Attitudes of Undergraduate Students Toward Persons With Disabilities: Exploring Effects of Contact Experience on Social Distance Across Ten Disability Types

Abstract

Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities have been one of the most important and focal topics in disability studies. However, most studies have either treated disability in a broad sense without distinguishing disability type or have been limited to one specific disability type. Drawing upon a social distance scale, the study was designed to examine undergraduate students’ perceptions toward 10 different disability types and across a range of social contexts. Utilizing intergroup contact theory, an analysis was performed to determine how these responses were affected by contact experience with persons with disability. Results show that contact experience was statistically significant for six of 10 disability types. Specifically, across all disabilities, regular contact was related to decreased social distance, with the notable exception of autism. Attendant conclusions about stigma hierarchies and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

attitudes disabilities undergraduate students social distance theory contact theory

Exploring Attitudes of Undergraduate Students Toward Persons With Disabilities

For decades, key legislative acts such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975, 1990, 2004), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 have mandated provisions for greater inclusion for individuals with disabilities in areas of education, access, and employment. Yet despite these historic actions, research indicates that people with disabilities still face negative perceptions and attitudinal barriers (Louvet, 2007; Smart, 2008). The measurement of attitudes held by undergraduate students toward persons with disability may be of primary consideration when attempting to understand contemporary social attitudes, as current undergraduate cohorts are within the first generation in the United States to have grown up wholly in the era of legislatively mandated disability rights.

Attitudes are commonly understood to encompass three elements, namely beliefs (a cognitive component), feelings (an affective component), and actions or the intention to act (a behavioral component) (Kowalska & Winnicka, 2013; Lam et al., 2010; Morin, Rivard, Crocker, Boursier, & Caron, 2013; ten Klooster, Dannenberg, Tall, Burger, & Rasker, 2009; Tervo, Palmer, & Redinius, 2004). In this study, we examined attitudes by utilizing the concept and methodology of a social distance scale, developed by Bogardus (1932) and subsequently refined. Social distance refers to the “relative willingness of one person to participate in relationships of varying degrees of intimacy with a person who has a stigmatized identity” (Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007, p. 67). In broad stroke, the more intimate the relationship, the less willing individuals are to participate in such a relationship with a person with disability (Gordon, Tantillo, Feldman, & Perrone, 2004; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Kowalska & Winnicka, 2013; Shannon, Tansey, & Schoen, 2009). The relationships typically measured range from workplace colleagues to neighbors to friends to dating and marriage. Whereas some studies have focused on one or several categories of relationships (such as willingness to engage in dating and marriage), the current study includes a variety of relationships and interactional settings to better approach a holistic social context (Antonak & Livneh, 1988; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Shannon et al., 2009; Tregaskis, 2000).

Applying such social distance scales, researchers have concluded that there is a stigma hierarchy, or “order of preference” for some disability types over others (Gordon et al., 2004; Morin et al., 2013; Westbrook, Legge, & Pennay, 1993). Westbrook et al. (1993) noted that the most stigmatized disabilities tend to be those that are most visible, those that involve mental functioning, and those for which a person is seen as responsible. This order of preference translates to differing expressions of social distance across disability types. Many studies, however, have treated disabilities broadly without parsing differences in attitudes toward specific disability types, or have focused on one disability type, such as intellectual disability (Hampton & Xiao, 2007; Krajewski & Flaherty, 2000; Ouellette-Kuntz, Burge, Brown, & Arsenault, 2010). Correspondingly, many attitudinal scales phrase questions about persons with disabilities in general terms. However, research suggests that social distance, such as attitude, is situationally dependent and it is therefore imperative to contextualize disability by investigating attitudes toward a range of specific disability types (Kowalska & Winnicka, 2013; Ouellette-Kuntz et al., 2010; Wong, Chan, Cardoso, Lam, & Miller, 2004).

To this end, we examined social distance attitudes toward 10 disability types: physical impairment, sensory impairment, chronic illness, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, intellectual disability, learning disability, attention-deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), autism, and visceral disability. The term visceral disability is not commonly used in the United States, but was referenced in our selected instrument. This term refers to a disability arising from diseases or respective treatment affecting the body’s organs; individuals with visceral disability may have complications from more than one type of disease such as diabetes mellitus, chronic liver disease, stroke, and cancers. The type, as well as severity, of disability can be significant in shaping a person’s willingness to develop personal relationships with a person with disability (Miller, Chen, Glover-Graf, & Kranz, 2009). In a study of college student attitudes, Gordon et al. (2004) found that respondents expressed the greatest social distance toward persons with intellectual disabilities. On the opposite end of the spectrum, several studies have determined that college students display lesser social distance toward persons with physical disabilities (Esses & Beafoy, 1994; Granello & Wheaton, 2001). However, these general attitudes must be refined within each specific disability type and type of relationship. For instance, a recent study by Miller et al. (2009) echoed previous research in finding that participants accepted the notion of dating a person who is blind, but not marrying that individual (Miller et al., 2009; Seo & Chen, 2009; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984).

Such nuances in individuals’ attitudes toward persons with disability may reflect the extent and source of the individual’s knowledge and familiarity with a particular disability type. Negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities are reported to develop because people receive insufficient and faulty information about individuals with disabilities and about disabilities in general (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003). Green (2007) found that nondisabled individuals are often hesitant to form friendships and relationships with individuals with disabilities, expressing both pity and sadness toward those with disabilities. Because the current barriers facing individuals with disabilities are no longer primarily institutional, solutions likely cannot come from legislation alone.

One promising approach comes from intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954). According to this theory, casual contacts (as opposed to personal or intimate contacts) are more likely to increase prejudice than to dispel prejudice, while increased personal contact generally improves attitudes toward members of negatively stereotyped groups. Allport (1954) emphasized the importance of relational conditions during contact. Personal interaction involving a cooperative and dependent relationship that promotes status equity and discourages stereotypes is necessary for optimal conditions to improve attitudes.

Research supports the application of intergroup contact theory to persons with disabilities. Hunt and Hunt (2000); Kalyva and Agaliotis (2009); McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller, and Killip (2004); and Seo and Chen (2009) found that increased contact with individuals with disabilities promoted both positive and more favorable attitudes toward such individuals among adults, adolescents, and children. However, it is important to make distinctions between the quantity of the contact and the quality of contact when considering the impact of contact on perceptions toward individuals with disabilities (Ishige & Hayashi, 2005). “Quality contact” refers to interactions involving intellectual, social, and emotional engagement. It may be that the quality of contact is a greater predictor of attitudes than both the quantity of contact and increased knowledge of disabilities (Barr & Bracchitta, 2012, 2015; McManus, Feyes, & Saucier, 2010).

With this in mind, we examine the impact of contact experience upon individual’s social distance attitudes, paying particular attention to the regularity of the contact experience and nature of the social relationship involved in the contact. To complement studies which have focused on the impact of contact experiences on one or two specific disability types (such as intellectual disability or mental illness), our study incorporates a multidimensional approach and examines contact relationships across 10 disability types (Antonak & Livneh, 1988; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Shannon et al., 2009; Tregaskis, 2000; Wong et al., 2004). The intent of this research was twofold:

To investigate variations in expressed social distance across 10 specific disability types (physical impairment, sensory impairment, chronic illness, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, intellectual disability, learning disability, ADD/ADHD, autism, and visceral disability) as measured by social distance and acceptance of the relationship.

To examine the influence that frequency and type of contact experience has on social distance values, across 10 disability types.

Method

Procedure

This research study used a cross-sectional design, the procedures of which were reviewed and approved for human subject ethics compliance by the institutional review board at the participating university. The study was conducted at a midsized, Hispanic-serving public university located in the southwestern United States. Questionnaires were administered to purposively selected undergraduate students enrolled in classroom settings from a variety of undergraduate majors and all grade levels. The consent process and questionnaire took about 20 minutes to complete.

Participants

The sample consisted of 766 undergraduate students, ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, with a mean age of 22.71 years (SD = 4.66). Respondents were queried about the contact they have had with persons with disability, but were not asked to disclose whether they personally identified as having a disability status. Of the participants, 415 (54%) were female and 351 (46%) were male. Adhering to census separation of race and ethnicity, respondents were asked to indicate their race and, separately, whether they identify as Hispanic/Latino. The majority of participants self-identified as Hispanic (72%, n = 550; see Appendix A for sociodemographic characteristics of respondents).

Measures

Attitudes

Using a modification of the social distance scale developed by Bogardus (1932; Social Distance Scale Bogardus [SDSB]), the first dimension of the study measured respondents’ personal willingness to engage in varying social relationships with persons with disability. Variations of the SDSB have been previously applied in the study of attitudes toward groups varying in race, religion, nationality, sex, age, occupation, and disability (Carter, Hughes, Copeland, & Breen, 2001; Fichten, Schipper, & Cutler, 2005; Triandis, 1964; Triandis, Davis, & Takezawa, 1965; Tringo, 1970). The SDSB has been shown to have good reliability and validity in disabilities research (Bogardus, 1932; Equal Opportunities Commission, 2011; Ouellette-Kuntz et al., 2010; Tringo, 1970). We used a modified version of the SDSB to measure respondents’ personal willingness to engage in varying social relationships with persons with 10 disability types, in the following situations: (a) marriage, (b) becoming a close kin member by marriage, (c) becoming a next-door neighbor, (d) becoming a friend, (e) becoming a fellow employee (coworker), and (f) avoiding contact. For each of the disability types, participants were asked to “check” each category of social relationship to declare their consent or “uncheck” to withhold it. The level of distance was the sum of “unchecked” answers for the first five situations together with “checked” for the “avoiding contact” response. Before summing the score, each type of relationship was weighted differently: 1 point was given for unchecked “marriage,” 2 points for unchecked “a close kin by marriage,” 3 points for unchecked “a neighbor,” 4 points for unchecked “a friend,” 5 points for unchecked “co-worker,” and 6 points for checked “avoid contact,” following the SDSB, which is a cumulative scale (Guttman scale). A higher score indicated a greater social distance and therefore that the respondent held more negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In addition to the social distance scale, the percentage of people who were willing to accept each type of relationship was also examined. It should be noted that we excluded participants who marked only one type of relationship consistently across all types of disabilities, as it indicated respondent-related error due to misunderstanding of the question and rendered their response invalid for analysis. Therefore, the analyses on SDSB were based on 423 respondents.

Contact experiences

To further parse respondents’ social distance attitudes, we examined whether an individual’s willingness to have a relationship with a person with disability varied by one’s contact experience with disabilities. Following recommendations by Miller et al. (2009), we queried contact in a way that assessed (a) type of relationship, (b) category of disability, and (c) frequency of contact with persons with each disability type. We describe each type of relationship and category of disability above. As for the frequency of contact, participants were asked to indicate the regularity of their contact with persons with a disability. Response choices included “never” and “no regular contact, but sometimes meet,” and “regular contact.” For those who indicated regular contact, they were further asked to choose all that apply: “have regular contact as family members or relatives,” “have regular contact as classmates or colleagues at work,” and “have regular contact as friends.” For analytical simplicity, the contact experience with each of the disability types was constructed using one ordinal variable, frequency of contact, with three levels: “1” indicates that the respondents had no contact, “2” indicates that the respondents had no regular contact but sometimes met a person with disability, and “3” indicates that respondents had regular contact, either as family members, friends, or classmates/colleagues. Descriptive statistics of contact experiences for each type of disability are reported in Appendix B.

Data Analysis

A one-way within-subjects (or repeated measures) ANOVA was used to compare participants’ responses to each of 10 different disability types to examine whether social distance differed by type of disability (i.e., 10 observations per subject). The relationship between social distance and contact experience was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA, followed by pairwise t-test comparisons across three categories of contact experiences. Furthermore, we also conducted ANCOVA to test the association between contact experiences and social distance while controlling for sociodemographic covariates. All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 (StataCorp, 2015).

Results

Attitudes Toward Individuals With Disabilities

The means of social distance scores for each type of disability in tandem with grand mean over all 10 types of disability are displayed in Figure 1. The average expressed social distance (SDSB) was 7.08, with standard deviation of 0.95, on a scale where 1 indicates the least possible social distance and 10 represents the greatest. As reported in Figure 1, respondents expressed the least social distance toward persons with physical impairment (M = 6.24, SD = 3.38), chronic illness (M = 6.26, SD = 3.51), learning disabilities (M = 6.28, SD = 3.46), sensory impairment (M = 6.41, SD = 3.42), ADD/ADHD (M = 6.43, SD = 3.66), and visceral disability (M = 6.74, SD = 3.57). Respondents specified greater social distance from persons with HIV/AIDS (M = 9.17, SD = 5.53) and mental illness (M = 8.02, SD = 4.47), followed by intellectual disability (M = 7.32, SD = 3.81) and autism (M = 7.13, SD = 3.59). Social distance toward individuals with HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and intellectual disability was shown to be greater than the average social distance score of 7.08.

Figure 1.

SDSB by type of disability.

A one-way within-subjects ANOVA was conducted to evaluate a statistically significant difference in social distance scores across 10 different types of disability. There was a significant difference, F(9, 422) = 19.74, p < .001, η² = 0.15. Then, all possible pairwise comparisons (i.e., 45 pairwise comparisons given 10 disability types) using Bonferroni adjustment indicated that respondents declared a greater social distance toward persons with HIV/AIDS than toward persons with nine other types of disability. For example, respondents declared a greater social distance toward persons with HIV/AIDS (M = 9.17, SD = 5.53) than toward persons with ADHD/ADD (M = 6.43, SD = 3.67), which was statistically significant (t = 17.30, p < .001). The same pattern was also observed in mental illness. That is, respondents declared a greater social distance toward persons with mental illness than toward persons with ADHD/ADD (t = 10.04, p < .001). Whereas there were no statistically significant differences between social distance toward persons with autism and persons with intellectual disability, respondents declared a greater social distance toward persons with intellectual disability than toward persons with six other types of disability (physical impairment, sensory impairment, chronic illness, learning disability, ADD/ADHD, and visceral disability). Overall, we found that 30 comparisons were statistically significant (full results of pairwise comparisons available upon request).

The relative differences in respondents’ willingness to engage in specific relationships for 10 disability types are illustrated in Figure 2. The relationship scenarios are arranged in decreasing order of intimacy, from marriage to close kinship to neighbor to friend to coworker to avoidance. The percentage of the respondents who showed “avoidance” toward persons with disability (i.e., “would avoid contact”) was highest for persons with HIV/AIDS (20%), while less than 5% of the respondents indicated that they “would avoid contact” with all other types of disability. Across all 10 disability types, respondents were most willing to enter into friendship with a person with a disability, followed by neighbor, and coworker, respectively. They displayed a more marked unwillingness to have a person with a disability as a close kin member and were least likely to marry them. Few respondents indicated that they would be willing to marry a person with HIV/AIDS (5%), mental illness (12%), autism (15%), and intellectual disability (21%), whereas a greater percentage indicated their acceptance toward entering into a marriage relationship with a person with physical impairment (51%), learning disability (54%), and ADD/ADHD (57%), and chronic illness (61%). This pattern was also observed, to a lesser degree of difference, with kinship. In the remainder of the relationship situations, there was relatively little variation in acceptance across types of disability, with the exceptions of HIV/AIDS, and to some degree, mental illness.

Figure 2.

Percentage of respondents who accept a person with disabilities occurred in six situations.

Association Between Contact With Persons With Disabilities and Social Distance

To further nuance the analysis of respondents’ social distance attitudes, we examined the relationship between their social distance responses and their prior contact experiences with persons with disability. Generally, across all types of disability, people who had regular contact with persons with disabilities tended to have lower social distance scores than those who either never had contact or sometimes met individuals with that disability type. Table 1 reports the mean of social distance score by contact experience for each type of disability, along with F statistics and η² based on ANOVA. The association between contact experience and social distance was statistically significant in six disability types: ADD/ADHD, F(2, 146) = 11.08, p < .001, η² = 0.05; intellectual disability, F(2, 146) = 6.69, p < .05, η² = 0.03; mental illness, F(2, 146) = 6.95, p < .01, η² = 0.03; visceral disability, F(2, 146) = 6.58, p < .01, η² = 0.03; autism, F(2, 146) = 4.84, p < .01, η² = 0.02; and chronic illness, F(2, 416) = 3.44, p < .05, η² = 0.02. We described above the importance of distinguishing between the quantity of contact experiences with a person with disability and the quality of that contact experience, wherein quality refers to intellectual, social, and emotional engagement. We examined social distance by contact experience over all five contact categories (never, sometimes meet, have regular contact as family members or relatives, have regular contact as classmates or colleagues at work, have regular contact as friends), as the original categories of contact experience capture, to some extent, different dimensions of regular contact experiences. We found that social distance scores across different forms of regular contact—family members/relatives, classmates/colleagues at work, and friends—were not statistically significant in their difference, which does not alter our findings reported above.

Table 1.

Mean of SDSB by Contact Experience and Type of Disability.

Disability type	1	2	3	F statistics	η²	Bonferroni
Disability type	Never	Sometimes meet	Regular contact	F statistics	η²	Bonferroni
Physical impairment	6.35	6.30	5.96	0.44
Sensory impairment	6.50	6.46	6.14	0.43
Chronic illness	7.51	6.46	6.01	3.44*	0.02	1 vs. 3*
HIV/AIDS	9.45	8.31	8.23	1.60
Mental illness	8.98	8.15	6.94	6.95**	0.03	1 vs. 3***
Intellectual disability	7.86	7.7	6.32	6.69**	0.03	1 vs. 3 & 2 vs. 3
Learning disability	6.83	6.48	5.95	2.26
ADD/ADHD	8.01	6.84	5.80	11.08***	0.05	1 vs. 3** & 2 vs. 3*
Autism	8.06	6.75	6.9	4.84**	0.02	1 vs. 2* & 1 vs. 3*
Visceral disability	7.42	6.87	5.95	6.58**	0.03	1 vs. 3***

Note. SDSB = Social Distance Scale Bogardus; ADD/ADHD = attention-deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To account for effect size, Table 1 reports eta-squared (η²), showing the proportion of variability explained by contact experience for those statistically significant associations between contact experience and social distance. For example, in the case of ADD/ADHD, 5% of variability in the score of social distance toward persons with ADD/ADHD was explained by respondents’ contact experiences. It is the largest proportion of variability explained, followed by mental illness (3%), intellectual disability (3%), visceral disability (3%), chronic illness (2%), and autism (2%). Taken together, the association between contact experiences and social distance was relatively salient in each of these disability types. The significant F test statistics in ANOVA indicate that at least one category of contact experience effect on social distance differs from zero. However, it does not tell us where the differences are. As such, Bonferroni tests as post hoc comparisons using a pairwise comparison were performed to examine the differences between each pair of means. Bonferroni adjustment tends to be conservative and thus helps to reduce the likelihood of Type I errors. Specifically, an unadjusted test produced significant differences in social distance attitudes toward persons with mental illness between respondents who “sometimes meet” persons with that disability and those who indicated they have “regular contact,” social distance attitudes toward persons with learning disability between those who “never have contact” and those who have “regular contact,” social distances toward persons with ADD/ADHD between those who “never have contact” and those who “sometimes meet,” and social distances toward persons with visceral disability between those who “sometimes meet” and those who have “regular contact.” These results reveal what the new, Bonferroni-adjusted alpha is for the pairwise t tests. As seen in the last column of Table 1, they are not significant according to Bonferroni adjustments. It is interesting to note that the mean scores of social distance toward persons with ADD/ADHD for “never have contact” (M = 8.01) and “sometimes meet” (M = 6.84) were significantly different from “regular contact” (M = 5.80) (see Table 1). However, “sometimes meet” did not significantly differ from “regular contact.” Overall, different levels of social distance were primarily observed between “never” and “regular” contact for all six disability types for which there was a statistically significant association between contact experience and social distance.

Finally, Figure 3 displays the adjusted means of social distance based on ANCOVA where sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, age, race, ethnicity, cultural background, academic major, language, and religious affiliation, are controlled. We illustrated in Figure 3 only the disability types which had statistically significant variations in social distance score by contact experience. As with social distance scores in Table 1 above, respondents who had regular contact with a person with disability had lower social distance, with the exception of autism. In the case of autism, respondents who reported that they sometimes met persons with autism reported a lower social distance (M = 6.71) than those who had regular contact with persons with autism (M = 6.81).

Figure 3.

Adjusted prediction of SDSB by contact experience and type of disability.

Discussion

Following long-standing research on stigma hierarchies or “orders of preference” for some disability types over others, we found that respondents expressed differential social distance toward specific disability groups (Gordon et al., 2004; Morin et al., 2013; Westbrook et al., 1993). Across all disability types, respondents’ willingness to enter into a relationship with a person with disability was the lowest for marriage. Respondents were most willing to have marital relationships with persons with chronic illness, learning disabilities, and ADD/ADHD, with nearly 60% of respondents indicating a willingness to marry a person with one of those three disability types. Respondents’ willingness to enter into a relationship with a person with disability was consistently highest for friendship and “not avoiding” contact. There were few variations in acceptance to having persons with disabilities as neighbors, friends, and coworkers across categories of disability.

However, the relative social distance means expressed by the respondents were affected, in some cases markedly, by the type of disability. Respondents expressed the greatest social distance toward persons with HIV/AIDS, mental illness, intellectual disability, and autism, respectively. To some extent, these results concur with previous indicators of the most stigmatized disabilities within a hierarchy of preference. Westbrook et al. (1993) noted that the most stigmatized disabilities tend to include those that involve mental functioning, as in the case of mental illness, intellectual disability, and autism within this study. However, learning disabilities and ADD/ADHD, likewise conditions which involve mental functioning, were among the least stigmatized when it came to marriage and other relationships. Furthermore, suggestions that visible disabilities are often more greatly stigmatized were not reflected in this study, to the extent that physical disability was the fourth most acceptable disability type when it came to marriage. This finding aligns with several studies which have found that college students display lesser social distance toward persons with physical disabilities (Esses & Beafoy, 1994; Granello & Wheaton, 2001).

Notably, the lowest acceptance rate was observed across all situations toward persons with HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS stands out among the disability types included within the study as the only condition which can be acquired through person-to-person contact. The low rates for acceptance of social relationships with persons with HIV/AIDS may reflect lack of knowledge regarding transmission processes. It may also reflect the finding by Westbrook et al. (1993) that disability conditions for which a person is seen as responsible are more likely to be stigmatized.

The effect for contact experience was statistically significant in six disability types. Regular contact as a family member, friend, or coworker to a person with a specific disability type generally resulted in a lower SDSB mean, with the exception of autism. Those who had regular contact with persons with chronic illness, mental illness, intellectual disability, ADD/ADHD, and visceral disability had statistically significant lower SDSB as compared with the SDSB means reported by both individuals who had never had contact with individuals with those disabilities, as well as individuals who had occasional, but not regular contact. Having infrequent contact with a person with those disability types likewise was associated with a lower SDSB mean than having no contact, yet a higher SDSB mean than that reported by those who have regular contact. These findings echo prior studies which have suggested that the quality of contact is a greater predictor of attitudes than the quantity of contact (Fichten et al., 2005; Hampton & Xiao, 2007; McManus et al., 2010). Smart (2008) found that personal, intimate, and rewarding contact with individuals with disabilities disconfirms stereotypes and is associated with an overall increase in positive attitudes.

One unforeseen finding of this study, however, is that this pattern did not hold true for autism. Respondents who had never had contact with a person with autism predictably reported the highest SDSB mean (M = 8.06). But, the lowest SDSB mean reported for autism was not associated with respondents who had regular contact with persons with autism, as anticipated (M = 6.9). Rather, it was reported by respondents who only sometimes met persons with autism (M = 6.75). This finding highlights the need for further attention to studies which assess nuances in attitudes toward a range of disability types.

Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations to the generalizability of this study that must be noted. First, all of the participants were university students attending the same southwestern Hispanic-serving university, and the majority of participants were Hispanic. Furthermore, the study only includes respondents who had completed some level of college education; a comparative sample to respondents who have completed more and less education may display important distinctions. Future research would warrant a broader sample and geographic area.

Second, the survey instrument required that respondents be able to recognize and understand categories of some disability types. To mitigate this, examples of specific conditions were provided for five of the 10 disability types (physical impairment, sensory impairment, chronic illness, learning disability, and visceral disability), such as “loss of limb” for physical impairment and “blind” for sensory impairment. However, the term visceral disability is particular to the region in which our survey instrument was developed and is not commonly used in the United States. It is possible that respondents misinterpreted the categories of disability and terminology used in the survey instrument, thereby misrepresenting their beliefs and attitudes toward disability.

Furthermore, the study used cross-sectional data from a single year, which does not allow evaluation of causal associations with regard to contact experience and social distance. We cannot rule out the possibility that higher social distance may predict fewer contacts, subsequent avoidance, or both. In the future, researchers could further investigate the effect of contact on social distance with a longitudinal dataset.

Finally, the weaknesses of this study are those inherent to survey research. It is possible that the respondents gave “socially desirable” responses. The study did not include controls for spurious effects of response set bias and social desirability, and does not necessarily predict future opinions or behavior.

Implications for Theory, Policy, and Research

The study results have several implications for individuals studying and working with people with disabilities in human service-oriented fields and higher education, as well as those individuals engaged in interpersonal or working relationships with persons with disabilities. In keeping with previous research on stigma hierarchies, the study found that there are significant variations in social distance by the type of disability among college students and by context. The three disability types for which respondents reported the greatest social distance rates were HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and intellectual disabilities. In particular, HIV/AIDS and mental illness showed distinctively lower acceptance within marriage, family, and kinship relationships.

Future research is merited to investigate the interactional barriers confronting persons with these disabilities within specific social relationships. Additional studies could provide information as to how professionals, educators, and advocates can promote more positive attitudes and interactions with persons with HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and intellectual disabilities across social contexts. For instance, college and university campus programs for disability resources and support services can utilize individualized approaches to support social interactions between students with disabilities and the nondisabled student population. These individualized approaches can be utilized to further prepare students with disabilities for interactions within specific social contexts.

Changing attitudes in nondisabled persons toward individuals with disabilities is a complex task requiring increased exposure and positive interactions with such individuals. Combined with previous research, the findings of this study may provide direction on targeted approaches to reducing negative attitudes according to disability type. Frequency of contact has not been found to be sufficient alone to change attitudes, but rather it is the quality of interactions that is needed to affect attitudes and stigma hierarchies (Shannon et al., 2009). Research by Seo and Chen (2009) found that social contact that is personal, intimate, and cooperative tends to prompt positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Further research is warranted to investigate the intricacies of social interactions and contact experiences according to specific disability type, and their potential outcomes for diminishing disability bias.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Respondents’ Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Variable	M/%	SD	n
Gender			766
Female	54.00%
Male	46.00%
Age	22.71	4.66	738
Hispanic	71.79%		748
Race			748
White	60.43%
African American	6.91%
Human service-oriented majors	58.66%		765
Cultural background			767
American	38.85%
Mexican American	38.46%
Languages			767
English	57.37%
Spanish	9.13%
Both English and Spanish	30.38%
Religious affiliation			765
Christian	36.34%
Catholic	47.84%
Mother’s highest level of education			765
Some high school	11.76%
High school	34.12%
Associate’s degree/technical degree	16.73%
≥College graduates	30.98%
Father’s highest level of education			764
Some high school	14.53%
High school	35.90%
Associate’s degree/technical degree	14.14%
≥College graduates	23.44%
Income level
Annual household income			750
Lower quartile (25th percentile)	<$25,000
Median (50th percentile)	$40,000-$49,999
Upper quartile (75th percentile)	≥$75,000

Appendix B

Table B1.

Percentage of Students Who Have Contact With the Following Persons With a Disability (N = 423).

Type of disability	No, never	No, regular contact but sometimes meet	Yes, have regular contact
	No, never	No, regular contact but sometimes meet	As family or relatives	As classmates/colleagues or as friends
	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)
Physical impairment	28.37 (120)	47.75 (202)	9.93 (42)	13.00 (55)
Sensory impairment	28.37 (120)	27.75 (202)	47.75 (202)	9.93 (42)
Chronic illness	9.22 (39)	15.84 (67)	52.72 (223)	20.80 (88)
HIV/AIDS	74.94 (317)	17.49 (74)	2.13 (9)	2.84 (12)
Mental illness	28.84 (122)	38.77 (164)	16.78 (71)	14.66 (62)
Intellectual disability	29.31 (124)	39.10 (165)	12.53 (53)	17.97 (76)
Learning disability	19.15 (81)	27.42 (116)	16.78 (71)	35.70 (151)
ADD/ADHD	15.37 (65)	22.93 (97)	23.40 (99)	36.17 (153)
Autism	24.11 (102)	39.71 (168)	19.39 (82)	16.31 (69)
Visceral disability	32.39 (137)	30.50 (129)	29.08 (123)	7.33 (31)

Note. Number in parentheses is number of cases in each category. Percentage may not add up to 100% due to missing cases and rounding. ADD/ADHD = attention-deficit disorder/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

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.

References

Allport

G. W.

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

Americans with Disabilities Act, Pub. L. No. 101-336. § 42 U.S.C. 12111, 12112. (1990).

Antonak

R. F.

Livneh

(1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics, and scales. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Barr

J. J.

Bracchitta

(2012). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: The effects of age, gender, and relationship. Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 10–17. doi:10.1017/jrr.2012.1

Barr

J. J.

Bracchitta

(2015). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: The effects of contact with different disability groups. Current Psychology, 34. doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9253-2

Bogardus

E. S.

(1932). Social Distance Scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271.

Campbell

Gilmore

Cuskelly

(2003). Developmental expectations, personality stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 65–76.

Carter

E. W.

Hughes

Copeland

S. R.

Breen

(2001). Differences between high school students who do and do not volunteer to participate in a peer interaction program. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(4), 229–239.

Equal Opportunities Commission. (2011). Baseline survey on public attitudes towards persons with a disability 2010 (Report). Hong Kong: Policy 21 Limited.

10.

Esses

V. M.

Beafoy

S. L.

(1994). Determinants of attitudes toward people with disabilities. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 43–64.

11.

Fichten

C. S.

Schipper

Cutler

(2005). Does volunteering with children affect attitudes with disabilities? A prospective study of unequal contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 166–176. doi:10.1177/00343552070500030401

12.

Gordon

P. A.

Tantillo

J. C.

Feldman

Perrone

(2004). Attitudes regarding interpersonal relationships with persons with mental illness and mental retardation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(1), 50–56.

13.

Granello

Wheaton

(2001). Attitudes of undergraduate students toward persons with physical disabilities and mental illness. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 32(3), 9–16.

14.

Green

S. E.

(2007). Components of perceived stigma and perceptions of well-being among university students with and without disability experience. Health Sociology Review, 16, 328–340.

15.

Hampton

N. Z.

Xiao

(2007). Attitudes toward people with developmental disabilities in Chinese and American students: The role of cultural values, contact, and knowledge. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73, 23–32.

16.

Hergenrather

Rhodes

(2007). Exploring undergraduate student attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Application of the disability social relationship scale. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 66–75.

17.

Hunt

(2000). Attitudes toward people with disabilities: A comparison of undergraduate rehabilitation and business majors. Rehabilitation Education, 14, 269–283.

18.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 1975, 1990, 2004

19.

Ishige

Hayashi

(2005). Occupation and social experience: Factors influencing attitude towards people with schizophrenia. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 59, 89–95.

20.

Kalyva

Agaliotis

(2009). Can contact affect Greek children’s understanding of and attitudes toward peers with physical disabilities? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 213–220.

21.

Kowalska

Winnicka

(2013). Attitudes of undergraduate students towards persons with disabilities: The role of the need for social approval. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 44, 40–49.

22.

Krajewski

Flaherty

(2000). Attitudes of high school students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 38, 154–162.

23.

Lam

W. Y.

Gunukula

S. K.

McGuigan

Isaiah

Symons

A. B.

Akl

E. A.

(2010). Validated instruments used to measure attitudes of healthcare students and professionals towards patients with physical disability: A systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 7, 55–61.

24.

Louvet

(2007). Social judgement toward job applicants with disabilities: Perceptions of personal qualities and competencies. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52, 297–303.

25.

McDougall

DeWit

D. J.

King

Miller

L. T.

Killip

(2004). High school-aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: The role of school and student interpersonal factors. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 51, 287–313. doi:10.1080/1034912042000259242

26.

McManus

Feyes

K. J.

Saucier

D. A.

(2010). Contact and knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 579–590. doi:10.1177/0265407510385494

27.

Miller

Chen

Glover-Graf

N. M.

Kranz

(2009). Willingness to engage in personal relationships with persons with disabilities: Examining category and severity of disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52, 211–224.

28.

Morin

D. M.

Rivard

Crocker

A. G.

Boursier

C. P.

Caron

(2013). Public attitudes toward intellectual disability: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 279–292.

29.

Ouellette-Kuntz

Burge

Brown

H. K.

Arsenault

(2010). Public attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23, 132–142.

30.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 34 C.F.R. Part 104.4 (1973).

31.

Seo

Chen

R. K.

(2009). Attitudes of college students toward people with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 40(4), 3–8.

32.

Shannon

C. D.

Tansey

T. N.

Schoen

(2009). The effect of contact, context, and social power on undergraduate attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(4), 11–18.

33.

Smart

J. F.

(2008). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

34.

StataCorp. (2015). Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: Author.

35.

Strohmer

D. C.

Grand

S. A.

Purcell

M. J.

(1984). Attitudes toward persons with a disability: An examination of demographic factors, social context, and specific disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 29, 131–145.

36.

ten Klooster

P. M.

Dannenberg

J. W.

Tall

Burger

Rasker

J. J

. (2009). Attitudes toward people with physical or intellectual disabilities: Nursing students and non-nursing peers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 2562–2573.

37.

Tervo

R. C.

Palmer

Redinius

(2004). Health professional student attitudes towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 908–915.

38.

Tregaskis

(2000). Interviewing non-disabled people about their disability-related attitudes: Seeking methodologies. Disability & Society, 15, 343–353.

39.

Triandis

H. C.

(1964). Cultural influences upon cognitive processes. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–48). New York, NY: Academic Press.

40.

Triandis

H. C.

Davis

E. E.

Takezawa

S. I.

(1965). Some determinants of social distance among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 540–551.

41.

Tringo

J. L.

(1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. The Journal of Special Education, 4, 295–306.

42.

Westbrook

M. T.

Legge

Pennay

(1993). Attitudes towards disability in a multicultural society. Social Science & Medicine, 36, 615–623.

43.

Wong

D. W.

Chan

Cardoso

E. D.

Lam

C. S.

Miller

S. M.

(2004). Rehabilitation counseling students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities in three social contexts: A conjoint analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 194–204.