Transcript Diapositiva 1

Increased Likeability Evoked in the
Context of a Disabling Condition
By: Greg Sapp
Literature Review
• Power and Green (2010)
‒ 10% of the world’s population experiences
some form of disability
‒ Number is increasing…
› Population
› Growth
› Ageing
› Chronic diseases
› Preserve and prolong life
Literature Review
• Litvack, Ritchie, and Shore (2011)
‒ Students, age range 18-23
› No relationship with disabled
classmates
› Academic helper, casual playmate, or
friend
‒ Disability not a significant factor in
determining relationships within the
classroom setting
‒ 6.7% had no realization of classmate
suffering from a disability
Literature Review
• Vilchinsky, Findler, and Werner (2010)
‒ Attachment orientation
› Coping with stressful events provides
a framework for predicting specific
attitudes toward persons with
disabilities
› Interaction with a disabled person
may bring into memory something from
the past that could be negative or
positive
Literature Review
• Jelfs & Richardson (2010)
‒ Legislative push to promote equal
opportunities in academics
‒ Careful monitoring is needed to detect any
violation of human rights of people with
varying disabilities
› Some countries have no legislation
protecting disability rights (Guimón,
2010)
Rationale and Importance of
Research Question
• Previous research on perceptions and
attitudes suggests that there are perceived
feelings of empathy directed at disabled
individuals from the perspective of
ambulatory people
• Feelings of empathy are fundamental in
fully understanding the likeability of a
disabled person within society
Hypothesis
• Participants will rate a person
with a disability as highly likeable
compared to an ambulatory
person, regardless of the mood
presented in each condition
Participants
• Introductory psychology students
‒ 38 women, 22 men
‒ Mage = 19.35 years
‒ Age range: 18-28 years
‒ 34 white, 23 black, 2 Hispanic, 1
classified as other
• Recruited using the GSU SONA system
Materials
• Reysen Likeability Scale (Reysen, 2005)
• Informed Consent Form
• Sign-in sheet
• Videos: 1 of 4
Procedure
• Video:
– Hospitable vs. Rude Behavior
– Disabled vs. Nondisabled Person
• Analysis:
– 2 × 2 ANOVA
Procedure
• Seating
• Sign-in sheet
• Informed Consent Form
‒ Carefully read
‒ Sign and date
‒ Give copy to participant
Procedure
• Reysen Likeability Scale
‒ Demographics
• Remain seated
• Collect questionnaires
• Thank participants
Results
• Likeability scores were subjected to a two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) having two levels of mood (hospitable, rude)
and two levels of ability (handicapped, ambulatory).
• Not all effects were statistically significant at the .05
significance level.
• The main effect of mood yielded an F ratio of F(1, 33) = 66.20,
p < .001, indicating that the mean score was significantly greater
for hospitable mood (M = 4.56, SD = 0.16) than for rude mood
(M = 2.77, SD = 0.15).
Results
• The main effect of ability level yielded an F ratio of F(1, 31) =
1.69, p > .05, indicating that the mean change score was not
significantly higher in the handicapped condition (M = 3.81, SD
= 0.15) than in the ambulatory condition (M = 3.52, SD = 0.16).
• The interaction effect was nonsignificant, F(1, 64) = 0.17, p >
.05.
•The results indicate that there was a significant interaction
between the mood and likeability scores but not between the
condition of the person and likeability score.
Tables/Figures
Video Type vs. Mean Likeability Score
6
Mean Likeability
5
4
3
2
1
0
Disabled Rude
Disabled Nice
Ambulatory Rude
Video Type
Ambulatory Nice
Conclusion
• The hypothesis of a significant effect of the
physical condition of a person on likeability
when scored by a viewer was not supported
• Interaction between mood and physical
condition on likeability was supported
• Mood of the person and not their condition
caused higher likeability ratings
Conclusion
• Positive mood produced higher ratings
than rude mood
• Disability had no merit when being scored
on a likeability scale compared to an
ambulatory person
• Overall mood played the biggest part in
higher likeability scores
Plans for Future Research
• Further research is suggested
‒ Subject pool was limited
• Recruit more participants
‒ Varying ages
‒ More socioeconomic backgrounds
› Exposure to disabled people
Plans for Future Research
• Litvack, Ritchie, and Shore (2011), noted in
their study that students, age range 18-23,
stated that they have no relationship with
classmates with a disability
• Given the ages of the participants, there
may have been inadequate exposure to
disabled people as compared to older
people
References
Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2010). Perceptions of academic quality and
approaches to studying among disabled and nondisabled students in
distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 593-607.
Litvack, M. S., Ritchie, K. C., & Shore, B. M. (2011). High- and average-achieving
students’ perceptions of disabilities and of students with disabilities in
inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 77, 474-487.
Power, M. J., & Green, A. M. (2010). The Attitudes to Disability Scale (ADS):
Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 54, 860-874.
Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale.
Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 201-208.
Vilchinsky, N., Findler, L., & Werner, S. (2010). Attitudes toward people with
disabilities: The Perspective of Attachment Theory. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 55, 298-306.