University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2014
The perceptions of college students regarding
microaggressions toward people with disabilities
Junfei Lu
University of Iowa
Copyright 2014 Junfei Lu
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4684
Recommended Citation
Lu, Junfei. "The perceptions of college students regarding microaggressions toward people with disabilities." PhD (Doctor of
Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2014.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4684.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Rehabilitation and Therapy Commons
THE PERCEPTIONS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS REGARDING
MICROAGGRESSIONS TOWARD PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
by
Junfei Lu
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2014
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor John Wadsworth
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
_______________________
PH.D. THESIS
_______________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Junfei Lu
has been approved by the Examining Committee
for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Rehabilitation and Counselor Education at the May 2014
graduation.
Thesis Committee: ___________________________________
John Wadsworth, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Dennis Maki
___________________________________
Vilia Tarvydas
___________________________________
Timothy Ansley
___________________________________
Noel Estrada-Hernandez
ABSTRACT
In the literature, researchers have shown that although people tend to express their
positive attitudes toward people with disabilities (PWD), their internal reference about
PWD is still based on a negative image about disability. Particularly, some scholars have
noted that individuals without disabilities have both explicit favorable and implicit
unfavorable attitudes toward PWD. Meanwhile, other scholars have commented that
although negative implicit attitudes toward PWD are resistant to change, the expressions
of such attitudes have become more insidious than before. Such phenomena are called
microaggressions and have been explored from the perspective of PWD. However, there
is no research currently designed to understand how people without disabilities perceive
disability-related microaggressions.
The purpose of this study was to apply Q-methodology to investigate perceptions of
college students without disabilities regarding microaggressions toward PWD. This study
also explored differences in these perceptions in terms of students' close contact
experience with PWD, as well as their gender. The research questions include: (1) “How
many perceptions are there when college students without disabilities check statements of
disability-related microaggressions?” (2) “What are those perceptions?” (3) “Does gender
differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities when they check
statements of disability-related microaggressions?” and (4) “Do close contact experiences
with PWD differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities when they
check statements of disability-related microaggressions?”
This study mainly analyzed 18 participants’ data through Q-analysis, qualitative
content analysis, and split-plot comparison. The results showed that three unique
ii
perceptions existed when participants perceived microaggressions toward PWD. The first
perception disclosed participants’ support of fact-oriented understanding of PWD
(especially individuals who were blind or in a wheelchair), as well as their opposition to
inequality toward PWD. The second perception revealed participants’ good intention
concerning help and strength of PWD (especially individuals who were blind or in a
wheelchair), and their disagreement with inequality toward PWD. The third perception
indicated participants’ intention of helping PWD, assuming their helplessness, and
disagreement with inequality toward PWD. Finally, participants’ gender and close
contact experience with PWD did not differentiate those perceptions. The discussion,
limitations and implications of the study results will be presented.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
Overview of the Daily Experiences of People with Disabilities ......................1
Dual Attitudes Theory ......................................................................................2
Overview of the Changing Viewpoints about Disability and Their Impact .....3
A Cultural and/or Religious Viewpoint ...................................................3
A Biomedical Viewpoint .........................................................................4
A Functional/Environmental Viewpoint ..................................................5
A Socio-Political Viewpoint ....................................................................5
Factors That Influence Attitudes toward PWD ................................................6
Microaggressions .............................................................................................7
A Paradigm for Microaggressions ...........................................................8
Microaggressions toward PWD ...............................................................9
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................9
An Introduction to Q-methodology ...............................................................10
Perceptions and Attitudes .......................................................................10
Q-metholodolgy .....................................................................................10
The Purpose, the Rationales, and the Research Questions of the Study ........11
The Purpose of the Study ........................................................................11
The Rationales of the Study ....................................................................11
Microaggressions toward PWD .....................................................11
The Perception of Individuals without Disabilities about
Microaggressions toward PWD .....................................................12
College Students as Participants ....................................................13
Using Q-methodology....................................................................14
Variables of Gender and Close Contact Experience ......................14
Research Questions .................................................................................15
Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................15
Attitudes ..................................................................................................15
Close Contact Experience .......................................................................15
College Students .....................................................................................16
Microaggressions ....................................................................................16
Perception ...............................................................................................16
Q-statements ...........................................................................................16
Summary .........................................................................................................16
CHAPTER II. LITERITURE REVIEW ............................................................................17
Overview.........................................................................................................17
A Review of Social Attitudes toward PWD ...................................................17
Employment ..........................................................................................17
Healthcare Professions ..........................................................................19
Education ...............................................................................................21
A Hierarchy of Impairments..................................................................22
Dual Attitudes Theory ....................................................................................24
The Evolvement of the Understanding of Disability in the Society ...............26
Cultural and Religious Viewpoints ........................................................26
A Biomedical Viewpoint .......................................................................28
iv
A Functional/Environmental Viewpoint................................................30
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 .............................................................31
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ...................31
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIA) ..............................32
A Socio-Political Viewpoint ..................................................................33
Final Words on These Viewpoints ........................................................35
Factors That Influence and/or Change Attitudes toward PWD ......................36
Gender....................................................................................................36
Contact Experience with PWD ..............................................................37
A Changing Trend in Responses of People without Disabilities to PWD......38
Understanding Microaggressions through the Percpetions of People
without Disabilities .........................................................................................39
Microaggressions...................................................................................39
Microaggressions toward PWD.............................................................40
The Perceptions of People without Disabilities about
Microaggressions toward PWD.............................................................41
Perceptions from College Students without Disability about
Microaggressions...................................................................................42
Understanding of Q-methodology ..................................................................44
A Review of Q-methodology ................................................................44
Components in Q-methodology ............................................................47
Q-sample ........................................................................................47
P-sample.........................................................................................48
Condition of Instruction and the Scale...........................................49
Sorting Process...............................................................................49
Q-analysis ......................................................................................51
Summary .........................................................................................................52
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................53
Overview ........................................................................................................53
The Purpose Statement and Research Questions............................................53
Research Design and Data Analyses ..............................................................53
The Nature of the Study Design ............................................................53
Q-methogology (Q-analysis) .................................................................54
Q-sample ........................................................................................54
P-sample.........................................................................................56
Condition of Instruction .................................................................56
Factor Reliability ...........................................................................56
Qualitative Content Analysis.................................................................57
Split-plot Comparison ...........................................................................57
Programs for Data Analyses ..................................................................58
Participants .....................................................................................................58
Procedure ........................................................................................................59
Recruitment...........................................................................................59
Setting and Participants ........................................................................60
The Sorting Process ..............................................................................60
Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................62
Demographic Data Report .............................................................62
Q-analysis ......................................................................................63
Analysis of the Written Contents ...................................................65
Interpretation of Factors .................................................................67
v
Analysis of Split-plot Comparison.................................................68
The Limitation ................................................................................................69
Summary .........................................................................................................69
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................70
Demographic Information ..............................................................................70
Q-analysis .......................................................................................................71
Factors Retention ...................................................................................71
Factor Scores .........................................................................................72
Factor Interpretation .......................................................................................73
Domains of Microaggresions toward PWD ..........................................73
Types of Impairments ............................................................................74
Qualitative Content Analysis.................................................................75
Initial Analysis of 18 Participants’ Feedback ................................75
Help ........................................................................................76
Experiences ............................................................................76
Inequality ................................................................................77
Ability.....................................................................................77
Check for Saturation with 25 Females’ Feedback .........................78
The Further Analysis of 18 Participants’ Feedback Based on
Retained Factors.............................................................................78
Summary on Factor Interpretation .................................................80
Split-plot Comparison.....................................................................................81
Summary .........................................................................................................82
CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................................................94
Discussion of Study Outcomes.......................................................................94
Perceptions of People without Disabilities about Microaggressions
toward PWD ..........................................................................................94
Agreement of Statements ...............................................................95
Witness/Inquiry Experiences of PWD ...................................95
Emphasis on the Ability of PWD and Helping PWD ............96
Emphasis on Helping PWD While Assuming PWD’s
Helplessness ...........................................................................98
Perceptionss and Types of Impairments .................................98
Disagreement of Statements ..........................................................99
Implicit versus Explicit Attitudes toward PWD Regarding
Microaggressions .........................................................................100
Comparison of Perceptions Regarding Gender and Close Contact
Experience with PWD .........................................................................102
Limitations of the Study ...............................................................................103
Implications ..................................................................................................105
Suggestions for Educators and Policymakers in Postsecondary
Education .............................................................................................105
Suggestions for Future Studies ............................................................107
APPENDIX A STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPLE ....................................................109
APPENDIX B A SYSTEMATIC ORGANIZATION OF Q-STATEMENT..................112
vi
APPENDIX C PSEUDO-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF Q-STATEMENT ...............115
APPENDIX D DEMOSTRATION OF FLASHQ (Q SORTING PROGRAM) .............117
APPENDIX E FACTOR LOADINGS AND DISTINGUISHING STATEMENTS
FOR FOUR-FACTOR AND FIVE-FACTOR MODEL..............................127
APPENDIX F CONTENT ANALYSIS: MEANING UNITS FOR 18
PARTICIPANTS WHO WENT THROUGH ALL DATA ANALYSES ...132
APPENDIX G QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS: CODES RETRIEVED
FROM MEANING UNITS ..........................................................................139
APPENDIX H WRITTEN FEEDBACK FOR 25 FEMALE PARTICIPANTS .............141
APPENDIX I REORDERING EIGTHTEEN PARTICIPANTS’ FEEDBACK
BASED ON THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL ...........................................148
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................156
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Demographic Data of Both Groups of Participants .............................................84
Table 2. Eigenvalues for Factor Analysis (Un-rotated Factor Matrix) ..............................84
Table 3. Six-factor Model Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation) ......................................85
Table 4. Distinguishing Statements for the Six-Factor Model...........................................86
Table 5. Three-factor Model Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation) ...................................87
Table 6. Distinguishing Statements for Three-factor Model .............................................88
Table 7. Factor Scores for Three-Factor Model .................................................................89
Table 8. Estimated Marginal Means (Gender) ...................................................................90
Table 9. Tests of Within-Subjects Effects (Gender) ..........................................................90
Table 10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Gender) .....................................................91
Table 11. Estimated Marginal Means (Close Contact Experience) ...................................91
Table 12. Tests of Within-Subjects Effects (Close Contact Experience) ..........................92
Table.13 Tests of Between-Subjects Effect (Close Contact Experience) ..........................93
viii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Chapter I presents an overview of the current social attitudes toward people with
disabilities (PWD) and leads to the discussion of the dual attitudes theory. Next, the
author reviews four major viewpoints about disability that contribute to the formation of
various attitudes toward PWD, as well as factors that influence such attitudes. Based on
the understanding of those attitudes and their impacts, the concept of microaggressions
and its influences on PWD are presented. The author then discusses the necessity of
exploring microaggressions from people without disabilities, and introduces the Qmethodology to investigate those phenomena. Finally, the purpose, rationales, research
questions, and key terms regarding this study are described.
Overview of the Daily Experiences of People with
Disabilities
With society’s emphasis on equality, a more inclusive environment is available
for people with disabilities (PWD). For example, in the area of employment, most
employers, especially those from large companies, are interested in hiring PWD
(Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000; Levy, Jessop, Rimmerman, & Levy, 1991). In the
field of healthcare, helping professionals hold favorable viewpoints toward PWD
(Satchidanand et al., 2012; Tervo, Palmer, & Redinius, 2004). In an educational setting,
students with disabilities are encouraged and well accommodated to study with peers
without disabilities (Barr & Bracchitta, 2008). These facts tend to confirm that the current
social attitude toward PWD is positive, favorable, and optimistic.
Allport (1935) conceptualized attitude as “a mental and neural state of readiness,
organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the
individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related” (p. 810).
Simply put, attitude is a predisposition that drives one’s positive or negative responses
toward a person or an object. Although American society espouses favorable attitudes
2
toward PWD (as shown in the above examples), research findings in the literature fail to
consistently support the presence of such positive attitudes. In the workplace, employers
are still hesitant to hire individuals with disabilities (Hernandez et al., 2000; Kaye, Jans,
& Jones, 2011). The attitudes among healthcare professionals toward PWD vary
significantly across different fields (Tervo et al., 2004). Satchidanand et al. (2012) further
noticed that years of education about disability issues decreased helping professionals’
positive impressions toward clients with disabilities. In school settings, teachers’
attitudes toward students vary based on types of impairments possessed by students with
disabilities (Barr & Bracchitta, 2008; Hastings & Oakford, 2003). Besides the
aforementioned fields, scholars (Deal, 2003; Tringo, 1970; Westbrook, Legge, & Pennay,
1993) have documented society’s differing attitudes depending on a specific hierarchy of
impairments. In particular, those scholars noted that people with/without disabilities tend
to react more favorably toward individuals with physical (e.g., paraplegia/leg amputation)
and/or sensory (e.g., blind) disabilities than ones with brain-injured disabilities (e.g.,
epilepsy) and/or mental illnesses (e.g., bipolar disorder).
Dual Attitudes Theory
The above discussions indicate that (a) both positive and negative attitudes toward
PWD co-exist; and (b) one’s attitudes toward PWD are not static; it is changing along a
continuum (veering between positive and negative). One theoretical concern, however,
about attitudes that fluctuate centers on “When an attitude changes from A1 to A2. What
happens to A1?” (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000, p. 101). To shed light on this,
Wilson et al. (2000) posited that the Dual Attitudes Theory, separating attitudes into
implicit and explicit ones, was in effect. This theory highlights that both attitudes co-exist
instead of replacing one with the other. Compared to explicit attitudes, Wilson et al.
(2000) considered implicit attitudes to:
(a) have an unknown origin (i.e., people are unaware of the basis
of their evaluation); (b) are activated automatically; and (c)
influence implicit responses, namely, uncontrollable responses and
3
ones that people do not view as an expression of their attitude and
thus do not attempt to control. (p. 104)
As a result, implicit attitudes are association-based and automatically emerge
when a person encounters a target, if such attitudes have been previously embedded in
that person’s memory. In contrast, people who disclose explicit attitudes base those on a
consciously evaluative process. Wilson et al. (2000) noted that one needs cognitive
capacity and motivation to determine the valence (i.e., positive or negative) of one’s
explicit attitudes. Bowditch, Buono, and Stewart (2008) perceived explicit attitudes as
ones that “individuals prefer and espouse when given time to reflect or consider the
relevant situation/stimuli” (p. 58).
In studies on disability issues, the exploration of implicit attitudes toward PWD is
far from being fully investigated. However, the extant literature supports the fundamental
belief that implicit attitudes are negative (Prutee & Chan, 2006; Vezzali & Capozza,
2011). Regarding explicit attitudes toward PWD, the valence of such attitudes varies
according to context presented (e.g., general versus specific evaluations of PWD’s
employability; Hernandez et al., 2000). Attitudes (either implicit or explicit) are learned
from family/cultural traditions, as well as from personal life experiences and
observations. One of the main factors that shapes and reshapes individual and societal
attitudes toward PWD is the changing viewpoint about disability around the world.
Overview of the Changing Viewpoints about Disability and
Their Impact
A Cultural and/or Religious Viewpoint
Historically, disability has been often viewed as a tragedy, a disgrace, and/or a
punishment from God for sins or wrongdoings (Rubin & Roessler, 2001). Disability is
seen to be morally wrong. In ancient Greece and Rome (450 B.C.), a person’s disability
was thought to have been caused by some supernatural power due to an individual’s evil
spirit (Hergenhahn, 2001). In eastern Asia (e.g., China or Korea), disability was linked to
wrongdoings or to the sins a person committed in their past life. As a result, having a
4
family member with disabilities became a shameful secret, and society negated any merit
an individual with disabilities might possibly have (Kim-Rupnow, 2001; Miles, 1995).
The impact of cultural and/or religious beliefs toward PWD still plays a significant role.
Responses toward PWD in Asian countries, such as Korea (Kim-Rupnow, 2001) and the
Philippines (Harper, 1999), as well as countries in Africa (Munyi, 2012), vary greatly
(e.g., from awe to shame), depending on their traditional beliefs about the origins of
disability.
A Biomedical Viewpoint
With the improvement in the field of medicine in the late 19th century, people
began to view disability as a disease (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004). As Smart (2004)
disclosed,
There are two important components of this [medical] model. First,
pathology must be present, and second, the pathology is located
within the individual. Disability is not viewed as a valued
difference, but as deviance from a desired normality or standard of
evaluation. (p. 30)
Based on this point of view, there was no moral meaning attached to disability.
Therefore, PWD as well as their families could be released from the moral burden
imposed by the presence of a physical or mental impairment. In addition, further
developments in the field of medicine enhanced the survival rate and quality of life for
individuals with disabilities. Consequently, attitudes toward PWD changed positively,
since disability could be adjusted or treated (Smart & Smart, 2006). In present times,
PWD have become more active in their search for treatment. However, there are many
examples where they still passively receive medications or adjustments according to
medical experts’ clinical decisions (Smart & Smart, 2006). In addition, people without
disabilities tend to see a person’s diagnosis (e.g., depression) instead of his/her other
characteristics (Westbrook et al., 1993). In essence, this biomedical perception still
separates PWD from the majority (people without disabilities) because they are viewed as
deviating from normality.
5
A Functional/Environmental Viewpoint
After World Wars I and II, the word “disability,” entered its third phase,
specifically in the U.S., related primarily to an ability to work (with an emphasis on
individual function and working environment, also called a functional/environmental
viewpoint toward disability). The underlying reasons stemmed from examining the
potential workability of numerous soldiers who survived after being severely wounded
(Peterson & Aguiar, 2004). Correspondingly, a series of legislations were initially
enacted to help veterans return to work, which were later also extended to any citizen
with physical, mental, developmental, cognitive, and emotional disabilities (Bruyere &
Reiter, 2012). Moreover, the factor of physical environments that precluded PWD from
having a job were noticed and identified by rehabilitation experts and by the PWD
themselves; therefore, environmental barriers were gradually removed to ensure full
access for employees with disabilities. With that trend, vocational rehabilitation
counseling was formed in order to take on the main responsibility to help PWD.
Individuals with disabilities were then encouraged to participate in the process of making
a plan for their rehabilitation (i.e., going back to the workforce). However, this
functional/environmental viewpoint toward disability did not fundamentally influence
society’s current view of PWD. First of all, an over-emphasis on workability does not
necessarily benefit those individuals who suffer severe disabilities and cannot return to
work (Smart & Smart, 2006). Second, an over-emphasis on work devalues other activities
PWD might enjoy in their lives (Smart & Smart, 2006). Third, any deep-rooted beliefs
based on religious/cultural and/or the biomedical viewpoint toward disability still play a
significant role that counterbalances the positive outcomes produced by the
functional/environmental viewpoint.
A Socio-Political Viewpoint
In essence, all the aforementioned viewpoints consider “disability” an individual
issue. For society, it appears that people without disabilities are free of any responsibility
6
to change any negative attitudes toward PWD. Prejudice, stereotype, and discrimination
are seen elsewhere (Smart & Smart, 2006). However, starting from the 1960s, with the
Independent Living movement and Disability Rights movement (Smart, 2004), some
social activists, especially those with disabilities, claimed that disability is a social
construction (Smart, 2004). In other words, it was the social environment as well as
social attitudes toward PWD that shaped/exacerbated the situations PWD faced.
Therefore, opponents of this social-political viewpoint proposed that first and foremost,
environmental factors as well as negative attitudes (prejudice, discrimination) that
preclude PWD from joining mainstream societies should be altered. Consequently, laws
such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
were implemented to create a more accessible environment with less discrimination.
Factors That Influence Attitudes toward PWD
The above review of the changing viewpoints about disability shed light on the
foundation of the conflict between implicit and explicit attitudes toward PWD. More
often than not, people develop a deep rooted aversive evaluation about disability (implicit
attitudes) because of negative cultural values, abnormality, as well as PWD’s inability to
work. However, social justice encourages and engages more and more individuals to alter
their negative attitudes (implicit) towards PWD, changing their attitudes to nondiscriminating ones (explicit). At the same time, scholars have reported a number of
factors that could influence the valence of individuals’ explicit attitudes. Two factors –
gender and one’s contact experience with PWD – have been widely explored and their
effects are consistent across studies (Chan, Lee, Yuen, & Chan, 2002; Chen, Brodwin,
Cardosa, & Chan, 2002; Choi, 2006; Donnell, Alston, Hampton, & Bell, 1999; Eberhardt
& Mayberry, 2003; Grames & Leverentz, 2010; Hernandez et al., 2000; Hergenrather &
Rhodes, 2007; MacLean & Gannon, 1995; Stachura, 2007; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989;
Westbrook et al., 1993).
7
Specifically, studies disclosed that compared to males, females generally hold
more positive attitudes toward PWD (Chen et al., 2002; Choi, 2006; Donnell et al., 1999;
Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; MacLean & Gannon, 1995; Satchidanand et al., 2012).
One explanation is that females are more empathetic than males (Jones & Stone, 1995).
Therefore, empathy is a core component to improve attitudes toward PWD. In addition,
scholars also noticed that close contact experiences with PWD serve to promote
individuals’ attitudes toward them (Hernandez et al., 2000; Klooster et al., 2009; Lyons,
1990; Stachura, 2007; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989). These experiences do not emphasize
how frequently a person meets with PWD, but highlight what relationships exist between
individuals with and without disabilities. Specifically, people who have close friends
and/or co-workers with disabilities hold positive attitudes toward PWD (Klooster et al.,
2009). However, beside these scholars, who are interested in promoting positive attitudes
toward PWD, several others are alert to the fact that negative attitudes toward PWD still
exist and impact individuals’ reactions toward PWD, albeit in a subtle manner. (Keller &
Galgay, 2010).
Microaggressions
In today’s society, it is less likely for someone to overtly act out any deep-rooted
discrimination toward PWD. Findler, Vilchinsky, and Werner’s (2007) study, which
explored attitudes toward PWD from cognitive, affective, and behavioral angles, found
that participants were inclined to act more positively toward PWD than their actual selfrated thoughts and feelings indicated about them. From a broader standpoint, Sue (2010a)
has proposed the concept of microaggressions to highlight that, although the current
political environment does not tolerate overt expressions of discrimination/prejudice
toward one’s race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and disability, negative attitudes
toward people from minority groups have not been totally eliminated or suppressed. In
fact, researchers (Constantine, Smith, Redinton, & Owens, 2008; Sue, 2010a) have
reported that people in minority groups (e.g., based on race, gender, or disability)
8
experience more insidious forms of prejudice/discrimination than before, and this
discrimination may lead to psychological as well as physical harm.
A Paradigm for Microaggressions
According to Sue (2010a), microaggressions are “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and
environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that
communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely
upon their marginalized group membership” (p. 3). For a better understanding of this
phenomenon, Sue et al., (2007) proposed a paradigm that specifically applied to
microaggressive experiences suffered by people from racial minorities. In this paradigm,
Sue subdivided individuals’ racial microaggressions into three subsets: microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations. Microassaults are expressed by verbally/nonverbally violent behaviors in which perpetrators are aware of what they are doing and
purposefully conduct these derogatory behaviors toward people from minority groups.
These behaviors reflect perpetrators’ explicitly negative attitudes. In contrast,
microinsults or microinvalidations are often unconsciously and automatically conducted
by perpetrators, thereby tending to reveal their implicit attitudes toward target people.
Microinsults are “behaviors/verbal remarks or comments that convey rudeness,
insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 278),
while “microinvalidations are verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or
nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color”
(Sue et al., 2007, p. 278). In the following years, researchers have conducted a number of
studies to validate Sue et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of racial microaggressions
(Nadal, 2011; Torres-Harding, Andrade, & Romero-Diaz, 2012). Moreover, other
scholars also claimed that this paradigm would be a useful framework to explore other
vulnerable groups, including females (Owen, Tao, & Rodolfa, 2010) and lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT) (Balsam et al., 2011).
9
Microaggressions toward PWD
As mentioned above, the research on microaggressions is relatively new and
current studies on minorities are mainly related to issues of race, gender, and sexual
orientation. Research on microaggressions experienced by PWD is virtually nonexistent.
Keller and Galgay’s (2010) qualitative study on the microaggressive experiences of
participants with different physical or mental impairments perhaps presents the only
detailed description. Researchers reported that although negative attitudes toward PWD
might not explicitly present themselves, such attitudes still form a series of assumptions
about an individual’s disability. When people without disabilities communicate with
PWD, these assumptions may lead to trivial but prejudicial behaviors (verbal and nonverbal). For example, a person without disabilities might unintentionally avoid eye
contact with PWD (i.e., an example of microinsult) during a conversation. Similarly, an
individual without disabilities might praise (verbal-behavior) an adult with intellectual
disabilities for whatever he/she has done. The hidden message of such a compliment
might indicate that PWD do not have the capability of performing the task that is being
praised. These instances are only a snapshot of stories about microaggression suffered by
PWD. Building upon Sue et al.’s paradigm (2007), Keller and Galgay’s (2010)
qualitative study discovered eight major domains of microaggressions that PWD
experienced.
Statement of the Problem
The former sections have disclosed the fact that PWD, in today’s society, are
more likely to experience microaggressions instead of the overt expressions of dislike or
discrimination communicated by people without disabilities. These derogatory
experiences still confirm the fact that at least implicitly, social attitudes toward PWD
remain negative, regardless of the attitudes people without disabilities express. Keller and
Galgay (2010) provided convincing evidence that verifies PWD’s daily microaggressive
experiences in current society. Nevertheless, there is, thus far, no research to disclose
10
how individuals without disabilities perceive these phenomena. As Sue et al (2007)
noticed, more often than not, people without disabilities are unaware (i.e., implicit in
nature) of their microaggressive behaviors toward people from marginalized groups (e.g.,
minorities, LGBT, and disability). Therefore, the exploration of the perceptions of
people without disabilities toward disability-related microaggressions could help scholars
not only understand those perceptions, but develop strategies to enhance public
awareness of microaggressions toward PWD. This is the major motivation behind this
study.
An Introduction to Q-Methodology
Perceptions and Attitudes
The main approach that the current author used to explore the perceptions of
microaggressions of individuals without disabilities toward PWD is called Qmethodology. Developed by Stephenson in 1935, this approach has been widely used by
researchers in the following decades to examine human perceptions (Brown, 1980; Hyun,
2010; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Shaver & Scheibe, 1967; Webler, Danielson, & Tuler,
2009). Perception refers to the “way in which we interpret messages from our senses to
provide some order and meaning to our environment” (Bowditch et al., 2008, p. 41). The
purpose of exploring perception is to investigate how people interpret a phenomenon.
This interpretation process varies subjectively from individual to individual, according to
each person’s particular way of understanding the phenomenon. Bowditch et al. (2008)
noted that “people tend to interpret this information [a phenomenon] in a way that is
congruent with their sets of beliefs, values, and attitudes, which are shaped by larger
cultural and environmental experiences” (p. 41). Therefore, one’s perception toward a
phenomenon relates to his/her attitudes regarding that phenomenon.
Q-methodology
Q-methodology is a well-developed method that examines the constructs (e.g.,
perception) of human subjectivity. It starts with asking participants to sort Q-samples
11
comprised of statements about a phenomenon of interest. In so doing, individuals are
expected to carefully illustrate their understanding of a set phenomenon, in terms of the
degree of significance attributed to each statement. The researchers then apply a
systematic examination (e.g., factor analysis) of each participant’s sorting of statements
in order to discern “how many groups people with common or similar thoughts, attitudes,
and personal values for phenomena or objects are divided into, and analyze
characteristics, differences and similarities of each group” (Hyun, 2010, p.74). Similar to
qualitative studies, Q-methodology does not focus on generalization but on understanding
a phenomenon. However, this understanding is based on a well-grounded quantitative
analysis of the data (i.e., sorted statements). As a result, Q-methodology employs both
quantitative and qualitative features when studying a phenomenon.
The Purpose, the Rationales, and the Research Questions of
the Study
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to apply Q-methodology to investigate perceptions of
college students without disabilities regarding microaggressions toward PWD. In
addition, this study will explore any differences in these perceptions in terms of students'
close contact experience with PWD, as well as their gender.
The Rationales of the Study
Microaggressions toward PWD
The principal reasons to investigate microaggressions toward PWD include:
•
Due to the great impact of the socio-political force that is against prejudice and
discrimination toward PWD, openly aversive verbal/non-verbal behaviors that
devalue the dignity of these persons is less likely to be observed in contemporary
society. However, PWD and researchers (Keller & Galgay, 2010) continuously
report that discrimination still exists, but manifests itself in an insidious manner
(microaggressions). It is insidious because these behaviors (e.g., avoiding eye-
12
contact) may be deemed trivial and often occur so rapidly (Keller & Galgay,
2010) that PWD do not even notice and/or have time to process their thinking. In
addition, it is not unusual that these behaviors may stem from good intentions
(i.e., wanting to help). Often, people without disabilities are unaware that they
have prejudicial assumptions such as PWD are not capable.
•
According to Sue (2010a), as well as Keller and Galgay (2010), the detrimental
effects of microaggressions toward PWD are that these experiences always
contain conflicting information, so that PWD are confused about the intentions of
people who convey them. As a result, PWD cannot properly respond to the
negative influences due to microaggressive behaviors they encounter. For
example, emotionally, PWD might feel frustrated, enraged, insulted, and
invisible, while cognitively, they are unable to figure out the true intentions (i.e.,
good versus bad) of persons who interact with them. Due to this confusion, PWD
consistently experience difficulties to determine how to properly respond to
microaggressions in their daily lives (Keller & Galgay, 2010).
The Perception of Individuals without Disabilities about
Microaggressions toward PWD
As aforementioned, when people without disabilities respond to PWD in a
microaggressive manner, the former are not aware of the detrimental effects of their
actions. Moreover, it is not uncommon that people without disabilities perform
microaggressively even with a good intention (e.g., provide help). This lack of awareness
or distorted awareness implies that people without disabilities might perceive
microaggressions toward PWD differently from PWD themselves. The exploration of
perceptions of people without disabilities about microaggressions toward PWD then
could help reveal: (1) to what extent, people without disabilities are aware of various
forms of microaggressions toward PWD; (2) to what extent, individuals without
disabilities are similar or dissimilar to each other in terms of those perceptions; and (3) on
13
which aspects of disability-related microaggressions scholars should focus to enhance the
awareness of individuals without disabilities regarding its existence so as to interact more
appropriately with PWD.
College Students as Participants
Since microaggressions toward PWD are widespread (Keller & Galgay, 2010) but
the perceptions toward these phenomena held by people without disabilities are rarely
investigated, the main purpose of this study is to explore individuals’ perceptions rather
than explore a specific population. Therefore, the researcher has chosen the target
population because of their accessibility, as well as the potential influences of this study’s
outcomes on this target population. The reasons of selecting college students without
disabilities are as follows:
•
They are geographically accessible to the current researcher
•
Both §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 prohibit any type of discrimination toward PWD in postsecondary
educational institutions, including public and private ones. Students with
disabilities, therefore, are encouraged and expected to be well accommodated to
pursue higher education, if they so desire (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004).
Consequently, a growing number of college students with disabilities are able to
attend institutions of higher learning. As a result, those students might
increasingly encounter cohorts without disabilities in classrooms, in workplaces
(on-campus), in their practica, or while living on-campus.
•
Due to this trend of an increasing number of interactions, an exploration of the
perceptions of college students without disabilities about microaggressions toward
PWD can provide meaningful insights for educators and policy makers in higher
education to develop educational and/or university guidelines to enhance the
awareness of those students regarding microaggressive behaviors.
14
•
In addition, this initial exploration of these perceptions could help interested
scholars, researchers, and educators expand their understanding of those
phenomena, and facilitate further investigations regarding microaggressions
toward PWD.
Using Q-methodology
The major reason to apply Q-methodology is because of its pervasive usage in
the literature in investigating individual perceptions toward a phenomenon (Brown, 1980;
Hyun, 2010; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Shaver & Scheibe, 1967; Webler et al., 2009).
Since perception refers to “the way in which we interpret messages from our sense to
provide some order and meaning to our environment” (Bowditch et al., 2008, p. 41), an
approach that takes individuals’ subjectivity into its analysis process fits better with the
nature of perception than others that do not (e.g., an inventory). Q-methodology was
initially developed for noting human subjectivity in people’s evaluations. As a result, this
method is adopted as the main way to examine participants’ perceptions about
microaggressions toward PWD.
Variables of Gender and Close Contact Experience
Both of these variables have been widely investigated by researchers (Au & Man,
2006; Chan et al., 2002; Choi, 2006; Chen et al., 2002; Donnell et al., 1999; Hergenrather
& Rhodes, 2007; MacLean & Gannon, 1995; Satchidanand et al., 2012) in studies that
explore people’s attitudes toward PWD. In terms of the effects of these two variables, the
following conclusions were generally consistent: (a) females exhibited more positive
attitudes (implicit and explicit) toward PWD than males; and (b) having a close contact
experience (e.g., having a friend or a family member with disabilities) with PWD help
improve these attitudes. Bowditch et al. (2008) noted that an individual’s perception is
usually consistent with his/her beliefs, values, and attitudes. Therefore, perception and
attitude are related. Due to this relationship, the current study will investigate whether the
15
variables of gender and close contact experience with PWD can also differentiate
participants’ perceptions regarding microaggressions toward PWD.
Research Questions
Research question 1: How many perceptions are there when college students
without disabilities check statements of disability-related microaggressions?
Research question 2: What are those perceptions?
Research question 3: Does gender differentiate perceptions of college students
without disabilities when they check statements of disability-related microaggressions?
Research question 4: Do close contact experiences with PWD differentiate
perceptions of college students without disabilities when they check statements of
disability-related microaggressions?
Definitions of Terms
The previous section presents the purpose, rationales, and research questions
regarding the current study. This section aims to conceptually and/or operationally clarify
several key terms that are applied in this study. The goal is to help readers have a clear
mind of what will be explored in this research. These terms are attitudes, close contact
experience, college students, microaggressions, perception, and Q-statements.
Attitudes
“A mental and neutral state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a
directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations
with which it is related” (Allport, 1935, p. 810).
Close Contact Experience
In this study, contact experience is concerned with the social relationship
established between people with and without disabilities. Social relationships in the
current study are limited to friend, classmate, parent, spouse, relative, co-worker, or
neighbor. Close contact experience mainly refers to the relationships listed above.
16
College Students
In this study, college students are limited to individuals, who have registered as
full-time undergraduate students during the fall semester of 2013, aged between 18 and
25 at the target university.
Microaggressions
“Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights,
snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,
derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized
group membership” (Sue, 2010a, p. 3).
Perception
Perception refers to the “way in which we interpret messages from our senses to
provide some order and meaning to our environment” (Bowditch et al., 2008, p. 41).
Q-statements
Q-statements are “a collection of stimulus items that [are] presented to
respondents for rank- ordering” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). In this study, these
statements (see Appendix A) are samples of daily microaggressive experiences
experienced by PWD.
Summary
Chapter I gives an abstract review of social attitudes toward PWD, changing
viewpoints about disability and their influences on such attitudes, and factors that impact
those attitudes. This review leads to the topic of microaggressions toward PWD and the
focus of the current study. The next chapter (Chapter II) gives a detailed review of the
literature regarding all major subjects mentioned in the present chapter.
17
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
This chapter presents the literature review on the current research about social
attitudes toward PWD, the evolvement of the perceptions toward disability, factors that
influence and change perceptions (attitudes) toward PWD, microaggressions in regards
with PWD, and a detail description of Q-methodology. The purpose of chapter II is to
help readers have a comprehensive background information of why it is necessary to
conduct this study.
A Review of Social Attitudes toward PWD
It is not uncommon in today for a person without disabilities to encounter
someone with disabilities in the classroom or at a work site. Such scenarios are seen as
commonplaces, but in reality, PWD have strived for an equal access for decades. Studies
(Barr and Bracchitta, 2008; Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000; Levy, Jessop,
Rimmerman, & Levy, 1991; Satchidanand et al., 2012; Tervo, Palmer, & Redinius, 2004)
have shown that although people without disabilities present favorable attitudes toward
PWD, it does not replace the fact that those people are still suspicious about PWD’s
abilities, keep distance from them, and thus treat them unequally.
Employment
As early as the 1990s, Levy et al. (1991) reported that human resource executives
among Fortune 500 industrial and service corporations in the United States presented a
positive perception of hiring people with severe disabilities. One of the major legislation
powers that facilitated the formation of these favorable viewpoints was due to the
implementation of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (McFarlin, Song, & Sonntag, 1991). In
addition, the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 further
shaped this positive perception.
18
Nevertheless, Hernandez et al.’s (2000) survey report cautioned the public that
employers’ attitudes toward PWD might only be positive in a global manner. Hernandez
and colleagues conducted a systematic review on 37 articles (starting from 1987 through
1999) regarding employers’ attitudes toward workers with disabilities. They found that,
first of all, the concept of attitudes toward PWD varied across individual studies.
Basically, there were two ways to measure employers’ attitudes – global and specific
attitudes. Global attitudes “are evaluative responses concerning a general topic that
typically do not involve declaring planned actions or intentions” (p. 5). An example could
be “Disabled people are often unfriendly” from the Attitudes toward Disabled Persons
scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). On the contrary, specific attitudes “have a
narrow scope and may include a statement of intended behavior. For instance, some
studies examine participants’ expressed willingness to employ workers with disabilities”
(Hernandez et al., 2000, p.5). Second, because of the different attitudes, Hernandez et al.
(2000) disclosed that when global attitudes toward PWD were assessed, employers
commonly presented positive responses in studies. In detail, Hernandez et al. noticed that
the commonalities among these studies were “1) assessment of global attitudes, 2) use of
local employer samples, 3) focus on disabilities in general without specifying a particular
kind of disability, and 4) use of standardized scales” (p. 7). However, if the specific
attitudes were the topics of concern, employers were more likely to elicit negative
attitudes toward PWD, especially when a particular disability was the major concern to
the workplace (e.g., epilepsy). In addition, in their study, they also highlighted that there
was an inconsistency between employers’ willingness to hire PWD and their actual hiring
records. Thus, the positive attitudes reflected from a global measurement of attitudes
might indicate a socially desirable response rather than actual viewpoints.
Taking a step further, Kaye, Jans, and Jones (2011) investigated why employers
did not hire and/or retain workers with disabilities. Before they started the research, they
were aware of the potential factors that might preclude them from receiving reliable
19
feedback. These were (1) employers were not honest enough, and/or (2) only employers
with positive attitudes were willing to participate in the study. To prevent these two
barriers, Kays et al. solicited information mainly from employers “known or reputed to
be reluctant to complying with disability non-discrimination laws” (p. 527) and
employers were asked to predict “why other employers might not hire or retain PWD”
(p.527). Samples of Employers’ contact information were mainly obtained from
Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC) – Pacific ADA Center,
which had a data-base for those employers who were not willing to conform to ADA. In
total, 463 respondents (i.e., employers) completed the survey, which centered on the
concerns of reasons for not hiring/retaining workers with disabilities and strategies to
overcome this unwillingness. The results showed that costs of accommodations, not
knowing of how to deal with workers with disabilities, fear of being stuck with lawsuits,
difficulty assessing an individual’s ability to work, extra time on supervision, and
discrimination were among the factors for not hiring/retaining workers with disabilities.
In sum, although employers generally disclosed favorable attitudes toward hiring
PWD, in practice, their actual behaviors were not consistent with their expressed
intentions. Deeply-rooted negative attitudes toward individuals with disabilities still
shape the mainstreaming viewpoints or myths about disability as well as people who have
it. The similar results also occur in the field of healthcare.
Healthcare Professions
In general, healthcare professionals and students hold positive attitudes toward
PWD. For example, Tervo et al. (2004) did a cross-sectional study to explore health
professional students’ attitudes toward PWD. In total, 338 university students completed
the survey (241 nursing students, 46 medical students, and 51 other health professional
students). Two attitude inventories were administered to all of these respondents –
Attitudes toward Disabled People Scale (ATDP) and Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled
Persons (SADP). Both scales had high reliability and validity. The higher the scores on
20
both scales, the more positive attitudes students held toward PWD. The results indicated
that although health professional students tended to have higher scores on ATDP, they
consistently received lower scores on SADP, compared with non-health professional
students’ norms on the two scales respectively. Moreover, nursing students obtained
even lower scores on SADP than their counterparts (medical students and other health
professional students). The authors did not provide a clear explanation for this finding.
However, they noticed that for these nursing students, most of them were mature students
with working experience in the medical and rehabilitation settings. Thus, the authors
suspected that their experiences in these settings might have rendered them unfavorable
viewpoints toward PWD, since people there were commonly dysfunctional.
Likewise, Satchidanand et al. (2012) identified 22 studies using quantitative
designs from 1950 to 2012, which focused on healthcare professionals and students’
attitudes toward people with physical disabilities. In this systematic review, they found
that overall, “healthcare students and providers demonstrate generally favorable attitudes
toward people with physical disabilities” (p. 540). However, Satchidanand et al. (2012)
cautioned the healthcare field that for some specific areas, such as nursing or medicine,
students’ positive attitudes toward PWD tended to decrease in time. The study did not
provide a clear clue of why it happened, but the topic needs to be seriously investigated.
Besides quantitative studies, researchers also conducted qualitative studies to
describe a more vivid picture of patients’ experiences with their health professionals.
Holloway, Sofaer-Bennett, and Walker (2007) completed a study on patients with chronic
back pain. The main purpose, as mentioned by these scholars, was “to explore and
conceptulise the experiences of people of working age who seek help from pain clinics
for chronic back pain” (p. 1456). They used a qualitative method to capture participants’
real experiences in their daily process of seeking treatment on back pain. In total, there
were twelve males and six females joining the research. An unstructured interview with
minimum usage of probing questions, such as “tell me a bit more about that” (p. 1457),
21
was employed to encourage participants to describe their lively stories in interacting with
personnel in the pain clinic. One of the major findings was that stigma was pervasive
among pain clinic personnel, especially when there was no biomechanical support for
participants’ back pain (e.g., X-rays or MRI scans did not signal any physical problems in
the back). In such cases, healthcare professionals were inclined to use psychological
explanations, which resulted in their doubting the honesty of what participants were
saying about their sufferings. Specifically, Holloway et al. (2007) called this phenomenon
a “moral stigma.”
Education
Regarding education, researchers noticed that the degree of positive attitudes
educators hold toward students with disabilities is proportional to different types of
disabilities students possess. In particular, students with behavioral/emotional problems
suffered the least positive attitudes, followed by those with intellectual disabilities, while
children with physical disabilities experienced the most positive ones. Barr and
Bracchitta (2008) conducted a study to explore pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward
students with disabilities. Specifically, they focused on three groups of students with
different disabilities – physical (a person in a wheelchair), developmental (mental
retardation), and behavioral (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). A total of 140
students (20 males and 120 females) participated in the study, with a mean age of 19.
Barr and Bracchitta applied the Scales of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons (SADP) to
measure respondents’ attitudes and reported that pre-service teachers held more favorable
attitudes toward students with physical disabilities than those with developmental and
behavioral disabilities. Barr and Bracchitta (2008) explained that this finding might be
due to the fact that physical disability was more visible. Pre-service teachers were more
easily able to understand the origin of a physical disability rather than the source(s) of
mental and behavioral problems.
22
Moreover, Hastings and Oakford (2003) completed an investigation in the United
Kingdom on student teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of children with
behavioral/emotional issues, as well as those with intellectual challenges. Overall, 93
student teachers took part in the study (14 males and 79 females) with a mean age of 26.
Participants were requested to finish two forms including demographic information and a
form called the Impact of Inclusion Questionnaire (IIQ). IIQ was an inventory to examine
students’ (with special needs) impact on themselves, other students, the teachers, and
school or classroom environment. Two versions of the IIQ were administered by
researchers in their study – one for students with intellectual disabilities and the other one
for children with emotional/behavioral problems. In the results section, Hastings and
Oakford (2003) noticed that “children with emotional and behavioral problems were
rated as likely to have a more negative impact on other children, the teacher, and the
school and classroom environment [than children with intellectual disabilities]” (p. 92).
The study also revealed that for children with behavioral/emotional problems their age
played a significant role in modifying student teachers’ attitudes toward them.
Specifically, student teachers reacted more favorable toward older children. The results
obtained from these two studies were quite representative, since both studies’ conclusions
are consistent with former studies (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Furnham &
Gibbs, 1984).
A Hierarchy of Impairments
In addition to the findings from the above specific areas, scholars have noted
(Mastro, Burton, Rosendahl, & Sherrill, 1996; Tringo, 1970; Westbrook, Legge, &
Pennay, 1993) a general trend among people with/without disabilities regarding their
preference toward types of impairments possessed by PWD. It is called the hierarchy of
preference toward disability groups (Tringo, 1970).
Tringo (1970) developed a Disability Social Distance Scale to investigate whether
the degree of closeness of people without disabilities toward PWD varied according to
23
types of impairments. In his study, a total of 455 students spanning high school,
undergraduate, and graduate school completed the scale. The results verified the
assumption of the existence of an ordered relationship among various sorts of
impairments. Particularly, physical and sensory impairments were more favorable than
psychogenic (e.g., mental health) and brain-injured (e.g., epilepsy) impairments.
This trend of preference was also reported by Westbrook and her colleagues’
(1993) study involving 665 individuals without disabilities from six different ethnic
groups. The participants were health care practitioners in Sydney, Australia, and
belonged to the following groups: Chinese, Italian, German, Greek, Arabic, and Anglo
Australian. They were contacted by phone to ensure their willingness to participate and
then mailed a questionnaire once they agreed to join. In total, 665 individuals participated
in the research. Their fields included medical practitioners, physical and occupational
therapists, nurses, dentists and social workers. The questionnaire requested participants to
rank their attitudes toward 20 various types of disabling conditions (e.g., asthma,
diabetes, dwarf, and paraplegia) on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = “No Acceptance” and
5 = “Full acceptance.” The results indicated that “in all communities, people with asthma,
diabetes, heart disease and arthritis were the most [accepted], and people with AIDS,
mental retardation, psychiatric illness and cerebral palsy, the least accepted of the
disability group” (p. 615). Their report was consistent with former studies (e.g., Tringo,
1970), which indicated that in western society there was a hierarchical preference in
terms of the types of impairments people had.
Moreover, the phenomenon of hierarchy of preference toward disability groups
also exists among individuals with disabilities. Mastro et al. (1996) presented a survey
(The Athletes with Impairments Attitude Survey) to 138 members (athletes with
disabilities) of the United States Disabled Sports Team, who attended the 1992
Paralympic Games. In this survey, participants were asked to rank order five groups of
athletes (i.e., visual impairment, amputation, dwarfism, cerebral palsy, and paraplegia).
24
The outcome showed that there was an ordered preference toward these disabilities,
where an amputation was the most favorable disability and cerebral palsy, the least.
Mastro et al.’s (1996) finding was quite similar with the outcomes obtained from persons
without disabilities (e.g., Tringo, 1970). As shown, various degrees of preference toward
different types of impairments are pervasive within society.
All of the articles reviewed so far uncover the fact that although social attitudes
toward PWD are inclined to be positive, negative attitudes toward PWD are still
pervasive and influence individuals with disabilities in all their daily experiences. In
addition, people with/without disabilities have a hierarchical preference regarding types
of impairments possessed by PWD. These findings indicate that (a) both positive and
negative attitudes toward PWD co-exist; and (b) one’s attitudes toward PWD are not
static; it is changing along a continuum (veering between positive and negative). In order
to understand these phenomena, Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler’s (2000) dual attitudes
theory provides a useful reference.
Dual Attitudes Theory
Given the review of attitudes and attitude-related articles, Wilson et al. (2000)
posited that it was reasonable to argue that people have two forms of attitudes – an
automatic, implicit attitude, and a contextual-based explicit attitude. Wilson et al. (2000)
noticed that when individuals expressed their attitudes toward a person or an object, such
attitudes could reflect either individuals’ deep-rooted and association-based (implicit)
judgment or their context-adjusted (explicit) judgment. Moreover, Wilson et al. (2000)
used a number of well-designed empirical studies to upheld their propositions that: (1)
people simultaneously hold implicit and explicit attitudes; (2) individuals automatically
retrieve their implicit attitudes, while they need motivation and cognitive capacity to
figure out their explicit attitudes; (3) implicit attitudes still impact individuals’ implicit
behaviors (e.g., non-verbal actions) provided they express their explicit attitudes; (4)
implicit attitudes are difficult to alter; and (5) dual attitudes do not necessarily lead to
25
individuals’ ambivalent evaluations toward others or objects since in most cases one type
of attitude overrides the other.
According to Wilson et al. (2000), once implicit attitudes are formed, it is difficult
to change. This standpoint corresponds well to Allport’s (1935) observation that
“attitudes are often as rigid as habits” (p. 813). Regarding attitudes toward PWD, the
extant evidences support that at least implicitly people preserve negative attitudes. Pruett
and Chan (2006) developed the Disability Attitude Implicit Association Test (DA-IAT)
and validated this measurement on 223 students in the field of rehabilitation counseling
services. The outcomes indicated that (1) students were more inclined to associate
disability with negative words than with positive ones; and (2) such inclination was
pervasive regardless of students’ demographics (e.g., gender or ethnicity). Likewise,
Dionne, Gainforth, O’Malley and Latimer-Cheung (2013) developed DA-IAT for people
with physical disabilities and administered this test on 100 able-bodied participants to
examine their attitudes. The result was consistent with Pruett and Chan’s (2006) that such
implicit attitudes were unfavorable.
In contrast, explicit attitudes toward PWD are more context-related and thus
comparatively easy to adjust than implicit ones. In terms of measurement of explicit
attitudes, self-reported inventories, such as the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled
Persons (SADP; Antonak, 1982) and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP; Yuker
et al., 1960), have been widely used to examine such attitudes (Antonak, 1982; Barr &
Bracchitta, 2008; Tervo et al., 2004; Yuker et al., 1960). The abovementioned articles
across the fields of employment, healthcare, education, and general social life provided a
mixed picture of the valence (e.g., positive or negative) of social explicit attitudes toward
PWD. Indeed, a confirmative conclusion is that these explicit attitudes can be modified.
People form attitudes (implicit and explicit) based on their own experiences,
observations of others, and family/social environments (Bowditch, Buono, & Stewart,
2008). Among those resources, social environment plays a significant role in influencing
26
individuals’ formation and modification of their attitudes. Regarding attitudes toward
PWD, the mainstreaming social viewpoints about disability tremendously shape and
reshape how persons evaluate and respond to disability related issues.
The Evolvement of the Understanding of Disability in the
Society
This section presents a literature review of how social viewpoints toward
disability, as well as PWD, have evolved. Particularly, four viewpoints are described,
including cultural and religious, biomedical, functional/environmental, and socialpolitical point of view. Although society’s understanding about disability has improved,
people have ingrained a passive image, which shapes implicit attitudes, about disability
and PWD through a prolonged association between disability and infortune, abnormality,
as well as incapability.
Cultural and Religious Viewpoints
Before the sixteenth century, globally the etiology of disability was
underdeveloped. As a result, people’s understanding toward individuals with disabilities
were mainly based on eugenic and/or religious convictions inherited from their ancestors.
During the time of ancient Greece, although the causality of one’s disability was unclear,
the abnormal appearances as well as low functions possessed by PWD were contrary to
the eugenic tenet so that the public chose to eliminate them. For example, in Sparta,
whether to keep or kill a new-born kid was determined by a council of city elders (Preen,
1976). As a result, a baby with congenital disabilities was doomed to death. During the
middle ages (476 A.D. to 1453), mental illness was “seen as the result of possession by
the Evil one” (Rubin & Roessler, 2001, p. 3) by the Christian Church, which had
tremendous political power over Europe. Because of this belief, monks and priests took
the main responsibility to treat persons with disabilities.
In the literature related to the field of rehabilitation, most of the articles that
focused on the history of disability drew their attention to the societies in the Western
27
countries. However, Miles (1995) noticed that “at least 70% of global disability is
experienced in countries and contexts upon which western ethics and philosophy impinge
only peripherally” (p. 50). In his thesis, he described three major religious viewpoints
toward PWD in eastern societies. In Islam, physical disability, especially a congenital
one, was considered as a condition rather than a disease. Therefore, to treat one’s innate
physical impairments was considered by Muslims as a disrespectful or even a rebellious
action, which disobeyed the will of Allah (Miles, 1995, p. 58). In addition, since this
person was born with physical impairment, which should be definitely discerned by
Allah, he and his servants would take the responsibility to take care of him/her. Because
of this tenet, it is the religious duty of the community to look after PWD in a traditional
Muslim culture. For Buddhism, however, Miles (1995) disclosed that since their
religious viewpoint highlighted the high achievement of one’s mental ability, it was
difficult for people with intellectual disabilities (e.g., mental retardation) to gain benefits
and to re-boost their self-esteem under the traditional Buddhist belief system. Lastly, for
Hinduism, one’s disabilities were often attributed to his/her misconducts in the past life –
a retributive consequence (Miles, 1995). For example, “one who steals a lamp will be
blind,” or “a usurer will be epileptic” (Miles, 1995, p. 61). Although the knowledge of
Hinduism gave a person’s disability a religious reason, it did not provide a path of how to
actively handle one’s disability effectively (e.g., to prevent its progress).
In contrast, however, Munyi’s (2012) literature review disclosed that in today’s
Africa, several societies superstitiously attribute disabilities with positive connotations.
For instance, the physical disability was a sign of pacifying the evil spirits in Chagga,
which is located in Eastern Africa. In Benin, children who were born with disabilities
were believed to be guarded by a supernatural power and thus they represent good luck.
In addition, in some regions in Ghana, a person’s mental retardation was believed as the
reincarnation of a deity. Thus, they were served with awe by local people. Likewise,
Harper (1999) reported that in a line of his research on children’s attitudes toward people
28
with obesity, kids from Nepal, New Zealand, Yucatan, and Philippines held rather
positive perceptions toward ones’ obesity than their counterparts in the United States.
Harper (1999) explained that
In each of these countries, affluence was often equated with food
availability and with body size, often signaling wealth, power, and
prestige. It is not surprising that children selected a child with
obesity as highly preferred in many of these developing countries.
(p. 138)
These evidences, although rare, shed light on how the society could understand PWD
quite positively if the cultural traditions lead to that direction.
Nevertheless, society’s beliefs about disability, even if they only originated from
eugenic or religious beliefs, are still pervasively negative around the world. These beliefs
imprint disability with a sinful or deviant sign, so that people who have disabilities must
feel disgrace or guilt about themselves. A society, while holding these negative
viewpoints, would not seek any merit from individuals with disabilities. All of the
assistance other people in this society offer to PWD merely reflects benevolence and
kindness embraced by the providers. In terms of treatment, according to most traditions
rooted in eugenic and/or religious beliefs, PWD are separated from the majority and the
main goal of the treatment is to maintain PWD’s basic living status, given a society’s
humanity (Rubin & Roessler, 2001). Adjusting or promoting PWD’s physical, mental, or
environmental conditions, or to empower PWD to live independently, receive little
attention.
A Biomedical Viewpoint
Hippocrates (ca. 460-337 B.C.), an ancient Greek physician, perhaps was the
pioneer who shook western societies’ beliefs about the causality of disability. He
proposed that physical and mental disabilities were due to disease or organic injuries
(Peterson & Aguiar, 2004). His proposition, although did not lead to an overturn of the
ancient convictions about disability, resulted in a more humane way of treatment toward
PWD. Greeks established several sanitariums in Alexandria and Egypt to house people
29
with mental illnesses. This signaled the rudiments of a medical perspective toward
disability itself (Rubin & Roessler, 2001).
However, in the following thousand years, not enough attention was paid by
society to this viewpoint. During the sixteenth century, the public in western countries
started to treat mental retardation as a sickness (labeled as disease). Thus, people who had
mental retardation “were more likely to be sent to asylums than to monasteries and
prisons” (Rubin & Roessler, 2001, p.4). Between the 16th century and 19th century, a
scientific perspective about disability was gradually developing in Europe and the U.S.
People were more willing to trace the origins of mental illness and physical disabilities
from a biological angle rather than a religious standpoint. A medical viewpoint about
disability was became prominent globally because of the two World Wars (World War I
from 1914-1918 and World War II from 1939-1945). Both these two wars left a huge
number of individuals with physical disabilities but great improvement in surgery and
medication significantly boosted the survival rates of the injured (Peterson & Aguiar,
2004). Seven years later (i.e., 1952) after the end of the World War II, the first version of
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) was published by the
American Psychiatric Association. It represented the first official guideline to direct the
diagnosis of mental health issues (American Psychiatric Association, 2012).
Strictly speaking, it was not until early twentieth century when a biomedical
viewpoint about the etiology of disability was soundly grounded and societies worldwide
started to use this point of view to understand PWD. This viewpoint considered disability
as “a chronic pathology or impairment associated with an incapacity to perform physical
functions or activities of daily living” (Kuehn, 2004, p. 90). It highlighted that disability
was a disease and thus, it could be treated or controlled. As a result, PWD could release
their burdens of being totally responsible for their disability and more actively seek help
from medical professionals (Kim-Rupnow, 2001). Politically, this directly led the U.S.
30
government to appropriate funds to establish the Social Security Disability Insurance
(SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs to help PWD (Kuehn, 2004).
However, scholars in the rehabilitation field did not favor this biomedical
standpoint. Smart and Smart (2006) pinpointed four limitations that prevented scholars
and healthcare practitioners (especially in the realm of rehabilitation) from thoroughly
adapting this perspective. First, this viewpoint still considers disability as a characteristic
that is located within an individual. Although a person with disability might not be a bad
person, he/she has had bad luck. In addition, because of this personal responsibility,
societies took it for granted that it was not a community’s duty to provide for the needs of
PWD. This increased PWD’s social invisibility – i.e., it was rare to see PWD in some
public areas, such as schools and workplaces. Second, this biomedical focus was on
diagnosis of disability rather than on the person. This emphasis resulted in the
phenomenon of categorizing or labeling. Disability then was not an overall term to gather
a group of individuals but was sliced into various subgroups titled by their diagnoses,
such as epilepsy, depression, and clefts. These subgroups exacerbated the unfavorable
situations experienced by PWD (e.g., discrimination, prejudice, and stereotype). Third,
this viewpoint did not give much attention to the chronic disabilities as well as
environmental factors that negatively influenced individuals’ mental or physical status.
Finally, this viewpoint assigned too much power to health professionals who might
misuse their power over their patients or clients with disabilities and thus, facilitating
PWD’s dependency and oppressed their ethical right of self-determination.
A Functional/Environmental Viewpoint
In the U.S., the rudimentary concept of the functional/environmental viewpoint
about disability can be traced back to 1920s, along with the enactment of Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1920, which extended the rehabilitation services from veterans to
civilians with disabilities. According to this legislation, PWD should be “provided
guidance, education, prosthetics and other restoration, training toward employment, and,
31
ultimately, job placement” (Peterson & Aguiar, 2004, p. 56). From this standpoint,
disability is understood in reference to one’s ability and achievement in playing a socially
valuable role. Due to the fact that this role, more often than not, revolves around an
individual’s work, it is mainly determined by one’s earnings. Thus, this
functional/environmental perception is also called an economic one. World War II was
the chief facilitator that fostered the development of this viewpoint toward PWD because
of the lack of workforce after the war and the fact that so many soldiers came back with
disabilities but still possessed the skills/potential to work (Smart, 2004). In the following
decades, a series of legislations were approved by Congress and enacted to guarantee the
benefits of PWD, and to encourage them to return to work.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
This Act is also called the “billion dollar program.” It comprised of seven titles
that focus on providing rehabilitation services to PWD, especially with severe
impairments. In addition, it initiated the spirit of adopting empowerment in the
rehabilitation process. Such an empowerment emphasized the active involvement of
PWD in the decision making process related to their rehabilitation plan. Among the
seven titles, the policy under Title I clearly emphasized that, “all individuals with
disabilities are presumed to be employable, and thus the goal of all rehabilitation services
is to improve the ability of each individual to become employed” (Bruyere & Reiter,
2012, p. 63). Title III and VI reemphasized the establishment of work-related training
projects and the provisions of employment opportunity for PWD (Peterson & Aguiar,
2004). On the whole, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 clearly demonstrated the importance
of employment, which was key to the functional/environmental viewpoint toward
disability.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
The ADA actually dictated the concept of disability from a socio-political
perspective (reviewed in the next section) rather than a function/environment one.
32
However, it still shed light on a critical concept of this functional/environment viewpoint,
which believed that the disability was only within the individual. However, ADA
highlighted that (a) an emphasis on one’s functions was more meaningful than one’s
sickness; and (b) the role of environment in restricting a person with disabilities’ ability
was more severe than what healthcare professionals and laypersons originally expected.
In the ADA, legislators gave a considerable thought to the environmental factors that
significantly influenced individuals with disabilities’ possibility to work. In this Act, one
of the essential tasks was to introduce the concept of reasonable accommodation to the
public. Reasonable accommodations included
Modifications or adjustments to a job or work environment that
enable a qualified applicant with a disability to perform the
essential functions of a job, or any other modification or
adjustment that allows a person with a disability to enjoy
opportunity equal to that of people without disabilities. (Peterson
& Aguiar, 2004, pp. 66-67)
As a result, the ADA clearly indicated that a lot of the problems encountered by PWD
were due to the environment, not the impairments people had.
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIA)
These two Acts were enacted consecutively, with WIA in 1998 and TWWIA in
1999. The purpose was to streamline the process for eligible consumers (PWD) to receive
rehabilitation services (from WIA), and to encourage/empower individuals with
disabilities to return to or start work through incentives (from TWWIA). It is worthwhile
to mention that people who received social security income and social security disability
insurance (SSDI) were eligible to obtain services, according to WIA and TWWIA, once
they decided to work (Bruyere & Reiter, 2012).
All of the abovementioned Acts reflected the spirit of the
functional/environmental viewpoint toward PWD – the focus on one’s ability to perform
activities (mainly at work) and the awareness of the influence of environment on the
33
performance of one’s ability. As Smart and Smart (2006) stated, based on this standpoint
about PWD:
(a) [C]ategorization by disability type is less likely; (b) the power
differential is reduced when the individual is viewed as a total
person and not as a stigmatized, medicalized category; and (c)
partial responsibility for the response to the disability devolves
upon “society” to provide a physically accessible and
nonprejudiced environment. (p. 33)
However, functional/environmental viewpoint did not exist without critiques. One
of the limitations is its major focus on one’s workability, while ignoring other major
abilities PWD have for non-work activities, such as leisure time or social interaction
(Smart, 2004). Partially because of these concerns as well as with other major social
movements occurring during the middle of 20th century, the most revolutionary way to
understand disability emerged.
A Socio-Political Viewpoint
The socio-political viewpoint about the concept of disability radically shifted the
target of responsibility for the situations experienced by PWD. According to this
perspective, “disability is defined as a social construction in that the limitations and
disadvantages experienced by PWD have nothing to do with the disability but are only
social constructions and therefore unwarranted” (Smart & Smart, 2006, p. 34). The
genesis of its inception could be attributed to the results of the Disability Right
Movement and Independent Living Movement (from 1960s to 1970s), which followed
the campaigns of other civil rights movements (e.g., the black civil rights movement and
the women’s movement). Compared with similar disability movements in the other
countries, such as the United Kingdom, the distinctive feature of the Disability Rights
movement in the U.S. was that it emphasized the discrimination suffered by PWD more
than merely focusing on benefits issues (Scotch, 1989). This specific emphasis resulted
mainly from the fact that scholars, such a Hahn (1988), claimed that the discrimination
experienced by PWD was rooted in the same origin as the discrimination suffered by
34
other minority groups. As a result, the socio-political standpoint was also titled the
minority group model of disability. Both scholars (e.g., Hahn) and activists with
disabilities (e.g., Itzak Perlman) noticed that social attitudes toward PWD as well as
environmental barriers were the main factors that encumbered the living conditions of
individuals with disabilities, and imposed negative connotations and social status on them
(Smart, 2004). Thus, the opponents of the socio-political viewpoint of disability would
claim that it was more urgent to rehabilitate social construction that led to unfairness and
prejudice toward PWD than dealing with a person’s mental/physical impairments.
Politically, this perspective significantly impacted the enactment of Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, and directly resulted in the draft of ADA and its implementation. In the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title V explicitly emphasized the non-discriminatory
atmosphere in federal employment or in any federally funded support-programs across
the nation. Although the area of its application was restricted to the federally-funded or
federal employment fields, Title V paved the road for the birth of the ADA. Peterson and
Aguiar (2004) noticed that “the ADA provides civil rights protection similar to those
provided to other minorities, to individuals with disabilities” (p. 65). In particular, ADA
extended the foci of anti-discrimination from the federal spheres to the public, including
state and local government, public transportations, and private rehabilitation sectors.
Moreover, since ADA responded well to the socio-political perspective, which
understood disability as a social construction, ADA underscored the imperative of
accommodation in work sites, for transportation, and for communication.
Moreover, because this viewpoint about PWD focused on unfairness and
discrimination across all aspects of the life, the socio-political perspective went beyond
the scope of a functional/environmental viewpoint, which highlighted only work areas,
and permeated into individuals’ daily activities in general. Currently, one of the major
concerns, stemming from this socio-political viewpoint, among scholars and practitioners
is the tenet of community participation for PWD. This concern is mainly derived from the
35
observation that “home and the vocational center were at the epicenter of participants’
[individuals with disabilities] lives” (Milner & Kelly, 2009, p. 51). Therefore, how they
can become fully involved in the community becomes a critical question for many
researchers. Hammel et al. (2008) conducted a qualitative study to investigate PWD’s
subjective interpretation of the meaning of community participation. The outcomes
provided invaluable insights for rehabilitation practitioners as well as policy makers of
how to attain real participation. A total of 63 individuals with disabilities participated in
the study. These participants were assigned to six focus groups, which were co-led by a
person with a disability and a research member. They discussed various questions related
to subjects’ sense of community participation. Samples questions included, “What does
participation mean to you?” “What areas of everyday life are most important to you to
participate in?” etc. (Hammel et al., 2008). The results disclosed several key components
of a true sense of community participation defined by participants. These components
were meaningful engagement in the community, self-choice in and control of
participation, equal opportunity for community access and resources, a sense of social
connection, having an impact or supporting others, and a sense of responsibility to the
self and society. There was still, however, no consensus among participants on how
community participation should be formally defined.
Final Words on These Viewpoints
People’s understanding of the origin of disability, as introduced previously, has
gone through four stages, from a eugenic/religious based perspective, to a biomedical
one; then to an economical, and finally toward a socio-political one. The former two
standpoints toward disability considered it a characteristic or disease possessed by the
person who has physical or mental impairment(s), while the economic viewpoint of
disability partially shifts the attention to the handicapped environments that limit the
ability for individuals with disabilities to work. However, all of these perspectives still
differentiate PWD from those who are not-disabled. Because of this separation, long-
36
lasting, negative attitudes, presented in terms of thoughts, feelings, and actions, always
exist in society about individuals with disabilities. These attitudes portray a deep-rooted
and unfavorable picture about PWD, which form people’s automatic evaluations of
disability that are negative in essence. The genesis of a socio-political viewpoint about
disability strives to totally overturn these negative attitudes, as well as ensuing
discriminations, prejudice, and stereotypes. Moreover, the current legislations relevant to
disability support and even mandate the imperative to create a fair environment for PWD.
These social and legislative factors fortify the notion that the negative attitudes and
discriminative interactions of people without disabilities with PWD are unwelcome and
banned by societies. This notion reminds the public to alter or at least suppress their
prolonged and prejudicial (implicit) attitudes toward PWD. Instead, positive (explicit)
attitudes toward PWD is endorsed and expressed by the public. Accordingly, scholars and
researchers have also tried for decades to figure out factors that could impact and/or
change such aversive attitudes. Among these, two factors – gender and close contact
experience with PWD – have received scholars’ extensive investigations (Chan, Lee,
Yuen, & Chan, 2002; Chen, Brodwin, Cardosa, & Chan, 2002; Choi, 2006; Donnell,
Alston, Hampton, & Bell, 1999; Eberhardt & Mayberry, 2003; Grames & Leverentz,
2010; Hernandez et al., 2000; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; MacLean & Gannon, 1995;
Stachura, 2007; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989; Westbrook et al., 1993). The measured effects
of these two factors on attitudes (implicit and explicit) toward PWD are comparatively
reliable.
Factors That Influence and/or Change Attitudes toward
PWD
Gender
The influence of gender on attitudes toward PWD has been examined and the
results are consistent. During the past decades, researchers have paid a particular
attention to the gender difference regarding explicit attitudes toward PWD (Choi, 2006;
37
Chen et al., 2002; Donnell et al., 1999; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; MacLean &
Gannon, 1995; Satchidanand et al., 2012). Their result indicated that females view PWD
more positively than males. Recently, some scholars further explored the gender effect on
participants’ implicit attitudes. Chen, Ma, and Zhang (2011) measured 17 male and 39
female Chinese undergraduate students’ implicit attitudes toward PWD and reported that
male participants disclosed more negative implicit attitudes toward PWD compared to
females.
In other words, females generally hold more optimistic attitudes, explicitly and
implicitly, toward PWD than males. For explanations, Jones and Stone (1995) concluded
that this phenomenon was due to the fact that females showed more empathy toward
PWD. In addition, Shakespeare (1999) noticed that females felt comfortable establishing
friendship or other relationships with males with disabilities because these males were
perceived as being safe due to their disabilities.
Contact Experience with PWD
The factor of contact experience with PWD has been recognized by researchers as
a chief vehicle by which attitudes could be favorably altered (Au & Man, 2006; Chan,
Lee, Yuen, & Chan, 2002; Eberhardt & Mayberry, 2003; Hernandez et al., 2000;
Stachura, 2007; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989). Moreover, researchers have determined the
conditions under which contact experience with PWD could facilitate this change. For
instance, Hewstone (2003), according to former research evidences on contact between
individuals from two different groups, outlined five key components that should occur
before a positive change of attitude occurs through contact. These were:
Members of the two groups should be brought together under
conditions of equal status, in situations where stereotypes are likely
to be disconfirmed, where there is intergroup cooperation, where
participants can get to know each other properly, and where wider
social norms support equality. (p. 352)
Based on these well-formed conditions, scholars (Klooster et al., 2009; Lyons,
1990) further pointed out that in the field of healthcare, practitioners who had contact
38
experience with PWD other than their service responsibility (e.g., patients and doctors),
possessed more positive attitudes toward PWD. These contact experiences could come
through friends, relatives, co-workers, and neighbors with disabilities. However, if this
contact experience was just limited to a professional relationship, the positive attitudes
toward PWD might decrease over time for healthcare practitioners (Klooster et al., 2009).
Accordingly, simply asking a layperson about “How often does he/she meet PWD” might
not catch the core spirit of contact experience. However, the exploration of “With whom
an individual has these contact experiences” might disclose more about the quality of the
interaction.
Furthermore, high quality of contact with PWD could improve individuals’
explicit and implicit attitudes toward PWD. For example, Vezzali and Capozza (2011)
administered both explicit and implicit attitude tests to 74 employees without disabilities.
The results showed that more frequent and cooperative contact with PWD can positively
boost participants’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward PWD.
A Changing Trend in Responses of People without
Disabilities to PWD
Scholars explore the above factors that impact social attitudes toward PWD in
order to understand and finally change these attitudes to a positive side. In today’s
political environment, especially in the U.S., ones’ apparent exhibition of discrimination
toward PWD is rarely seen, although it still exists (Pfeiffer et al., 2003). This social trend
is similar to the situations experienced by people from other minority groups,
characterized by race or gender (Constantine, Smith, Redinton, & Owens, 2008; Sue,
2010a). However, as early as 1980s, researchers (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) detected
that the expression of discrimination and prejudice (indicating negative attitudes) toward
racial minorities had been transformed into something more insidious, becoming more
subtle. After their discoveries, a number of studies were initiated to explore this
phenomenon, particularly in the fields related to race and gender (Capodilupo et al.,
39
2010; Constantine et al., 2008), and recently, toward PWD (Keller & Galgay, 2010).
Currently, scholars called this phenomenon, microaggressions.
Understanding Microaggressions through the Perception of
People without Disabilities
Microaggressions
Sue et al. (2007) extended the meaning of microaggressions, first coined by
Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, and Willis (1978), from racial minority groups to any
marginalized groups. According to Sue (2010a), microaggressions are “the everyday
verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or
unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target
persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (p. 3). Specifically,
microaggressions could be expressed through three different vehicles: microassault,
microinsult, and microinvalidation.
Microassaults are conscious biased beliefs or attitudes that are held
by individuals and intentionally expressed or acted out overtly or
covertly toward a marginalized person or socially devalued
group…These [microinsults] are either interpersonal interactions
(verbal/nonverbal) or environmental cues that communicate
rudeness, insensitivity, slights, and insults that demean a person’s
racial, gender, sexual orientation, or group identity and heritage…
Microinvalidations are similar to microinsults in that they
generally occur outside the level of conscious awareness of
perpetrators. However, this form of microaggression is perhaps the
most insidious, damaging, and harmful form, because
microinvalidations directly attack or deny the experiential realities
of socially devalued groups. (Sue, 2010a, pp. 8-10)
Microaggressions basically reflect negative attitudes held by people who identify
themselves from the majority against their counterparts. Particularly, microassults reveal
more of ones’ explicitly aversive attitudes toward people from minority groups due to
perpetrators’ intentionality than microinsults and microinvalidations, which uncover
more of individuals’ implicitly aversive attitudes. In the literature, the studies on
microaggressions mainly revolve around racial minorities (Clark et al, 2011; Constantine
et al., 2008; Constantine & Sue, 2007; Gomez, Khurshid, Freitag, & Lachuk, 2011;
40
Hernandez, Carranza, & Almeida, 2010; Smith, Hung, & Franklin, 2011). For example,
in the process of Nadal’s (2011) development of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions
Scale (REMS), participants (n = 443) identified 45 incidents that they had encountered
and perceived as expressions of microaggressions in their daily lives. These incidents
were finally grouped into six major themes – assumptions of inferiority (e.g., someone
assumed that I was poor because of my race), second-class citizen and assumptions of
criminality (e.g., someone avoided eye contact with me because of my race),
microinvalidations (e.g., someone told me that they “don’t see color”),
exoticization/assumptions of similarity (e.g., someone told me that all people in my racial
group look alike), environmental microaggressions (e.g., I observed people of my race
portrayed positively in movies), and workplace and school microaggressions (e.g., I was
ignored at school or at work because of my race). Presently, studies on microaggressions
have gone beyond racial minorities and extended toward gender and sexual orientation
(Capodilupo et al., 2010; Nadal, Rivera, & Corpus, 2010; Shelton & Delgado-Romera,
2011). A core consensus among those articles is that microaggrssions frequently happen
to individuals from marginalized groups.
Microaggressions toward PWD
Regarding PWD, Keller and Galgay’s (2010) seminal study on PWD’s lived
experiences of microaggressions further affirmed the fact that most, if not all, people
from minority groups suffer through these experiences pervasively. In Keller and
Galgay’s research, 12 participants with disabilities (five males and seven females) were
included and formed into two focus groups. The types of disabilities these participants
stated were visual impairment, physical disabilities, and multiple impairments (physical
and cognitive, or physical and sensory). Group co-facilitators were master level graduate
students in the counseling program and self-identified as PWD. A semi-structured, 90minute interview was conducted by group co-facilitators for both focus groups. Using a
modified method of consensual qualitative research (CQR), suggested by Sue et al.
41
(2007), Keller and Galgay (2010) finally reached eight domains of experiences of
microaggressions described by these participants. These include (Keller & Galgay, 2010,
pp. 249-250):
1. Denial of identity: occurs when any aspect of a person’s identity other than
disability is ignored or denied. This can be further divided into denial of personal
identity, and denial of experience
2. Denial of privacy: occurs when personal information is required about a disability
3. Helplessness: occurs when people frantically try to help PWDs.
4. Secondary gain: occurs when a person expects to feel good or be praised for doing
something for a PWD
5. Spread effect: occurs when other expectations about a person are assumed to be
due to one specific disability
6. Patronization: occurs when a PWD is praised for almost anything, or is treated
like a child (infantilization)
7. Second-class citizenship: occurs when a PWD’s right to equality is denied
because they are considered to be bothersome, expensive, and a waste of time,
effort, and resources
8. Desexualization: occurs when the sexuality and sexual being is denied
Keller and Galgay’s (2010) findings provided qualitative evidences that supported
the existence of microaggressions toward PWD. These scholars also reported that the
detrimental effects of microaggressions undergone by participants included, but were not
limited to, lowered self-esteem, psychological stress, anger, social inferiority, frustration,
and embarrassment.
The Perceptions of People without Disabilities about
Microaggressions toward PWD
Similar to other studies regarding microaggressions, Keller and Galgay’s (2010)
understanding of these phenomena particularly focused on the validation of those
42
experiences reported by people from minority groups (i.e., PWD). In the literature,
scholars know little about how people without disabilities perceive microaggressions
toward PWD. However, these perceptions are critical since a comprehensive
understanding of microaggressions toward PWD needs inputs from both sides – people
with and without disabilities. Without understanding the latter, scholars and researchers
lack sufficient insights of how microaggressions toward PWD are perceived
similarly/dissimilarly by people without disabilities versus their counterparts.
Specifically, perception reflects the way people interpret the sensory messages and this
interpretation in most cases fits a person’s attitudes and beliefs (Bowditch et al., 2008).
Therefore, the exploration of the perceptions of individuals without disabilities about
PWD’s microaggressive experiences could help scholars not only examine, but
understand those individuals’ attitudes toward PWD. For example, although the
microaggressions of people without disabilities toward PWD reflect socially negative
attitudes (implicit and/or explicit), it is still unclear why people tend to be unaware of
their microaggressive behaviors. In essence, the exploration of those perceptions could
reveal: (1) to what extent, people without disabilities are aware of various forms of
microaggressions toward PWD; (2) to what extent, individuals without disabilities are
similar or dissimilar to each other in terms of those perceptions; and (3) on which aspects
of disability-related microaggressions scholars should focus to enhance the awareness of
individuals without disabilities regarding the existence of microaggressions so as to
behave more appropriately toward PWD.
Perceptions from College Students without Disability about
Microaggressions
Among people without disabilities, college students received the current author’s
particular attention. Their perceptions about microaggressions regarding PWD not only
provided insights of the abovementioned three concerns, but also offered information that
educators and administrators in postsecondary education need in order to establish an
43
indiscriminate learning environment for students with disabilities. Postsecondary
education plays a significant role in today’s society in the U.S., preparing students for a
better life, at least economically. Carey (2004) pointed out that the earning gap is
increasing between people who have a bachelor degree and those with only a high school
diploma. The enactment of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II) has provided students with disabilities
accommodations and adjustments of educational environments and academic
supplements in postsecondary institutions (e.g., colleges). This has allowed them to move
smoothly with their higher education. In the academic year 2008-2009, about 88% of
postsecondary institutions indicated that they served students with disabilities; around
707, 000 students in total (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011). In fact, more and
more individuals with disabilities are willing to enroll in colleges to fulfill their
educational goals. Data showed that 80% of secondary students with disabilities who had
transition plans perceived higher education as their primary goal (Cameto, Levine, &
Wagner, 2004). Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey (2009) reported that 90% of
college students with disabilities believed that they could successfully graduate from
postsecondary institutions.
However, Carey (2004) also noted that students who fail to graduate from their
higher education do not gain much, financially, compared to those with high school
education. In the general population, the completion rate of four-year university
education was about two thirds. In comparison, only 29% of students with disabilities had
finally completed their postsecondary education (Newman et al., 2009). Among students
with disabilities who could not complete higher education, close to one fifth of them
chose to leave schools because of their dislike of the institution, no availability of needed
services, or poor relationship with faculty members (Newman et al., 2009). These factors
implied the existence of inattention to and/or neglect of the needs of students with
disabilities, hinting at instances of microaggressions in postsecondary institutions.
44
Likewise, Sue (2010b) warned that “[I]nequities in education are not the result of overt
discrimination; inequities result from the unintentional, subtle, and invisible
microaggressions that disadvantage marginalized groups” (p. 17). In particular, Ryan and
Scura (2011) described how microaggressions toward students with disabilities were
manifested at the environmental and interpersonal levels. For example, a scarcity of
professors with disabilities hired by the institutions could send a negative message toward
students with disabilities of how successful they might be in their higher education. With
those concerns in mind, the current exploration initiated the understanding of
microaggressions toward PWD by examining perceptions of college students without
disabilities.
The current study used Q-methodology to examine these perceptions as many
researchers (Brown, 1980; Hyun, 2010; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Shaver & Scheibe,
1967; Webler, Danielson, & Tuler, 2009) consider it one of the most powerful means to
investigate people’s perceptions or viewpoints toward a phenomenon. It is due to its
mixed methods nature as well as its ability to take human subjectivity into consideration
that makes Q-methodology preferable. The following parts will be devoted to introducing
key concepts about Q-methodology.
Understanding of Q-methodology
A Review of Q-methodology
Q-methodology was developed and introduced into the field of psychology in the
1930s by William Stephenson (1935), a psychologist as well as a physicist. One of the
main usages of this method is to examine individuals’ beliefs, perceptions, or opinions
toward some phenomenon. Steve Brown, a professor at the University of MissouriColumbia, is currently the most active and experienced scholar in applying and
introducing Q-methodology. Although his main interest is to use this approach to explore
people’s perceptions regarding political and social lives, he continuously introduces this
approach to researchers in other fields, such as environment and personality psychology
45
(Block, 1961; Webler et al., 2009). The prominent feature of Q-methodology is its ability
to analyze human subjectivity. Simply put, ‘subjectivity’ means a “person’s
communication to his or her point of view” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 12). In the
field of science, however, the role of subjectivity is always under critique because
“subjectivity, or the ‘inner’ dimension of behavior, is viewed as an indication of
unreliability, error, and the absence of constant relations” (Nesterenko, 1979, p. 68). In
essence, the methodological difficulty in exploring subjectivity revolves around the
accuracy of observation, i.e., to what extent two or more than two individuals’ subjective
evaluations of a phenomenon (e.g., perception toward ableism) are similar or not.
Conventionally, researchers try to avoid, or at least minimize, the impact of
human subjectivity by using operational definition in measuring some internal constructs.
Operational definition defines some observable characteristics of a construct so that each
researcher can independently examine such a construct. For example, when attitude is
conceived by researchers as “a ‘degree of affect’ for or against an object” (Allport, 1935,
p. 831), the measurement of attitude then could be reflected from individuals’ agreement
or disagreement of specific arguments toward a target. The development of Attitudes
Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) is based on this conception (Yuker et al., 1960).
As a result, ATDP is supposed to be a reliable, as well as a valid measurement of
attitudes toward PWD. Nonetheless, researchers noticed that the use of an operational
definition may lead to problems in terms of the validity. Since the operational definition
is formed before the items of a scale are developed, the finalized version of the items
thereafter are supposed to correctly measure the construct. However, scholars argued that
individuals’ stereotypical assumptions occasionally restrict their ability to formulate
items that appropriately and fairly measure the construct. For example, Soder (1990)
claimed that the ATDP tended to impose a negative impression on PWD, since the
statements (i.e., “Disabled people are often unfriendly”) employed by this scale
consistently described PWD in a negative way. Moreover, Brown (1980) noticed that
46
“operational definitions place constraints on behavior by replacing the subject’s meaning
with the investigator’s and the investigator ends up studying the constraints rather than
the behavior” (p. 5). For ATDP, Soder (1990) again warned the statements recruited in
this scale regarding disability in general without taking individual, as well as situational
differences, into serious consideration. Therefore, this scale measures more heavily
attitudes toward disability rather than people with disabilities.
As a result, the measurement based on operational definition might run the risk of
restricting our understanding of a phenomenon within the predetermined construct. In
dealing with people’s perceptions, which are highly subject to individuals’ internal
reference, this restriction may nevertheless impede researchers from investigating a full
range of dimensions if an operational definition of some observable characteristics of
perception is programmed ahead of the investigation. In contrast, Q-methodology notes
the significance of a person’s subjective evaluation. This approach validates the merit of
an individual’s self-reference – i.e., the importance to oneself. In essence, a construct is
valid only when it makes sense to that individual. Brown (1980) argued that the
conventional emphasis of objectivity continues not because scientists ignore the value of
human subjectivity, but rather due to the lack of a theoretical standpoint, as well as a
methodologically sound technique to investigate it. However, Q-methodology is one of
the rare types of methodologies that are theoretical and mathematically well-grounded to
examine human subjectivity.
Q-methodology pays attention to a specific process, called operant subjectivity,
when measuring individuals’ beliefs, perceptions, or attitudes. The word subjectivity just
indicates that only the respondent has ownership of his/her viewpoints/attitudes/opinions.
“Operant implies that the process of this subjective evaluation occurs given a particular
condition” (Brown, 1980, p. 4). Brown (1980) elicits two chief features of Qmethodology, which are different from traditional measurements based on operational
definition. First, the outcome of this approach is neither right nor wrong since it just
47
reflects one’s viewpoints. But for some conventional measurement scales, there exists a
true or false selection. Second, the operant subjectivity beneath the Q-methodology is
processed in a reverse order compared to traditional measurements. As in tradition, a
study interest is measurably defined (i.e., operational definition) first. On the contrary,
the Q-methodology starts with understanding phenomena about a study interest and the
measurable dimensions regarding that interest emerges afterward. It is because of this
second feature, Q-methodology partly registers as a type of qualitative research
approaches.
Components in Q-methodology
Q-sample
The first step in Q-methodology, after one determines the subject of a study, is to
collect a concourse of statements regarding that subject. For example, Shaver and
Scheibe (1967) used Q-methodology to investigate how students’ perceptions about
individuals with mental illness could be modified by students’ intensive interactions with
them. One inventory applied by Shaver and Scheibe was a 70-item Q-sample developed
by Block (1961) to describe various characteristics (e.g., bossy, reasonable, or unhappy)
of persons with mental illness. Indeed, those 70 items compose a concourse for
describing people with mental illness. A concourse could come from social media (e.g.,
newspaper, televisions, or websites), books, journals, as well as other printed materials.
In addition, a concourse could be retrieved from interviewing a specific group of persons
who have enough to say about a research topic. Once the concourse is prepared, the
consideration moves to the determination of how many statements within the concourse
are needed for any particular research. The core component in this decision process
emphasizes that the selected statements should be comprehensive enough to cover the
subject of interest (i.e., the entire collected concourse). To fulfill this goal, researchers
(Brown, 1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988) suggested using an approach of systematic
categorization to group statements. By doing so, statements with similar characteristics in
48
a concourse are first grouped into various categories, and then the random sampling
process occurs within each category to select the required number of statements.
Commonly, the size of statements is within 32 to 40 pieces. Those statements are called
Q-sample.
P-sample
P-sample stands for the respondents. In comparison to traditional research,
respondents in the Q-methodology play a different role. Therefore, the purpose of the
selection of participants is different from what most researchers commonly think.
Conventionally, the purpose of conducting a research is for generalization, i.e.,
participants are representative enough of the population of interest. Therefore, the
population is composed of all individuals who will be influenced by the research results.
In doing so, various schemes of sampling process (e.g., random selection) have been
developed in order to secure a high degree of generalization. However, in Qmethodology, the role of generalization has been taken by the aforementioned Q-sample
(i.e., the selected statements should represent all others in the same concourse). Thus,
the main reason to select enough participants does not revolve around the issue of
generalization, but on the salience of participants’ particular viewpoints toward a
phenomenon. For this purpose, the selection of participants is more of a purposeful
process than a random one. In understanding individuals’ attitudes toward PWD, for
instance, a traditional scale-based survey would tell a researcher the population
distribution of a specific attitude toward PWD defined by the researcher beforehand. By
contrast, the Q-methodology will reveal the details regarding attitudes toward PWD
among individuals whose profiles are similar to those sampled participants. All in all, in
Q-methodology, respondents are selected based on their unique contribution to help
understand the study of interest. Moreover, the number of participants in Q-methodology
is restricted by the total number of selected statements. This restriction is set mainly due
to the type of analysis processed (i.e., inverted factor analysis) during the Q-
49
methodology. Commonly, the number of participants is less than 20. As Webler et al.
(2009) suggested, the maximum rate between participants and statements should be
controlled at the ratio of 1:2.
Condition of Instruction and the Scale
The condition of instruction guides participants to arrange the statements in the Qsample. By this instruction, participants know what subject these statements are about
and how to sort them so that participants’ various perceptions, beliefs, or opinions can be
rendered. In particular, the instruction elicits a scale onto which those statements can be
positioned. The scale commonly ranges from a negative end to a positive end, along with
the middle point scored at zero. Usually, the statements placed by participants on
negative (left) side of the scale are accounts they disagree with, and statements on the
positive (right) side are accounts they agree with. The closer participants place a
statement to the two endpoints of the scale, the more extreme agreement or disagreement
participants have toward that statement. Regarding the zero point, the statements stacked
on it indicate that participants are uncertain of their salience, or participants conceive
those statements as not important.
Sorting Process
The sorting process in the Q-methodology plays a key role in revealing
participants’ beliefs, perceptions, and opinions of a phenomenon under researchers’
investigation. First, the shape of distribution of the statements in the Q-sample spread
along the scale is forced to be pseudo-normal. This means that statements will be
arranged into a normal distribution, which is pre-specified by the researchers. A favor of
normal distribution serves two purposes: (1) participants could have the same template to
organize their statements so that they exercise comparable degree of differentiation on the
statements; and (2) the normal distribution makes it possible to compare participant
feedbacks (e.g., perceptions) toward each statement by checking the standard deviations
corresponding to the feedback. However, in practice, when normal distribution is hard to
50
guarantee (e.g., not enough statements), then at least the shape of the distribution of the
statements should be symmetrical and unimodal. For more details about the issue of
distribution, please review Block’s (1961) clarification on this topic.
Once the shape of distribution is determined, participants are requested to arrange
statements accordingly. To help their differentiation of those statements, participants are
guided by researchers to initially sort statements into three piles, for instance, one pile for
agree, one for disagree, and one for uncertain. Within each pile, participants then further
tell the difference among statements. During the process, participants are suggested to
sort back and forth among three piles and are allowed to make any changes of their
decisions on whether a statement belongs to one pile or not. Moreover, in their sorting
process, researchers should pay attention to how much effort each participant exercises
on those statements. Neither too little nor too much is desirable. A rapid sorting could
indicate a participant’s low level of seriousness toward the sorting process, so the data
might be discarded. On the contrary, the sorting process might lead to some participants’
exhaustion of energy. If a researcher notes someone struggling with his/her arrangement
of the statements, the researcher should not force him/her to finish the sorting. Instead,
the researcher could encourage this person to complete the sorting by modifying the
distribution to some extent. When doing so, Webler et al. (2009) noted, “Even if you [the
researcher] do allow deviations from the assigned distribution, you should ensure that all
sorters use the full width of the distribution, and that every statement is ranked
somewhere” (p. 25).
When the sorting process is done, a specific arrangement of statements for each
participant is a unique Q-sort for that person. Researchers could also treat each Q-sort as
a representative for an individual. For helping with following analysis to interpret the
meaning of the findings (e.g., perceptions), researchers need to solicit information from
participants about their own explanations of why they sort statements in that manner. The
responses could facilitate the subsequent interpretation.
51
Q-analysis
Q-analysis is the examination of Q-sorts. The process is similar to common factor
analysis, in which variables (e.g., items in a newly formed scale) are grounded into
factors. However, in Q-analysis, the role of variables is taken by respondents instead.
Therefore, the resulted factors are groups of participants, who share similar viewpoints or
perceptions with others within the group but different from outsiders. Usually, those
factors usually reflect various dimensions of participants’ understanding of a
phenomenon.
Moreover, in a typical factor analysis the number of respondents should be far
beyond the number of tested variables in order to avoid some mathematical problems in
withdrawing factors. Likewise, in Q-analysis, the number of statements (replacing
respondents) should be more than the size of participants (replacing variables). This is the
main reason why researchers (Webler et al., 2009) suggested that the maximum ratio
between statements and participants should be 2:1 as aforementioned.
As shown above, although factor analysis and Q-methodology are designed for
different purposes, the basic mathematical process is the same. Thus, by the end of the Qanalysis, participants who arrange the statements in a similar way (Q-sorts) will be
conceived by researchers as sharing close beliefs, perceptions, or viewpoints toward a
phenomenon of interest. The number of such groups of participants indicates how many
viewpoints or perceptions individuals possess to understand a phenomenon. Meanwhile,
for each particular statement, Q-analysis calculates factor scores to disclose how
participants who share similar perceptions would rate statements in the Q-sample. Each
factor score of a statement is a weighted average score among participants’ responses
toward that statement in terms of their rating.
Finally, when interpreting the meanings of discovered perceptions, there are two
resources a researcher could resort to. First, since for both Q-sample and P-sample,
researchers usually use some systematic categorization approaches (e.g., selecting
52
statements according to categories or selecting respondents based on gender) to recruit
samples, these different categories are conducive to interpret perceptions. For example,
Stellefson, Hanik, Chaney and Tennant (2012) used Q-methodology to investigate health
professional college students’ perceptions of using internet to search for health
information. In their study, 13 participants attended and were categorized into three
groups (three levels) – basic, intermediate, and proficient levels – according to their
ability to conduct health information search online measured by the inventory of
Research Readiness Self-Assessment-Health. After the Q-analysis, the outcomes
indicated that participants with similar ability were also highly correlated, thereby sharing
close perceptions. Stellefson et al. (2012) then named those perceptions as basic
hubristic, intermediate reluctant and proficient resourceful, correspondingly. Therefore, a
systematic assignment of either participants and/or statements into groups is helpful not
only for data management but for interpretation. Second, besides those categories, the
collection of participants’ qualitative feedback (e.g., written feedback) about why they
sort their statements in a specific way also contributes significantly to help with the
interpretation of dimensions. For this reason, it becomes a routine in Q-methodology to
solicit participants’ feedback at the end.
Summary
This chapter reviews the current literature about social attitudes’ toward PWD, the
evolvement of the perceptions toward disability, factors that influence and change social
perceptions/attitudes toward PWD, microaggressions related to PWD, and a unique
approach (Q-methodology) to measure attitudes/perceptions toward PWD. This review
helps readers obtain a comprehensive understanding of the background for conducting
the current study. In the next chapter (i.e., Chapter III), a detailed description of the
implementation of this study is presented.
53
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to help readers have a clear picture of how the study
was implemented, as well as the extent to which they can rely on the outcomes retrieved
from the study. The topics for clarification include: the purpose statement and research
questions, research design and analysis, participants, procedures, and limitations.
The Purpose Statement and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to apply Q-methodology to investigate perceptions of
college students without disabilities regarding microaggressions toward PWD. In
addition, this study explored differences in these perceptions in terms of students' close
contact experience with PWD, as well as their gender. The research questions include:
1. How many perceptions are there when college students without disabilities check
statements of disability-related microaggressions?
2. What are those perceptions?
3. Does gender differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities
when they check statements of disability-related microaggressions?
4. Do close contact experiences with PWD differentiate perceptions of college
students without disabilities when they check statements of disability-related
microaggressions?
Research Design and Data Analyses
The Nature of the Study Design
This study is a mixed methods research. It employs a non-experimental design
through a criterion sampling process to deal with participants’ numerical inputs in
collaboration with a qualitative content analysis to handle their written feedback about
the sorting activity. The term non-experimental design indicates that “existing
phenomena are described without manipulating (changing) the treatment” (Drew,
54
Hardman, & Hosp, 2008, p.166). In the current study, the two existing characteristics that
differentiate participants were gender and close contact experience with PWD. A
criterion sampling process means to select participants that “meet some predetermined
criterion of importance” (Patton, 2002, p. 238). For this study, only participants without
disabilities were recruited. Finally, the qualitative analysis aims to extract core ideas from
participants’ written feedback to prepare for further examination. Specifically, three
analysis methods are applied in the current study.
Q-methodology (Q-analysis)
In Q-methodology, also called Q-analysis, there are two types of samples – Psample and Q-sample. P-sample relates to participants and Q-sample is for statements.
Fundamentally, the mathematical mechanism of Q-analysis to retrieve factors is identical
to that of usual factor-analysis. The analysis is based on the correlation matrix, derived
from Q-sample, among P-sample. After the analysis, “the resulting factors represent
points of view [perception], and the association of each respondent with each point of
view is indicated by the magnitude of his/her loading [correlation coefficient] on that
factor” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 13). Finally, factors scores are calculated (based
on loadings and rank scores given to statements) for each statement in the Q-sample
across factors. Those factor scores reflect how a typical person who loads on one factor
would place each statement in the Q-sample.
Q-sample
For the current study, statements in the Q-sample described various
microaggressive experiences of PWD. In order to use a structural sampling process to
compile those statements (as discussed in Chapter II), the current author used two
research-supported factors to comprise statements. The first factor focused on domains
of disability-related microaggressions as elicited by Keller and Galgay (2010). Those
domains are denial of personal identity, denial of disability experience, denial of privacy,
helplessness, secondary gain, spread effect, second-class citizen,
55
infantilization/patronization, and desexulization. In addition, although microaggressions
toward PWD could be generally categorized by domains, those experiences vary based
on types of impairments individuals have. For example, to ascribe low intelligence to a
person in a wheelchair and to attribute high hearing capability to a blind person are
examples of microaggressions, specifically regarding spread effect. However, neither of
the two persons might experience the other’s microaggressions. As a result, it is
reasonable to take types of impairments into consideration when collecting statements.
The four selected impairments in this study were: people who use wheelchair (mobility
impairment), blind persons, people with epilepsy, and people with bipolar disorder.
Those impairments represent four major types of disabilities that researchers have widely
examined in the literature – physical, sensory, brain injury, and mental illness (Tringo,
1970).
Following the above two factors, the current author searched for disability-related
microaggressions in journals, personal websites, books, and newspaper, and found more
than 70 examples. Those scenarios were rewritten into short statements to keep the form
succinct and main points clear. Several professors in the field of rehabilitation
counseling and two individuals with disabilities further reviewed and provided comments
on those statements regarding the appropriateness and representativeness. Finally, the Qsample included 36 statements. Appendix B shows how these statements were organized.
They fitted into a two-dimensional grid. The rows represented nine domains of
microaggression toward PWD (Keller & Galgay, 2010) and the columns described four
types of impairments – mobility impairment (in a wheelchair), blindness, epilepsy, and
bipolar disorder. For each combination of domains of microaggressions and types of
impairments, there was one statement to describe a situation. Thus, there were 36
statements. In the sorting process, participants would be required to arrange those
statements according to a predetermined pseudo-normal distribution, spanning from score
of –4 to +4 (see Appendix C).
56
P-sample
P-sample represents participants of the study. One of the main tasks in Qmethodology is to assign those participants into groups according to the extent of the
similarity of their Q-sorts (a specific arrangement of statements for each participant is a
unique Q-sort for that person). Traditionally, the number of participants in Qmethodology is small (e.g., less than 40). The major critique among scholars about Psample concerns the issue of generalizability. However, this concern is more of a remnant
influenced by traditional factor analysis than a fundamental understanding of this
approach. McKeown and Thomas (1988) highlighted, “the purpose [of Q-methodology]
is to study intensively the self-referent perspectives of particular individuals in order to
understand the lawful nature of human behavior” (p. 36). As a result, Q-methodology
reveals the salience of a perception or belief among people of a study topic rather than
exploring how many individuals in the population hold that perception or belief. The
details of participants are discussed in a separate section below.
Condition of Instruction
The condition of instruction guides the sorting of items in the Q-samples.
Through this operant participants draw their attention toward the Q-sample and their
perceptions related to the study emerge and get analyzed. In this study, the condition of
instruction was: “Please sort the items from those with which you most agree (+4) to
those with which you least agree (-4).
Factor Reliability
Given each factor obtained from Q-analysis, the factor reliability in Qmethodology indicates how stable a factor score will be in regards to a statement if the Qsample were administered to a similar group of persons, albeit at a different time. The
general formula is rxx = (0.8 × p)/[1 + (p – 1) × 0.8] (p stands for the number of persons
determining a factor) (Brown, 1980, p. 244).
57
Qualitative Content Analysis
Besides Q-analysis, the current researcher also requested participants to review
their Q-sorts thoroughly and then to present their own interpretations of the arrangement
of their sorts. After the Q-analysis, two research assistants and the researcher analyzed
those interpretations using qualitative content analysis. Hsieh and Shannon (2005)
defined this approach as “the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through
the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p.
1278). According to this definition, qualitative content analysis serves two purposes:
classification of codes and identification of themes. The former focuses on the manifest
content that demonstrates what the content of a text explicitly present. The latter deals
with latent content that reveals the relationships among various parts of content in the text
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).
Qualitative content analysis has been widely used by scholars in a number of
fields (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Hara, Bonk, & Angeli, 2000; Morgan, 1993) in
order to systematically discern the patterns behind the content, obtained through
interviews or observations. Hsieh and Shannon (2005) introduced three ways to conduct
qualitative content analysis: conventional, summative and directed ways. Interested
readers can refer to their article to have a detailed understanding of these three
approaches. For the current study, conventional content analysis was applied to examine
participants’ written feedback about the sorting activity (discussed below under the title
of the analysis of the written contents).
Split-plot Comparison
Split-plot design belongs to the family of mixed factorial designs. This design
indicates that participants are independent of each other over one factor (the between
factor), but not the other (the within factor) (Feldt, 1993). For the current study, there
were two split-plot designs. In the first one, the within factor was perceptions retrieved
from Q-analysis and the between factor was participants’ gender. Those two factors were
58
independent variables and participants’ factor loading (i.e., correlations) on each
perception was the dependent variable. In the second split-plot design, the within factor
was perceptions retrieved from Q-analysis and the between factor was participants’ close
contact experience with PWD. Likewise, these two factors were independent variables
and the factor loading on each perception was the dependent one.
Programs for Data Analyses
There are three programs that were administered for the current study. The first
was FlashQ developed by Hackert and Braehler (2007). This program helps with the
preparation of Q-sample and guides participants to complete the sorting process. The
second one was PQMethod designed by Schmolck (2012) to analyze the Q-sorts. Finally,
the data analyses of two split-plot designs were managed by the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.
Participants
Participants were undergraduate students at the University of Iowa. The selection
of this institution is due to the following facts: (a) this institution is one of the nation's top
public research universities, representing a typical 4-year institution in Midwestern
United States (The University of Iowa, 2013); and (b) the population of interest (i.e.,
college students without disabilities) is easily accessible since the institution is the place
with which the researcher is affiliated.
Details about recruitment are discussed in the next section. Although students’
participation was voluntary, the total number of participants for Q-analysis was expected
to be 18. The rationale for the recruitment of this number of participants was mainly due
to the upper limit of participants in the Q-methodology. Accordingly, the number of
participants in Q-analysis should not exceed half of the amount of statements in the Qsample (Webler, Danielson, & Tuler, 2009) in order to secure the success of retrieving
factors. Since there were 36 statements in the Q-sample, the number of participants was
18 at the most. Given the fact that both qualitative content analysis and split-plot
59
comparison revolved around the factors retrieved from Q-analysis, these analyses also
mainly focused on 18 participants’ responses.
Procedures
Recruitment
Participants were undergraduate students who took the minor in Human Relations
at the University of Iowa. Two course instructors were contacted by email and they were
willing to help with the recruitment. These two courses were Counseling for Related
Professions and Group Processes for Related Professions and were provided via a
traditional in-class teaching approach. Particularly, both instructors used participation in
this study as an alternative to one of their class assignments so that students who chose to
participate would receive class credits which were equivalent to the points given to the
assignment (i.e., a reflection paper about diversity). At the beginning of the fall semester
of 2013, two instructors announced the purpose of this study to their students in the class
and sent them a hard copy and an electronic version (via email) of the study instruction,
which contained identical information regarding the formal informed consent of the
study. In the study instruction, students knew that their personal information would be
protected in an encrypted Excel file in a password secured computer. Only the PI had
access to the file. Moreover, during the study, participants would be asked to randomly
pick a code used as their identification number. As a result, all their demographic
information was linked only to this code, thereby lowering their risk of being identified.
After data analysis, all information related to participant identity was deleted. Students’
decision to participate was voluntary. The estimated time for the whole Q-sorting process
for each individual was about an hour.
In the following week, the current researcher brought a formal selection sheet to
both classes to recruit participants. For students who were willing to participate in the
study, the researcher arranged the time and location with them through email. Once they
took part in the study, they received credit for the class. For those who did not participate
60
in the study, they would submit the reflection paper to gain class credits. To ensure
students had freely and voluntarily made the decision to participate, the researcher was
responsible to assign credits (both for study participation and paper submission) to
students accordingly and reported each student’s gained credits to their instructors
without disclosure of his or her selection.
Setting and Participants
The location for participants to finish their computerized Q-sorting process was in
the computer lab on the first floor in the Lindquist Center at the University of Iowa. A
total of 56 students attended the study. They were arranged into eight groups according to
their time schedules.
The Sorting Process
When a participant came to the study, a research assistant assigned an ID code to
him/her consecutively from 1 to 56 and gave this participant a piece of paper, a pencil,
and a hard copy of the informed consent. Then the research assistant directed the
participant to the seat in which there was a desktop computer powering on. Each
participant first read through the consent form. Then, he/she double-clicked the icon of
flashQ10.exe (see Appendix D) on the desktop. Once this participant started the program,
the first screen showed the copyright information of the program. After clicking the
“continue” button, the introduction of the study was shown next on the screen. On this
page, the purpose of the research was disclosed. As the participant kept clicking the
continue button, he/she saw the following instructions:
1. Please check the subsequent 36 statements carefully and assign them roughly into
three piles: one pile for cards you might agree with, one pile for cards you might
disagree with, and one pile for cards you are uncertain about your decision at this
point.
2. You can either drag the cards into one of the three piles or press 1, 2, 3 on your
keyboard. Changes can be made later.
61
3. If you want to read this instruction a second time, press the help-button at the
bottom left corner.
Next, the participant clicked the continue button and started the initial sorting.
Once he/she finished, the screen proceeded into the second step – further differentiation
among those 36 statements. The instructions were as follows:
1. The graph below represents a predetermined distribution of 36 statements along
with a continuum of score markers from –4 to +4. The positive score you assign
to a statement indicates that you agree with the statements. The higher the score
(e.g., +4>+3>+2), the stronger your degree of agreement will be. The negative
score you assign to a statement indicates that you disagree with the statements.
The lower the score (–1>–2>–3), the stronger your degree of disagreement will
be. The score of “0” indicates that you are comparatively uncertain about your
decision toward the statements.
2. Beginning with the “AGREE” pile, please read statements again. You can scroll
through the statements by using the scroll bar. Please pick out 3 statements you
most agree with and place them vertically above the score marker of +4. The
order of the statements does not matter.
3. Then, read the cards in the "DISAGREE" pile again. Just like before, select three
cards you most disagree with and place them vertically above the score marker of
-4. The order of the statements does not matter.
4. Back to the right pile, as before, pick out 3 cards you second most agree with
from the remaining statements and place them statements above the score marker
of +3.
5. Returning to the left pile, please repeat step 4 using statements you disagree with.
6. The process of sorting statements with a change of focus between agree and
disagree will continue until you reach the middle of the continuum, i.e., “0” point
– a “NEUTRAL” point.
62
7. In the event you are short of card(s) in one of the three piles from which to select
cards, please pick out the card(s) from the other pile(s) based on your deliberative
differentiation.
During the process, a research assistant helped clarify the instructions as needed.
After the participant completed the sort, he/she clicked the continue button and the screen
showed:
1. Thank you for your hard work on this sorting process. Now please recheck the
distribution of those statements and rearrange the cards if you decide to do so.
2. Based on your distribution, please write down on the paper given to you at the
beginning rationale and/or patterns you notice in terms of why you sort those
statements in this way.
When participants wrote down their feedback, the research assistant reminded
them to pay specific attention to statements with scores of +4, +3, –4, and –3, since these
statements reflected their strong opinions about the interactions between people
with/without disabilities. As the participant finished the writing, he/she clicked the
continue button to fill out demographic information on the last screen. The required
information included identification number, age, disability status, gender, and close
contact experience with PWD (see Appendix D). Particularly, disability status was
requested to screen out students with disabilities. Gender and close contact experience
with PWD were requested for the purposes of doing split-plot analyses. Once a
participant filled out the information, they left the computer room. Finally, the assistant
printed out the outcome and kept it in a sealable envelope, returning it to the researcher.
Analysis and Interpretation
Demographic Data Report
There were 56 students that attended the study. Among those 56 students, two
males self-identified as persons with disabilities. Thus, their inputs were screened out.
Moreover, 11 participants’ data was discarded since they either spent too little time on
63
the study (less than 10 minutes), which indicated their inconsideration, or they did not
follow the steps, which made their inputs unreliable. There were nine males in the
remaining participants. To control the sample size for the final split-plot comparison
regarding participants’ gender, the researcher randomly selected nine females out of the
rest (34 as a whole). Finally, three categories of data were formed: 18 participants’ data
for all the major analyses, 25 for qualitative content analysis, and 13 discarded. The
demographic reports only focused on the former two groups (43 in total), including age,
gender, and close contact experience with PWD. In particular, when measuring close
contact experience with PWD, participants were initially asked if they knew any persons
with disabilities. These persons included friends, parents, spouse, siblings, relatives,
classmates, or neighbors. If one selected “no”, the current researcher considered him/her
as having no close contact experience with PWD. If one selected “yes,” the follow-up
question was “To indicate to what extent you perceive yourself as knowing this person?”
The ranking ranged from 1 (little) to 4 (a lot). Participants’ rank score of 1 or 2 would be
considered by the researcher as indicating no close contact experience with PWD, while
ones with score of 3 and 4 indicated having such experience.
Q-analysis
All participants’ data (Q-sorts) was manually typed into PQMethod. This program
conducted a factor analysis (via principle component analysis) on those Q-sorts and
retrieved initial factor loadings, which reflected the degree of association between each
participant and obtained factors. Given the current interest of the study, those factors
represented various perceptions when participants perceived micoraggressions toward
PWD. A conventional way to help researchers determine how many factors could be
retained is to check the magnitudes of an eigenvalue for each factor. The eigenvalue of a
factor reflects the variance among individuals’ Q-sorts that could be accounted by that
factor. An eigenvalue that is greater than or equal to one would be retained for further
consideration (Mckeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 51).
64
The initial factor loadings retrieved from principle component factor analysis are
commonly ineffective to disclose patterns among participants of how they uniquely load
on one or more than one factors. To reveal this pattern, a mechanism called factor
rotation is subsequently applied. In particular, one automated rotation named varimax
rotation is processed by the PQMethod. The outcomes of the varimax rotation could
reveal a clearer pattern of participants’ loadings on each factor, while ensuring the
independence among factors. The independence here means that factors (i.e., perceptions)
do not correlate with each other. This assumption of independence reflects the uniqueness
of various perceptions regarding microaggressions toward PWD.
Regarding factor loadings, they are correlations between participants and factors
(i.e., perceptions). The criteria to help determine one participant’s primarily loaded
factor include: (1) according to McKeown and Thomas (1988, p. 50), factor loading that
exceeds 2.58 × (SE) is considered to be significant at α = .01. SE represents the standard
error for a zero-order factor loading. The formula to get this statistic is SE = 1/ N , in
which N is the size of the Q-sample. Since there was 36 statements in the current Qsample, then SE = 1/ 36 = .17 and factor loading that was equal or larger than .43 (i.e.,
2.58 × .17) was a significant value. Thus, any factor that had a loading of .43 or more
became the candidate on which a corresponding participant might primarily be loaded;
and (2) if one participant had more than one factor loading over .43, then the largest one
that was higher in magnitude than other loadings on the same person by at least .10
(Kline, 2011) became the primary loading. The related factor was then the primary factor
for that individual.
PQMethod then calculated factor scores for each statement in the Q-sample. A
factor score reflects how typical participants, who loaded on the same factor, would rank
each statement in the Q-sample. The higher the absolute value of a factor score of a
statement is, the more prominent that statement will be to help interpret the
corresponding factor. A detailed description of how to get each factor score was not
65
introduced here. Interested readers can refer to Brown’s (1980) work. In particular, any
statements in the current study with factor scores of +4, +3, –4, and –3 received the
researcher’s unique attention since they disclosed participants’ strong opinions regarding
microaggressions toward PWD. A descriptive report of those key statements for each
factor is presented in the next Chapter (IV).
In the end, PQMethod retrieved distinguishing statements for each factor based on
factor scores. Distinguishing statements refer to statements that differentiate any two or
more factors according to factor scores retrieved from participants’ Q-sorts (Coogan &
Herrington, 2011). An example would be a statement that has a factor score of –4 on one
factor, but +4 on another factor. The distinguishing statement helps identify the subtle
difference between two factors. As a result, the number of those statements for each
factor signifies the degree of uniqueness of that factor compared to others.
In sum, the decision on how many factors one should retain was based on
eigenvalues, participants’ loading on each factor, and distinguishing statements of each
factor (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). The researcher gave thorough consideration to
aspects of: (1) eigenvalue that is larger than one; (2) pattern among participants’ factor
loadings that clearly differentiates a group of participants from another (Coogan &
Herrington, 2011); and (3) enough distinguishing statements for each factor, which
indicate the degree of uniqueness of the factor (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). In the end,
the reliability for each factor was calculated to help determine the stability of
corresponding factor scores.
Analysis of the Written Contents
After the Q-analysis, a conventional content analysis was applied to examine 43
participants’ written feedback of their interpretations of the sorting. The feedback focused
on key statements which had a ranking score of +4, +3, –4, or –3. These statements
reflected participants’ strong opinions (agreement/disagreement) about microaggressions
toward PWD. Participants consisted of 18 male and female students (used for Q-
66
analysis), as well as another 25 female students (not used for Q-analysis). The current
researcher and two other assistants started the analysis once they compiled these 43
individuals’ written feedback into one file. All three examiners were senior doctoral
students and received formal training and practice on qualitative research methods. In
addition, they had solid background knowledge on qualitative content analysis.
To begin with, three examiners independently and thoroughly reviewed feedback
from 18 male and female participants. The examiners first highlighted meaning units
when reading feedback. Meaning units are “the constellation of words or statements that
relate to the same central meaning” (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004, p. 106). Since
participants’ feedback explained why they strongly agreed or disagreed with key
statements, the meaning units generally reflected these two types of responses. In the
following group meeting, examiners discussed meaning units and summarized them into
codes, while reaching a consensus on each code. Those codes represented a further
condensed form of meaning units and reflected their core idea. Subsequently, they
independently reviewed and generalized similar codes into categories. They then
discussed those categories and attained consensus, which indicated that: (1) those
categories were comprehensive enough to represent the main ideas written by
participants; and (2) those categories were mutually exclusive – there was no overlapping
idea between two categories.
Three examiners then checked the remaining 25 females’ responses together to
see if the obtained categories were saturated (i.e., there was no extra meaning units
among those females’ feedback that went beyond the coverage of those categories). The
purpose for this check was to ensure that those 25 females’ feedback was well
represented by the previous 18 participants so as to shed light on the degree of
representativeness of those categories. Finally, the 18 participants’ feedback was
arranged based on the retained factors after Q-analysis. Each examiner independently
reviewed meaning units while keeping the obtained categories in mind to find out the
67
similarity among feedback of participants who loaded on the same factor. The third round
of discussion among examiners revolved around their findings and finally the consensus
was obtained for helping with the interpretation of each factor.
Interpretation of Factors
The interpretation of factors aimed to solve the second research question: “What
are those perceptions?” To answer this question, factor scores for each statement were the
initial focus since they reflected the degree of prominence of one statement, given
factors. For the current study, statements that had factor scores of +4, –4, +3, and/or –3
became the key statements to help interpret each factor because these statements reflected
two extreme sides of the evaluation (+4/+3 for strong agreement and –4/–3 for strong
disagreement). These two sides disclosed participants’ strong opinions about the
statements. Moreover, participants’ written feedback was also based on those statements.
After determining key statements for the interpretation of factors, the current
author examined three paths to help understand those factors. To begin with, since the Qsample was organized given the domains of microagressions toward PWD (Keller &
Galgay, 2010), key statements was examined accordingly. In this process, the current
researcher started with picking out key statements within each factor and placed them in
two piles – positive (+4/+3) and negative (–4/–3). Within each pile, key statements were
checked to see whether they primarily came from one or more domains. As a criteria, if
more than two key statements came from the same domain (each domain had only four
related statements), this domain would be marked as significant for interpreting the
related factor. For example, when three key statements in the positive pile under factor I
were from the domain of denial of privacy, this domain became a critical one for
understanding this factor. When finishing checking by this method, the current
researcher examined two other paths for the interpretation of factors.
The next path focused on the types of impairments, on which the organization of
Q-sample was also based. These impairments included mobility impairment (using
68
wheelchair), blindness, epilepsy, and bipolar disorder. During the analysis, positively
(+4, +3) and negatively (–4, –3) ranked key statements for each factor were firstly
separated into two piles and then examined. Within each pile of statements, the focus was
to check whether participants paid more attention to people who are blind or in the
wheelchair rather than those with epilepsy or bipolar disorder, or vice versa. Since in
each pile, there were six statements in total (e.g., three for +4 and three for +3), the
current researcher decided to use the cutting point of five to determine participants’ favor
of attention. For example, if five or six key statements in either pile of a factor related to
wheelchair/blindness, participants who loaded on that factor were considered to attend
more to these two types of impairments than the other two (epilepsy/bipolar disorder)
accordingly.
The last alternative was the qualitative content analysis. This analysis of
participants’ feedback of their individual key statements allowed other core ideas to
emerge to translate factors. This approach played a critical role to understand
participants’ internal references based on which they selected their key statements. Thus,
the current researcher would incorporate the results of this approach when interpreting
factors. Similar to the above two alternatives, positively and negatively ranked key
statements were separately analyzed to help understand participants’ interpretation of
their strong agreement and disagreement regarding microaggressions toward PWD.
Analysis of Split-plot Comparison
The purpose of conducting this analysis was to examine the effects of gender and
close contact experience with PWD on participants’ factor loadings across retained
factors (i.e., perceptions). For example, the researcher wanted to check if male
participants loaded more on one factor than females. In other words, male participants
were more likely than female participants to hold one specific perception. The
computational process of the analysis was not discussed here since the SPSS worked on
that. The original data of factor loadings were basically correlations. However, a mere
69
arithmetic calculation on those correlations for group comparison leads to the violation of
the assumption of normality since the population distribution of the differences between
two non-zero correlations is not normal (Kirk, 2008). With this concern in mind, the
Fisher Z transformation was performed on each correlation before the whole analysis
started. The magnitude, not the sign, of those correlations reflect the degree of salience
participants loaded on each factor (i.e., perception). Thus, in group comparison (e.g.,
males versus females), the calculation of group means was based on the absolute values
of correlations (after Fisher Z transformation) to avoid the counterbalance of two
different signs of correlations. Finally, the effect size (Cohen’s d) would be reported for
each group comparison if the significant result was found. The α level for all analyses
was .05.
The Limitation
The major caution here was that although the factors being extracted were based
on objectively mathematical calculation, the interpretation of those factors still rendered
subjective to the current researcher’s perceptions to some degree. As a result, the titles of
those factors served more of a communicative purpose than accurate description. For this
reason, readers should interpret those factors with caution.
Summary
This chapter presents the purpose statement and research questions, research
design and analysis, participants, procedures, as well as the limitation for doing this
study. The goal is to provide systematic instructions of how this study was conducted. In
addition, the readers can also evaluate the extent to which they might rely on the results
obtained through the analyses based on the quality of design procedures the current study
employed. The next Chapter (IV) focuses on detailed description of participants’
characteristics, as well as data analysis report regarding all research questions.
70
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The main purpose of this chapter is to provide analysis reports regarding
characteristics of the participants, as well as four research questions. This chapter
includes (1) demographic information of participants; (2) Q-analysis data reports, which
answered the first research question, “How many perceptions are there when college
students without disabilities check statements of disability-related microaggressions?” In
addition, this analysis also provides factor scores to help the ensuing examination of
factors; (3) interpretation of factors, which solved the second concern of “What are those
perceptions?”; and (4) the results of split-plot comparison, which focused on the third and
fourth research questions, “Does gender differentiate perceptions of college students
without disabilities when they check statements of disability-related microaggressions?”
and “Do close contact experiences with PWD differentiate perceptions of college
students without disabilities when they check statements of disability-related
microaggressions?”
Demographic Information
Participants were undergraduate students who took human relations as their minor
at the University of Iowa. Forty-three participants’ data were analyzed. All self-identified
as individuals without disabilities. In addition, 18 out of 43 participants’ data went
through all major analyses, including Q-analysis, qualitative content analysis, and splitplot comparison. It was due to the fact that Q-analysis specifies the maximum number of
individuals who needed to be controlled, to ensure the mathematical algorithm of the Qanalysis could be successfully processed. Since the total number of Q-statements was 36,
the upper limit of participants for Q-analysis was 18 (Block, 1961). Among those 18
individuals, the current researcher controlled the ratio of participants in terms of gender
to 1:1 (nine males and nine females). The average age of males was 21.3 and females
20.8. The overall mean age for those 18 students was 21.1, SD = 1.08, ranging from 20 to
71
24. For close contact experience with PWD, nine individuals (50%) had such experience
and the rest did not. The remaining 25 participants were all female. The average age for
them was 20.5, SD = 0.81, ranging from 18 to 21, and 14 of them (56%) had close
contact experiences with PWD. Table 1 summarized the demographic information of
both groups of participants.
Q-analysis
Factors Retention
The major task in Q-analysis was to retain a reasonable number of factors for
further investigation. This decision was mainly based on (1) the magnitude of
eigenvalues, which reflect the amount of variance among individuals’ Q-sorts accounted
for by factors (McKeown & Thomas, 1988); (2) the degree of differentiation among
participants’ factor loadings; and (3) the number of distinguishing statements regarding
each factor. A conventional rule for retaining a factor is to preserve any factor that has an
eigenvalue of one or above (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p.51). Accordingly, the initial
analysis indicated that there were six factors (see Table 2).
After the varimax factor rotation, the results showed that although the criterion
for eigenvalues was met, some participants’ factor loadings failed to help differentiate
one factor from the other. In other words, a number of participants indistinctively loaded
on two or more factors. For example, in a six-factor model (see Table 3), there was no
primary factor loading flagged for participants #5, #11, and #15. As a result, these
participants did not load on any particular factor (i.e., perception). Regarding
distinguishing statements for each factor in this six-factor model, the output showed that
all factors had fewer than three such statements out of 36 statements (see Table 4). The
uniqueness of each factor was thereby questionable. As a result, a six-factor model did
not fit the data well. Following the same rationale, the examination of other models
indicated that a four-factor and a five-factor model (see Appendix E) also had individuals
with indistinctive factor loadings, and/or had the problem of not enough distinguishing
72
statements with some factor. Meanwhile, a two-factor and a three-factor model remained
for final consideration. In the end, the current researcher selected a three-factor model,
since the eigenvalues of this model accounted for more than 50% of variance among
individuals’ Q-sorts. This amount revealed that the three-factor model could explain over
half of the variation regarding participants’ sorting. In comparison, a two-factor model
only accounted for 48% (see Table 2).
The eigenvalues of this three-factor model explained 56% of variance among
participants’ Q-sorts. The rotated factor loadings for a three-factor model was shown in
Table 5. The criteria for deciding participants’ primary factor loading was available in the
section of Q-analysis of Chapter III. In short, a factor loading would be considered a
primary one if the magnitude of this loading was at least .43, and that such a loading was
at least .10 in its magnitude higher than others for the same individual. Accordingly, 10
participants loaded on factor I, six on factor II, and only two on factor III (see Table 5).
The number of distinguishing statements for three factors were 12, 13, and 9,
correspondingly (see Table 6). For reliability, it were .98, .96, and .89 for three factors,
respectively (see Table 5). It is noticeable that the reliability of factor III was less than
.90. A comparatively low reliability ( rxx < .90) means that the factor scores for that
obtained factor are unstable when other individuals who possess characteristics similar to
the current participants sort the Q-sample.
Factor Scores
Based on the three-factor model, the program of PQMethod calculated factor
scores for each statement in the Q-sample (see Table 7) across retained factors. The score
reflected how a typical person who mainly loaded on one factor would place each
statement in the Q-sample. The lower the score, the more a participant disagreed with the
statement. Given the context that all of the statements in the Q-sample related to
microaggressions, such an unfavorable evaluation shed light on participants’ potential
awareness of the negative images those statements tried to depict. By contrast, the higher
73
the score, the more a participant agreed with a given statement. For the same reason, this
favorable evaluation could disclose that participants still perceived those statements as a
valid description of PWD, whether or not they were aware of the negativity presented by
those statements.
In the current study, factor scores of +4/–4 and +3/–3 received primary attention,
since the statements with those scores reflected participants’ strong opinions. For factor
I, statements of #5, #10, #14, #21, #25, and #34 got either score of +4 or +3, while ones
of #2,# #9, #11, #23, #29, and #36 had –4 or –3 (see Table 7). Factor II had statements of
#10, #13, #22, #28, #33, and #34 ranked as +4/+3, while ones of #2, #4, #6, #9, #11, and
#36 ranked as –4/–3 (see Table 7). Regarding factor III, statements of #8, #13, #14, #15,
#21, and #29 received ranks of +4/+3, while –4/–3 were given to statements of #3, #9,
#19, #20, #26, and #36 (see Table 7).
Factor Interpretation
Domains of Microaggressions toward PWD
After deciding the number of retained factors (i.e., three), the ensuing step was to
interpret those factors. The statements with factor scores of +4, +3, –4, or –3 were key
statements to focus on, since they were placed by participants in two extreme sides in
their Q-sorts and thus revealed participants’ strong opinions. Moreover, participants’
feedback of the rationale of their sorting was based on those key statements. The primary
goal for the interpretation of this three-factor model was to help further understand those
factors. Since those factors represented participants’ different perceptions about
microaggressions toward PWD in this study, the interpretation of factors actually aimed
to answer the second research question – “What are those perceptions?” In addition, each
factor reflected two aspects of a perception indicated from participants’ Q-sorts. These
two aspects particularly focused on why participants strongly agreed or disagreed with
certain statements.
74
To interpret these perceptions, the current researcher started with using Keller and
Galgay’s (2010) domains of microggressions toward PWD to examine key statements. To
begin with, the key statements were split into two piles based on their signs of ranking
(+/–). In each pile, the researcher checked whether more than two key statements were
from the same domain – a criterion listed in the Chapter III. The results showed that only
factor III had three positively ranked key statements (#13, #14, and #15) coming from the
domain of helplessness (see Appendix B). Thus, the concept of helplessness was critical
for understanding this factor. For the other two factors, no such pattern emerged.
Types of Impairments
Types of impairments became the subsequent focus in helping interpret the
factors. The outcomes disclosed that for factor I, all key statements (100%) with positive
sign concerned people who were blind or in a wheelchair. For key statements with
negative sign, half of them (50%) described people who were blind or in a wheelchair
(i.e., #2, #9, and #29). For factor II, five out of six (83.3%) key statements with positive
sign (except #28) described individuals who were blind or in a wheelchair. Similar to
factor I, half (50%) of key statements with negative sign (i.e., #2, #6, and #9) in factor II
revolved around people in a wheelchair or who were blind. Regarding factor III, four out
of six (66.7%) key statements with positive sign (except #8 and #15) related to the above
two impairments. In the negative side, only two (33.3%) statements (i.e., #9 and #26)
related to such impairments. Based on the criteria listed in the Chapter III, participants
who mainly loaded on factor I or factor II strongly agreed with the key statements that
described people who were blind or in a wheelchair since five or six of those statements
related to such impairments. However, the key statements with negative sign in factor I
and II, as well as the key statements of either sign in factor III did not show any
preference regarding any impairments.
75
Qualitative Content Analysis
Initial Analysis of 18 Participants’ Feedback
The content analysis started with feedback from 18 participants whose data was
used for Q-analysis. The first step was to highlight meaning units across all individual
responses. During the research process, participants were requested to provide comments
particularly on positively and negatively ranked key statements (+4, +3, –4, and –3); the
highlighted meaning units were mainly formed into two arrays – units for agreement
(+4/+3) and units for disagreement (–4/–3). Those units represented the key ideas of
participants’ feedback about why they strongly agreed and disagreed with others. The
three examiners independently highlighted meaning units during the review process.
In the first group meeting, the three examiners shared and discussed those units up
to the point that they agreed upon the units from which codes were abstracted. Then they
examined those units (see Appendix F) together and obtained key codes correspondingly.
Those key codes represented a further condensed form of meaning units and reflected the
core idea of them. For example, for the participant #1 in Appendix F, one of the meaning
units was “I disagreed with were somewhat discrimination against disabled people or
completely misinformed.” The code that the examiners agreed on for this unit was
“discrimination,” which signified the core idea. Since the meaning units were organized
into two arrays – one for agreement and one for disagreement, there were two
corresponding sorts of codes finally retrieved (see Appendix G). The first sort of codes
described participants’ comments on why they strongly agreed with some statements in
the Q-sample. Some codes in this sort included learning about disability, help, be a good
person to help, living to their fullest, and superior ability. The second sort of codes
revolved around participants’ comments as to why they strongly disagreed with some
statements. Several codes in this sort involved discrimination, rudeness, and lack of
respect. For a full list of codes, refer to Appendix G.
76
After reaching a consensus on the codes, the examiners independently compiled
those codes into categories – a higher level of summarizing the codes. In the second
group discussion, the examiners exchanged their viewpoints about those categories and
came to a final version that covered all codes (see Appendix G). In sum, there were four
categories that summarized all concerns participants had when they held strong opinions
(either positive or negative) toward statements. Those were help, experience, inequality,
and ability.
Help
In general, participants disclosed that helping PWD was preferable. For example,
one individual mentioned that “In general the statements I agree most with were that
people should help those who need it because it is being a good person.” Another
participant disclosed that “The statements I put towards the right or the ‘agree’ side were
more of the types of statements when you are helping a person with a disability.”
Therefore, for some participants, helping PWD in itself illustrated good conduct, and thus
they favored this action. However, several participants noted that it was the intention
rather than the action of helping PWD that mattered to them when they sorted the
statements. One participant wrote that “I disagree with the statement of people who help
a person with epilepsy should get social recognition.” Likewise, another participant
mentioned that “You should help people out regardless of if they have a disability or not,
not because society will see you as a better person.”
Experiences
A number of participants who strongly agreed with some statements disclosed
that they did this because they had experience with PWD or wanted to know about
PWD’s experiences. One individual wrote that “In +4 I totally agree because I know for a
fact that some people would fall in the line with the statements.” Another participant
clearly noted that he/she previously finished a class project by pretending to be a person
in a wheelchair. This experience showed this student how common it is for other people
77
to avoid direct eye contact with him/her. Moreover, several students revealed their desire
to gain knowledge about PWD. As a result, an inquiry about one’s disability was
appropriate for those students. For example, a student noted that “I agree with a lot of
those because I don’t feel that there is anything wrong with asking them about it.” The
other example would be “it is okay to ask them [PWD] about their disability to learn
more about it and more about them.” On the contrary, experiences also guided
participants to disagree with statements. As one participant emphasized, “personal
experience with people with disabilities is what motivated my order of the statements.
Not everyone needs to be looked out for constantly when they have a disability and some
do.”
Inequality
This category summarized most of the participants’ reasons for their strong
disagreement with certain statements. Inequality concerned prejudice, stereotype, and
discrimination toward PWD explicitly reflected in some statements, so that participants
placed them in the negative pile during the sorting process. For instance, participants’
feedback included “The statements that I disagree with the most were all statements
about treating people with disabilities differently” or “The statements I considered to be
negative felt like statements that imply a sort of weakness on to those types of
individuals.” In essence, to a varied degree all of the participants pointed out the
inappropriateness of some statements due to the concern of inequality those statements
expressed.
Ability
The category of ability involved feedback from participants who strongly agreed
with statements that emphasized ability over disability of PWD. One individual
responded that “I also agree with ones that involved people with disabilities living their
lives to the fullest and doing their best to ignore their problems,” while another person
mentioned “I don’t believe people should be held back by their disabilities.” However,
78
when participants referred to ability when they disagreed with some statements, the
examiners considered that the participants emphasized prejudice or discrimination toward
PWD, which belonged to the above category of inequality. For example, one student
wrote that “I strongly disagreed with the statements that talked about how people with
disabilities were limited to doing certain things.”
Check for Saturation with 25 Females’ Feedback
Based on the categories obtained from the qualitative content analysis of feedback
of the 18 participants, the examiners together reviewed the remaining 25 female
participants’ written feedback (see Appendix H). To do so, the examiners highlighted and
discussed the meaning units of feedback from female participants to see whether there
were any extra units that could not be designated by the above four categories. The main
purpose was to ensure that those categories were comprehensive enough to describe all
43 participants’ feedback. The results confirmed this.
The Further Analysis of 18 Participants’ Feedback Based
on Retained Factors
With the highlighted meaning units and categories for 18 participants’ written
feedback, the examiners further inspected feedback according to the three-factor model
retrieved from Q-analysis. The main goal was to use the findings from content analysis to
provide insight for the interpretation of factors. The examiners compiled feedback from
participants according to their primarily loaded factors (see Appendix I). Within each
factor, the examiners then independently searched for similarity among participants’
feedback, with specific attention to meaning units and categories. Following this, the
final group discussion among the examiners aimed to reach a consensus on the respective
findings to shed light on the meaning of factors.
The outcomes showed that, to a varied degree, all 18 participants noted that some
statements connoted negative images toward PWD (e.g., inequality or discrimination).
This was the main point the participants noticed when they strongly disagreed with those
79
statements. In comparison, when participants strongly agreed with some statements, only
individuals who mainly loaded on the same factor tended to share similar viewpoints. As
a result, three arrays of participants presented three different viewpoints given their
strongly agreed statements.
For factor I, eight out of ten participants (see Appendix I) strongly agreed with
some statements because the scenarios depicted by the statements matched their
experiences or they thought it was appropriate to ask about PWD’s experiences. In
essence, those participants considered those experiences as facts about PWD – either by
seeing or by inquiring. Of the remaining two participants in factor I, one did not reflect
on his/her strongly agreed statements and the other one strongly agreed with statements
regarding helping PWD. Since the majority of participants in factor I considered
experience with/of PWD as the primary reason for their strong agreement, this aspect
became the core idea to understand this factor.
Regarding factor II, five out of six participants strongly agreed with statements
that emphasized the necessity to help PWD or focused more on a PWD’s ability than
disability (see Appendix I). For example, one participant noted that “I agree with these
statements because when talking about blind people it usually is true that their other
senses are better…You should help people out regardless of if they have a disability or
not” The remaining one individual did not provide detailed comments on why he/she
strongly agreed with some statements. In general, participants in factor II held a good
intention toward PWD (e.g., help and focus on strength of PWD).
There were only two participants who mainly loaded on factor III (see Appendix
I). However, since the current study focused on the uniqueness/salience rather than the
generalizability of each factor (i.e., perception), factor III was still critical for help with
the research. Both participants expressed their willingness to help PWD when they
strongly agreed with certain statements. This finding was similar to the previous one of
factor II. Nevertheless, participants in factor III tended to only focus on helping without
80
too much attention given to the strength of PWD. For example, one participant wrote “I
agree with statements like helping others when [I] can see that they are struggling.”
Summary on Factor Interpretation
The current researcher applied three approaches to interpret factors retrieved from
Q-analysis – domains of microaggressions, types of impairments, and qualitative content
analysis. The outcomes showed that, based on the domain of microaggressions,
helplessness was the key concept in understanding factor III when participants strongly
agreed with some statements. Regarding types of impairments, participants’ loading on
factor I or II concerned itself more with amputation (using wheelchair) or blindness than
epilepsy/bipolar disorder, given statements with which participants strongly agreed.
According to qualitative content analysis, all participants perceived some statements as
indicating inequality/discrimination toward PWD so that they strongly disagreed with.
Participants who mainly loaded on factor I were in favor of statements that participants
considered to be facts about PWD. For participants in factor II, they preferred certain
statements that emphasized help or strength of PWD. Lastly, participants in factor III
mainly agreed with statements that focused on helping PWD.
Since all of abovementioned approaches revealed a portion of information
regarding the meaning of factors, a full range of interpretation of these factors took
outcomes from all approaches into consideration. In addition, it was necessary to reiterate
that each factor retained based on Q-analysis reflected two aspects of a perception
indicated from participants’ Q-sorts. These two aspects were in regards to why
participants strongly agreed or disagreed with certain statements, which described various
microaggressions toward PWD. In sum, the first perception (factor I) disclosed
participants’ support of fact-oriented understanding of PWD (especially individuals who
were blind or in a wheelchair), as well as their opposition to inequality toward PWD. The
second perception (factor II) revealed participants’ good intention concerning help and
strength of PWD (especially individuals who were blind or in a wheelchair), and their
81
disagreement with inequality toward PWD. The third perception (factor III) indicated
participants’ intention of helping PWD, assuming their helplessness, and disagreement
with inequality toward PWD.
Split-plot Comparison
The split-plot comparison aimed to answer the last two research questions –
“Does gender differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities when they
check statements of disability-related microaggressions?” and “Do close contact
experiences with PWD differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities
when they check statements of disability-related microaggressions?” In a statistical sense,
the focus was to examine whether there were any difference between male and female
students, as well as between students with and without close contact experiences with
PWD regarding factor loadings across retained perceptions (i.e., factors). Based on the Qanalysis, there were three retained factors, which represented different participants’
perceptions when they placed statements during the study. The reliabilities for those three
perceptions (i.e., factor I, II, and III) were .98, .96, and .89, respectively. Given the fact
that 16 out of 18 participants did not significantly load on factor III, split-plot
comparisons regarding gender and close contact experience with PWD were not
processed over this factor. Finally, α level was .05 for determining significant versus nonsignificant results for all the following analyses.
For the first comparison, gender served as a between subject factor and perception
served as a within subject factor. Both factors were independent variables and the factor
loading (via Fisher Z transformation) of participants was dependent variable. Table 8
showed the mean factor loadings (after Fisher Z transformation) of male and female
participants across both perceptions (i.e., factor I and II). The result of Box’s M test was
1.23, with p = .785. This non-significant outcome secured the appropriateness of
applying this split-plot analysis. The results disclosed that there was no significant effect
of the interaction between gender and perceptions F(1, 16) = .49, p = .49 (see Table 9).
82
The main effect for gender was also non-significant, F(1, 16) = .13, p = .73 (see Table
10). Therefore, there was no sufficient evidence to support that gender differentiated
perceptions of participants when they checked statements of disability-related
microaggressions. Since there was no significant result, it was not necessary to calculate
effect size (Cohen’s d) for group comparison.
For the second comparison, close contact experience with PWD was a between
subject factor and perception was a within subject factor. Both of them were independent
variables and the factor loading (via Fisher Z transformation) of participants was
dependent variable. Table 11 showed the mean factor loadings (after Fisher Z
transformation) of participants with/without close contact experience with PWD across
both perceptions (i.e., factor I and II). The value of Box’s M was 5.83, p = .17. This result
also ensured the correctness of processing the analysis. The output showed that there was
also no significant effect of the interaction between close contact experience with PWD
and perceptions F(1, 16) = 1.05, p = .32 (see Table 12). The main effect for close contact
experience with PWD was also non-significant, F(1, 16) = 3.09, p = .10 (see Table 13).
These results pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to support that close
contact experience with PWD differentiated perceptions of participants when they check
statements of disability-related microaggressions. Since there was no significant result, it
was not necessary to calculate effect size (Cohen’s d) for group comparison.
Summary
This chapter provides a thoroughly descriptive report of participants’
characteristics, as well as analysis outcomes regarding four research questions. The
results showed three unique perceptions when participants sorted statements in the Qsample. The first perception disclosed participants’ support of fact-oriented
understanding of PWD (especially individuals who were blind or in a wheelchair), as
well as their opposition to inequality toward PWD. The second perception revealed
participants’ good intention concerning help and strength of PWD (especially individuals
83
who were blind or in a wheelchair), and their disagreement with inequality toward PWD.
The third perception indicated participants’ intention of helping PWD, assuming their
helplessness, and disagreement with inequality toward PWD. Finally, participants’
gender and close contact experience with PWD did not differentiate those perceptions
when participants sorted statements. Chapter V will elaborate on those findings and
present limitations, implications, and directions for future studies.
84
Table 1. Demographic of Both Groups of Participants
Age
Close Contact
n
%
n
%
M
SD
Males
9
50
21.3
1.41
4
44
Females
9
50
20.8
.42
5
56
18
21.1
1.08
9
50
25
20.5
.81
14
56
(Group 1)
Total
(Group 2)
Females
Note. Participants in Group 1 went through all major analyses,
while participants in Group 2 only went through content
analysis.
Table 2. Eigenvalues for Factor Analysis (Un-rotated Factor Matrix)
Factors
Q-sorts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.7250
0.5890
0.4733
0.5566
0.6184
0.6105
0.7725
0.4050
0.6879
0.4540
0.5156
0.7236
0.6501
0.6819
0.6868
0.7287
0.5659
0.7176
-0.0670
0.3654
-0.2229
-0.1041
0.2820
-0.3936
0.1885
0.2769
0.2325
0.6234
-0.5730
-0.1398
-0.1098
0.0008
0.3246
-0.2588
-0.0046
-0.2820
-0.0013
0.1581
0.7094
-0.2484
0.0644
-0.2057
-0.0604
-0.5275
0.2165
0.0377
-0.0426
-0.1884
0.0879
-0.2618
0.2523
-0.1954
-0.2747
0.4105
0.3083
0.3959
0.0164
-0.3476
0.2414
-0.1631
-0.0325
0.4910
0.2079
-0.3466
0.4042
-0.1115
-0.2834
-0.2594
-0.2794
-0.1492
0.0341
0.0482
-0.1276
-0.1078
-0.0055
-0.0661
0.3302
0.2052
0.2038
-0.2363
-0.0544
-0.1813
-0.0966
-0.2401
-0.4682
0.3667
0.0240
-0.2756
0.4369
0.1936
0.3689
-0.3328
-0.0881
0.3950
-0.2144
-0.2012
-0.0720
-0.0077
0.3464
-0.1024
-0.0165
-0.3106
-0.0068
-0.3088
0.2332
-0.0783
0.3870
-0.0016
0.0189
-0.0008
0.2046
0.4841
0.0645
0.3015
-0.2506
0.2311
0.0648
-0.0232
-0.1646
0.2518
-0.3262
-0.0534
0.0214
-0.3528
-0.3173
0.0495
-0.1732
-0.1438
-0.0976
-0.2431
-0.2998
0.3509
0.1755
0.0246
0.2724
0.3475
0.2656
0.0306
-0.1734
-0.1937
0.0384
-0.1332
-0.0066
0.0451
7.1164
1.5995
1.4261
1.2905
1.0422
1.0353
0.9205
0.7190
40
48
56
64
69
75
80
84
Eigenvalues
Cumulative %
explained
Variance.
85
Table 3. Six-factor Model Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation)
Factors
Q-sorts
1
2
3
4
5*
6
7
8
9
10
11*
12
13
14
15*
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.3508
0.1336
0.1806
0.4770
-0.0651
0.4366
0.2233
0.2402
0.1573
0.2332
0.4343
0.6968X
0.7549X
0.2735
0.2174
0.7514X
0.0023
0.2394
-0.0961
0.2051
0.0331
0.1631
0.1648
-0.1715
0.2607
-0.0685
0.2210
0.7847X
-0.5851
0.0695
0.2515
0.1744
0.5671
-0.0013
-0.0339
-0.0700
0.2649
0.3045
0.8630X
-0.0447
0.2806
0.1574
0.2090
-0.3788
0.3769
0.0180
0.3033
0.1175
0.2759
0.0578
0.3706
0.1211
-0.0106
0.7186X
0.3991
0.7790X
0.0573
-0.1561
0.5425
-0.0095
0.3557
0.7335X
0.4158
0.2566
0.2712
0.2891
0.0740
0.1305
0.1154
0.1523
0.0896
0.1218
0.0265
0.1581
0.0502
0.2115
0.4916
0.6426X
0.5280X
0.0486
-0.0054
0.1327
0.1547
0.3955
0.0322
0.8291X
0.1867
0.2995
0.4696
0.3509
0.6443X
-0.0117
0.0269
0.5817X
0.1821
0.1459
0.3420
0.2638
0.5931X
0.0758
0.2201
0.0328
0.1619
0.1326
0.4683
0.2198
0.7125X
0.2936
15
9
12
12
13
%
Explained
Variance
Note. * indicated no primarily loaded factor for specific Q-sort; X
indicated primarily loaded factor
13
86
Table 4. Distinguishing Statements for The Six-Factor Model
Factors
1
# of Statement
Factor 1
26
2
3
4
5
6
Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR
3
1.35
-4
-1.71
-3
-1.26
-1
-0.28
-1
-0.28
1
0.50
-1
1
-0.28
0.35
2
-4
0.85
-1.71*
-3
2
-1.40
0.79
-3
0
-1.24
0.34
-2
4
-1.08
1.28
-2
4
-0.75
1.27
-4
0
-1.71
-0.04
-3
0
-1.28
0.00
3
-4
1.26*
-1.87*
0
0
-0.23
-0.17
-2
1
-1.14
0.47
-1
2
-0.46
0.65
3
-1
1.21
-0.28
2
-1
0.85
-0.43
-1
1
-0.08
0.18
-4
-4
-1.35* 4
-2.02* -1
1.88
-0.39
4
0
1.37
0.39
-2
-0.56
1
0.43
1
0.47
0
-0.06
-1.55
2
0.67
Factor 2
3
25
Factor 3
29
19
Factor 4
5
4
Factor 5
22
-4
There were no distinguishing statements for factor 6
Note. P < .05. * indicates significance at P < .01. Both the Factor Q-Sort Value (QSV) and the Z-Score (Z-SCR) are shown. For specific # of statements, see Appendix
A.
87
Table 5. Three-factor Model Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation)
Factor
Q-sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
0.5166X
0.1517
-0.0296
0.5709X
0.2630
0.6977X
0.4820
0.4873X
0.2359
0.0309
0.6054X
0.6608X
0.4282X
0.6212X
0.1758
0.7166X
0.5532X
0.3438
% Explained
22
Variance.
.98
Reliability
Note. X indicated primarily loaded factor
2
0.4020
0.6745X
0.2585
0.2228
0.6122X
0.0448
0.6144X
0.3650
0.6464X
0.7634X
-0.1202
0.3112
0.3393
0.3781
0.7221X
0.2228
0.2990
0.3108
3
0.3188
0.1658
0.8422X
0.0828
0.1485
0.2847
0.1617
-0.3850
0.3173
-0.1113
0.4636
0.2127
0.3793
0.0682
0.2971
0.2702
0.0154
0.7404X
21
13
.96
.89
88
Table 6. Distinguishing Statements for Three-factor Model
Factor
2
1
# of Statement
Factor 1
5
34
13
35
28
19
26
8
20
22
7
29
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR Q-SV Z-SCR
4 1.74*
3 1.49
2 0.68*
2 0.61
1 0.58*
1 0.55*
1 0.52*
1 0.49*
0 0.19*
-1 -0.62*
-2 -1.07*
-3 -1.24*
1
4
4
0
3
-1
-2
-2
-2
3
2
-1
0.44
2.04
1.66
0.03
1.26
-0.44
-0.79
-0.83
-0.77
1.06
0.67
-0.33
0
1
4
-1
-2
-4
-3
4
-3
2
1
3
0.08
0.21
1.89
-0.60
-0.64
-1.89
-1.25
1.55
-1.08
0.47
0.30
1.25
3 1.49
0 0.18
1 0.58
-1 -0.32
3 1.08
-2 -1.00
2 0.59
3 1.02
-3 -1.24
1 0.55
1 0.49
-1 -0.20
-1 -0.39
4
4
3
2
1
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
2.04
1
1.89* 1
1.26* -2
0.97
0
0.39* 3
-0.22* -3
-0.24* 2
-0.30* 2
-0.33* 3
-0.44* -4
-0.83* 4
-0.85* 1
-0.92
0
0.21
0.43
-0.64
0.17
1.42
-1.42
0.94
0.77
1.25
-1.89
1.55
0.30
0.13
1 0.49
1 0.36
-3 -1.24
3 1.49
-2 -0.81
-4 -1.50
1 0.58
0 0.17
1 0.55
-2
2
-1
4
-1
-4
3
0
-1
-0.83
0.44
-0.33
2.04
-0.65
-1.55
1.26
0.18
-0.44
Factor 2
34
33
28
24
14
3
1
25
29
19
8
12
4
Factor 3
8
15
29
34
27
2
28
17
19
4
3
3
1
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
1.55*
1.29
1.25*
0.21*
0.17
-0.04*
-0.64*
-0.77
-1.89*
Note. P < .05. * indicates significance at P < .01. Both the Factor Q-Sort
Value (Q-SV) and the Z-Score (Z-SCR) are shown. For specific # of
statements, see Appendix A.
89
Table 7. Factor Scores for Three-Factor Model
# of Statement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
-4
-2
-1
4
-2
-2
1
-4
4
-4
-1
2
3
1
-1
0
2
1
0
4
-1
-3
-1
3
1
-2
1
-3
0
0
0
0
3
2
-3
Factor Scores (Factor)
2
0
-4
0
-3
1
-3
2
-2
-3
3
-4
-2
4
1
2
0
0
1
-1
-2
2
3
0
2
-1
-2
-1
3
-1
1
1
-1
4
4
0
-4
Note. # of statements refers to Appendix A
3
2
-1
-3
0
0
-1
1
4
-4
2
-2
1
4
3
3
-1
-2
0
-4
-3
4
2
-2
0
2
-3
0
-2
3
0
-1
0
1
1
-1
-4
90
Table 8. Estimated Marginal Means (Gender)
Gender
Factor
1
2
1
2
Male
Female
Mean
.42
.48
.53
.41
Std. Error
.10
.10
.10
.10
Table 9. Tests of Within-Subjects Effects (Gender)
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
.007
df
Mean
Square
1.00
.007
Partial Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powera
Squared
.047 .832 .003
.047
.055
GreenhouseGeisser
.007
1.00
.007
.047 .832
.003
.047
.055
HuynhFeldt
.007
1.00
.007
.047 .832
.003
.047
.055
Lowerbound
.007
1.00
.007
.047 .832
.003
.047
.055
Sphericity
Assumed
.074
1.00
.074
.489 .494
.030
.489
.101
GreenhouseGeisser
.074
1.00
.074
.489 .494
.030
.489
.101
HuynhFeldt
.074
1.00
.074
.489 .494
.030
.489
.101
Lowerbound
.074
1.00
.074
.489 .494
.030
.489
.101
Sphericity
Assumed
2.417
16.00
.151
GreenhouseGeisser
2.417
16.00
.151
HuynhFeldt
2.417
16.00
.151
Lowerbound
2.417
16.00
.151
Sphericity
Assumed
perception
perception *
gender
Error(perception)
a. Computed using alpha = .05
F
Sig.
91
Table 10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Gender)
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
7.671
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Noncent.
Parameter
Observed
Powera
1
7.671
264.84
.000
.943
264.840
1.000
gender
.004
1
.004
.126
.727
.008
.126
.063
Error
.463
16
.029
Intercept
a. Computed using alpha = .05
Table 11. Estimated Marginal Means (Close
Contact Experience)
Close Contact
Experience
With
Without
Factor
Mean
Std. Error
1
2
1
2
.36
.47
.59
.43
.09
.10
.09
.10
92
Table 12. Tests of Within-Subjects Effects (Close Contact Experience)
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
.007
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
1
.007
.048
.829
.007
1.00
.007
.048
.829
.003
.048
.055
HuynhFeldt
.007
1.00
.007
.048
.829
.003
.048
.055
Lowerbound
.007
1.00
.007
.048
.829
.003
.048
.055
Sphericity
Assumed
.154
1
.154
1.052
.320
.062
1.052
.162
Greenhou
perception seGeisser
* close
contact
Huynh-
.154
1.00
.154
1.052
.320
.062
1.052
.162
.154
1.00
.154
1.052
.320
.062
1.052
.162
Lowerbound
.154
1.00
.154
1.052
.320
.062
1.052
.162
Sphericity
Assumed
2.337
16
.146
Greenhou
seError(perc
Geisser
eption)
2.337
16.00
.146
HuynhFeldt
2.337
16.00
.146
Lowerbound
2.337
16.00
.146
Sphericity
Assumed
Greenhou
seperception Geisser
Partial Noncent. Observed
Eta
Parameter Powera
Squared
.003
.048
.055
Feldt
a. Computed using alpha = .05
93
Table.13 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects (Close Contact Experience)
Source
Intercept
Type III
Sum of
Squares
7.671
df
Mean
Square
1
F
7.671 313.44
Close
contact
.076
1
.076
Error
.392
16
.024
a. Computed using alpha = .05
3.086
Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Noncent.
Parameter
Observed
Powera
.000
.951
313.448
1.000
.098
.162
3.086
.379
94
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This study aims to understand the perceptions college students without disabilities
have about microaggressions toward PWD. The research questions are:
1. How many perceptions are there when college students without disabilities check
statements of disability-related microaggressions?
2. What are those perceptions?
3. Does gender differentiate perceptions of college students without disabilities
when they check statements of disability-related microaggressions?
4. Do close contact experiences with PWD differentiate perceptions of college
students without disabilities when they check statements of disability-related
microaggressions?
In Chapters III and IV, the researcher has presented the process and the analysis
outcomes of this study in answer to the above four research questions. This chapter
centers on the discussion of these outcomes, while also indicating the limitations of the
study. Given the discussion and limitations, the implications for practice and future
research will be provided.
Discussion of Study Outcomes
Perceptions of People without Disabilities about
Microaggressions toward PWD
In this research, the study outcomes were mainly based on 18 undergraduate male
and female participants without disabilities (aged from 20 to 23), who took Human
Relations as their minor at the University of Iowa, a typical 4-year institution in the
Midwestern United States. Their class instructors with whom the current researcher
contacted had the courses taught via a traditional in-class manner. The selection of those
participants did not involve the current researcher’s personal preference in addition to
their disability status.
95
Agreement of Statements
The outcomes of this study revealed three different perceptions when participants
(i.e., college students without disabilities) sorted microaggression-related statements in
the Q-sample. The difference mainly concerned participants’ strong agreement with
certain statements. Since all of these statements described a scenario of microaggression
toward PWD, a participant’s agreement with a statement indicated the acceptance or the
endorsement of an instance of microaggression.
Witness/Inquiry Experiences of PWD
The results showed that some participants strongly agreed with particular
statements because they either witnessed similar situations described in the statements or
they wanted to know more about the experience of PWD. For these participants, their
experience with or inquiry about PWD served as the main motivation to endorse some
statements in the Q-sample. These participants basically agreed (strongly) with several
statements, since they perceived them as describing/inquiring facts about PWD’s
experiences. This aspect reflected these participants’ over-reliance on personal
experience or a curiosity about PWD, while overlooking the actual responses/reactions
PWD had.
This oversight, however, may lead to microinvalidation and microinsult. From
Sue et al.’s (2007) viewpoint, microinvalidations “are verbal comments or behaviors that
exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a
person of color” (p. 278), while microinsults are “behaviors/verbal remarks or comments
that convey rudeness, insensitivity, and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity”
(Sue et al., 2007, p. 278). Although Sue et al. (2007) defined these two concepts based on
racial microaggressions, other researchers (Balsam et al., 2011; Owen, Tao, & Rodolfa,
2010) convince that Sue’s model of microaggressions can be applied to other
marginalized groups. In essence, microinvalidation denies the reality of people from
minority groups, while microinsult subtly attacks the integrity and identity of individuals
96
so targeted. In the current study, participants who perceived certain statements as merely
describing/inquiring facts about PWD agreed with those statements when: (1) they
considered statements to be true (e.g., a blind person has superior hearing) or had
personal experiences with PWD (e.g., people tend to avoid direct eye contact with a
person in a wheelchair), but did not confirm with PWD; and (2) they were eager to know
about the disability without taking PWD’s feelings into consideration (e.g., to mention
one’s blindness when introducing him/her to others). In the former situation, certain
participants took what they knew or experienced about PWD as an accurate reference
when they read statements in the Q-sample. However, they failed to validate the
legitimacy of their knowledge from individuals with disabilities. Therefore, it was not
uncommon for them to use an amount of invalid information to justify their
understanding about PWD, which may lead to the distortion of the PWD’s reality (i.e.,
microinvalidation). Regarding the latter situation, a mere desire of knowing about PWD
without considering their emotional reactions reflected certain participants’ insensitivity
to psychological needs of PWD (e.g., integrity and self-esteem). This could result in
microinsults.
Emphasis on the Ability of PWD and Helping PWD
Participants who mainly held the second perception were in favor of statements
that highlighted the capability of and/or believed in helping PWD. First, those
participants disclosed a belief in PWD’s ability rather than disability. This particular
aspect is different from Keller and Galgay’s (2010) finding that people without
disabilities usually have low expectations about PWD’s capability. From a positive
aspect, this emphasis on ability reflects some participants’ optimistic attitudes toward
PWD. Given the context of microaggressions, however, the researcher warns that such an
emphasis runs the risk of imposing an excessive responsibility of becoming competent
onto individuals with disabilities. As mentioned in Chapter I and elaborated in Chapter II,
except for a socio-political viewpoint (Smart & Smart, 2006), the three other viewpoints
97
toward disability (i.e., cultural/religious, biomedical, and functional/environmental
viewpoints) primarily consider disability a personal issue. In those cases, PWD should
take the main responsibility in dealing with their conditions or roles in society. However,
this excessive attribution of responsibility on individuals with disabilities not only puts
unnecessary burden onto PWD, but maintains the public’s unawareness of how social
discrimination and invisibility of PWD can harm their physical and psychological
functions (Smart, 2004). In the present study, participants who focused on the ability side
of PWD ran the risk of ignoring attitudinal and/or environmental difficulties experienced
by PWD in their daily lives (Keller & Galgay, 2010). For example, a simple suggestion
of people in a wheelchair to forget about his/her disability and live as if he/she has no
such impairment directly invalidates this person’s daily negative encounters due to
his/her disability status. As a result, an undue emphasis on PWD’s ability would result in
microinvalidation.
Second, those participants who emphasized PWD’s ability expressed a wellmeaning intention to help PWD. According to Keller and Galgay (2010), PWD were also
aware of this kind intention from people without disabilities. However, Keller and Galgay
(2010) noted that if this good intention was considered by PWD to stem from people’s
insufficient understanding of disability, then PWD tended to interpret this intention from
a pessimistic perspective. As Keller and Galgay (2010) disclosed,
Research participants [PWD] described their sense that
perpetrators [people without disabilities] may look at a person with
a disability, be reminded of their own mortality, and be forced to
consider the possibility of experiencing disability in their lifetime
and thus be driven into action of some kind. (p. 253)
In the current study, participants in favor of statements that excessively focused
on PWD’s ability indirectly revealed their shortage of knowledge and/or ignorance of
actual experience of PWD (as aforementioned). Therefore, it was highly possible that
those participants’ good intentions of helping PWD derived from pity and sympathy (as
above quoted), rather than a full understanding of PWD.
98
Emphasis on Helping PWD While Assuming PWD’s
Helplessness
Two participants who shared the third perception supported the notion of helping
PWD, but assumed that PWD were helpless. This aspect disclosed these participants’
basic doubt that individuals with disabilities could be self-reliant. In other words, PWD’s
ability to take care of themselves was brought into question. This standpoint differed
from previous participants who believed in PWD’s ability, even though both two groups
of individuals expressed good intentions to provide help.
Keller and Galgay (2010) noted that the assumption of helplessness indicated the
dominant culture’s low expectations of PWD, permeating every aspect of PWD’s lives.
Ultimately, this belief of helplessness leads to microinsults experienced by PWD, whose
ability to become independent and self-reliant is consistently questioned and challenged
by others. In particular, individuals with disabilities might interpret people offering help
as sending a message of, “You can’t do anything by yourself because you have a
disability” (Kelley & Galgay, 2010, p. 249). Recurrent encounters with such discouraging
messages would severely impair PWD’s self-esteem, thereby causing them to feel
worthless (an extremely detrimental effect of microinsult).
Perceptions and Types of Impairments
The results of the current study also indicated that most participants strongly
agreed with statements that concerned blind individuals or those in a wheelchair. Since
all the statements in the Q-sample related to microaggressions, this finding raised a
serious concern regarding the target persons who might suffer disability-related
microaggressions more often than others. Due to the issue of generalizability of the
applied methodology of this study, the researcher was hesitant to be conclusive about
who were more likely to be the victims of disability-related microaggressions.
Nevertheless, the finding still sheds light on this concern, which could be further
explored in future studies.
99
According to Sue (2010b), it is not uncommon that microaggressions are
conveyed by people who are not aware of the detrimental effects of their reactions, and
those even done with a good intention, toward individuals from marginalized groups. The
former discussion of study results confirmed Sue’s (2010b) proposition. Moreover, the
present finding pointed out that the possibility of a hierarchy of microaggressions toward
different groups of PWD. Specifically, most of the current participants disclosed a
tendency to accept and/or endorse microaggressions toward people who were blind or in
a wheelchair rather than toward individuals who had epilepsy or bipolar disorder. In
contrast, evidence from past studies supported that people without disabilities have more
positive attitudes toward individuals with physical (e.g., leg/legs amputation) and sensory
impairments (e.g., blindness) than psychogenic (e.g., bipolar disorder) and brain-injured
(e.g., epilepsy) impairments (Mastro et al., 1996; Tringo, 1970; Westbrook et al., 1993).
Logically, individuals without disabilities’ more positive attitudes toward PWD should
lead to less favorable responses to disability-related microaggressions. Nevertheless, the
present result was inconsistent with this logic. In essence, the present finding of the
existence of a hierarchy of microaggressions toward different groups of PWD sheds light
on the necessity to further explore this unique phenomenon independently, rather than
merely following findings from attitudinal studies regarding PWD.
Disagreement of Statements
The majority of participants provided written feedback on why they strongly
disagreed with certain statements. The results showed that their disagreement mainly
came from the notion of inequality indicated from the statements. This inequality
revolved around the idea of treating PWD differently, discriminately, prejudicially, and
unequally.
Participants’ discernment of the inequality toward PWD revealed that disabilityrelated microaggressions were not invisible to individuals without disabilities. According
to Sue (2010a), people from the majority are often invisible to their microaggressive
100
actions toward individuals from devalued groups. Sue (2010a) attributed this invisibility
to individuals without disabilities’: “(1) unawareness and unintentionality of their
prejudices and discriminatory actions and (2) [the] need to preserve their self-image as an
unbiased and good person” (p. 14). The former attribution mainly deals with peoples’
cognitive readiness to detect their microaggressive actions. This is partly because
microaggressive actions mostly occur unintentionally and instantly, and thus are beyond
the cognitive awareness of individuals who act out. The latter attribution focuses on an
individual’s emotional need to being a moral person when facing the fact that they have
done something microaggressively toward others. However, in the current study, the
scenarios of microaggressions toward PWD were summarized into short statements and
then presented to participants (i.e., college students without disabilities) so that they
could carefully and consciously read and think through each statement. This process
helped participants exert more cognitive capability when facing microaggressions. In
addition, the use of the first or second person in the statements was avoided to ensure
participants were free of a moral burden when sorting the statements. The fact that the
majority of participants disagreed with certain statements because of the notion of
inequality sheds light on the effect that enhancing cognitive awareness and decreasing
moral burden helps people without disabilities detect microaggressions.
Implicit versus Explicit Attitudes toward PWD Regarding
Microaggressions
Although the current study’s primary aim is to understand perceptions that people
without disabilities (i.e., college students in this research) have about microaggressions
toward PWD, the results also shed light on Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler’s (2000)
proposition regarding dual attitudes theory. Simply put, people possess two kinds of
attitudes – implicit and explicit. These two sorts of attitudes could be consistent or
inconsistent.
101
Microaggressions reflect deep-rooted, unfavorable attitudes people have toward
any target individuals (Sue et al., 2007). Microaggressions include microassault,
microinsult, and microinvalidation. Microassault, in particular, is prone to indicate
people’s explicitly aversive attitudes toward individuals from marginalized groups, since
people who act out are aware of their derogatory intentionality. By contrast, microinsult
and microinvalidation are inclined to reveal people’s implicitly negative attitudes (or
views) owing to the fact that such actions mostly occur automatically and occur beyond
people’s awareness of the negativity of their actions. The results of the current study
revealed that when statements of disability-related microaggressions were presented to
participants without disabilities, they were able to: (1) point out some statements they
considered to contain negative and discriminative notions about PWD; and (2) rationalize
their thoughts in terms of why they accepted and/or endorsed certain statements.
On the one hand, participants’ recognition of, and disagreement with, negative
and/or prejudicial notions conveyed through certain statements, revealed their endeavor
to resist any discrimination whatsoever toward PWD. This endeavor reflected their nonnegative attitudes toward PWD, at least on an explicit level. On the other hand, the same
participants, to a varied degree, were also in favor of some statements that they
considered accurately describing PWD. Based on the previous discussion, the aspects of
perception that participants held to support their agreement with certain statements could
have a negative impact on PWD, either leading to microinvalidation or microinsult.
Indeed, the potential for participants to cause these two types of microaggressions
fundamentally implied they still expressed negative attitudes toward PWD. Moreover,
being implicit, their attitudes could lead to participants’ automatic, instant, and even
unaware behaviors toward PWD (Prutee & Chan, 2006).
102
Comparison of Perceptions Regarding Gender and Close
Contact Experience with PWD
Bowditch, Buono, and Stewart (2008) noted that an individual’s perception is
usually consistent with his/her beliefs, values, and attitudes. In other words, perception
and attitude are related. Their connection was elaborated above: the concern of how
participants’ perceptions of their agreement and disagreement with certain statements
helped the researcher understand their attitudes (implicit and explicit). Moreover,
attitudinal studies in the literature (Chen, Brodwin, Cardosa, & Chan, 2002; Choi, 2006;
Donnell, Alston, Hampton, & Bell, 1999; Hergenrather & Rhodes, 2007; Hernandez,
Keys, & Balcazar, 2000; Lyons, 1990; MacLean & Gannon, 1995; Satchidanand et al.,
2012; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989) have disclosed a comparatively strong conclusion that
females and people with close contact experience with PWD tend to have more positive
implicit and explicit attitudes toward PWD than their counterparts. Using variables of
gender and close contact experience with PWD, the current comparison of participants’
perceptions regarding microaggressions toward PWD aimed to explore whether these two
variables can also impact such perceptions. The results showed that these two variables
tended to have no effect on participants’ perceptions. However, it is necessary to note that
due to the limitation on the number of participants being investigated in Q-methodology,
the sample size for conducting both analyses of comparisons was small. Therefore, the
power to detect group difference was low. Thus, the result of no group difference did not
sufficiently indicate that gender and close contact experience with PWD did not have any
effect on differentiating participants’ perceptions.
On the other hand, given the current results, it is still reasonable to conclude that
at least in the cases of gender and close contact experience with PWD, current
participants did not differentiate perceptions about microaggressions toward PWD. One
possible explanation for this finding is the fact that although perception and attitude are
related, they are conceptually different. Attitude emphasizes evaluation, while perception
103
focuses on interpretation. As a result, factors that could impact attitudes might not have
an influence on perceptions. For example, individuals with close contact experience with
PWD might have more positive attitudes toward PWD than people without such
experience, but both of them could perceive helping PWD as always appropriate. In
such cases, solely changing the attitudes of individuals without disabilities toward PWD
might not, overall, contribute to alter these individuals’ mindsets to perceive/interpret
microaggressions. It is, therefore, possible that although a person’s attitudes may improve
toward PWD via close contact, he/she may still agree with certain microaggressive
scenarios due to his/her unchanged interpretation of the behaviors.
Limitations of the Study
The above discussion of the study results reveals several key aspects regarding the
perceptions of participants without disabilities about microaggressions toward PWD.
These aspects have significant implications for scholars, educators, and policymakers.
However, before elaborating on these implications, it is critical to note that certain
limitations of the current study exist. The disclosure of these limitations not only helps
understand how to appropriately interpret the study results, but illuminates directions for
future exploration of similar areas of research.
One of the main limitations of this study centers on the issue of generalizability.
Specifically, given the nature of Q-methodology, the upper limit of participants was
restricted to 18 for this study. Consequently, this small sample size impacted the
researcher’s ability to extend the study results to other college students without
disabilities. Because the participants of the current study were all college students, the
risk of overgeneralization occurred if using the results to describe individuals without
disabilities from other age groups. Lastly, the results of the group comparison of
perceptions based on gender and close contact experience with PWD encountered a
problem of insufficient power owing to the small number of participants. Nevertheless, ,
the fact that they were only18 participants did not preclude the usage of the present
104
results when the above concerns were fully taken into consideration. It was critical to
understand that the main purpose of Q-methodology is not to maximize generalizability,
but to unveil the uniqueness/salience of the results. Therefore, the findings of the three
varying perceptions of participants without disabilities about microaggressions toward
PWD did not ensure that: (1) each perception was held by a large number of individuals
without disabilities; and (2) individuals without disabilities only held three perceptions.
Instead, these findings revealed that at least three particular perceptions among others of
people without disabilities existed.
The second limitation centered on the representativeness of the statements in the
Q-sample. In Q-methodology, the role of generalization regarding participants is replaced
by the representativeness of selected statements. In the current study, the researcher
finally chose 36 statements based on a review of the examples of disability-related
microaggressions from multiple sources (e.g., journals, television, and websites).
Although the search process was in-depth, these 36 statements did not cover all complex
and intricate microaggressions experienced by PWD. This limitation regarding
representativeness of the statements also restricted the generalization of the perceptions.
However, the emphasis on the uniqueness of perceptions in the Q-methodology still made
the findings valuable for interpretation.
The third limitation of this study concerned the semantic meaning of each
perception found in this study. Although the current study applied Q-methodology to
analyze data, which made the outcomes more objective than subjective, the interpretation
of each perception still employed, to some degree, the researcher’s own subjectivity (i.e.,
mainly through qualitative content analysis). Therefore, the semantic meaning given to
each perception served more of a communicative purpose rather than accurately
capturing the central idea. Since the process of obtaining the descriptions of perceptions
was based on well-planned and systematic analyses, the results regarding what these
perceptions represented are still trustworthy.
105
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that each perception (i.e., factor) obtained through
Q-analysis reflected two aspects of participants’ understanding of their sorted statements.
These aspects involved why they strongly agreed or disagreed with certain statements.
Moreover, these perceptions were supposed to be independent of each other. In other
words, each perception reflected the unique way participants sorted statements in the Qsample, and did not correlate them with each other. However, the results indicated that
all participants selected statements they strongly disagreed with mainly based on the
notions of inequality/discrimination. On the other hand, when participants strongly
agreed with particular statements in the Q-sample, they provided varied viewpoints
regarding their agreement. This result then essentially questioned the independence of
perceptions, which focused on both participants’ strongly agreed and disagreed
statements. All in all, the current data were not in-depth enough to initiate a further
investigation of whether participants strongly disagreed with certain statements in various
ways or not. Given this result, these perceptions may correlate to some extent. Therefore,
this correlation may discredit the assumption of independence among factors when
applying Q-methodology. Nevertheless, this potential limitation did not override the fact
that three perceptions were unique, at least in regards with participants’ strong agreement
with the statements.
Implications
Suggestions for Educators and Policymakers in
Postsecondary Education
This study explored the perceptions individuals (especially college students)
without disabilities’ had about microaggressions toward PWD. The previous discussion
of participants’ perceptions has significant implications for educators and policymakers
in the postsecondary education system, since the participants in this study were all
college students. First, it has been discovered that all participants disclosed their lack
and/or ignorance of the actual experiences individuals with disabilities’ had related to
106
disability. These experiences include, but are not limited to, (1) PWD’s functionality
regarding their physical or mental impairments; (2) PWD’s psychological needs as
people with integrity; and (3) daily living encounters due to attitudinal or environmental
barriers toward PWD. For example, the assumption of PWD’s helplessness may stem
from participants’ insufficient knowledge about the functionality of people with different
disabilities. People’s desire to know about a person’s disability or their good intention to
help PWD might negatively influence PWD’s psychological needs for privacy or
independence. An overemphasis on the ability side of PWD could lead to individuals’
ignorance of how social barriers might impede PWD from achieving their goals.
Accordingly, one way to improve the awareness of college students without disabilities
regarding microaggressions toward PWD is to assist students with the process of gaining
and attending to an authentic understanding of PWD. Such an understanding requires
educators and policymakers in postsecondary education to provide additional
comprehensive and interactive learning opportunities to students. These opportunities
should specifically cover the three aforementioned aspects of PWD’s experience (i.e.,
biological, psychological, and psychosocial aspects of PWD). Moreover, it would be
worthwhile to increase students’ interactions with PWD, especially other peers with
disabilities. By doing so, students without disabilities could have a more vivid and
authentic picture of what having a disability means and how it can impact PWD’s (e.g.,
students with disabilities) daily lives.
Second, the current study results also indicated that among the three types of
microaggressions (Sue, 2010a), participants tended to run the risk of engaging in
microinsults and microinvalidations toward PWD. As previously mentioned, such
behaviors occur subtly, and in most cases, are beyond the awareness of the people who
commit them. As a result, microinsults and microinvalidations predominantly reflect
peoples’ implicit rather than explicit negative attitudes toward PWD. In Wilson et al.’s
(2000) paper, the researchers noted the difficulty of altering individuals’ implicit
107
attitudes. However, they emphasized the possibility that explicit attitudes can override
implicit attitudes, thereby changing any corresponding behaviors. This possibility sheds
light on the aspect that educators and policymakers in postsecondary education need to
put more effort into enhancing all students’ awareness of microaggressions toward PWD
and thus creating a non-discriminative learning environment for students with disabilities.
In detail, since microaggressions are more inclined to occur instantly, automatically, and
unconsciously, these implicit aspects reveal why it is not an easy task for people to notice
and diminish their tendency to behave microaggressively toward others. In order to offset
this, educators and policymakers need to make microaggressions explicit to all students.
In other words, students need to learn and understand what constitutes microaggression
and how it can negatively influence PWD’s lives. Students need to become familiar with
the term “microaggressions” and its three different forms, microassaults, microinsults,
and microinvalidations. Furthermore, students need to understand the domains of
microaggressions specifically toward PWD as illustrated by Keller and Galgay (2010).
The above efforts aim to help students become aware of, and exercise more cognitive
capability to deal with, microaggressions toward PWD.
Suggestions for Future Studies
Besides the aforementioned suggestions for educators and policymakers in
postsecondary education, the current study results also provide directions for future
studies about disability-related microaggressions. First, since the number of participants
in Q-methodology is restricted, any replication of the current study would be a useful
way to examine the generalizability of the study results and/or find out more unique
perceptions. In doing a replication, it would be worthwhile to use focus groups rather
than a random selection of participants. The focus group could be instructed to pay more
attention to participants who share similar characteristics and which are considered
critical to foster understanding of the phenomenon of interest. For the topic of disabilitymicroaggressions, the focus group could revolve around individuals whose decisions are
108
important to PWD. For example, regarding postsecondary students with disabilities, the
members of a focus group could include educators, policymakers, and family members of
students with disabilities.
At the same time, a focus group can also be formed in order to obtain a more
representational Q-sample related to microaggressions toward a particular group of PWD.
For instance, a focus group could recruit students with learning disabilities in order to
generate a Q-sample that points to their unique microaggression experience.
Accordingly, the analysis of this Q-sample could help researchers gain additional insight
about peoples’ perceptions about microaggressions toward students with learning
disabilities.
Second, the current study results also noted the existence of a hierarchy of
microaggressions toward different disability groups. Specifically, most participants
tended to accept microaggressive scenarios that involved people who were blind or in a
wheelchair rather than people with epilepsy or bipolar disorder. However, the attitudinal
studies about PWD disclosed that people who are blind or in a wheelchair receive more
favorably social attitudes than individuals with epilepsy or bipolar disorder. When
combining these two findings, a logical deduction warns of a possible existing
phenomenon: the more favorable attitudes a society adopts toward a group of PWD, the
more likely these individuals may experience microaggressions, given society’s limited
attention to these phenomena. Currently, the hierarchical relationship of disability-related
microaggressions has never been explored in the literature. To initiate this type of study,
it is necessary to develop and validate an appropriate inventory to measure PWD’s
microaggressive experience on a general level. Based on this inventory, a one-way
ANOVA test could be applied to examine whether people with different types of
impairments would rate their experience to a varied degree.
109
APPENDIX A
STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPLE
110
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Most people would not date a person who uses wheelchair.
Blind people are not sexually attractive to others.
It is difficult to initiate an intimate relationship with a person with epilepsy.
It is difficult for people to have a romantic feeling toward a person who has
bipolar disorder.
Commonly, people tend to avoid direct eye contact with people who use
wheelchairs.
It is better for a blind person to study online at home than attending class.
Usually, people tend not to hire persons with epilepsy.
One needs to be careful when with a person with bipolar disorder, since he/she
might become violent.
It is necessary to speak slowly to a person who uses a wheelchair.
In most cases, a blind person has superior hearing.
A person who has epilepsy should not play some sports, such as basketball.
A person with bipolar disorder should not apply for a competitive employment.
When encountering a person who seems hard to move his/her wheelchair, one
should help them instantly.
You should help a blind person who is waiting for an elevator by pushing the
buttons for him/her.
You should check frequently on the well-being of a co-worker who has epilepsy.
More often than not, individuals with bipolar disorder need others’ help to calm
down.
When one talks with a person who uses a wheelchair, it is okay to inquire about
the cause of his/her disability.
When one introduces a blind person to other friends, it is fine to mention his/her
visual problems.
It is okay to ask a person with epilepsy about his/her seizure activities when
socializing with others.
In a casual conversation with a person with bipolar disorder, it is all right to ask
about his/her mood swings.
It is helpful for a person who was born with only one leg to have prosthetic
surgery.
When a female, who is blind, becomes pregnant, her disability would raise a
major concern for others.
A person with epilepsy needs to attend to their own care rather than socializing
with others.
When a father or mother has bipolar disorder, their kids need to be watched
carefully by others.
Feeling good is one of main motivations for others to help a person who uses a
wheelchair.
A religious belief, such as “God would love me,” is a main reason for some
people to help blind persons.
People who help persons with epilepsy deserve social recognition.
Helping people with bipolar disorder return to work is valuable because society
honors such behaviors.
People who use wheelchairs highly need their caregivers’ (e.g., parents) attention.
111
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Blind people can do better if they are consistently praised for their other abilities,
such as hearing- or memory-related abilities.
A person with epilepsy needs to be carefully protected, especially in public
places.
People with bipolar disorder will get better with constant others’ complements on
how well they control their illness.
People who use wheelchairs should overcome their disabilities by living as if they
do not have a disability.
It is worthwhile for blind persons to forget their blindness and just try best to
strive for what they want.
People who have epilepsy need not to be too sensitive about others’ reactions.
A simple sentence like “You just need to get over it” is helpful to sooth a person
with bipolar disorder.
112
APPENDIX B
A SYSTEMATIC ORGANIZATION OF Q-STATEMENT
113
Blindness
Epilepsy
Bipolar
Disorder
Desexualization Most people
would not date a
person who uses
wheelchair.
Blind people are
not sexually
attractive to
others.
It is difficult to
initiate an
intimate
relationship with
a person with
epilepsy.
It is difficult for
people to have
a romantic
feeling toward
a person who
has bipolar
disorder.
Second class
citizen
Commonly,
people tend to
avoid direct eye
contact with
people who use
wheelchairs.
It is better for a
blind person to
study online at
home than
attending class.
Usually, people
tend not to hire
persons with
epilepsy.
One needs to be
careful when
with a person
with bipolar
disorder, since
he/she might
become violent.
Spread effect
It is necessary to
speak slowly to a
person who uses
a wheelchair.
In most cases, a
blind person has
superior hearing.
A person who has
epilepsy should
not play some
sports, such as
basketball.
A person with
bipolar disorder
should not
apply for a
competitive
employment.
Helplessness
When
encountering a
person who
seems hard to
move his/her
wheelchair, one
should help them
instantly
You should help
a blind person
who is waiting
for an elevator
by pushing the
buttons for
him/her.
You should check
frequently on the
well-being of a
co-worker who
has epilepsy
More often than
not, individuals
with bipolar
disorder need
others’ help to
calm down.
Denial of
Privacy
When one talks
with a person
who uses a
wheelchair, it is
okay to inquire
about the cause of
his/her disability.
When one
introduces a
blind person to
other friends, it
is fine to
mention his/her
visual problems.
It is okay to ask a
person with
epilepsy about
his/her seizure
activities when
socializing with
others.
In a casual
conversation
with a person
with bipolar
disorder, it is
all right to ask
about his/her
Disabilities
Mobility
Impairment
Microaggressions
114
mood swings.
Denial of
Identity
When a female,
who is blind,
becomes
pregnant, her
disability would
raise a major
concern for
others.
A person with
epilepsy needs to
attend to their
own care rather
than socializing
with others.
When a father
or mother has
bipolar
disorder, their
kids need to be
watched
carefully by
others.
Secondary Gain Feeling good is
one of main
motivations for
others to help a
person who uses
a wheelchair.
A religious
belief, such as
“God would love
me,” is a main
reason for some
people to help
blind persons.
People who help
persons with
epilepsy deserve
social
recognition.
Helping people
with bipolar
disorder return
to work is
valuable
because society
honors such
behaviors.
Patronization
People who use
wheelchairs
highly need their
caregivers’ (e.g.,
parents) attention.
Blind people can
do better if they
are consistently
praised for their
other abilities,
such as hearingor memoryrelated abilities.
A person with
epilepsy needs to
be carefully
protected,
especially in
public places.
People with
bipolar disorder
will get better
with constant
others’
complements
on how well
they control
their illness.
People who use
wheelchairs
should overcome
their disabilities
by living as if
they do not have
a disability.
It is worthwhile
for blind persons
to forget their
blindness and
just try best to
strive for what
they want.
People who have
epilepsy need not
to be too sensitive
about others’
reactions.
A simple
sentence like
“You just need
to get over it” is
helpful to sooth
a person with
bipolar
disorder.
&
Infantilization
Denial of
Experiences
It is helpful for a
person who was
born with only
one leg to have
prosthetic
surgery.
115
APPENDIX C
PSEUDO-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION OF Q-STATEMENTS
116
117
APPENDIX D
DEMOSTRATION OF FLASHQ (Q SORTING PROGRAM)
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
APPENDIX E
FACTOR LOADINGS AND DISTINGUISHING STATEMENTS FOR FOURFACTOR AND FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
128
Four-Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort
Loadings
QSORT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
0.4129
0.0504
0.0900
0.6834X
0.2063
0.7345X
0.5163
0.2237
0.2187
0.2136
0.4314
0.6923X
0.5741X
0.7038X
0.3643
0.7581X
0.5113X
0.4062
% explained Var. 24
2
3
-0.1034
0.1813
0.0300
0.1798
0.1967
-0.1340
0.2912
-0.0976
0.2178
0.7707X
-0.5934
0.0540
0.2142
0.2284
0.5814
-0.0156
0.0286
-0.0437
9
4
0.2982
0.2521
0.8688X
0.0370
0.2092
0.1803
0.1925
-0.3904
0.3839
0.0261
0.3321
0.1622
0.3669
0.0415
0.3930
0.1945
-0.0171
0.7216X
0.5959X
0.7505X
0.1159
0.0487
0.6319X
0.0806
0.4986
0.7403X
0.6121X
0.2757
0.3328
0.2873
0.1123
0.2272
0.3058
0.2136
0.3665
0.2787
13
18
Distinguishing Statements for Four-Factor Model
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 1
(P < .05; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value (Q-SV) and the Z-Score
(Z-SCR) are Shown. # of Statements refers to Appendix A.
Factors
# of Statement
26
8
22
1
Q-SV Z-SCR
3 0.83*
1 0.54*
-2 -0.97*
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
-4 -1.71
-4 -1.71
1 0.43
-3 -1.26
4 1.59
1 0.47
-1 -0.27
-2 -1.05
2 0.71
129
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
2
Factors
# of
Statement
3
21
9
14
25
1
Q-SV Z-SCR
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
-2 -0.77
4 1.62
-4 -2.14
2 0.81
3 0.89
2 0.85*
1 0.43
0 0.00*
-2 -0.85*
-4 -1.71*
-3 -1.40
4 1.59
-4 -1.87
3 1.40
2 0.80
-4 -1.58
4 1.54
-3 -1.44
4 1.48
1 0.53
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
3
Factors
# of Statement
8
29
34
28
19
1
Q-SV Z-SCR
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
1 0.54
-3 -1.32
3 1.37
2 0.79
1 0.52
-4 -1.71
-3 -1.28
4 1.71
3 1.28
0 0.00
4 1.59*
3 1.26*
0 0.09*
-2 -0.61*
-4 -1.87*
-2 -1.05
0 -0.06
4 1.83
2 0.85
0 -0.02
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
4
Factors
# of Statement
20
29
26
12
4
1
Q-SV Z-SCR
-1 -0.32
-3 -1.32
3 0.83
0 0.15
0 -0.03
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
-2
-3
-4
0
-1
-0.85
-1.28
-1.71
0.00
-0.43
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
-3 -1.12
3 1.26
-3 -1.26
1 0.33
1 0.19
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
1
0
-1
-2
-4
0.70*
-0.06
-0.27
-1.23
-1.87*
130
Five-Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort
Loadings
QSORT
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2
3
0.4071
-0.0732
0.0783
0.2213
0.1621
0.0413
0.5821X
0.1723
-0.0481
0.1835
0.4923
-0.1656
0.2769
0.2782
0.2341
-0.0532
0.2040
0.2444
0.2324
0.7905X
0.4431
-0.5735
0.6945X
0.0752
0.7578X
0.2557
0.3356
0.1831
0.2804
0.5828
0.7787X
0.0057
0.1334
-0.0136
0.2783
-0.0544
% explained Var.18
4
5
0.2818
0.5797X
0.2590
0.7364X
0.8602X
0.0970
0.0019
-0.0002
0.2610
0.5215
0.1764
-0.0096
0.2115
0.3886
-0.4015
0.7626X
0.3848
0.5750X
0.0041
0.2432
0.3095
0.3445
0.1115
0.2728
0.2850
0.1445
0.0656
0.0831
0.3878
0.2282
0.1338
0.2070
0.0287
0.2315
0.7315X
0.1989
9
12
0.2342
0.0964
0.0054
0.3728
0.5072
0.5810X
0.5734
0.1244
0.2006
0.1058
0.1701
0.2719
-0.0129
0.7602X
0.3138
0.2592
0.7178X
0.3843
15
15
Distinguishing Statements for Five-Factor Model
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 1
(P < .05; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value (Q-SV) and the Z-Score (Z-SCR)
are Shown. # of Statements refers to Appendix A.
Factors
1
Statement # Q-SV Z-SCR
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
26
-4 -1.71
-3 -1.26
4
1.55*
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
0
0.01
5
Q-SV Z-SCR
-1 -0.41
131
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
2
Factors
1
Statement # Q-SV Z-SCR
3
9
14
25
-1 -0.25
-4 -2.10
2 1.19
1 0.35
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
5
Q-SV Z-SCR
2 0.85
0 0.00*
-2 -0.85*
-4 -1.71*
-3 -1.41
-4 -1.88
3 1.41
2 0.79
-4 -1.41
-3 -1.32
4 1.40
0 0.34
-2 -0.97
-4 -1.65
2 0.56
4 1.65
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
5
Q-SV Z-SCR
-3 -1.24
0 -0.10
4 1.66
1 0.62
0 -0.02
0 0.04
-3 -1.17
3 1.13
2 0.68
1 0.53
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
3
Factors
Statement #
8
29
34
28
19
1
Q-SV Z-SCR
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
2 0.74
-4 -1.55
4 1.71
2 0.99
1 0.19
-4 -1.71
-3 -1.28
4 1.71
3 1.28
0 0.00
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4 1.58
3 1.26*
0 0.14
-2 -0.62*
-4 -1.88*
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
4
Factors
1
Statement # Q-SV Z-SCR
17
20
29
12
4
-1 -0.54
0 0.00
-4 -1.55
0 0.06
-1 -0.25
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
0 0.00
-2 -0.85
-3 -1.28
0 0.00
-1 -0.43
-2 -0.79
-3 -1.11
3 1.26
1 0.32
1 0.17
Distinguishing Statements for Factor
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
2 1.07
2 0.88
0 -0.10
-3 -1.31
-4 -1.77*
5
Q-SV Z-SCR
0 0.08
-1 -0.72
-3 -1.17
-1 -0.57
1 0.51
5
Factors
1
Statement # Q-SV Z-SCR
5
25
13
3
1
3
1.28
0.35
1.24
2
Q-SV Z-SCR
3
Q-SV Z-SCR
4
Q-SV Z-SCR
2 0.85
-4 -1.71
3 1.28
-1 -0.03
2 0.79
4 1.88
-2 -0.71
0 0.34
3 1.16
5
Q-SV Z-SCR
4 2.10
4 1.65
-2 -0.87*
132
APPENDIX F
CONTENT ANALYSIS: MEANING UNITS FOR 18 PARTICIPANTS WHO WENT
THROUGH ALL DATA ANALYSES
133
Eighteen Participants’ Feedback
(meaning units are italic parts)
#1
I think that most of the statements I disagreed with were somewhat discrimination
against disabled people or completely misinformed (i.e., telling someone with bipolar
disorder to just “get over it”) for the statements I agree with, I think some might be
slightly sensitive. I think in a one-on-one talk with someone with a disability, it is okay
to ask them about their disability to learn more about it and more about them. I think
it’s not quite as acceptable when speaking with a group of people, and I think it is
perfectly alright if they choose not to disclose any information about their disability.
There were some statements that I did not have any strong opinion about because I was
not very informed about the situation. I am not very familiar with epilepsy. Some of the
items could vary depending on the situation (how sever is the wheelchair bound
person’s disability? Do they need more involved cared. Lastly, I thought some
statements were relevant, but they simply have small effects. I am sure some people do
want brownie points with God when helping disabled people, but I think a large portion
are simply doing what they think is right.
#2
In general the statements I agree most with were that people should help those who
need it because it is being a good person and I also agree with ones that involved
people with disabilities living their lives to the fullest and doing their best to ignore
their problems. The statements that I disagree with the most were all statements about
treating people with disabilities differently. The best thing you can do is threat them the
same. The statements I was neutral about were the ones about how you should handle
their disabilities around others. That to me depend on the person and I think is a case
by case bases hence why I answered neutrally.
#3
The statements I put towards the right or the “agree” side were more of the types of
statements when you are helping a persons with a disability. One statement that I
moved from neutral to agree with was that blind people have superior hearing. The
statements that I usually had on the disagreement side were ones where you were
questions a person with a disability about their situation because I think this is rude and
you will hurt their feelings. Other ones I disagreed with were ones dealing with people
with disabilities not showing respect for others. I did this because just because you
have a disabilities doesn’t mean you do not have to take other peoples’ feelings into
134
consideration
#4
When placing items -4 I tended to use the statements that would infer that particular
disability was a mental illness rather than a minor setback. As I move along to -3, -2, 1, I tended to disagree with many of the statements as a generalization, rather I believe
many of the items I placed there could be a personal decision based on your
relationship to the disabled person. Moving into neutral I felt that again these
statements could go both ways based on their personal relationship. And the persons
who is performing the action to the disabled person. Moving into +1, +2, +3 it was
hard for me to decide where to place what but I agree somewhat with the statements
because I believe many of them could affect the welfare of the individual and should be
brought into consideration through inquiring. In +4 I totally agree because I know for a
fact that some people would fall in the line with the statements.
#5
All people are equal no one person is just “better” than another. My social upbringing
through my family is what guided my answers.
I felt most of the statements were negative and implied negative connotations to
individuals with bipolar, epilepsy and/or blind or in wheelchair. I am a firm believer
that individuals with disabilities will typically do “better” if they are as self-reliant as
possible. I felt this strength their resolve and strength their shortcoming.
The statements I considered to be negative felt like statements that imply a sort of
weakness on to those types of individuals. This leads me to largely disagree with most
of the statements.
The positive statements were those I felt people and society tend to engage upon when
interacting with the characteristics that may/may not be apparent in individuals.
#6
I sorted these cards by trying to imagine myself being in the same situation of picturing
someone I know in that situation. I thought of real life scenarios and tried to imagine
how I would react. My uncle is also an epileptic so I know how it affects him and the
things he goes through. For each card I tried to think of exceptions and reasons for each
one while keeping in mind each one may affect people differently and with different
levels of severity
#7
135
The way that I sorted and rationalized these statements had a lot to do with my
personal beliefs. The statements that landed in -4 and -3 were the ones that I
completely disagrees on. The statements that went in +4 +3 are the ones I completely
agree on. Once we starts getting to the inner columns (-2 to +2), I started putting
statements that were not only my opinion based, but they were more neutral because
they involve society’s values and beliefs. Everyone has their view of how things should
be handled and those were the statements that fell in the -2 to +2. The rest of the
columns seemed more factual based or experienced based statements. These seemed
like statements that you would know by studying that topic or by experiencing it.
#8
I found that for the one that I agreed with most. That they generally were about asking
the person with a condition about it. I agree with a lot of those because I don’t feel that
there is anything wrong with asking them about it. People shouldn’t feel ashamed
because of who they are.
I disagree with a lot of the statements overall mainly because a lot of them were about
how people with some of those condition can’t or should not do something. Everyone
should have equal opportunity and be able to do what they want to. I was neutral to a
couple mainly because the question were not super clear I felt like I could have
answered it either way, agree or disagree
#9
I don’t believe people should be held back by their disabilities. I also believe people
should be considerable of other people’s disabilities and help them without
dehumanizing them.
# 10
I agree with these statements because when talking about blind people it usually is true
that their other senses are better. The ones I put in the middle were about relationships.
I am neutral on this because I can see how many people would have different feelings
about his. Some people would see dating someone with disabilities a barrier, while
others wouldn’t mind it. The ones I disagreed with talked about how others feel when
helping out someone with a disability. You should help people out regardless of if they
have a disability or not, not because society will see you as a better person.
# 11
I was unsure about a lot of the statements. However I used my own opinion on how
strongly I agreed or disagreed with them. I was very neutral about a lot of them. I
136
strongly agreed to a lot of the statements that had to do with helping others with
disabilities. I strongly disagreed with the statements that talked about how people with
disabilities were limited to doing certain things.
# 12
When putting the statements into the categories I disagreed with a lot of them I think I
did because I do not see people by their disabilities. I know that just because you may
not be like everyone else does not mean you cannot do what everyone else can do. The
ones I had put as neutral were ones I think it would depend on the person
# 13
I felt that I strongly agree or disagree with statements that I had seen before. An
example is the “people in wheelchair always need their caregiver” I strongly disagreed
with that because I have seen many people in wheelchairs who don’t need someone by
their side at all times. The ones I placed in the more neutral boxes were statements I
were not sure about had not seen or experienced for myself. An example is “people
tend to not hire people with epilepsy” I am not sure of the statistics of it is more
common for people to not hire people with epilepsy or not. Those comments were in
more neutral columns.
# 14
Personal experience with people with disabilities is what motivated my order of the
statements. Not everyone needs to be looked out for constantly when they have a
disability and some do. The socialization are great for people with disabilities but can
be very overwhelming just like it is for a person without disabilities. That is why those
statements are neutral because it is case by case with everyone. It is possible to have a
family, job, social life etc. just need a few adjustments. I strongly agree with how
people act around people with disabilities because for some people it is very hard to
know how to act. I strongly disagreed with the relationships statements because it
should not matter.
# 15
I disagree with the majority of the statements provided. I sorted out the most
extreme/strong agreements or disagreements first. Personally, I though some
statements were offensive to people with disabilities for these were the ones I gave -4
to. Some of these included “blinded people are not sexually attractive to others” “the
generalization that wheel chair persons need to be talked to slowly” for telling people
with bipolar to “get over it” I disagree with these because they made these people seem
less than human just based on their disability. My rationale for strongly agree was
137
deciding how I act or think – i.e., helping a person who is having trouble with their
wheelchair or concerns for children with caretaker being blind or having anger
problems. I put myself in the situation or mindset of the care that is how I
comparatively responded.
# 16
I agree most with the statement about people avoiding eye contact with people in
wheelchair because I had to do a group project for a class that involved me going out in
public in a wheelchair for a day. What we found was that people do avoid eye contact
and generally ignore the people in a wheelchair. For the statements about blind people
forgetting their blind and to strive for what they want, I agree most with this also
because I believe that people should not let a disability stop them from getting what
they want out of life. For the statement “god would love me” for why people would
help a blind person I believe is accurate since most people state that religion or doing
right by god is why they help other people out.
I disagree most with statement about it is necessary to speak slowly to a person in a
wheelchair because I think that they are people too and they should be treated like
everyone else. Also disagree with the statement of people who help persons with
epilepsy should get social recognition because there are people out there doing things
that do not get recognition. Lastly, I disagree with the statement people in wheelchair
need their caregivers’ attention because they can survive on their own. But on the
contrary, it also could depend on the severity of why they are in a wheelchair. If it is
for a mental disorder and cannot control their body, then I think need more attention.
But I it is because they are paralyzed then I think they do not need as much attention
For all of the ones that I put in the neutral section, it is because I think they are all
situational, for example some people are attractive to people with certain disabilities or
some blind people might learn better by actually going to class than doing it online. As
for the talking about a person’s disabilities with them, I think it depends on how well
you know the person or if they feel comfortable talking about it or not.
# 17
I agree with those statements b/c I think that people with epilepsy know their condition
well enough to be able to operate, work, or enjoy life like anyone else. Same with
people in wheelchair. There are so many sports jobs etc. for them to participate in that I
think it is crazy to assume otherwise. When it comes to people who are blind I tend to
ask more questions sometimes they may or may not have pushed that button so I will
push it again
138
Disagree: The statement for those were a lot more than my agreements, I think people
can be too judgmental when they see the disabilities or find out about one. For me, I
have friends of the whole variety. The one that is bipolar can feel her moods about to
shit and will generally give warning or telling her to “get over it” or “deal with it”
could end up bad. As for relationship, yes most of my friends tell me it is a bit more
difficult for relationships to form but not impossible.
My view is this. People are people treat them the way you want to be treated. And
most of all, nothing is impossible if you really want tit. So if people have disabilities
and want to play sports or socialize, do it. Otherwise, 9 out of 10 most do not care if
you talk, point, or ask them about their disabilities because they live as if they do not
have one.
# 18
I have a brother with a mental disability so that helped to guide me through this process
because I looked back to my experiences and life with him.
I agrees with statements like helping others when can see that they are struggling. How
most people tend to ignore other disabilities and checking on the well-being of others
who are known to have disability because these are all things that I see ignored every
day. When someone has a physical or mental disability that is noticeable, people tend
to turn the other cheek and ignore them, because they don’t know how to react around
them. These are my three strongest “agreement” that I choose to give people with
disabilities on an everyday basis.
I disagreed with statements like: speaking slowly to people in wheelchairs, how people
with epilepsy need to attend their own cares before socializing, and asking people with
epilepsy about their seizures while others are around. These actions are more common
today than the ones I “agrees with”, and unfortunately most people do not understand
the harm it creates. People are people, no matter if they have a disability or not. It is
not fair to treat someone different or mean because they are not like you. They try just
as hard, if not harder, to fit in and be social with others. It is sad that only a handful can
see that and acknowledge it.
139
APPENDIX G
QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS: CODES RETRIEVED FROM MEANING
UNITS
140
Codes for Meaning Units (Strong Agreement)
Learn about disability
2
help
1
Be good person to help
1
Living to their fullest
4
Superior ability
4
Asking for disability (for the welfare)
1
Facts about people with disabilities
2
Experience-based
2
Self-reliant
4
Inquire about disability (perceive as part of their
2
nature)
Others’ reactions toward people with disabilities
2
(it is common to react in that way)
Disability should not stop one’s ability
4
Do good because of religion
2
Equal
3
Function well
4
Codes for Meaning Units (Strong Disagreement)
Discrimination
3
misinform
2
Treat them differently
3
Rude
3
No respect
3
Over generalization
4
weakness
3
Fact-based
2
Limit ability
3
Help (for feeling good)
1
Too many limitation
3
Past experience
2
No close relationship
2
Offensive
3
Less human
3
Not equal
3
Less focus on ability
3
Help (social recognition)
1
Dependence
3
judgment
3
Categories
1. Help
3. Inequality
2. Experience
4. Ability
141
APPENDIX H
WRITTEN FEEDBACK FOR 25 FEMALE PARTICIPANTS
142
Twenty-five Participants’ Feedback
(meaning units are italic parts)
#1
I did not completely agree with any of these statements. I only “agree” to two of them and
ideally would have scored them in the +1 or +2 categories. Disabilities are not simple matters
and have a great degree of variance. In some situations it would be appropriate to help a
person in a wheelchair more or a blind person in an elevator. But you would have to ask if they
would want your help usually the answer would probably be No. People in general strive to be
independent and persons with disabilities are no different. A lot of these statements sound as if
persons with disabilities possess a different view on what is socially acceptable, they do not. If
it would be rude to ask, say, or do to a person without disability, it would be rude to say, ask, or
do to a person with a disability.
#2
Disagree: I tried to put anything about people with disabilities not having a sexual life style on
that side just because they have disability does not make them not have desires. I also put a lot
of the self-needing help over there, most of these people do better than the most of us on a daily
basis.
Agree: I struggled with the agree side. I do not feel it is alright to ask about disabilities, but I
do know some people when approached gently about it were okay with the subject.
#3
Most of the statement I agree with are the more positive ones. For example “people who use
wheelchairs should overcome their disabilities by living as if they do not have a disability”
While tending to one’s disability can be important medically, mentally it is sometimes better to
act as if you are okay. The statements I disagree with were the negative ones or the statements
that sounded like they singled out that person’s disability. The people are not defined by their
disability and that will not make anything better for them.
#4
I arranged the statements the way I did based on personal experiences with individuals that
have these disorders. I have a very good friend with epilepsy, so I am aware how she prefers
that I react about it. I also have family members with wheelchairs, so I know that variety of
how to treat each them. Because disabilities that requires wheelchairs can vary dramatically,
each situation on how to talk/engage with them changes. I do not have much experience
personally with any bipolar or blind individuals, so that part I had to guess how I would want
to be treated in that situation.
#5
143
For a lot of my answers I did my election based on personal experiences. My cousin is
paraplegia from the waist down and I have a family friend that is blind. For the bipolar and
epilepsy I just went off my judgment.
#6
I chose to put statements in -4 because they refer to keep people with disabilities out of the
working world. They are offensive statements. I am neutral about statements referring to
socializing and how to alter the mood when a person has a disability. I do not think that should
affect how people interact in a social setting. I think people should know not to ask personal
questions if you do not know them well.
I chose positive points for statements for helping people with disabilities but not allowing it to
be a main concern.
#7
It was hard to sort some answers because I do not have whole lot of experience interacting with
people with epilepsy, bipolar, or blindness. But I know I feel good when I help people in
general, so I strongly agreed with that one. However, I have also seen people avoid eye
contacts with people in wheelchairs or other disabilities. Many of the other ones I agrees with
were about not limiting someone’s opportunities just because of a disability. The ones I
disagrees with were ones that limited opportunities for persons with disabilities, treated them
as if they were completely incapable of doing anything. The ones I was neutral on were ones
that I do not really know how it would affect a person with a disability. I do not know if people
with epilepsy need to be protected, I do not know if blind people were being praised for other
things. I would have to have more interactions with these kinds of situations before I would
feel comfortable going one way or the other.
#8
I tended to disagree with statements that led to inquiring about people with disabilities. I think
that is their business and if they want to tell you they will. Also [disagree with] statements that
indicated constantly checking in or over helping them.
I agree with statements that were among items of being careful about people who are bipolar
because that is a tricky mental illness to deal with if they are not medicated. The neutral ones
were all phrases I want exactly sure either way for.
#9
I think I disagreed that strongest with the statements that explicitly stated that people with
disabilities should not participate in normal, everyday activities. I disagreed with statements
that were highly stereotypical about the abilities of people with disabilities. The statements I
agreed with were ones that I have observed in social situations. I put some statements into the
neutral category because I really did not know whether or not I agree because they were more
144
based on a person’ own personal preference.
# 10
I found it difficult to separate the statements that I declared neutral from what I agree or
disagree with. Certain statements were easy such as the social “norms” I see people act on
and that I disagree with such as “people tend to avoid eye contact or a person in wheelchair”
but I put the statements that were more personal to the person with disability in the disagree
side. Or the statements that I knew they could not change such as “people in wheelchair should
overcome their disabilities”
# 11
My rationale behind the statements that I disagreed on was mainly due to every blind person,
epilepsy and bipolar disordered person is different. The statements in the disagree boxes are
statements that generalize all individuals with these health conditions as being helpless or
completely unable to live on their own, and in most cases that is not true. I am basing this on
my own personal experience being around people with these health conditions.
The rationale behind the statements in the neutral zone is based on the fact that I have not had
enough experience with those issues or behaviors to know one way or the other if I disagree or
agree
The rationale behind the agree statements is due to the fact I have experienced most of these
statements. In my experience these statements are something that I agree with. And feel that
statements are close to being true. I did keep in mind everyone is different but went with the
majority on how I felt about the statements to decide
# 12
I sorted the way I did because I believe the most negative column has to do with being
judgmental on disabilities when they may be better off than we assume. The most positive side
is more so about the special quality people with disabilities possess that are more unique than
an ordinary person such as a blind person has superior hearing.
# 13
In general, I felt that I related to these statements to social norms that I have come across. I
would want to help a blind or wheelchair bound person that I see out on the street, it is good
manners. I would not be looking for anything in return – I feel that people should in general
help someone they see struggling.
The neutral zone was my way of noting things that I do not have prior experiences with
therefore I felt neutral toward statements of being romantically involved, for example.
My negative voiced the statements that I believe can be generalized toward people with
disabilities which I find to be extremely narrow-minded and we have to remember that no one
145
is perfect and that someone with a disability does not mean you have to jump to conclusions
about their situation. People with disabilities are still people and deserve to be treated as such.
Regardless of disabling, rather than generalizing them to a category based on their disabilities.
# 14
I sorted my cards in a way that the +4 column was what I believed to be the most true about
society. Then the less I believed or agreed with statement, I would put the cards in order. The 4 column is what I least agree with. Some statements I found very ignorant and disagreed.
Other statements that were somewhat ignorant, I sadly found were true to our society. So even
though I disagree with moral, I believed people do actually act in the way the card described.
# 15
I agree with some of the statements that were more general, i.e., a person may feel good about
themselves after helping a person in a wheelchair. I disagreed with the more definite statements
such as a blind person should go to school online rather than attending class. It was difficult for
me to rate one the positive side _+1 - +4) because there were far statements that I agreed with
or strongly agreed with. It was also difficult to sort in the -1 or -2 groups because I tended to
strongly agree with many of the statements.
# 16
As I approached the neutral ranking, I become more and more conflicted. As I was sorting I
made an explanative for why I was sure or unsure to put it in its ranking. The -4 disagree were
statements that I thought struck me as a little ridiculous right away. The +4 statements were
situations I agree with. I acknowledged that every person and every situation is different.
# 17
The statements I strongly disagreed with were all statements that seem to be really ignorant.
For example. Saying someone is not sexually attractive just because they are blind seems
shallow and plain rude. I had a hard time deciding which statements I disagreed with more as
many of my +3, +2 were ones that intrigued on privacy and peoples’ competency. I do think,
however, in some cases asking about epilepsy or introducing someone as visually impaired is
necessary to avoid problems later on (i.e., offensive jokes or even injury).
I strongly agreed with statements that I do not necessarily think are right, but are true. I do
think people avoid seeming rude and it is ok to help people with disabilities if you can without
insulting them.
The neutral statements were because I either do not know much about it or because certain
statements require one action/belief while others require the opposite
# 18
For the disagreeing side I disagreed with them because most of the statements I disagreed with
146
were rude and a little de-humanizing, such as it is necessary to speak slowly to a person in
wheelchair (rude) they can also do what they want even with their disability such as apply for a
competitive employment. For the neutral side I put them as neutral because I was not actually
sure. For the agree side I agree with the ones that felt were right
# 19
The statements I put in the positive square were more rational and made more sense to me.
They were not as harsh or insensitive as those that I put in the negative blanks. I was
indifferent or neutral with some because I feel like the idea could go both ways and many
people would answer them differently. The positive were more socially and morally acceptable
where the negatives were not. I could not agree with some statements because I do not have
any of those “disorders”, therefore I could not relate.
# 20
Most of my answers reflected my thinking that even through someone has a disorder does not
mean that you have to treat him/her as a child. You have to respect them for who they are with
the disability. A lot of my answers were neutral and mostly because I do not know enough
about the disability and many Americans do not know about common disabilities.
# 21
Agree: a lot of the statements I agreed with is what I think people normally do. For example,
people helping out others with disabilities such as a wheelchair, is definitely something that
should be done out of the kindness of their heart. Unfortunately. Some only do those kind of
gestures to feel good about themselves and that is a shame. Another thing I agreed with is that
it is okay to inquire a person’s disability when talking to them if it is in a respectful manner.
Disagree: most of what I disagreed with had to do a lot with horrible statements that were just
discriminatory. An example like talking slowly to someone in a wheelchair or people should
avoid eye contact with those in wheelchairs. I disagree with all the negative and hurtful
statements because none of them are true.
# 22
I totally disagree with most of the statements I only had 4 statements that I actually agree with
because most of them are offensive. People with disabilities should be treated the same as
everyone else. It is never okay to questions someone on something they cannot control and it is
certainly crazy that blind people cannot be sexually attractive to people or that it is difficult to
have relationship with someone who has epilepsy.
# 23
I do not think people should treat disabled people any different, so most of those kind of
responses I disagreed with. However, I still think you should help them out if something were
to come up (elevator, wheelchair, etc.). I do not know much about bipolar, so I was pretty
147
neutral with those statements. As far as epilepsy, I tried to imagine if I had it or someone in my
family. I sorted those by how I would react/think in those situations.
# 24
Some statements I could disagree with very easily. The more specific statements regarding
people with disabilities and sexual attractiveness I could not answer because I neither agreed
nor disagreed. I chose more negative for all the statements because I felt that they were all
stereotypes that people put on people with disabilities and I do not look at those people as
having any type of disadvantage.
# 25
I was either neutral or I disagreed with most of the statements because it seems like a lot of
them were biased against individuals with disabilities when really they probably would just
like to be treated equally as if they did not have a disability.
148
APPENDIX I
REORDERING EIGTHTEEN PARTICIPANTS’ FEEDBACK BASED ON THE
THREE-FACTOR MODEL
149
Factor I
Highlighted areas reflected similarity among participants’ strong agreement with
statements
#1
#4
I think that most of the statements I
disagreed with were somewhat
discrimination against disabled people
or completely misinformed (i.e., telling
someone with bipolar disorder to just
“get over it”) for the statements I agree
with, I think some might be slightly
sensitive. I think in a one-on-one talk
with someone with a disability, it is
okay to ask them about their disability
to learn more about it and more about
them. I think it’s not quite as acceptable
when speaking with a group of people,
and I think it is perfectly alright if they
choose not to disclose any information
about their disability.
When placing items -4 I tended to use the
statements that would infer that particular
disability was a mental illness rather than a
minor setback. As I move along to -3, -2, -1,
I tended to disagree with many of the
statements as a generalization, rather I
believe many of the items I placed there
could be a personal decision based on your
relationship to the disabled person. Moving
into neutral I felt that again these statements
could go both ways based on their personal
relationship. And the persons who is
performing the action to the disabled person.
Moving into +1, +2, +3 it was hard for me
to decide where to place what but I agree
somewhat with the statements because I
believe many of them could affect the
There were some statements that I did
welfare of the individual and should be
not have any strong opinion about
brought into consideration through
because I was not very informed about
inquiring. In +4 I totally agree because I
the situation. I am not very familiar with know for a fact that some people would fall
epilepsy. Some of the items could vary
in the line with the statements.
depending on the situation (how sever is
the wheelchair bound person’s
disability? Do they need more involved
cared. Lastly, I thought some statements
were relevant, but they simply have
small effects. I am sure some people do
want brownie points with God when
helping disabled people, but I think a
large portion are simply doing what they
think is right.
#6
#8
150
I sorted these cards by trying to imagine
myself being in the same situation of
picturing someone I know in that
situation. I thought of real life scenarios
and tried to imagine how I would react.
My uncle is also an epileptic so I know
how it affects him and the things he
goes through. For each card I tried to
think of exceptions and reasons for each
one while keeping in mind each one
may affect people differently and with
different levels of severity
I found that for the one that I agreed with
most. That they generally were about asking
the person with a condition about it. I agree
with a lot of those because I don’t feel that
there is anything wrong with asking them
about it. People shouldn’t feel ashamed
because of who they are.
# 11
# 12
I was unsure about a lot of the
statements. However I used my own
opinion on how strongly I agreed or
disagreed with them. I was very neutral
about a lot of them. I strongly agreed to
a lot of the statements that had to do
with helping others with disabilities. I
strongly disagreed with the statements
that talked about how people with
disabilities were limited to doing certain
things.
When putting the statements into the
categories I disagreed with a lot of them I
think I did because I do not see people by
their disabilities. I know that just because
you may not be like everyone else does not
mean you cannot do what everyone else can
do. The ones I had put as neutral were ones I
think it would depend on the person
# 13
# 14
I felt that I strongly agree or disagree
with statements that I had seen before.
An example is the “people in wheelchair
always need their caregiver” I strongly
disagreed with that because I have seen
many people in wheelchairs who don’t
need someone by their side at all times.
Personal experience with people with
disabilities is what motivated my order of
the statements. Not everyone needs to be
looked out for constantly when they have a
disability and some do. The socialization are
great for people with disabilities but can be
very overwhelming just like it is for a
I disagree with a lot of the statements
overall mainly because a lot of them were
about how people with some of those
condition can’t or should not do something.
Everyone should have equal opportunity and
be able to do what they want to. I was
neutral to a couple mainly because the
question were not super clear I felt like I
could have answered it either way, agree or
disagree
151
The ones I placed in the more neutral
boxes were statements I were not sure
about had not seen or experienced for
myself. An example is “people tend to
not hire people with epilepsy” I am not
sure of the statistics of it is more
common for people to not hire people
with epilepsy or not. Those comments
were in more neutral columns.
person without disabilities. That is why
those statements are neutral because it is
case by case with everyone. It is possible to
have a family, job, social life etc. just need a
few adjustments. I strongly agree with how
people act around people with disabilities
because for some people it is very hard to
know how to act. I strongly disagreed with
the relationships statements because it
should not matter.
# 16
# 17
I agree most with the statement about
people avoiding eye contact with people
in wheelchair because I had to do a
group project for a class that involved
me going out in public in a wheelchair
for a day. What we found was that
people do avoid eye contact and
generally ignore the people in a
wheelchair. For the statements about
blind people forgetting their blind and to
strive for what they want, I agree most
with this also because I believe that
people should not let a disability stop
them from getting what they want out of
life. For the statement “god would love
me” for why people would help a blind
person I believe is accurate since most
people state that religion or doing right
by god is why they help other people
out.
I agree with those statements b/c I think that
people with epilepsy know their condition
well enough to be able to operate, work, or
enjoy life like anyone else. Same with
people in wheelchair. There are so many
sports jobs etc. for them to participate in that
I think it is crazy to assume otherwise.
When it comes to people who are blind I
tend to ask more questions sometimes they
may or may not have pushed that button so I
will push it again
I disagree most with statement about it
is necessary to speak slowly to a person
in a wheelchair because I think that they
are people too and they should be
treated like everyone else. Also disagree
with the statement of people who help
persons with epilepsy should get social
Disagree: The statement for those were a lot
more than my agreements, I think people
can be too judgmental when they see the
disabilities or find out about one. For me, I
have friends of the whole variety. The one
that is bipolar can feel her moods about to
shit and will generally give warning or
telling her to “get over it” or “deal with it”
could end up bad. As for relationship, yes
most of my friends tell me it is a bit more
difficult for relationships to form but not
impossible.
152
recognition because there are people out
there doing things that do not get
recognition. Lastly, I disagree with the
statement people in wheelchair need
their caregivers’ attention because they
can survive on their own. But on the
contrary, it also could depend on the
severity of why they are in a wheelchair.
If it is for a mental disorder and cannot
control their body, then I think need
more attention. But I it is because they
are paralyzed then I think they do not
need as much attention
My view is this. People are people treat
them the way you want to be treated. And
most of all, nothing is impossible if you
really want tit. So if people have disabilities
and want to play sports or socialize, do it.
Otherwise, 9 out of 10 most do not care if
you talk, point, or ask them about their
disabilities because they live as if they do
not have one.
For all of the ones that I put in the
neutral section, it is because I think they
are all situational, for example some
people are attractive to people with
certain disabilities or some blind people
might learn better by actually going to
class than doing it online. As for the
talking about a person’s disabilities with
them, I think it depends on how well
you know the person or if they feel
comfortable talking about it or not.
Factor II
Highlighted areas reflected similarity among participants’ strong agreement with
statements
#2
#5
In general the statements I agree most
with were that people should help those
who need it because it is being a good
person and I also agree with ones that
involved people with disabilities living
their lives to the fullest and doing their
best to ignore their problems. The
statements that I disagree with the most
were all statements about treating
All people are equal no one person is just
“better” than another. My social upbringing
through my family is what guided my
answers.
I felt most of the statements were negative
and implied negative connotations to
individuals with bipolar, epilepsy and/or
blind or in wheelchair. I am a firm believer
153
people with disabilities differently. The
best thing you can do is threat them the
same. The statements I was neutral
about were the ones about how you
should handle their disabilities around
others. That to me depend on the person
and I think is a case by case bases hence
why I answered neutrally.
that individuals with disabilities will
typically do “better” if they are as selfreliant as possible. I felt this strength their
resolve and strength their shortcoming.
The statements I considered to be negative
felt like statements that imply a sort of
weakness on to those types of individuals.
This leads me to largely disagree with most
of the statements.
The positive statements were those I felt
people and society tend to engage upon
when interacting with the characteristics that
may/may not be apparent in individuals.
#7
#9
The way that I sorted and rationalized
these statements had a lot to do with my
personal beliefs. The statements that
landed in -4 and -3 were the ones that I
completely disagrees on. The statements
that went in +4 +3 are the ones I
completely agree on. Once we starts
getting to the inner columns (-2 to +2), I
started putting statements that were not
only my opinion based, but they were
more neutral because they involve
society’s values and beliefs. Everyone
has their view of how things should be
handled and those were the statements
that fell in the -2 to +2. The rest of the
columns seemed more factual based or
experienced based statements. These
seemed like statements that you would
know by studying that topic or by
experiencing it.
I don’t believe people should be held back
by their disabilities. I also believe people
should be considerable of other people’s
disabilities and help them without
dehumanizing them.
# 10
# 15
I agree with these statements because
I disagree with the majority of the
154
when talking about blind people it
usually is true that their other senses are
better. The ones I put in the middle were
about relationships. I am neutral on this
because I can see how many people
would have different feelings about his.
Some people would see dating someone
with disabilities a barrier, while others
wouldn’t mind it. The ones I disagreed
with talked about how others feel when
helping out someone with a disability.
You should help people out regardless
of if they have a disability or not, not
because society will see you as a better
person.
statements provided. I sorted out the most
extreme/strong agreements or disagreements
first. Personally, I though some statements
were offensive to people with disabilities for
these were the ones I gave -4 to. Some of
these included “blinded people are not
sexually attractive to others” “the
generalization that wheel chair persons need
to be talked to slowly” for telling people
with bipolar to “get over it” I disagree with
these because they made these people seem
less than human just based on their
disability. My rationale for strongly agree
was deciding how I act or think – i.e.,
helping a person who is having trouble with
their wheelchair or concerns for children
with caretaker being blind or having anger
problems. I put myself in the situation or
mindset of the care that is how I
comparatively responded.
Factor III
Highlighted areas reflected similarity among participants’ strong agreement with
statements
#3
# 18
The statements I put towards the right or
the “agree” side were more of the types
of statements when you are helping a
persons with a disability. One statement
that I moved from neutral to agree with
was that blind people have superior
hearing. The statements that I usually
had on the disagreement side were ones
where you were questions a person with
a disability about their situation because
I think this is rude and you will hurt
their feelings. Other ones I disagreed
with were ones dealing with people with
disabilities not showing respect for
I have a brother with a mental disability so
that helped to guide me through this process
because I looked back to my experiences
and life with him.
I agrees with statements like helping others
when can see that they are struggling. How
most people tend to ignore other disabilities
and checking on the well-being of others
who are known to have disability because
these are all things that I see ignored every
day. When someone has a physical or
mental disability that is noticeable, people
tend to turn the other cheek and ignore
155
others. I did this because just because
you have a disabilities doesn’t mean you
do not have to take other peoples’
feelings into consideration
them, because they don’t know how to react
around them. These are my three strongest
“agreement” that I choose to give people
with disabilities on an everyday basis.
I disagreed with statements like: speaking
slowly to people in wheelchairs, how people
with epilepsy need to attend their own cares
before socializing, and asking people with
epilepsy about their seizures while others
are around. These actions are more common
today than the ones I “agrees with”, and
unfortunately most people do not
understand the harm it creates. People are
people, no matter if they have a disability or
not. It is not fair to treat someone different
or mean because they are not like you. They
try just as hard, if not harder, to fit in and be
social with others. It is sad that only a
handful can see that and acknowledge it.
156
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. A. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social
psychology. Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (2012). DSM: History of the manual. Retrieved
April/3rd, 2013, from http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm-history-of-themanual
Antonak, R. F. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the scale of attitude
toward disabled persons. The Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13, 2229.
Au, K. W., & Man, D. W. K. (2006). Attitudes toward people with disabilities: A
comparison between health care professionals and students. International Journal of
Rehabilitation Research, 29, 155-160.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the
inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16, 277-293.
Balsam, K. F., Molina, Y., Beadnell, B., Simoni, J., & Walters, K. (2011). Measuring
multiple minority stress: The LGBT people of color microaggressions scale.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163-174. doi:
10.1037/a0023244
Barr, J. J., & Bracchitta, K. (2008). Difference in preservice teachers' attitudes toward
individuals with physical, developmental, and behavioral disabilities. Journal of
Research in Education, 18, 125-127.
Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Bowditch, J. L., Buono, A. F., & Stewart, M. M. (2008). Perception, attitudes, and
individual difference. In J. L. Bowditch, A. F. Buono, & M. M. Stewart (Eds.), A
primer on organizational behavior (7th ed., pp. 41-69). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bruyere, S., & Reiter, B. (2012). Disability policy and law. In D. R. Maki, & M. V.
Tarvydas (Eds.), Professional practice of rehabilitation counseling (pp. 61-79). New
York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Cameto, R., Levine, P., and Wagner, M. (2004). Transition planning for students with
disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
157
Capodilupo, C. M., Nadal, K. L., Corman, L., Hamit, S., Lyons, O. B., & Weinberg, A.
(2010). The manifestation of gender microaggressions. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), (pp. 193216). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Carey, K. (2004). A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year
Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
Chan, C. C. H., Lee, T. M. C., Yuen, H. K., & Chan, F. (2002). Attitudes toward people
with disabilities between Chinese rehabilitation and business students: An
implication for practice. Rehabilitation Psychology, 47(3), 324-338.
Chen, S., Ma, Li., & Zhang, J. (2011). Chinese undergraduates’ explicit and implicit
attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 55(1),
38-45.
Chen, R., Brodwin, M. G., Cardoso, E., & Chan, F. (2002). Attitudes toward people with
disabilities in the social context of dating and marriage: A comparison of American,
Taiwanese, and Singaporean college students. Journal of Rehabilitation, 68(4), 511.
Choi, G. (2006). Students' attitudes toward people with different types disability. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(1), 265-280.
Clark, D. A., Spanierman, L. B., Reed, T. D., Soble, J. R., & Cabana, S. (2011).
Documenting weblog expressions of racial microaggressions that target American
Indians. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(1), 39-50. doi:
10.1037/a0021762
Constantine, M. G., Smith, L., Redington, R. M., & Owens, D. (2008). Racial
microaggressions against black counseling and counseling psychology faculty: A
central challenge in the multicultural counseling movement. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 86, 348-355.
Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2007). Perceptions of racial microaggressions among
Balck supervisees in cross-racial dyads. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2),
142-153. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.142
Coogan, J. & Nerrington, N. (2011). Q methodology: An overview. Research in
Secondary Teacher Education, 1(2) 24-28.
Deal, M. (2003). Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impairment groups: A
hierarchy of impairments. Disability & Society, 18(7), 897-910.
Dionne, C. D., Gainforth, H. L., O’Malley, D. A., & Latimer-Cheung, A. E. (2013).
Examining implicit attitudes towards exercises with a physical disability. The
Scientific World Journal, 2013, 1-8.
158
Donnell, C. M., Alston, R. J., Hampton, J. L., & Bell, T. J. (1999). Ethnic and gender
influences on the social acceptance of persons with disabilities by African American
and white college students. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 30(1), 3134.
Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L., & Hosp, J. L. (2008). Designing and conducting researcher
in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Eberhardt, K, & Mayberry, W. (2003). Factors influencing occupational therapists’
attitudes toward persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 49, 629-636.
Feldt, L. S. (1993). Design and analysis of expriments in the behaviroal sciences. Iowa
City, IA: U-Pacs.
Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The multidimensional attitudes scale
toward persons with disabilities (MAS): Construction and validation. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 50(3), 166-176. doi: 10.1177/00343552070500030401
Furnham, A., & Gibbs, M. (1984). School children's attitudes toward the handicapped.
Journal of Adolescence, 7, 99-117.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio, &
S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Gomez, M. L., Khurshid, A., Freitag, M. B., & Lachuk, A. J. (2011). Microaggressions in
graduate students' lives: How they are encountered and their consequences. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27, 1189-1199. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.003
Grames, M., & Leverentz, C. (2010). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities: A
comparison of Chinese and American students. Journal of Undergraduate Research,
XIII, 1-6.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing
research: Concepts, procedures and measure to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse
Education Today, 24, 105-112.
Hackert, C., & Braehler, G. (2007). FlashQ [Computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.hackert.biz/flashq/home/
Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an
applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.
Hahn, H. (1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination.
Journal of Social Issues, 44, 39-47.
159
Hammel, J., Magasi, S., Heinemann, A., Whiteneck, G., Bogner, J., & Rodriguez, E.
(2008). What does participation mean? An insider perspective from people with
disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(19), 1455-1460. doi:
10.1080/09638280701625534
Harper, D. C. (1999). Social psychology of difference: Stigma, spread, and stereotypes in
childhood. Rehabilitation Psychology, 44, 131-144.
Hastings, R. P., & Oakfird, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87-94.
Henry, D. B., Duvdevany, I., Keys, C. B., Balcazar, E., & Walsh, K. (2004). Attitudes of
American and Israeli staff toward people with intellectual disabilities. Mental
Retardation, 42(1), 26-36.
Hergenhahn, B. R. (2001). An introduction to the history of psychology (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hergenrather, K., & Rhodes, S. (2007). Exploring undergraduate student attitudes toward
persons with disabilities: Application of the disability social relationship scale.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(2), 66-75.
Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with
disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 66(4), 4-16.
Hernandez, P., Carranza, M., & Almeida, R. (2010). Mental health professionals'
adaptive responses to racial microaggressions: An exploratory study. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 4(3), 202-209. doi: 10.1037/a0018445
Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact: Panacea for prejudice? The Psychologist,
16(7), 352-355.
Holloway, I., Sofaer-Bennett, B., & Walker, J. (2007). The stigmatization of people with
chronic back pain. Disability and Rehabilitation, 29(18), 1456-1464. doi:
10.1080/09638280601107260
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
Hyun, T. S. (2010). A study on types of Chinese female immigrants' cultural adaptation.
Journal of Human Subjectivity, 8(1), 69-87.
Jones, G., & Stone, D. (1995). Perceived discomfort associated with working with
persons with varying disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 911-919.
160
Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain
workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21, 526-536. doi:
10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8
Keller, R. M., & Galgay, C. E. (2010). Microaggressions experiences of people with
disabilities. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation,
dynamics, and impact (pp. 241-268). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Kim-Rupnow, W. S. (2001). An introduction to Korean culture for rehabilitation service
providers. Buffalo, NY: Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information
and Exchange, University at Buffalo. Retrieved from
http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/monographs/korea.php
Kirk, R. E. (2008). Statistics: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structureal equaltion modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Klooster, P. M., Dannenberg, J. W., Taal, E., Burger, G., & Rasker, J. J. (2009). Attitudes
toward people with physical or intellectual disabilities: Nursing students and nonnursing peers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(12), 2562-2573. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05146.x
Kuehn, M. D. (2004). Policy and law. In T. F. Rigger, & D. R. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of
rehabilitation counseling (pp. 88-107). New York, NY: Springer Publishing
Company, Inc.
Levy, J. M., Jessop, D. J., Rimmerman, A., & Levy, P. H. (1991). Employment of people
with severe disabilities in large businesses in the United States. International
Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 14, 323-332.
Lyons, M. (1991). Enabling or disabling? Students' attitudes toward people with
disabilities. The American Journal or Occupational Therapy, 45(4), 311-316.
MacLean, D., & Gannon, P. M. (1995). Measuring attitudes toward disability: The
interaction with disabled persons scale revisited. Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality, 10(4), 791-806.
Mastro, J. V., Burton, A. W., Resendahl, M., & Sherrill, C. (1996). Attitudes of elite
athletes with impairments toward one another: A hierarchy of preference. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 197-210.
McFarlin, D. B., Song, J., & Sonntag, M. (1991). Integrating the disabled into the work
force: A survey of fortune 500 company attitudes and practices. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(2), 107-123.
161
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Miles, M. (1995). Disability in an eastern religions context: Historical perspective.
Disability & Society, 10(1), 49-69.
Milner, P., & Kelly, B. (2009). Community participation and inclusion: People with
disabilities defining their place. Disability & Society, 24(1), 47-62. doi:
10.1080/09687590802535410
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken.
Qualitative Health Research, 3(1), 112-121. doi: 10.1177/104973239300300107
Munyi, C. W. (2012). Past and present perceptions towards disability: A historical
perspective. Disability Studies Quarterly. Retrieved from http://dsqsds.org/article/view/3197/3068
Nadal. K. L. (2011). The racial and ethnic microaggressions scale (REMS): Construction,
reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470-480.
Nadal, K. L., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. H. (2010). Sexual orientation and
transgender microaggressions: Implication for mental health and counseling. In D.
W. Sue (Ed.), (pp. 217-240). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nesterenko, A. (1979). Values in science: A study in operant subjectivity. (Unpublished
Doctor). The University of Iowa Library, Iowa City, IA.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. (2009). The Post-High school
outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report of
findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park,
CA: SRI International. Retrieved on November 14, 2009, from
www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/nlts2_report_2009_04_complete.pdf.
Owen, J., Tao, K., & Rodolfa, E. (2010). Microaggressions and women in short-term
psychotherapy: Initial evidence. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 923–946. doi:
10.1177/0011000010376093
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluarían methods. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Peterson, D. B., & Aguiar, L. J. (2004). History and systems: United states. In T. F.
Rigger, & D. R. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation counseling (pp. 76-87).
New York: NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Pfeiffer, D., Sam, A. A., Guinan, M., Ratliffe, K. T., Robinson, N .B., & Stodden, N. J.
(2003). Attitudes toward disability in the helping professions. Disability Studies
Quarterly, 23(2), 132-149.
162
Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism:
TV commercials. Television and education (pp. 62-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Preen, B. (1976). Schooling for the mentally retarded: A historical perspective. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Pruett, S. R., & Chan, Fong. (2006). The development and psychometric validation of the
disability attitude implicit association test. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51(3). 202213.
Ryan, D. P., & Scura, A. M. (2011). Disability microaggressions in higher education.
Retrieved from
http://www.myacpa.org/sc/scd/docs/Spring_2011_SCD_Newsletter.pdf
Rubin, S. E., & Roessler, R. T. (2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation
process (5 edition ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Satchidanand, N., Gunukula, S. K., Lam, W. Y., McGuigan, D., New, I., Symons, A. B.,
& Withiam-Leitch, M. (2012). Attitudes of healthcare students and professionals
toward patients with physical disability. American Journal of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation, 91(6), 533-545. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182555ea4
Schmolck, P. (2012). PQMethod (version 2.33) [Computer software]. Retrieved from
http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/downpqwin.htm
Scotch, R. K. (1989). Politics and policy in the history of the disability rights movement.
The Milbank Quarterly, 67(2), 380-400.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity. Sexuality and
Disability, 17(1), 53-64.
Shaver, P. R., & Scheibe, K. E. (1967). Transformation of social identity: A study of
chronic mental patients and college volunteers in a summer camp setting. Journal of
Psychology, 66(1), 19-36.
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The
experience of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
58(2), 210-221. doi: 10.1037/a0022251
Smart, J. F. (2004). Models of disability: The juxtaposition of biology and social
construction. In T. F. Rigger, & D. R. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation
counseling (pp. 25-49). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (2006). Models of disability: Implications for the counseling
profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84(1), 29-40.
163
Smith, W. A., Hung, M., & Franklin, J. D. (2011). Racial battle fatigue and miseducation
of black men: Racial microaggressions, societal problems, and environmental stress.
The Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 63-80.
Soder, M. (1990). Prejudice or ambivalence? attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
Disability, Handicap & Society, 5(3), 227-241.
Stellefson, M., Hanik, B., Chaney, J. D., & Tennant, B. (2012). Analysis of ehealth
search perspectives among female college students in the health professions using Q
methodology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(2), e60. doi:
10.2196/jmir.1969
Stephenson, W. (1935). Correlating persons instead of tests. Character and Personality,
4, 17-24.
Stachura, K. (2007). A national survey of occupational therapy students’ and
physiotherapy students’ attitudes to disabled people. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21,
442-449.
Sue, D. W. (2010a). Microaggressions, marginality, and oppression: An introduction. In
D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and, marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and
impact (pp. 3-24). Hohoken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sue, D. W. (2010b). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender and sex
orientation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal,
K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications
for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.62.4.271
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1989). On accepting relationships between people with
mental retardation and nondisabled people: Towards an understanding of acceptance.
Disability, Handicap & Society, 4(1), 21-36.
Tervo, R. C., Palmer, G., & Redinius, P. (2004). Health professional student attitudes
towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 908-915.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2011). 88% of colleges report
enrolling students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/88-of-colleges-report-enrollingstudents-with-disabilities/34159
The University of Iowa. (2013). About the university. Retrieved from
http://www.uiowa.edu/homepage/about-university
Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, A. L., & Romero-Diaz, C. E. (2012). The racial
microaggressions scale (RMAS): A new scale to measure experiences of racial
164
microaggressions in people of color. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 18(2), 153-164. doi: 10.1037/a0027658
Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. Journal of
Special Education, 4, 295-306.
Vezzali, L., & Capozza, D. (2011). Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice toward
disabled colleagues: Effects of contact and membership salience in the workplace.
Life Span an Disability, XIV(2), 139-162.
Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social
perspectives in environmental research. Retrieved from http://www.serius.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf
Westbrook, M. T., Legge, V., & Pennay, M. (1993). Attitudes toward disability in a
multicultural society. Social Science & Medicine, 36(5), 615-623.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes.
Psychological Review, 107(1), 101-126.
Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward
disabled persons. Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center.