Effects of Contact on Childrens Attitudes Toward Disability: A Longitudinal Study1

PAM MAR AS^ School of Social Sciences University of Greenwich

London, England

RUPERT BROWN University of Kent

Canterbury Kent, England

A quasi-experimental study was conducted on temporal effects of intergroup contact on nondisabled (ND) childrens attitudes toward disability. Children from a mainstream primary school were involved in an integration program with children from a school for children with severe learning disabilities (SLD).3 Measures were administered 3 times over a period of 3 months to 26 integrating (experimental) and 24 nonintegrating (control) children. Social orientations in the experimental group became significantly more positive over time, while the control group showed little change. The experimental and control children initially categorized on the basis of gender and disability; subsequently the strategies of the experimental children were more idiosyncratic while the control children still used the same two dimensions.

Such an outcome will not occur spontaneously. Nor will it be achieved by legislation alone. It has to be contrived and patiently nurtured. It means greater discrimination in favor of those chil- dren with special needs, in proportion to the severity of their disabilities. (Department of Education & Science, 1978, p. 102)

In recent years, there have been important policy and legislative moves aimed at the educational integration of children with disabilities (e.g., in the U.K. see Department of Education & Science, 1981,1987). These moves have important implications in terms of attitudes of nondisabled (ND) children

The research reported here was funded by grant (#F.2368) from The Leverhulme Trust. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Pam Maras, School of Social Sciences, University of Greenwich, Avery Hill Campus, Avery Hill Road, Eltham, London SE9 2HB, UK.

%evere learning disabilities (SLD) is the term currently used in the U.K. to describe people who might formally have been described as having severe mental handicap or severe retardation. This term is interchangeable with severe learning disabilities.

2113

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1996, 26, 23, pp. 21 13-2134. Copyright 0 1996 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

21 14 MARAS AND BROWN

toward children with disabilities (DIS) as a consequence of increased contact in schools.

There is growing debate about both the appropriateness of integration for all and the way research into integration has been conducted (e.g., Hornby, 1992; Lindsay, 1989). It has been reported that attitudes toward disabled people are frequently negatively biased (Wright, 1988), although there is some debate about the origins of those attitudes. Some theorists have suggested that ambiva- lent attitudes toward people with disabilities are rooted in the same causes as those toward other so-called disadvantaged groups such as ethnicity or gender (e.g., Katz, Hass, & Bailey, 1988; Langer & Chanowitz, 1988). Research that has specifically considered the attitudes of children and adolescents toward disability reflect a general consensus that the lack of contact between people with and without disabilities can result in negative attitudes and unrealistic perceptions by the latter of the former (e.g., Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Cavallaro & Porter, 1980; Esposito & Reed, 1986; Furnham & Gibbs, 1984; McConkey, McCormack, & Naughton, 1983; Strauch, 1970; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984; Voeltz, 1980, 1984). However, Donaldson (1980) suggests that contact per se may not be enough to reduce prejudice toward people with disabilities. She argues that contact needs to be structured with planned experiences between children with and without disabilities.

Addressing this latter issue, a small number of studies have focused on the psychological processes underpinning attitudes arising out of integrated school contact. For example, Fortini (1987) attempted to identify predictors of posi- tive behavior toward children with disabilities, Lewis and Lewis (1987, 1988) looked at cognitive mechanisms underlying attitude formation. In their school- based study, Lewis and Lewis (1987) found that normal children as young as 6 and 7 years acquired attitudes about children with severe learning difficulties (SLD) after only a very limited amount of integrated contact. Previous research by Hazzard (1983) had posited that childrens knowledge of disability was directly related to their chronological age (the older the child, the greater the knowledge). These authors all suggest that integrated school contact has an effect on childrens attitudes. However, Hazzard suggests that attitude change is an effect of age, while Lewis and Lewis (1987) conclude that it is the contact per se that has the effect. Lewis and Lewis (1988) found in a follow-up study that the children had generally maintained their positive attitudes shown towards children with SLD (p. 161).

Lewis and Lewis (1988) utilized the intergroup perspective of Allport (1954) as an explanation for their findings. Drawing mainly on research in ethnic relations, Allport (1954/1979) suggested that the effects of the contact would be greatly enhanced by the presence of a number of precursors including institutional support, common goals, and the perception of communality between

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 15

groups. This view has grown in popularity and has come to be held by an increasing number of researchers (e.g., Amir, 1969; Cook, 1978; Pettigrew, 197 1). More recently, two seemingly contrasting models of intergroup contact have emerged, both of which have their roots in social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) and which offer very different strategies for optimizing the effects of intergroup contact (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Hewstone & Brown, 1986).

In summary, Brewer and Miller (1 984) see the blurring or breaking down of group or category boundaries as essential to personalization (the reduction of categorical biases); in contrast, Hewstone and Brown (1986) propose that maintaining group boundaries can be beneficial for aiding positive generaliza- tion beyond the contact situation. There is some evidence which supports both Brewer and Millers and Hewstone and Browns positions (e.g., see Vivian & Brown, 1993; Vivian, Hewstone, & Brown, in press; but cf. Bettencourt, Brewer, Rogers-Croak, & Miller, 1992; Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985). However, as yet, these models of contact are largely untested in real life contexts. Furthermore, both models, and the research they stem from, have been mainly concerned with contact between ethnic, national, or ad hoc groups. It remains to be seen how applicable they are to social situations involving children with and without disabilities.

Early work on attitudes toward disability showed trends toward contact improving attitudes (e.g., Cheder, 1965). More recently, researchers have begun to pay attention to how the contact experience should be structured. For example, Acton and Zarbatany (1988) found that ND childrens preference for mildly mentally retarded (MR) schoolmates increased significantly after participating in structured cooperative activities with them. Further, Johnson, Rynders, Johnson, Schmidt, and Haider (1979) compared the effects of integra- tion that had cooperative, individual, or laissez-faire goal structures on main- stream childrens attitudes towards highly trainable MR peers. They found that there were more interpersonal interactions and attraction between ND and MR children in the cooperative situation than in the individual or laissez-faire conditions. Although this study is a strong indicator that cooperative goals are likely to enhance integration, it is not entirely clear that the findings are directly relevant to all kinds of special educational needs (SEN), since the participants were all teenagers and the integrated students were very much more able than many children with SEN. Similar qualifications may apply to two further studies in which Johnson and Johnson were involved, both of which found beneficial attitudinal and achievement effects of cooperative (vs. individu- alistic) learning programs (Armstrong, Johnson, & Balow, 198 1 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1981).

Further studies lend weight to the efficacy of cooperative learning (e.g., Bryan, Donahue, &Pearl, 1981; Foot, Morgan, & Shute, 1990). One suggestion

21 16 MARAS AND BROWN

is that cooperative learning is optimal in a situation where participants have important roles but where these roles are interdependent on each other (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990). Here, there is the possibility of the promotion of the capacity to negotiate meaning from the tasklgroup and for the acknowledg- ment of the existence of multiple perspectives on any issue (Cowie & Rudduck, 1990, p. 154).

The research reported in this paper examined what happened to some main- stream childrens attitudes over a period of time when children with SLD are integrated in a structured way into their mainstream school. A school was identi- fied from which, as part of the curriculum, a number of children are randomly selected each year to participate in an integrated program with children from a special school for children with SLD at regular weekly intervals. This integrated program offered a unique research opportunity to conduct an experi- mental study within a naturalistic context. The program favored Hewstone and Browns (1986) model of categorized contact. Categories (SLD and main- stream) were explicit, clearly defined, and maintained throughout the program. In addition, a number of the precursors proposed by Allport (1 979) and more recently by Hewstone and Brown as essential for successful contact such as institutional support, were also evident in the scheme.

Thus, the research reported had two main aims: (a) The measurement over time of changes in childrens attitudes towards learning disability and inter- group perceptions as a function of different amounts and types of contact, (b) a quasi-evaluation of an exchange program.

Data are presented that explore the criteria children use to categorize their judgments about and their sociometric preference for unknown peers with and without disabilities. Our principal hypothesis was that the children participat- ing in the program would show more positive attitudes toward their disabled peers than those not participating. In addition, in line with Hewstone and Browns (1 986) model, the experimental children should show more evidence of generalization of this positive attitude change.

The Integration Program

The integration program between the special school and the mainstream primary school4 had been in operation for a number of years. The two schools are within the same catchment area of a London borough. Children in the special school have all been identified as having SLD, although this classi- fication encompasses children with a wide range of physical and cognitive

41n the U.K., primary schools are schools for children aged 5 to 1 1 years. Schools for pupils over 1 1 years are generally referred to as secondary schools.

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 17

impairments. Integrating children are selected from a number of classes, and selection is based on recommendations of and discussions between the head, deputy, and class teachers in the special school. Twenty children with SLD were selected to integrate in the period reported in this paper.5

Integrated sessions took place on the same afternoon each week, the form of involvement being determined by random allocation, and the allocation being under the supervision of the researchers.6 The integrated program in- volved structured sessions with mainstream children being paired and grouped with SLD children. All work was collaborative, and ND children were given information about how to approach each task-for example, by being given checklists of tasks to be completed, and both mainstream and special school teachers were involved in the sessions.

Method

Design

The study utilized a 2 x 3 design (Program Participation [Experimental vs. Control] x Time [Time 1 vs. Time 2 vs. Time 3]), the second factor being within-subjects.

Participants

Fifty children from two national curriculum Year 4 classes participated in the study-28 girls and 22 boys. The mean age of the children was 8.8 years (range 8 to 10 years, mode 9 years).7 Twenty-six children from one of the classes participated in the integrated program (experimental group). Twenty- four children from the second class served as the control group. The decision to be in either the control or experimental group was random as children were randomly assigned to the two classes earlier in the year. However, it is impor- tant to note that the first phase of this study (Time 1) was conducted in the first week of the new school year, and thus the children had only been together for a minimal amount of time.

'Sadly, one of the children with SLD who was involved in the program died during the term the program was studied.

6The integrated sessions took place in three forms: (a) 10 mainstream children went to the special school; (b) five mainstream children spent time with SLD children in the mainstream staff room; and (c) the remaining children stayed in the mainstream classroom. However, the numbers involved were too small to permit any subgroup analysis.

'Parental permission to participate in the study was obtained prior to random selection. Ten children moved or were absent for at least one of the three sessions.

21 18 MARAS AND BROWN

Procedure

Stimuli. Various stimuli were pretested. The data described here used stimulus photographs of unknown children with and without disabilities to elicit childrens reactions (standard stimuli, SS). The photographs showed children with physical disabilities (PD) sitting in wheelchairs, children with hearing impairment (HI) wearing body-worn hearing aids, and children with learning disabilities (LD) who had Downs syndrome. The ND children were matched for age, gender, and other features such as posture; piloting deter- mined that the different disabilities were obvious to children of this age. In addition, photographs were taken of all the children with SLD involved in the integrated sessions, and these were utilized to determine changes in sociomet- ric choice over time.

Measures. Three measures were used for this research. The first, a new measure consisted of five different sized balloons. This was designed for measuring amount of certain physical and psychological attributes. The sec- ond, a five happylsad faces Likert-type scale, was modified for measuring affect or liking. The third measure consisted of five postboxes into which the children were asked to post the photographs of the known and unknown individual children depending on how much they wanted to play with them (always, a lot, sometimes, not much, or never), thus supplying a measure of sociometric preference.

Categorization: Sorting tasks. The children sorted the SS into piles in an unstructured sorting task with the instructions Take a good look at the photographs, then put into piles any photographs that are alike, that go together . . .. The purpose of this task was to explore how the children organized their perceptions of the children represented in the SS. Children were told to sort the photographs any way they wanted . . . . into as many piles as they liked.

Measures of affect and evaluation: Smiley face and balloon tasks. The children used the specially designed scales (affect = Likert-type 1-5, and how much of 1-5) to respond to items on a questionnaire. The first question mea- sured liking (affect); the remainder measured psychological and physical attri- butes of unknown children (DIS and ND). To elicit these stereotypical responses, the unknown stimuli photographs (SS) were used and modified to show the children in pairs.

Sociometric preference: Play with task. The children indicated, using the postbox measure of sociometric preference, how much they would or would not like to play with each of the SS and all of the SLD children by posting the photographs in the five boxes provided. This was then converted to a 5-point scale.

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 19

Table 1

Stress Values for n-Dim

2120 MARAS AND BROWN

2.1 CE:

1.0 - *

0.0

OF F -F -1.0 -

-2.1 -.

DER

.#HI ) WPD)

MU) DISABILITY

.F(PD) *F(HI)

0 F(U)

2.1 -

1.0 - 0.0

-1.0 -

-2 .1 -

Figure 1. Multidimensional scaling plots of sorting standard stimuli at Time 1 in experimental and control groups.

I GENDER

O H on

@ H(PD) On

YIS*BILITY F(H1) F(PD)

0 ULD) F 8 F

O F

+

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 2121

As can be seen in Figure 1, at Time 1 the children in the Experimental group are sorting the photographs on two main dimensions: gender and disability. Notice that the girls and boys are clustered tightly in DIS and ND groups. At Time 3 the picture changes somewhat. There seems to be little evidence of sorting on the same two general dimensions. Rather, the disabled PD and HI children seem to be subtyped, while the LD boy is placed among the other disabled stimuli and the LD girl is placed nearer to the ND children. One interpretation could be ihat disability remained salient but became more differ- entiated; and the children seemed to become more aware of different kinds of disability. Gender, by contrast, seemed to become much less salient at Time 3 .

As can be seen in Fiigure 1, at Time 1 the control children's categorization of the SS are consistent with the pattern already seen in the experimental group. The children are sorting on the two main dimensions gender and disability with the DIS children clustered more tightly than the ND children. At Time 3 the picture is almost identical to that at Time 1; once again, the children are employing just the two main dimensions of gender and disability and are exhibiting little evidence of any differentiation within the latter category. This is in complete contrast to the experimental group. Correlational analysis of loadings for the two dirnensions in the two groups lends further support to this finding. Correlations between loadings at Time 1 and Time 3 for both dimen- sions are highly significant in the control condition Dimension 1 (disability), r = .97 p < .01; Dimension 2 (gender), r = .82 p < .01. In contrast, in the experimental condition., although correlations are high on Dimension 1 ( r = 3 6 , p < .01) on dimension two there is no significant correlation ( r = .26, ns).

Thus, the contact experience afforded by the integration program seems to have markedly affected the way the children order their social environment.

The Evaluative Measures

ANOVA using the MANOVA procedure on SPSS was employed to analyze the eight dependent measures tapping group evaluations. In addition to the two main independent variables in the design there were one further between- subjects factor (gender of participating child) and two further within-subjects factors (stimuli [HI, LD, PD, ND]; and gender of stimuli).lO

'OAs is often the case in applied research, some preexisting differences between the groups were found at Time 1 despite random assignment to treatments. In order to ascertain that these were not artifactually inflating subsequent differences between the groups at Time 2 and Time 3, analyses of covariance were conducted on all measures reported in this paper using evaluation at Time 1 as the covariate. Findings on all measures remained statistically significant in all of these analyses.

2122 MARAS AND BROWN

2.1 -

1.0 - 0.0

-1.0 - -2.1 -

n@ .M(PD) 0

0 F(U)) U P D )

nm DISABILITY OH(U))

@F

N(H1) mF(H1) OF

1 q

2.1

1 .o

0.0

-1 .o

-2 .1

I - I CENI

- 2 . 5 -1 .5 -0.5 0 . 5 1.5 2 . 5

(2b) Control group

Figure 2. Multidimensional scaling plots of sorting standard stimuli at Time 3 in experimental and control groups.

Tabl

e 2

Sum

mar

y of

Pri

ncip

al S

igni

9can

t Eff

ects

on

Eig

ht J

udge

men

t Mea

sure

s

Prin

cipa

l si

gnif

ican

t eff

ects

B

etw

een

subj

ects

W

ithin

sub

ject

s In

tera

ctio

ns

Con

tact

(C

) St

imul

i (S)

Ti

me

(T)

Sx

T

cx s

Cx

T

Cx

Sx

T

Mea

sure

F(

1,43

) F(

3, 1

29)

F(2,

86)

F(6,

258)

F(

3, 1

29)

F(2,

86)

F(

6,22

2) (M

Se)

Like

5.

18*

16.5

0** *

4.2 1

* 2.

47*

Schw

k 69

.94*

* *

6.03

**

rn

PE

93.4

8** *

7.

32**

* 2.

64*

n

n

rn

0

Frie

nds

7.00

**

21.8

2***

-4

W

khar

d 4.

77*

19.3

0***

3.

22*

v,

4.88

***

3.24

* 3.

80**

(2.

35)

$ R

un

210.

75**

* 7.

55**

H

ear

77.1

6***

4.

20*

3.50

**

2.76

* 2.

89*

(2.5

8)

8 Th

ink

82.4

4***

9.

58**

* 3.

97**

6.

56**

Not

e. L

ike

= R

espo

nden

ts li

king

of

targ

et c

hild

ren.

Sch

wk

= S

choo

lwor

k. P

E =

Phy

sica

l E

duca

tion.

Fri

ends

= M

akin

g Fr

iend

s.

z

0

-4 2 !2

Wkh

ard

= W

orki

ng. R

un =

Run

ning

. Hea

r = H

earin

g. T

hink

= T

hink

ing.

*p

< .0

5. *

*p