The purpose of this study was to measure blindness professionals’ implicit attitudes about the competence of people who are blind, compare implicit attitudes of blindness professionals with those of employers in hiring positions, and examine blindness professionals’ implicit attitudes by type of profession and work tenure.
Methods:
The study included 322 blindness professionals and 450 employers. Participants completed a brief online survey and the Implicit Association Test–Blind/Visually Impaired, which measures implicit attitudes regarding the competence of blind people.
Results:
On average, blindness professionals exhibited a slight association, whereas employers exhibited a strong association, for sighted with competence and blind with incompetence. Blindness professionals and employers had large, statistically significant differences in implicit attitudes. Blindness professionals’ implicit attitudes did not differ by type of profession, but they differed slightly by work tenure.
Discussion:
Employers’ strong implicit bias toward sighted and competence may reflect their limited knowledge about blindness and lack of opportunities to interact with blind people. Compared to employers, blindness professionals exhibited a much smaller implicit bias, which may relate to their knowledge about blindness, exposure to successful blind people, and meaningful interactions with blind people across social contexts.
Implications for practitioners:
Blindness professionals may benefit from increased exposure to highly successful blind role models throughout their professional preparation programs and their careers. Blindness professionals can promote positive attitudes about blindness to the general public and to consumers and their families. During educational opportunities, they could incorporate information about how blind people perform work tasks, which has the potential to improve attitudes about the competence of blind people.
AabergV. A. (2012). A path to greater inclusivity through understanding implicit attitudes toward disability. Journal of Nursing Education, 51, 505–510.
2.
AllenM.BellstedtJ. (1996). Attitudes toward blindness and blind people: What do we believe?The ABNF Journal, 7, 72–77.
3.
AntonakR. F.LivnehH. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
4.
ArchambaultM. E.Van RheeJ. A.MarionG. S.CrandallS. J. (2008). Utilizing implicit association testing to promote awareness of biases regarding age and disability. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 19, 20–26.
5.
AugustoC. R.McGrawJ. M. (1990). Humanizing blindness through public education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 397–400.
6.
BenhamP. K. (1988). Attitudes of occupational therapy personnel toward persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42, 305–311. doi:10.5014/ajot.42.5.305
7.
ChenR. K.BlankenshipC. J.AustinB. S.CantuV. C.KotbungkairW. (2016). Hiring of people with disabilities: Perceptions of Hispanic small business owners. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45, 185–196.
8.
ChubonR. A. (1982). An analysis of research dealing with the attitudes of professionals toward disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48, 25–30.
9.
CouringtonS. M.LambertR. W.BeckerS.LudlowL. H.WrightB. D. (1983). The measurement of attitudes toward blindness and its importance for rehabilitation. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 6, 67–72.
10.
CowenE. L.UnderbergR. P.VerrilloR. T. (1958). The development and testing of an attitude to blindness scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 297–304.
11.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378.
12.
CruddenA.McBroomL. W.SkinnerA.MooreJ. E. (1998). Comprehensive examination of barriers to employment among persons who are blind or visually impaired. Starkville: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision, Mississippi State University.
13.
GalliG.LenggenhagerB.ScivolettoG.MolinariM.PazzagliaM. (2015). Don’t look at my wheelchair! The plasticity of longlasting prejudice. Medical Education, 49, 1239–1247.
14.
GarskeG. G. (2002). Rehabilitation counselor self-reported levels of job satisfaction, self-esteem, and attitudes toward persona with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 33, 3–6.
15.
GilbrideD.StensrudR.EhlersC.EvansE.PetersonC. (2000). Employers’ attitudes toward hiring persons with disabilities and vocational rehabilitation services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66, 17–23.
16.
GrazianoW. G.BruceJ.SheeseB. E.TobinR. M. (2007). Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 565–582.
17.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
18.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
19.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
20.
InglisC. (2006). Blind people can do anything but not in my company: Employer attitudes towards employing blind and vision impaired people(Unpublished master’s thesis). Massey University, Albany, New Zealand.
21.
JanickiM. P. (1970). Attitudes of health professionals toward twelve disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 77–78.
22.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
23.
KellyA.Barnes-HolmesD. (2013). Implicit attitudes towards children with autism versus normally developing children as predictors of professional burnout and psychopathology. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 17–28.
24.
KempN. J. (1981). Social psychological aspects of blindness: A review. Current Psychological Reviews, 1, 69–89.
25.
KirchnerC.JohnsonG.HarkinsD. (1997). Research to improve vocational rehabilitation: Employment barriers and strategies for clients who are blind or visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91, 377–392.
26.
KoestlerF. A. (2004). The unseen minority: A social history of blindness in the United States. New York, NY: AFB Press.
27.
KuhnJ. (1971). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward blindness and exposure to blind children. New Outlook for the Blind, 65, 337–340.
28.
LyonsM. (1991). Enabling or disabling? Students’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 311–316.
MartinH.RowellM.ReidS.MarksM.ReddihoughD. (2005). Cerebral palsy: What do medical students know and believe?Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 41, 43–47.
31.
McDonnallM. C.AntonelliK. (2018). Employers’ implicit attitudes about the competence of people who are blind. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63, 502–511.
32.
McDonnallM. C.ZhouL.CruddenA. (2013). Employer attitudes towards persons who are blind or visually impaired: Perspectives and recommendations from vocational rehabilitation personnel. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79, 17–24.
33.
MonbeckM. (1975). The meaning of blindness: Attitudes toward blindness and blind people. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
34.
MooreJ. E.WolfeK. E. (2010). Employment considerations for adults with low vision. In CornA. L.KoenigA. J. (Eds.), Foundations of low vision: Clinical and functional perspectives (pp. 799–828). New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.
35.
MuhlenkampA. F. (1971). Attitudes of nursing students toward eight major disabilities. Psychological Reports, 29, 973–974.
36.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (2007). The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In BarghJ. A. (Ed.), Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior (pp. 265–292). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.HansenJ. J.DevosT.LindnerN. M.RanganathK. A.…BanajiM. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.
38.
PapadakiM.Tzvetkova-ArsovaM. (2013). Social attitudes and beliefs of sighted people towards blindness and blind persons. Specijalna Edukacija I Rehabilitacija, 12, 481–499. doi:10.5937/specedreh12-4288
39.
ParisM. J. (1993). Attitudes of medical students and health-care professionals toward people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 818–825.
40.
PeckA. F.UslanM. M. (1980). Beliefs about public attitudes toward the blind. Journal of Rehabilitation, 46, 36–39.
41.
PruettS. R.ChanF. (2006). The development and psychometric validation of the disability attitude implicit association test. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 202–213.
42.
RosenthalD. A.ChanF.LivnehH. (2006). Rehabilitation students’ attitudes toward persons with disabilities in high- and low-stakes social context: A conjoint analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 1517–1527.
ScottA. W.BresslerN. M.FolkesS.WittenbornJ. S.JorkaskyJ. (2016). Public attitudes about eye and vision health. JAMA Ophthalmology, 134, 1111–1118. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2627
45.
TervoR. C.AzumaS.PalmerG.RediniusP. (2002). Medical students’ attitudes toward persons with disability: A comparative study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 1537–1542.
46.
TervoR. C.PalmerG.RediniusP. (2004). Health professional student attitudes towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 908–915.
47.
WilsonM.SciorK. (2014). Attitudes towards individuals with disabilities as measured by the implicit association test: A literature review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 294–321.
48.
WongD. W.ChanF.CardosoE. D.LamC. S.MillerS. M. (2004). Rehabilitation counseling students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities in three social contexts: A conjoint analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 194–204.
