Transcript

Effects of Contact on Children’s 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) children’s 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 children’s 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 children’s 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 Miller’s and Hewstone and Brown’s 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 children’s 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 children’s 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 children’s 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 Brown’s (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 children’s 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 Brown’s (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 children’s 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 Down’s 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<ensional Multidimensional Scaling Solutions by Condition and Time

Dimension 1 Dimension 2

Condition Time Stress RSQ Stress RSQ

Experimental 1 .46 1 .483 .015a .875 2 .356 .613 . 1 96a .766

Control 1 .263 320 .155a .884 2 .320 .767 .216a .750

Note. Stress values for one- and two-dimensional solutions are shown in Columns 1 and 3. RSQ values: proportion of variance of scaled data (disparities) accounted for by their corresponding distances. aselected solutions.

Results

Categorization

Multidimensional scaling techniques (MDS-alscal) were applied to the sort data. The input to this program took the form of similarity matrices based on the frequency of co-occurrence of each pair of stimuli. Each similarity matrix represented the aggregarte frequency of one group of children (experimental, control) at one point in time. The MDS procedure involves “fitting” of points, in our case individual photographs of unknown children with and without disabilities (SS), to metric space that indicates similarity (when SS are close together) and dissimilarity (when S S are far apart).8 Thus, the MDS locates in an n-dimensional space the underlying structure of similarity judgment.9 The distance between plots indicates the degree to which the children tended to categorize the stimuli as similar. For economy of presentation, data from just Time 1 and Time 3 are presented below for each of the experimental and control groups (Figures 1 and 2). Kruskal’s (Kruskal & Wish, 1978) stress formula and R2 values are given for each solution at Time 1 and Time 3 in Table 1.

8The Alscal procedure on SPSS was used to perform these analyses. 9For a fuller explanation, see Kruskal and Wish (1978).

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 <

.01.

***

p <

,001

. h)

G)

2124 MARAS AND BROWN

The principal significant effects identified in these analyses are summarized in Table 2 . Of most interest to our hypothesis are interactions involving the contact variable-particularly Contact x Time x Stimulus-since these indicate differential changes in attitude toward particular stimulus groups over time as a function of the integration program. Before discussing these interactions a few general points are worth noting in Table 2 . First, on every measure there was a highly significant main effect due to stimulus photographs being evalu- ated. The consistent trend across all measures was for ND children in the photographs to be rated more favorably than the DIS children with mostly nonsignificant differences among the latter. There were also consistent main effects for time, indicating a general increase in rating between Time 1 and Time 2 and then a leveling off. The three measures revealing reliable interac- tions involving the contact variable were: “run,” “hear,” and “think.” These are discussed in turn.

Running

On this measure, there were both two-way (Contact x Stimulus) and three- way (Contact x Stimulus x Time) interactions involving the contact variable. We concentrate here on the theoretically more relevant three-way effect. There was virtually no difference at Time 1 in the ratings between the experimental and control groups; as usual, the ND stimuli were evaluated higher than the DIS stimuli in both groups, although the difference is only marginally significant in control. However, ratings in the experimental group show a marked rise at Time 2 and are significantly higher for LD, HI, and PD at Time 3, while in the control group, there is little difference as an effect of time. This finding is particularly relevant, as it is LD children with whom the experimental children have contact and it is within the LD and HI stimuli that the most positive and significant changes occur. The fact that the positive effects in the LD group are reflected in the HI group also bode well for generalization across subcategories of disability, that is from the known group LD to the unknown group HI. It is thus indicative of a reduction in stereotypes specifically in relation to the HI and LD children who at Time 3 are not rated any less able to run than the ND children by the experimental group. In the control children, however, the clear differentiation between ND and DIS children remains visible at Time 3 even if it does appear to diminish slightly at Time 2 (Table 3).

Hearing

The same interactions were also identified in ANOVA of the hearing measure. In this instance, as can be seen in Table 4, a similar pattern to the

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 25

Table 3

Mean Evaluations of Running

How well can these children run?

Stimuli (SS) Integrated

contact Time HI LD PD ND Marginals

Yes 1 3.4b 3.43 3.3b 4.1, 3.4 2 4.4 4.3 3.8 4.6 3.8 3 4.0ab 4.0ab 3.71, 4.4, 3.7

No 1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.8 3.4 2 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.7 3 3.3b 3.2b 3.1b 4.4, 3.3

Marginals 3.4 3.2 1.6 4.4

Note. HI = hearing impaired. LD = learning disability. PD = physical disability. ND =

nondisabled. Means in row not sharing the same subscript are significantly different by Tukey’s HSD test, p < .05.

running measure can be seen but with one key difference. As before, there is little difference between the experimental or control groups at Time 1. How- ever, ratings in the experimental group become greater over time for only LD and PD children, and there is little change in their ratings of HI children. This is particularly interesting given that LD children are integrated in this school and a number of them are in wheelchairs (i.e., they appear similar to PD stimuli children). In the no-contact control group, there is little difference in the children’s ratings of HI, LD, or PD as an effect of time, with ND remaining consistently higher than the DIS stimuli. In this instance, therefore, contact seems to be changing stereotypes about LD and PD children’s ability to hear, while retaining a realistic picture of the hearing ability of HI children.

Thinking

The three-way interaction, Contact x Stimuli x Time was not found in the more abstract concept of thinking. The Stimuli x Time interaction shown in all

2126 MARAS AND BROWN

Table 4

Mean Evaluations of Hearing

How well can these children hear?

Stimuli (SS) Integrated

contact Time HI LD PD ND Marginals

Yes 1 2.0b 3.0, 2.11, 4.6, 3.5 2 2.5c 4.0ab 3.2bc 4.5, 3.9 3 2.2b 3.6, 4.1, 4.3, 3.8

No 1 2.21, 2.9b 2.5b 4.4, 3.5 2 2.2b 3.4, 2.4b 4.5, 3.6 3 2.2b 3.2, 2.6b 4.6, 3.7

Marginals 2.4 3.3 2.8 4.5

Note. HI = hearing impaired. LD = learning disability. PD = physical disability. ND = nondisabled. Means in row not sharing the same subscript are significantly different by Tukey’s HSD test, p < .05.

of the measures above was found for this measure, and examination of the mean scores reveals that in both experimental and control groups, ratings of the DIS stimuli change over time, although not of the ND children. A Contact x Time interaction was also identified. Children in the experimental group rate the HI, LD, and PD stimuli significantly lower than do those in the control group at Time 1, but higher at Time 2. At Time 3 there is little difference between experimental and control group ratings of HI and LD, though children in the experimental group rate PD higher than in the control group (Table 5).

Sociometric Preference

The final measures (sociometric preference) utilized the postbox measure. A number of significant interactions were identified when the “play with” data were analyzed. In line with past research (e.g., Maccoby & Jacklin, 1976), there was a significant interaction between gender of participating child and gender of stimuli, F(2, 35) = 7 2 . 0 3 , ~ < .001, which was revealed in a consistent and

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 27

Table 5

Mean Evaluations of Thinking

How well can these children think?

Stimuli (SS) Integrated

contact Time HI LD PD ND Marginals

Yes 1 2.0, 1.8bC 1.3b 4.2, 2.9 2 3.81, 3.5b 3.3b 4.8, 4.2 3 3.5b 3.21, 3.4b 4.5, 3.9

No 1 3.2, 2.51, 2.4b 4.4, 3.5 2 3.01, 2.7b 2.5b 4.1, 3.4 3 3.7, 3.2,b 2.8b 4.4, 3.8

Marginals 3.2 2.8 2.7 4.4

Note. HI = hearing impaired. LD = learning disability. PD = physical disability. ND = nondisabled. Means in row not sharing the same subscript are significantly different by Tukey’s HSD test, p < .05.

strong same gender preference throughout (Table 6) . More relevant for the hypothesis are the interactions involving contact, stimuli and time, F(6,222) =

9.1 1 ,p < .001. First, contact as a whole had a main effect (3.2 vs. 3.9), but this was qualified by time and type of stimulus as can be seen in the increased ratings of both DIS and ND stimuli in the experimental group between Time 1 and Time 2 (see marginal columns in Table 7 which show time effects just for the experimental group, collapsing across type of disability). In the control group, by contrast, the ratings showed little change over time.

Generalization

In order to examine ,generalization from the individual to the group, a compari- son was made between ratings of how much children wanted to play with known and unknown individual children with disabilities. Mean scores were computed for the children’s sociometric choice for the male and female known SLD children, and these were correlated with mean scores for sociometric preference

2128 MARAS AND BROWN

Table 6

Participating Children 's Mean Sociometric Preference

How well can these children think?

Stimuli (SS)

Disabled Nondisabled Integrated

contact Time Participants Girls Boys Girls Boys Marginals

Yes 1 Girls Boys

2 Girls Boys

3 Girls Boys

No I Girls Boys

2 Girls Boys

3 Girls Boys

Marginals

3.81, 3.0, 4.41, 1.9, 3.2 2.31, 2.6b 2.5b 3.9, 2.8 4.21, 4.01, 4.6b 4.0, 4.2 2.9b 3.3b 3.2b 4.4, 3.5 4.2b 3.8, 4.5b 3.7, 4.1 3.21, 3.4b 3.2b 4.2, 3.5

3.71, 2.9, 3.5& 3.2ab 3.3 2.4b 2.6b 2.61, 4.2, 3.0 3.9b 3.11, 3.8, 3.9, 3.7 2.3, 2.6b 2.81, 4.0, 2.9 2.91, 2.81, 3.5, 2.9ab 3.0 2.4ab 2.71, 2.7b 3.9, 2.9

3.1 3.0 3.3 3.7

Note. Means in row not sharing the same subscript are significantly different by Tukey's HSD test, p < .05.

of unknown girls and boys at Time 2 and Time 3, separately for experimental and control children.ll At Time 2 there were significant correlations in both the control and experimental groups, but the latter relationship was significantly higher than the former (2 = 2.57, p < .05). At Time 3 the correlations in each group were also high, but there was no difference between them (Table 8).

"As noted earlier, one child from the special school died during the period the study was conducted. Data for sociometric preference at Time 1 are not included in these analyses as they were collected prior to this child's death.

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 2129

Table 7

Participating Children ',s Mean Sociometric Preference for Disabled and Nondisabled Standard Stimuli in Experimental Condition Only

Stimuli ( S S )

Time Disabled Nondisabled Marginals

1 2.8 3.2 3.0 2 3.5 4.0 3.7 3 3.6 3.8 3.7

Marginals 3.2 3.6

Discussion

The results from this natural experiment demonstrate some consistent and powerful effects of contact in the applied context of integrated education for children with disabilities. As already noted, little recent research has focused on real situations, tending instead to be laboratory based. In our study, at the beginning of the prograim both experimental and control groups categorized on the same two main dimensions: gender and disability. However, by Time 3 children in the experimental group had ceased to use gender but continued to use disability, if in a more differentiated way. The control children persisted in using the broad categories of gender and disability. Thus, after only 3 months of structured and planned contact with the SLD children, children in the experimental group were using the category of disability in a more differenti- ated way and subtyping the different disabled groups. For example, in the study the category with which the children are having contact (LD) became more salient and generalized attitudes became more positive.

The evaluative data also provided some interesting changes over time. As with the categorization task, there were highly significant changes in the experimental (contact) group's attitudes over time. These changes were in a positive direction and were particularly evident on the measures of running, hearing, and thinking. On the first two dimensions, ratings of LD and PD children were significamtly higher at Time 2 and Time 3. Findings on the thinking measure were islightly less clear than on running and hearing, perhaps reflecting the abstract nature of the concept being rated. In addition, the children in the experimental group were aware that they would be involved in

21 30 MARAS AND BROWN

Table 8

Correlations Between Sociometric Preference for Known and Unknown Children With Disabilities

Time 2 Time 3

Experimental Control Difference between groups ( Z score)

0.90** 0.77** 0.53** 0.77** 2.57* 0.00

Note. Z scores * = significantp < .05, one-tailed. *p < .05. **p < .01.

the program and a number expressed uncertainty about participation in terms of their expectations and knowledge of the SLD children. This uncertainty may well be reflected in the low ratings of thinking given to the stimuli-particu- larly the PD children-at Time 1 of the study, and the increase in ratings of the stimuli over time. This is a particularly hopeful finding as the integrating children in the scheme all had SLD. In addition, a number of them were in wheelchairs and had PD as well as LD, so this might go some way toward explaining the similar rise in evaluations of the PD group.

The increased ratings over time on some of the evaluative measures were reflected in how much the children in the experimental group wanted to play with the SS. Over time, this increased significantly and bodes well for inte- grated contact of this kind. After all, the evaluative measures were more abstract constructs, while playing is probably one of the most important and salient activities for children. The data on sociometric preference also allowed us to look at the issue central to two models of contact: generalization. Again (though in this instance only partially) in support of the intergroup model, preference for known and unknown disabled children was more highly corre- lated in the experimental group than in the control group at Time 2 but by Time 3 there was no difference between the correlations. There are two possible reasons for these slightly less clear findings; first, the sample size in these analyses was rather low, and second, although the control class was not involved in the integration scheme, they did see the SLD children at playtimes and may well have played with them during these times.

The quasi-experiment lends support for integration when contact is organ- ized in a planned and structured way, and its findings have important implica- tions for policy and practice in terms of integration. In this study numbers of

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 31

children involved in the program were small, the collaborative work they engaged in was carefully planned and implemented, and there is a strong ethos in the schools of the importance of the integration of children with special educational needs. These are all factors identified by Allport (1954/1979) and others since as being important for successful contact. For example, recent work in support of Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) model has found that cooperation is an important component in improving attitudes (Vivian & Brown, 1993; Vivian et al., in press). In addition, after only 3 months of structured and planned contact with the SLD children, children in the experi- mental group were using the category of disability in a more differentiated way and subtyping the different disabled groups, a finding that lends some support to both models: Hewstone and Brown’s because the category with which the children are having contact (LD) has become more salient, a feature they would predict to be conducive to positive generalized attitude change; and Brewer and Miller (1984) because it might be theorized that this subtyping was a move toward personalization, and thus be in line with their view that categories have to be broken down to promote positive attitude change.

Our findings thus have a number of important implications for integrated schemes and programs. Ideally classes should be small and physical access should be as easy as possible. Nonteaching staff should be used effectively to ensure all children are adequately supported. Children with disabilities should be integrated into their local schools. Sessions involving integrated contact should be structured and involve cooperative tasks in which all participants should have clearly defined roles. Mainstream children and teachers should be well prepared for integration and be given basic information along with the opportunity to ask questions, and vice versa for children with disabilities and their teachers.

Although the children involved in the integrated program were prepared for the program, this preparation was not optimal and there was little preparation for the mainstream teachers or other children in the mainstream primary. This perhaps goes some way toward explaining that, while attitudes did significantly improve over time, DIS children were still consistently rated unfavorably in comparison to ND peers. In conclusion, anecdotal evidence from this study revealed that mainstream teachers and children had very mixed feelings about participating in future integrated projects, often feeling unprepared and under- resourced. It is likely that these attitudes of mainstream children and teachers will have an effect on the children with disabilities with whom they are having contact in the future. ]Findings from our work suggest that future research should focus both on pireparing mainstream children and teachers for integra- tion and on the effects of attitudes on children with disabilities integrated into mainstream schools.

2132 MARAS AND BROWN

References

Acton, H. M., & Zarbatany, L. (1988). Interaction and performance within cooperative groups: Effects on nonhandicapped students’ attitudes toward their mildly mentally retarded peers. American Journal of Mental Retar- dation, 95, 16-23.

Allport, G . W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley. (Original work published 1954)

Amir, Y. (1 969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulle- tin, 71,319-342.

Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. (1981). Effects of cooperative vs. individualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction between learning-disabled and normal-progress elementary school students. Con- temporary Educational Psychology, 6 , 102- 109.

Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Rogers-Croak, M., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 28 1-300). New York, NY: Academic.

Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Chil- dren, 51, 168-175.

Bryan, T., Donahue, M., & Pearl, R. (1981). Learning disabled children’s peer interactions during a small-group problem solving task. Learning Disabil- ity Quarterly, 4, 13-22.

Cavallaro, S. A., & Porter, R. H. (1980). Peer preferences of at risk and normally developing children in a pre-school mainstream classroom. American Journal of Mental DeJciency, 84,352-357.

Cheder, M. A. (1 965). Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the physically disabled. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 877-882.

Cook, S. W. (1978). Interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12,

Cowie, H., & Rudduck, J. (1990). Learning from one another: The challenge. In H. C. Foot, M. J. Morgan, & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 235-255). London, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1981). The Education Act. London, England: Her Majesties Stationary Office.

00, 28, 301-319.

97-1 13.

EFFECTS OF CONTACT 21 33

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1987). Third report of the House of Commons Educcztion, Science & Arts Committee. London, England: Her Majesties Statijonary Office.

Donaldson, J. (1980). Changing attitudes toward handicapped persons: A re- view and analysis of research. Exceptional Children, 46, 504-5 14.

Esposito, B. G., & Reed, T. M. (1986). The effects of contact with handi- capped persons on young children’s attitudes. Exceptional Children, 53,

Foot, H. C., Morgan, M. J., & Shute, R. H. (Eds.). (1990). Children helping children. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Fortini, M. E. (1987). Attitudes and behavior toward students with handicaps by their nonhandicapped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,

Furnham, A., & Gibbs, M. (1984). Schoolchildren’s attitudes towards the handicapped. Journal of Adolescence, 7, 99-1 17.

Hazzard, A. (1 983). Children’s experience with, knowledge of and attitudes towards disabled peers. Journal of Special Education, 17, 13 1 - 139.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflct ,in intergroup encounters (pp. 1 4 ) . Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Hornby, G. (1992). Integration of children with special educational needs: Is it time for a policy review? Support for Learning, 7, 130- 134.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). The integration of the handicapped into the regular classroom: Effects of cooperative and individualistic in- struction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6,344-353.

Johnson, R., Rynders, J., Johnson, D. W., Schmidt, B., & Haider, S. (1979). Interaction between handicapped and nonhandicapped teenagers as a func- tion of situational goal structuring: Implications for mainstreaming. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 16 1 - 167.

Katz, I., Hass, R., & Biailey, J. (1988). Attitudinal ambivalence and behavior toward people with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 47-57). New York, NY: Springer.

Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multi-dimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Langer, E., & Chanowitz, B. (1988). Mindfulness/mindlessness: A new per- spective for the study of disability. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 68-8 1). New York, NY: Springer.

Lewis, A., & Lewis, V. (1987). The attitudes of young children towards peers with severe learning difficulties. British Journal of Developmental Psy-

224-229.

91, 78-84.

chology, 5,287-292.

21 34 MARAS AND BROWN

Lewis, A., & Lewis, V. (1988). Young children’s attitudes after a period of integration, towards peers with severe learning difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 3, 161-172.

Lindsay, G. (1989). Assessing children with learning difficulties in the new ERA. Support for Learning, 4,209-215.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1976). Gender segregation in childhood. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, 20,239-287.

McConkey, R., McCormack, B., & Naughton, M. (1983). A national survey of young people’s perceptions of mental handicap. Journal of Mental DeJi- ciency Research, 27, 17 1 - 183.

Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analogue. Journal of Social Issues,

Pettigrew, T. F. (1971). Racially separate or together? New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Strauch, J. D. (1970). Social contact as a variable in the expressed attitudes of normal adolescents towards EMR pupils. Exceptional Children, 36,

Strohmer, D. C., Grand, S. A., & Purcell, M. J. (1984). Attitudes towards persons with a disability: An examination of demographic factors, social context, and specific disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 29, 13 1 - 145.

Tajfel, H. (1 978). Intergroup behavior. Individualistic perspectives. In H. Tajfel & C. Fraser (Eds.), Introducing social psychology (pp. 401-422). London, England: Penguin.

Vivian, J., & Brown, R. (1993, September). Salience of membership and intergroup contact: The effects of perceived typicality and outgroup homogeneity. Paper presented to the general meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal.

Vivian, J., Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (in press). Intergroup contact: Theoretical and empirical developments. In R. Ben-Ari & Y. Rich (Eds.), Under- standing and enhancing education for diverse students. An international perspective (pp. 1-47). Jerusalem, Israel: Bar-Ilam University Press.

Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Children’s attitudes towards handicapped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84,455-464.

Voeltz, L. M. (1984). Effects of structured interactions with severely handi- capped peers on children’s attitudes. American Journal of Mental Defi- ciency, 88, 380-390.

Wright, B. A. (1988). Attitudes and the fundamental negative bias: Conditions and corrections. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Springer.

41, 63-79.

485-494.


Top Related