Increased Likeability Evoked in the Context of a Disabling Condition

By: Greg Sapp

• 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)

Literature Review

• 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

Rationale and Importance of Research Question

• Participants will rate a person with a disability as highly likeable compared to an ambulatory person, regardless of the mood presented in each condition

Hypothesis

• 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

Participants

• Reysen Likeability Scale (Reysen, 2005)

• Informed Consent Form

• Sign-in sheet

• Videos: 1 of 4

Materials

• 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

Procedure

• 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.

Results

Tables/Figures

Video Type vs. Mean Likeability Score

• 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

Conclusion

• 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

Plans for Future Research

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.