilities attend the neighborhood school “that would be attended if the child did not have a disability.” During the subsequent years, there has been considerable activity in many countries to move educational policy and practice in a more inclusive direction (see Ainscow, 2005; UNESCO, 1999).

More recently, United Nations declaration on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities called for states to provide inclusive education at all levels (United Nations, 2006, Article 24). However, achieving inclusive education supposes a great challenge in many countries. International comparisons show that countries and regions differ in the degree to which they have established inclusive schooling and in the number of students still in special settings (Meijer, 2003; Pijl, Meijer, & Hegarty, 1997). Inclusive education could be differently conceptualized depending on the setting. Singh (2009) indicated that for developed countries, the issues are mainly related to deconstruction of segregated services for children with disabilities with efforts to make them part of the general education classroom. Following this author, for the rest of the countries, “the special needs’ version of inclusion is irrelevant” (Singh, 2009, p. 14). In less developed countries, where school budgets and teacher education programs are modest, inclusive education could promote a great threat to resources than in more developed countries. This might be explained because inclusive education depends on financial assistance, which guarantees special education and related services to children with disabilities, and consequently it translates into intergroup anxiety, if people without disabilities perceive that members of out-group (people with disabilities) share more benefits than them. Cross-country studies undertaken in developed countries focus on national and municipal government funding formulas for allocation of public money. However, in nondeveloped countries, the literature on resource support for inclusive education services focuses on building the capacity of communities and parents as significant human resource, and on nongovernmental sources of funding (for review, see Peters, 2003).

Our findings reveal the role of SDO, ZS, and intergroup anxiety in determining negative attitudes toward people with physical disabilities in educative settings. One question that arises from these data is the kind of specific intervention that should be effective to reduce the negative consequences of these variables. As our results showed a contextualization effect of SDO toward people with physical disabilities, it is necessary to bring about a change in the nature of relationships between people with or without physical disability, from a group to individual level. This could be an effective way to diminish the negative effect of competition for resources and intergroup anxiety. This change in the nature of relationships can be achieved through three intervention areas.

First, inclusive education implies direct contact with these peers. However, the simply direct contact does not seem to promote the attitudinal change in peers of people with disabilities. Early, we have referred to the Spanish law that regulates inclusive education. In the U.S. education system, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a central piece of civil rights legislation for children with disabilities. In spite of these legislative advances that clearly promote inclusive education, both laws do not address the attitudinal change in peers without disabilities. In both laws, it is assumed that attitudes toward people with disabilities will be improved through daily contact, and they are closely placed to Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) intergroup model of contact, in which the knowledge of the category person with disabilities implies more positive attitudes. Unfortunately, research does not clearly support this model. Maras and Brown (2000) demonstrated that when this model was applied, children with disabilities were clearly identified as being part of an out-group. In this vein, some authors posit that the research into the effect of direct contact on children’s attitude toward peers with disabilities has produced mixed findings (Maras & Brown, 1996, 2000), depending on the contact model undertaken. These authors found that the decategorized contact (Brewer & Miller, 1984), in which only individual differences and similarities are acknowledged, is more effective in the improvement of intergroup attitudes because in this case, the social category is psychologically less significant and loses its power to bias attitudes of peers without disabilities toward people with physical disability.

However, recent research is exploring the positive effect of indirect contact on intergroup attitude such as extended contact (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997), defined as learning that a peer without disability is friend of a peer with disability. Concretely, Cameron and Rutland (2006) showed that extended contact led to increased positivity toward the children with disabilities, so that this kind of contact can provide a prejudice-reduction intervention. In this study, children without disabilities read stories that involved peers with and without disabilities in friendship situations in groups of two or three, and group discussion sessions were led by the researcher. One possible side effect of direct contact is anxiety, as has been shown in our research. Interventions based on extended contact could allow participants to experience contact avoiding negative feelings as anxiety. From the perspective of the extended contact, some studies have reported evidence that this kind of contact improves attitudes via reduced anxiety (see Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004). Another possible intervention on nondirect contact could be imagined contact. The positive effects depends on imagining oneself interacting with an out-group member (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007), and have been demonstrated across several experiments involving different out-groups such as elderly, national, or ethnic groups, and it could also be explored with people with disabilities. In sum, intervention strategies based on indirect contact could be an effective way to reduce anxiety and improve intergroup relationships more in situations in which direct contact does not have the expected positive effect.

Second, another mechanism that could promote more positive attitudes and reduce intergroup anxiety is empathy (Aberson & Haag, 2007). Research reveals that inducing empathy for a member of a stigmatized group can improve attitudes toward the group as a whole and also translate into action on behalf of the group (Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). In this vein, some actions can promote empathy such as disability simulation in a wheelchair, or using crutches for some time can help individuals without disabilities to experience the physical and psychological barriers for people living with physical disabilities. Students without disabilities could also list difficulties that their peers with physical disabilities have to cope with in their daily life. Sessions in which students with physical disabilities expose to their peers without disabilities how they live with the disability should also be effective in evoking empathy.

Third, our results have shown the negative effect of ZS on attitudes. In this sense, understanding the perceptions that contribute to negative attitudes should prove useful in improving relationships between individuals with and without physical disabilities. To the extent that threats by resources are just wrong or excessive, factual information can be provided that can correct these misperceptions. For this purpose, educative workshops and lectures that provide information to students without disabilities about the need to implement educative policies that foster inclusive classrooms should be addressed (Wong, 2008). It also should be highlighted that the social policies programs do not pose a threat for economical resources and the ZS perception. All these interventions should prove beneficial to improve relationships and, in turn, promote full inclusion of peers with physical disabilities (Krahé & Altwasser, 2006).

The interventions proposed could effectively improve attitudes toward peers with physical disabilities because the assumption that the social contact would necessarily bring about a favorable attitudinal change is not true (Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, & Hollywood, 1992; Scheepstra, Nakken, & Pijl, 1999; Shapiro, 1999). In addition, this concern has to be attended in developed and nondeveloped countries that implement inclusion policies because, specifically, interventions have to be implemented, as Wong posited (2008; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Implications for Rehabilitation Practice

	Improvement area	Interventions
1	Change in the nature of relationships	1. Extended contact
		2. Imagined contact
		3. Evoking empathy
2	Understanding the misperceptions about people with disabilities	1. Providing factual information about situation of people with disabilities in society
		2. Educative workshops and lectures to ameliorate zero-sum beliefs

Furthermore, these interventions could also apply in work settings. The granting of accommodation to a person with a disability is one of the stipulations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990) and in Spain Law, Ley de Integración Social del Minusválido (Law of Social Integration of People With Disabilities; LISMI, 1982). Accommodations for people with disabilities can take many forms, including architectural improvements, providing special software for people with sensory impairments, or allowing people more flexible work schedules to accommodate their medication schedule. When ADA and LISMI came into effect, employers were concerned about the financial costs of accommodating people with disabilities. Although these first perceptions were abated, new fears arose about the potential for some employees to abuse the accommodation stipulation or the possible unfairness to other employees when employees with disabilities receive accommodation (Colella, 2001). Recent experimental research (Paetzold et al., 2008) has even shown that granting and accommodation was seen as less fair than not granting it. However, in this case, the concept of threat for resources could be considered because it is closely related to unfairness perception, so we could assume that the negative effects on attitudes found in our results should even be enhanced in the transitioning from young to adults, when people became more competitive and threat by resources can be highlighted.

Thus, the interventions we propose to reduce the perception of threat can also be addressed in these settings to promote more positive relationships between people with and without disabilities and reduce threat posed by accommodating people with disabilities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aberson

C. L.

Haag

S. C.

(2007). Contact, perspective taking and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 179–201. doi:10.1177/1368430207074726

Ainscow

(2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Americans with Disabilities Act, (1990). 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–148. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bartlett

J. E.

Kotrlik

J. W.

Higgins

C. C.

(2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19, 43–50.

Batson

C. D.

Chang

Orr

Rowland

(2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666. doi:10.1177/014616702237647

Berrenberg

J. L.

Finlay

K. A.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

(2002). Prejudice toward people with cancer or AIDS: Applying the integrated threat model. Journal of Applied Biobehavioural Research, 7, 75–86. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9861.2002.tb00078.x

10.

Bobo

(1988). Group conflict, prejudice and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In Katz

P. A.

Taylor

D. A.

(Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 85–116). New York, NY: Plenum.

11.

Brewer

M. B.

Miller

(1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller

Brewer

M. B.

(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.

12.

Britt

T. W.

Boniecki

K. A.

Vescio

T. K.

Biernat

Brown

L. M.

(1996). Intergroup anxiety: A Person × Situation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1177–1188. doi:10.1177/01461672962211008

13.

Cameron

Rutland

(2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice towards the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 469–488. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb01790.x

14.

Cohen

(1986). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Colella

(2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26, 100–116. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4011984

16.

Donaldson

(1980). Changing attitudes toward handicapped persons: A review and analyses of research. Exceptional Children, 46, 504–513.

17.

Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(2004). Aversive racism. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

18.

Duckitt

(2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684–696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282

19.

Eagly

A. H.

Mladinic

(1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. doi:10.1177/0146167289154008

20.

Esses

V. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Jackson

L. M.

Armstrong

T. M.

(2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00220

21.

Esses

V. M.

Haddock

Zanna

M. P.

(1993). Values, stereotypes and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In Mackie

D. M.

Hamilton

D. L.

(Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137–166).Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

22.

Evans

I. M.

Salisbury

C. L.

Palombaro

M. M.

Berryman

Hollywood

T. M.

(1992). Peer interactions and social acceptance of elementary-age children with severe disabilities in an inclusive classroom. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 17, 205–212.

23.

Fiske

S. T.

Juddy

J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

24.

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

(1986). The aversive form of racism. In Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 61–89). San Diego, CA: Academic press.

25.

Goddard

Jordan

(1998). Changing attitudes about persons with disabilities: Effect of a simulation. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 30, 307–313.

26.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

27.

Hallahan

D. P.

Kauffman

J. M.

(2003). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

28.

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

S. J.

Ruvolo

C. M.

(1990). Stereotype- based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35–60. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01922.x

29.

Hebl

M. R.

Tickle

Heatherton

T. F.

(2000). Awkward moments in interactions between non-stigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In Heatherton

T. F.

Kleck

R. E.

Hebl

M. R.

Hull

J. G.

(Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 273–306). New York, NY: Guilford.

30.

Henley

Ramsey

R. S.

Algozzine

R. F.

(2002). Characteristics and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

31.

Hewstone

Brown

(1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. In Hewstone

Brown

(Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 3–44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

32.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production if false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

33.

Jost

J. T.

Hunyady

(2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.

34.

Jost

J. T.

Thompson

E. P.

(2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403

35.

Judd

C. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502

36.

Kinder

D. R.

Sears

D. O.

(1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–481. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414

37.

Krahé

Altwasser

(2006). Changing negative attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities: An experimental intervention. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 59–69. doi:10.1002/casp.849

38.

Kurzban

Leary

M. R.

(2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.2.187

39.

Lee

Rodda

(1994). Modification of attitudes toward people with disabilities. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 7, 229–238.

40.

LeVine

R. A.

Campbell

D. T.

(1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley.

41.

LISMI. (1982). Ley de integración social del minusválido [Law of integration of people with disabilities]. B.O.E, 30-4-1982.

42.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Hoffman

J. M.

West

S. G.

Sheets

(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

43.

Maras

Brown

(1996). Effect of contact on children’s attitudes towards disability. A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2113–2134.

44.

Maras

Brown

(2000). Effects of different forms of school contact on children’s attitudes toward disabled and non-disabled peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 107–113. doi:10.1348/000709900158164

45.

Marichal

Quiles

M. N.

Capilla

(1997). Intergroup contact and its effect on the social image of the physically handicapped. Psychology in Spain, 1, 131–136.

46.

McConahay

J. B.

(1986). Modern racism, ambivalence and the modern racism scale. In Dovidio

J. F.

Gaertner

S. L.

(Eds.), Prejudice and discrimination: Theory and research (pp. 91–126). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

47.

Meijer

C. J. W.

(Ed.). (2003). Special education across Europe in 2003. Middelfart, Denmark: European Agency.

48.

Neuberg

S. L.

Smith

D. M.

Asher

(2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In Heatherton

T. F.

Kleck

R. E.

Hebl

M. R.

Hull

J. G.

(Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31–61). New York, NY: Guilford.

49.

Paetzold

García

M. F.

Colella

Ren

L. R.

Triana

M. C.

Ziebro

(2008). Perceptions of people with disabilities: When is accommodation fair? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 27–35. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4011984

50.

Paolini

Hewstone

Cairns

Voci

(2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. doi:10.1177/0146167203262848

51.

Peters

S. J.

(2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special needs. Washington, DC: World Bank.

52.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Meertens

R. W.

(1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106

53.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

54.

Pijl

S. J.

Meijer

C. J. W.

Hegarty

(1997). Inclusive education. A global agenda. London, England: Routledge.

55.

Pratto

Liu

Levin

Sidanius

Shih

Brachrach

Hergaty

(2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization for inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369–409. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003005

56.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. F.

(1994). Social dominance orientation: A Personality variable relevant to social roles and intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

57.

Pratto

Stallworth

L. M.

Sidanius

(1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49–68.

58.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediations models. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553

59.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2006). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Retrieved from www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/indirect2

60.

Ruiz

Moya

(2005). Antecedents of attitudes toward affirmative action policies for disabled people. Revista de Psicología Social, 20, 213–232. doi:10.1174/0213474053683176

61.

Sale

Carey

D. M.

(1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6–19.

62.

Scheepstra

A. J. M.

Nakken

Pijl

S. J.

(1999). Contacts with classmates: The social position of pupils with Down’s syndrome in Dutch regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14, 211–220.

63.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

64.

Sears

D. O.

(1988). Symbolic racism. In Katz

P. A.

Taylor

D. A.

(Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 53–84). New York, NY: Plenum.

65.

Shapiro

(1999). Everybody belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward classmates with disabilities. New York, NY: Garland.

66.

Sidanius

Devereux

Pratto

(1992). A comparison of symbolic racism theory and social dominance orientation: Explanation for racial policy attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 377–395. doi:10.1080/00224545.1992.9924713

67.

Sidanius

Levin

Liu

Pratto

(2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 41–67. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::AID-EJSP976>3.0.CO;2-O

68.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

69.

Sidanius

Pratto

Bobo

(1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 998–1100. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.998

70.

Sidanius

Pratto

Brief

(1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381–396. doi:10.2307/3791836

71.

Silván-Ferrero

M. P.

(2006). Attitudes toward physical disability: Affective ambivalence, anxiety and disruptiveness (Doctoral Dissertation). UNED, Madrid, Spain.

72.

Silván-Ferrero

M. P.

Bustillos

(2006). La percepción del estigma [Stigma perception] [CD-Rom]. In Gómez

Gaviria

Fernández

(Eds.), Psicología Social [Social psychology]. Madrid, Spain: Sanz y Torres.

73.

Silván-Ferrero

M. P.

Bustillos

(2007). Adaptation of the social dominance orientation scale into Spanish: Validation of group based dominance and opposition to equality as underlying factors. Revista de Psicología Social, 22, 3–15. doi:10.1174/021347407779697485

74.

Silván-Ferrero

M. P.

Bustillos

(2009). Inequality justification and attitudes towards disabilities: Opposition to equality or dominance? Revista de Psicología Social, 24, 41–51.

75.

Singh

(2009). Meeting the challenge of inclusion-from isolation to collaboration. In Alur

Timmons

(Eds.), Inclusive education across cultures: Crossing boundaries, sharing ideas (pp. 12–29). London, England: SAGE.

76.

Stephan

C. W.

Stephan

W. G.

Demitrakis

Yamada

A. M.

Clason

(2000). Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 63–73. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01022.x

77.

Stephan

W. G.

Boniecki

Ybarra

Bettencourt

Ervin

K. S.

Jackson

L. A.

. . . Renfro

C. L.

(2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672022812009

78.

Stephan

W. G.

Diaz-Loving

Duran

(2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249. doi:10.1177/0022022100031002006

79.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x

80.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

81.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

Gudykunst

W. B.

(1999). Anxiety in inter-group relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relation, 23, 613–628. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00012-7

82.

Stephan

W. G.

Ybarra

Bachman

(1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x

83.

Stephan

W. G.

Ybarra

Martinez

Schwarzwald

Tur-Kaspa

(1998). Prejudice towards immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576. doi:10.1177/0022022198294004

84.

Turner

R. N.

Crisp

R. J.

Lambert

(2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 427–441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533

85.

UNESCO. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved from http://www.ecdgroup.com/download/gn1ssfai.pdf

86.

UNESCO. (1999). A review of UNESCO activities in the light of Salamanca statement and framework for action. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001181/118118eo.pdf

87.

United Nations (UN). (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, NY: OHCHR.

88.

Van-Reusen

A. K.

Shoho

A. R.

Barker

K. S.

(2000). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal, 84, 7–20.

89.

Voci

Hewstone

(2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–52. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001011

90.

Wolfensberger

(1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

91.

Wong

D. K. P.

(2008). Do contacts make a difference? The effects of mainstreaming on student attitudes toward people with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 70–82. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.ridd.2006.11.002

92.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. A.

(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.

93.

Yuker

H. E.

(1988). The effect of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: Some empirical generalizations. In Yuker

H. E.

(Ed.), Attitudes toward people with disabilities (pp. 262–274). New York, NY: Springer.