See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/46094305

Attitudes toward people with disabilities: The perspective of attachment

theory.

Article  in  Rehabilitation Psychology · August 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0020491 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
27 11,900

3 authors:

Noa Vilchinsky Liora Findler

Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University
57 PUBLICATIONS   910 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   1,291 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shirli Werner
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
75 PUBLICATIONS   1,968 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Attitudes toward people with disabilities View project

Ethnicity and cardiac rehabilitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shirli Werner on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rehabilitation Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 55, No. 3, 298 –306 0090-5550/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020491

Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities:

The Perspective of Attachment Theory
Noa Vilchinsky and Liora Findler Shirli Werner
Bar-Ilan University Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Objective: Attachment theory was employed as the theoretical framework for the purpose of examining
attitudes toward people with disabilities. Method: A total of 404 Jewish Israeli students without
disabilities completed the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons With Disabilities (MAS)
and the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR). Results: Reading a scenario about an encounter
with a person with a disability gave rise to more negative emotions than reading a similar scenario about
an encounter with a person without a disability, regardless of participants’ attachment orientations.
However, attachment orientations moderated participants’ positive cognitions and distancing behaviors.
Conclusions: Findings suggest a dynamic process of self-regulation when reacting to a written scenario
about people with disabilities. This process consists of an initial spontaneous negative emotional response
accompanied by compensatory positive cognitions and behavioral tendencies.

Keywords: disability, attachment orientations, attitudes

It is generally agreed upon that a significant number of the
obstacles encountered by people with disabilities are generated by
societal attitudes (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Many studies have
sought out the origins of these attitudes. In these studies, gender,
age, socioeconomic status, culture, and prior contact with people
with disabilities were typically investigated (e.g., Antonak &
Livneh, 1988; Vilchinsky, Werner, & Findler, 2010). Studies have
also tapped personality characteristics that might account for these
attitudes. For example, acceptance of persons with disabilities was
found to be related to ego-strength, self-esteem, self-awareness,
and sense of security, whereas rejection was related to anxiety,
hostility, authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, narcissism, interper-
sonal alienation, and rigidity (Chan, Livneh, Pruett, Wang &
Zheng, 2009; Findler, Vilchinsky, & Werner, 2007; Livneh, 1988;
Noonan, Barry, & Davis, 1970; Siller, 1963, 1984). Most studies in
this field have examined the contribution of different traits to the
formation of attitudes toward people with disabilities, yet a more
comprehensive theoretical framework of personality and individ-
ual differences is required. The current study applies the theory of
attachment (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1988), and especially the con-
nection between the attachment system and reactions to people
who are different, as the framework for examining attitudes toward
people with disabilities.
Researchers point to the importance of examining attitudes in a
multidimensional fashion (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Most re-
searchers agree that attitudes are constructs with affective, cogni-
tive, and behavioral components (Olson & Zanna, 1993). The
Noa Vilchinsky, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University; Liora
Findler, School of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University; and Shirli Werner,
The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Noa
Vilchinsky, PhD, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-
Gan, 52900. E-mail: noav18@inter.net.il
cognitive component refers to an individual’s ideas, thoughts,
perceptions, beliefs, opinions, or mental conceptualizations of the
referent (person with disability). The affective component is said
to reflect the emotional underpinnings of an attitude (Antonak &
Livneh, 1988): that is, the positive or negative feelings toward the
referent. Finally, the behavioral component generally relates to the
individual’s intent or willingness to behave in a certain manner
toward the referent, or the actual behavioral response (Cook,
1992). Recently, we (Findler et al., 2007; Vilchinsky et al., 2010)
revealed that beyond the classical aspects of attitude, additional
distinctive aspects of the affect dimension exist, consisting of
negative affect, interpersonal stress, and calm. Therefore, the cur-
rent study will examine how men and women’s attachment orien-
tations are related to different dimensions of attitudes toward men
and women with disabilities.1
Attachment Theory and Attitudes Toward People
With Disabilities
An integrative examination of studies in the field of attitudes
toward people with disabilities and different personality traits
seems to lead to a conceptualization of these traits as creating a
continuum. One side of this continuum consists of inner resources,
a sense of security and confidence and therefore positive regard
toward people with disabilities, whereas the other side consists of
negative traits, a lack of ego-strength and anxiety and, as a con-
sequence, negative attitudes toward people with disabilities (Jan-
drey, 1998; Siller, 1984). This continuum is also the essence of
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1988), which appears to
1
The current study is part of a large-scale research project investigating
attitudes toward people with disabilities. For a recently published study
based on this dataset, please see: Vilchinsky, N., Werner, S., & Findler, L.
(2010). Gender and attitudes toward people using wheelchairs: A multidi-
mensional approach. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53, 163–174.

298
 ATTACHMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
provide one of the best frameworks for examining individual
differences and psychological processes related to self-regulation,
interpersonal relationships and intergroup relations (e.g., Miku-
lincer & Shaver, 2007).
In keeping with Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1988) theory, attach-
ment orientation is conceived as a global and stable orientation
toward the self, others, and relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1993).
It is believed that the quality of attachment interactions during
infancy produces mental working models which organize cogni-
tion, affect, and behavior, and shape self-image as well as social
relationships (Mikulincer, Florian, & Tolmacz, 1990). Brennan,
Clark, and Shaver (1998) have suggested that attachment reflects
two basic orientations: avoidance and anxiety. People low on both
dimensions exhibit a secure style and are characterized by a sense
that the world is a safe place, that one can rely on others, and that
one can therefore securely explore the environment and engage
effectively with other people (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003).
These individuals are comfortable with closeness and interdepen-
dence, and rely on support-seeking and other constructive means to
cope with stress. In contrast, insecure individuals have learned
through many painful experiences with unavailable or unrespon-
sive attachment figures that the primary attachment strategy (prox-
imity-seeking) often fails to accomplish its emotion-regulation
goal, making it necessary to consider alternative secondary strat-
egies: hyperactivation or deactivation of the attachment system.
Hyperactivation of the attachment system is seen in adults with
anxious attachment who regulate their emotions by signaling or
expressing their needs and fears, exaggerating their distress, and
presenting themselves as extremely vulnerable to pain and injury
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). These individuals display a strong
need for closeness combined with an overwhelming fear of rejec-
tion; they tend to dwell mentally on their emotional state and rely
on emotion-focused coping strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007). Adults with avoidant attachment are likely to deactivate
their attachment systems and rely mainly on themselves to deal
with threats (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). These individuals are
characterized by a distrust of others’ goodwill and a preference for
emotional distance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
A fundamental tenet of attachment theory is that the experience
of stress or fear is required to activate the attachment system
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Bowlby (1969) suggested that the
sense of a secure base plays a critical role in regulating fear
reactions to other people, especially those who are different from
oneself or relatively unfamiliar. Disability often represents a new
and ambiguous stimulus which might be perceived as a threat
(Wright, 1983), therefore requiring activation of the attachment
system (Jandrey, 1998). On this basis, we hypothesize that the
anxiety-provoking nature of an interpersonal exchange with a
person with a disability is likely to activate attachment-related
schemas and influence the attitudes which arise toward this person
during the interaction.
The way in which attachment orientation is associated with
coping with stressful events provides a framework for predicting
specific attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In accordance
with the ideas of Mikulincer and Florian (1998), the negative
self-models of anxiously attached persons should lead to appraisals
of helplessness, uncontrollability, and an inability to cope during
stress. This passive coping with stressors should lead to heightened
distress and negative thoughts about the person. For persons high
299
on the avoidance dimension, however, activation of attachment-
related mental models during stress may, in fact, lead to suppres-
sion of attachment needs and to demonstrations of high levels of
self-reliance. Negative models of others (as reflected in an avoid-
ance of closeness) may lead to discomfort and a desire to distance
oneself from the situation so as to minimize the distress associated
with the encounter (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). Both processes
may result in overall negative attitudes because failure to effec-
tively regulate negative affect has been found to be one of the
primary influences in the formation of negative attitudes toward
persons with disabilities (Siller, 1995).
In contrast to these responses, secure individuals’ positive mod-
els of self and others may provide “inner resources” which, in turn,
help them manage stressors. Greater positivity of models of others,
or greater security of attachment, should predict positive attitudes
as a result of greater optimism, self-efficacy, and perceptions of
control over the situation. Indeed, empirical research shows that
similar personality characteristics associated with negative atti-
tudes toward people with disabilities have also been related to
insecure attachment (e.g., hostility, anxiety, and rigidity), whereas
personality characteristics which were linked with positive atti-
tudes have also been associated with secure attachment (e.g.,
ego-strength, self-esteem, and sense of security) (Jandrey, 1998).
Researchers have argued that attachment security improves the
functioning of the caregiving system, which is reflected in a
willingness to provide care for others who are in need (Gillath,
Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). In line with this prediction, several
studies have found that more securely attached people report more
empathic concern for others (Joireman, Needham, & Cummings,
2002), and a stronger inclination to adopt the perspective of a
distressed person (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000).
In addition to reacting to a stressful situation, meeting a person
with a disability may activate, through associative networks, one’s
own memories, expectations, and attitudes connected to relating to
someone with a strong need for closeness and dependence (West-
maas & Cohen-Silver, 2001). Meeting a person with a disability
might also activate working models relevant to rejection in rela-
tionships. For example, seeing a person in a wheelchair might
elicit thoughts about how much rejection he or she might have
experienced as a consequence of his/her disability (Jones et al.,
1984). People might also think about their own likelihood of being
rejected were they in a similar situation (Westmaas & Cohen-
Silver, 2001). With the activation of attachment-relevant thoughts
and memories, interacting with a person with a disability may
produce attachment effects in interpersonal responses.
In a laboratory study involving behavioral observations, West-
mass and Cohen-Silver (2001) videotaped people while they in-
teracted with a confederate whom they thought had recently been
diagnosed with cancer. As expected, participants high on avoid-
ance were rated as less supportive and less likely to make eye
contact during the interaction than participants who were low on
avoidance. Similarly, attachment anxiety was not associated with
supportiveness and participants high on attachment anxiety re-
ported greater discomfort while interacting with the confederate.
Finally, employing attachment theory in the study of attitudes
toward people with disabilities is based on the theoretical link
between attachment and exploration (Bowlby, 1988). The sense of
having a secure base allows people to open their schemas to
belief-discrepant information (Mikulincer, 1997). This cognitive
300 VILCHINSKY, FINDLER, AND WERNER
openness should be an asset in encounters with people viewed as
different, attenuating negative attitudes toward people with dis-
abilities.
The Current Study
Attachment theory, which encompasses both the idea of self-
regulation in interpersonal situations as well as the perception of
others who are different, was employed as the theoretical frame-
work in the current study for the purpose of examining attitudes
toward people with disabilities. We hypothesized that higher levels
of attachment-related anxiety would be associated with elevated
negative affect and interpersonal stress and lower levels of calm,
especially when reading a scenario about an encounter with a
person with a disability, as opposed to without a disability. In
addition, attachment-related avoidance was hypothesized to asso-
ciate with elevated levels of distancing behaviors, especially when
reading a scenario about an encounter with a person with a dis-
ability.
Method
Participants and procedure. The sample consisted of 404
Jewish Israelis, both men (51.1%) and women (48.9%) without
disabilities, with a mean age of 24.67 years (SD ⫽ 2.87). The vast
majority of participants were college students, with a mean of
13.75 years of education (SD ⫽ 1.62). The current study is based
on a dataset that has been previously used and described (Vilchin-
sky et al., 2010). Briefly, participants were recruited via a conve-
nience sample. Research assistants approached students on univer-
sity and college campuses and asked them to complete the
questionnaires. Both state universities across the country, as well
as colleges on the periphery, were approached in an attempt to
reach a more diverse population. The participants who were ap-
proached were from various fields of study; however, we excluded
social work and psychology students whom we suspected to be
biased because of their educational agenda, which reflects human-
istic values (DePoy & Merrill, 1988; Vilchinsky & Findler, 2004).
This study was approved by the institutional review board, and
each participant’s verbal consent was obtained after a short expla-
nation of the procedure involved.
Instruments.
Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward persons with disabil-
ities (MAS). The revised MAS is a 22-item multidimensional
scale (Vilchinsky et al., 2010), based on the original 34-item scale
developed by authors (Findler et al., 2007), to measure attitudes
toward people with disabilities. Content and structure validity were
Table 1
Intercorrelations Between the MAS Factors
Negative emotions
Negative emotions 1.000
Interpersonal stress .40ⴱⴱⴱ
Calm ⫺.04
Positive cognitions .14ⴱⴱ
Distancing behaviors .27ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001.
reported on at length by the authors (Findler et al., 2007; Vilchin-
sky et al., 2010). Respondents were asked to react to a social
scenario vignette which described a casual interaction in a coffee
shop between “Joseph” or “Michelle” and a person who was either
using or not using a wheelchair. Male and female respondents were
given questionnaires referring to Joseph or Michelle, respectively.
In half of the questionnaires, the target person (either using or not
using a wheelchair) was a man, and in the other half a woman.
Thus, eight groups were created: gender of observer ⫻ gender of
target person ⫻ existence of disability. In the current study, each
of these eight groups consisted of between 47 to 55 participants.
The respondents were asked to read the vignette and then relate to
each item, indicating the degree to which they believed the item
accurately reflected the way the person in the story (Joseph or
Michelle) would feel, think, or behave in that situation. Responses
were marked on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much). The MAS consisted of five separate factors: Negative
Emotions (e.g., “Joseph might feel depressed”), Interpersonal
Stress (e.g., “Joseph might feel shy”), Calm (e.g., “Joseph might
feel relaxed”), Positive Cognitions (e.g., “Joseph might think that
he seems like an interesting guy”), and Distancing Behaviors (e.g.,
“Joseph might move to another table”). On the basis of these
factors, we computed five scores for each participant by averaging
the items on each factor. Higher scores indicated more distancing
behaviors, more positive cognitions, more negative emotions,
more interpersonal stress, and more calm. Cronbach’s alphas in the
current study were .68, .79, .93, .90, and .82 for negative affect,
interpersonal stress, calm, positive cognitions, and distancing be-
haviors, respectively. The internal consistencies of four of the
scales were found to be high, except for negative affect, which was
found to be relatively low; however, the mean of inter-item cor-
relations for this scale (r ⫽ .33) fell within the acceptable range as
suggested by Nunnally (1978). Table 1 presents the intercorrela-
tions between the MAS factors. It can be seen that the factors only
moderately associated with each other, with the highest correlation
found between negative emotions and interpersonal stress.
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan et
al., 1998). The ECR was used to assess attachment orientations.
The original scale was shortened in order to decrease item repeti-
tion and ease the completion of the instrument. The shortened
version consisted of the 24 items which produced the highest
loadings in Brennan et al.’s study. Twelve items reflected attach-
ment anxiety (e.g., “I worry about being abandoned”), and 12
reflected attachment avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show my
partner how I feel deep down”). Participants rated the extent to
which each item was descriptive of their feelings in close relation-
ships on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
Interpersonal stress Calm Positive cognitions
1.000
.07 1.000
⫺.04 .25ⴱⴱⴱ 1.000
.33ⴱⴱⴱ .04 ⫺.01
 ATTACHMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
much). The reliability and validity of the scale have been demon-
strated (Brennan et al., 1998). In the current sample, Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients were high, both for anxiety (.86) and for avoid-
ance (.82). Scores were computed for each of the subscales by
averaging the responses on the relevant items.
Results
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the
study’s variables (attachment orientations and the five factors of
the MAS). Table 3 presents Pearson correlations between attach-
ment orientations and the five factors of the MAS (i.e., Negative
Emotions, Interpersonal Stress, Calm, Positive Cognitions, and
Distancing Behaviors). Results indicate that, whereas both anxious
and avoidant attachment orientations were positively correlated
with negative emotions and interpersonal stress, only avoidant
attachment was positively related to positive cognitions and dis-
tancing behaviors. Neither of the two attachment orientations was
associated with the calm factor.
Next, the data were analyzed in a series of four-step, hierarchi-
cal linear regressions testing the unique and interactive contribu-
tions of the existence of a disability, observer gender, target person
gender, and attachment orientations to the five factors of the MAS.
Step 1 of each regression consisted of disability (DIS)—a contrast
code variable comparing meeting a person with a disability (1) to
control (2); observer gender—a contrast code variable comparing
women (1) to men (2); target person gender—a contrast code
variable comparing women (1) to men (2); and the attachment
scores of both anxiety (ANX) and avoidance (AVO). Step 2
consisted of the products of the standardized scores between every
two predictors. The three-way interactions were entered in the
third step and the four-way interaction was added in the fourth
step. Half of the regressions targeted anxiety, controlling for
avoidance, and the other half targeted avoidance, controlling for
anxiety. For simplicity’s sake, only interactive effects involving
attachment and disability were described. Tables 4 and 5 present
the standardized regression coefficients (␤s) for each effect at the
step in which it was entered into the regression equations.
No significant interactions were found between attachment ori-
entations and disability when predicting negative emotions and
interpersonal stress. Results indicate that attachment- related anx-
iety was associated with higher levels of both negative emotions
and interpersonal stress. Further, attachment-related avoidance
was moderately associated only with interpersonal stress. In addi-
tion, a two-way interaction between attachment-related anxiety
and target person disability emerged when predicting calm. How-
Table 2
Means and SDs of the Study’s Variables
Variable M (SD)
Negative emotions 1.74 (.63)
Interpersonal stress 2.63 (.87)
Calm 2.91 (.94)
Positive cognitions 2.85 (.84)
Distancing behaviors 2.02 (.73)
Anxious attachment 3.34 (1.07)
Avoidant attachment 3.01 (.93)
301
Table 3
Correlations Between Attachment Orientations and the Factors
of the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons
With Disabilities (MAS)
MAS factors Anxious attachment Avoidant attachment
ⴱⴱⴱ
Negative emotions .25 .20ⴱⴱⴱ
Interpersonal stress .32ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ
Calm .05 ⫺.01
Positive cognitions ⫺.05 .15ⴱⴱ
Distancing behaviors .05 .16ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001.
ever, the step in which this interaction was added was not found to
be significant, R2cha ⫽ .02, Fcha(6, 389) ⫽ 1.25, p ⬎ .05. Therefore,
this interaction was not further analyzed.
Significant four-way interactions for both attachment-related
anxiety, R2cha ⫽ .03, Fcha(1, 379) ⫽ 11.63, p ⬍ .001 and attach-
ment-related avoidance, R2cha ⫽ .01, Fcha(1, 379) ⫽ 6.21, p ⬍ .05
emerged when predicting positive cognitions. To interpret the
four-way interactions, eight 2-step hierarchical linear regressions
were conducted; half of them targeted anxiety, controlling for
avoidance, and the other half targeted avoidance, controlling for
anxiety. These regressions were performed separately for women
and men who read about encountering either a man or a woman.
Step 1 of these regressions consisted of target disability and the
two attachment orientations. Step 2 consisted of the products of the
predictors’ standardized scores (AVO ⫻ DIS or ANX ⫻ DIS).
Results (Table 6) show a significant interaction between anxiety
and disability for women who encountered a virtual woman,
R2cha ⫽ .05, Fcha(1, 101) ⫽ 7.27, p ⬍ .01, and for men who
encountered a virtual woman, R2cha ⫽ .04, Fcha(1, 93) ⫽ 4.37, p ⬍
.05. An additional significant interaction was found between
avoidance and disability for women who encountered a virtual
woman, R2cha ⫽ .04, Fcha(1, 101) ⫽ 5.37, p ⬍ .05.
Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure for examining simple slopes
revealed that women low on attachment-related anxiety (1 SD
below the mean) expressed more positive cognitions toward a
virtual woman with a disability than toward a virtual woman
without a disability, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.75, p ⬍ .001, and this tendency was
moderated for women high on attachment-related anxiety (1 SD
above the mean), ␤ ⫽ ⫺.28, p ⬍ .05 (Figure 1). The same pattern
was found with regard to the avoidance orientation: women low on
attachment-related avoidance (1 SD below the mean) expressed
more positive cognitions toward a virtual woman with a disability
than toward a virtual woman without a disability, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.69, p ⬍
.001, and this tendency was moderated for women high on attach-
ment-related avoidance (1 SD above the mean), ␤ ⫽ ⫺.30, p ⬍ .05
(Figure 2). The opposite pattern was found for men. Men who
scored high on attachment-related anxiety expressed more positive
cognitions toward a virtual woman with a disability than without a
disability, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.40, p ⬍ .01, whereas men who scored low on
attachment-related anxiety expressed no difference in positive
cognitions toward any virtual woman, with or without a disability,
␤ ⫽ ⫺.01, p ⬎ .05 (Figure 3).
Finally, as seen in Table 5, higher levels of attachment-related
avoidance were related to higher levels of distancing behaviors.
Also seen in Table 5 is the significant three-way interaction among
302 VILCHINSKY, FINDLER, AND WERNER

Table 4
Predicting the Factors of Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities From Observer Gender, Target Gender, Disability, and
Attachment-Related Anxiety (N ⫽ 404)
MAS factors
Negative Interpersonal Positive Distancing
emotions stress Calm cognitions behaviors

Step 1 ␤ ␤ ␤ ␤ ␤
Observer gender .04 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.01 .08
Target gender .08 ⫺.01 .12ⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .10ⴱ
Disability ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .07 ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ
Attachment-related avoidance .07 .11ⴱ ⫺.01 .13ⴱ .16ⴱⴱ
Attachment-related anxiety .18ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱⴱ .06 ⫺.12ⴱ .03
Step 2
Anxiety ⫻ Disability ⫺.06 .07 .12ⴱ ⫺.005 ⫺.08
Step 3
Anxiety ⫻ Disability ⫻ Observer Gender .06 .07 .07 ⫺.05 ⫺.03
Anxiety ⫻ Disability ⫻ Target Gender ⫺.06 ⫺.05 .09 ⫺.05 ⫺.14ⴱⴱ
Step 4
Anxiety ⫻ Disability ⫻ Observer Gender ⫻ Target Gender .02 .02 .05 .16ⴱⴱ .01

Note. MAS ⫽ Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons With Disabilities. Disability (yes ⫽ 1, no ⫽ 2); Observer gender (female ⫽ 1, male ⫽ 2). Target
gender (female ⫽ 1, male ⫽ 2).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

attachment-related anxiety, disability, and target gender which was
found to explain this factor, R2cha ⫽ .02, Fcha(4, 385) ⫽ 2.36, p ⫽
.05. To interpret the three-way interactions, two 2-step hierarchical
linear regressions were performed separately for reading about
encounters with a man or a woman. Step 1 consisted of the
existence of disability and attachment-related anxiety, with attach-
ment-related avoidance controlled. Step 2 consisted of the product
of the predictors’ standardized scores. The ANX ⫻ DIS interaction
was significant only when reading about encounters with a man,
R2cha ⫽ .05, Fcha(1, 193) ⫽ 10.00, p ⬍ .01, but not a woman,
R2cha ⫽ .005, Fcha(1, 200) ⫽ 1.14, p ⬎ .05. Aiken and West’s
(1991) procedure, presented in Figure 4, revealed that participants
low on attachment-related anxiety (1 SD below the mean) ex-
pressed less distancing behaviors toward a virtual man with a
disability than a virtual man without a disability, ␤ ⫽ .35, p ⬍
.001. This pattern was not detected in participants high on attach-
ment-related anxiety (1 SD above the mean), ␤ ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⬎ .05.
Discussion
The current study examined attitudes toward persons with dis-
abilities within the framework of attachment theory, by applying
the multidimensional approach of attitude research. Using this
approach, it became possible to reveal the intricate relationship
between attachment orientations and the various dimensions of
attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

Table 5
Predicting the Factors of Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities From Observer Gender, Target Gender, Disability, and
Attachment-Related Avoidance (N ⫽ 404)
MAS factors
Negative Interpersonal Positive Distancing
emotions stress Calm cognitions behaviors

Step 1 ␤ ␤ ␤ ␤ ␤
Observer Gender .04 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.01 .08
Target Gender .08 ⫺.01 .12ⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .10ⴱ
Disability ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .07 ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ
Attachment-related Anxiety .18ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱⴱ .06 ⫺.12ⴱ .03
Attachment-related Avoidance .07 .11ⴱ ⫺.01 .13ⴱ .16ⴱⴱ
Step 2
Avoidance ⫻ Disability .02 ⫺.01 .10 .07 .03
Step 3
Avoidance ⫻ Disability ⫻ Observer Gender ⫺.002 ⫺.05 ⫺.08 .03 .07
Avoidance ⫻ Disability ⫻ Target Gender .03 ⫺.05 .04 ⫺.05 ⫺.08
Step 4
Avoidance ⫻ Disability ⫻ Observer Gender ⫻ Target Gender .008 ⫺.002 .02 .12ⴱ ⫺.03

Note. MAS ⫽ Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons With Disabilities. Disability (yes ⫽ 1, no ⫽ 2); Observer gender (female ⫽ 1, male ⫽ 2); Target
gender (female ⫽ 1, male ⫽ 2).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 ATTACHMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 303

Table 6
Predicting Positive Cognitions From Target Disability and Attachment-Related Anxiety and Avoidance (N ⫽ 96)
Observer, Man Observer, Woman
Target, Man ␤ Target, Woman ␤ Target, Man ␤ Target, Woman ␤

Step 1
Target disability (DIS) ⫺.17 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.50ⴱⴱⴱ
Attachment-related avoidance (AVO) .05 .26ⴱ .10 .02
Attachment-related anxiety (ANX) ⫺.19 ⫺.13 ⫺.06 ⫺.09
Step 2
DIS ⫻ ANX .07 ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.17 .23ⴱⴱ
DIS ⫻ AVO .19 ⫺.12 .00 .20ⴱ

Note. Target disability (disability ⫽ 1, control ⫽ 2).

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

As hypothesized, attachment-related anxiety and to a lesser
degree avoidance were associated with higher levels of negative
emotions and interpersonal stress toward any target person, regard-
less of disability. This finding is in line with attachment theory’s
prediction that people high on both attachment orientations find
social situations emotionally stressful (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007). The higher levels of emotions expressed by attachment-
related anxious participants corroborate previous findings indicat-
ing that these individuals tend toward hyperactivation of the at-
tachment system and therefore excessively express their distress,
whereas people high on attachment-related avoidance tend to
deactivate their attachment system, and as a consequence repress
and conceal their distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Also, as
hypothesized, attachment-related avoidance was associated with
higher levels of distancing behaviors toward any target person
regardless of disability. The tendency of people high on attach-
ment-related avoidance to refrain from social contact (Mikulincer
& Florian, 1998) was again supported.
Contrary to our hypothesis, attachment orientations did not
moderate the negative emotions or interpersonal stress toward a
virtual person with a disability. Reading about an encounter with
a person with a disability gave rise to more negative emotions than
reading about an encounter with a person without a disability
regardless of participants’ attachment orientations. This finding is
surprising in light of the large number of studies in the field of
attachment and interpersonal relations demonstrating the benevo-
lent impact of attachment security on reactions to others (Miku-
lincer et al, 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001; Mikulincer, Shaver,
positive cognitions
Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). It seems that the negative emotional
reaction toward people with disabilities is so innate and spontane-
ous that even a strong sense of psychological security is not
enough to attenuate it. Our findings are in line with the assertion
that people without a disability will at first experience anxiety,
unease and rejecting feelings toward people with disabilities, and
only additional contacts with them may enable them to surmount
these negative emotions (Rimmerman, Hozmi, & Duvdevany,
2000).
Furthermore, Oatley and Jenkins (1996) claimed that emotions
arise in conjunction with appraisals and are expressed through
changes in thought, action tendencies, behaviors and subjective
feelings. We therefore suggest a dynamic process of reaction to
people with disabilities consisting of an initial spontaneous nega-
tive emotional response accompanied by compensatory positive
cognitions and positive behavioral tendencies. Our findings imply
that this compensation is a more difficult transaction for the
insecurely attached to enact.
Whereas attachment orientations were not found to moderate the
negative emotions dimension of attitudes, their impact was salient
with regard to the cognitive and behavioral dimensions. We found
that (except for anxiously attached men who encountered a woman
with a disability) participants low on anxiety and avoidance tended
to express more positive attitudes toward virtual people with
disabilities than toward virtual people without disabilities, and the
existence of insecure attachment moderated this tendency. In terms
of cognitions and behaviors, it seems the benevolent effect of
secure attachment was realized to a greater degree.

positive cognitions

Disability Control Disability Control

Target person Target person
High on attachment -related anxiety low on attachment -related anxiety High on attachment -related avoidance low on attachment -related avoidance

Figure 1. Predicting women’s positive cognitions toward a woman with Figure 2. Predicting women’s positive cognitions toward a woman with
and without a disability as a function of attachment-related anxiety. and without a disability as a function of attachment-related avoidance.
304
positive cognitions
Disability Control
Target person
High on attachment -related anxiety low on attachment -related anxiety
Figure 3. Predicting men’s positive cognitions toward a woman with and
without a disability as a function of attachment-related anxiety.
Whereas the emotional response of the securely attached was as
negative as that of the insecurely attached, the securely attached
seemed better able to bounce back from the initial negative re-
sponse, going on to display a stronger tendency to approach the
virtual person with the disability. This process is in line with the
predictions of attachment theory regarding emotion regulation.
According to Mikulincer and Shaver (2007), when a secure person
encounters external stimuli that provoke undesirable emotions,
he/she is more likely to place the negative event in perspective,
turning the threat into a challenge, and adjusting his/her plans
accordingly.
The difficulty in overcoming the initial negative emotional
response and to think more positively of the person with the
disability was detected mostly among anxiously attached women
who read about an encounter with a woman with a disability. We
suggest that this finding can be understood in light of self– other
distinctiveness (Mikulincer & Florian, 2001). Batson (1991)
claimed that the arousal of empathic responses demands self– other
distinctiveness. In accordance with the theories of Mikulincer et al.
(2001), one can delineate the following sequence of mediating
events: upon reading a scenario which describes seeing a woman
with a disability, insecurely attached women would increase their
focus on the other’s suffering as well as on self– other merging
which, in turn, would result in the activation of self-related neg-
ative cognitions and emotions. This cognitive–affective state
would be manifested in overwhelming personal distress as well as
in the inhibition of empathic reactions.
Of interest, in the current study, this inhibition of positive
cognitions toward women with disabilities was not channeled into
women participants’ distancing behaviors. The effect of attach-
ment on distancing behaviors was observed only in regard to
reading about encounters with a man. Our findings showed that
anxiously attached participants did not demonstrate the same in-
terest as the securely attached in approaching a virtual man with a
disability. A possible explanation can be drawn from the field of
social support. Belle (1987) found that men tend to seek and
receive less social support than women. Seeking social support is
conceived by many men as signifying weakness and dependence,
and as inversely related to trait masculinity (Butler, Giordano, &
Neren, 1985; Winstead, Derlega, & Wong, 1984). Subsequently,
when a man incurs a severe disabling injury, his identity is often
influenced by a perceived loss of his masculine traits (Marini,
2001). These views, shared both by people with and without
VILCHINSKY, FINDLER, AND WERNER
disabilities, may explain why participants high on attachment-
related anxiety, whose negative self-models lead to excessive
appraisals of helplessness and uncontrollability (Mikulincer &
Florian, 1998), are more threatened by reading about a man with a
disability and therefore do not show the same tendency to ap-
proach him as their securely attached counterparts do.
Contrary to our expectations, anxiously attached men expressed
more positive cognitions toward a virtual woman with a disability
than toward a virtual woman without a disability. We propose that
anxiously attached men may feel less threatened in terms of
potential rejection by a woman with a disability and therefore
present more positive appraisals of meeting with her, virtually,
than they do with a virtual woman without disabilities. This
putative explanation is in line with the assertion that men and
women with disabilities are taken to be asexual, or seen as a “third
gender” (Sakellariou, 2006; Shakespeare, 1999, p. 60).
In sum, people without disabilities express negative feelings
toward virtual people with disabilities regardless of their attach-
ment orientations. However, people also present a compensatory
pattern of exhibiting more positive cognitions and less distancing
behaviors toward virtual people with disabilities. This shift in
response is stronger among the less anxiously attached partici-
pants, especially in instances of encountering a virtual man with a
disability, and when anxiously attached women encounter a virtual
woman with a disability.
Limitations and Future Studies
The current findings must be examined in light of several
limitations. First, all of the participants were college students, thus
creating a somewhat homogenous sample, reflected in the rela-
tively small differences found in the mean scores. For this reason,
the current sample is not representative of other parts of the
population in terms of age, stage of life, and education. Future
studies should examine people of various ages and various back-
ground characteristics, and should also parse differences in atti-
tudes toward different disability groups.
With regard to the instrument, the study relies on findings
obtained from a self-report. Therefore, these findings cannot nec-
essarily be taken to reflect real-life encounters with people with
disabilities. An important contribution would be to examine actual
Distancing behaviors
Disability Control
Target person
High on attachment -related anxiety low on attachment -related anxiety
Figure 4. Predicting participants’ distancing behaviors toward a man
with and without a disability as a function of attachment-related anxiety.
 ATTACHMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
behavior, instead of reported behavior, by means of an observa-
tional study.
In accordance with Antonak and Livneh’s (2000) recommenda-
tion for the use of indirect measures, the authors of the MAS
(Findler et al, 2007) purposely employed and rephrased Fichten
and Amsel’s (1988) social scenario vignette in order to enable
respondents to project their own emotions, thoughts, and behaviors
onto the given situation. However, it is possible that perceptions as
to how others might react toward people with disabilities differ
from one’s own perceptions. Finally, the study focuses on wheel-
chair users; therefore, any attempt to generalize from these results
to people with other disabilities, or to people with disabilities as a
group, should be done cautiously. Finally, although we found
several significant interactions, one should note that the interaction
terms accounted for a relatively small amount of incremental
variance (ranging from 1% to 5%); therefore, the interpretation of
these interactions should be exercised with caution.
Future studies are advised to focus on different ways of chang-
ing the attitudes of individuals who harbor different attachment
orientations, as well as looking for possible moderators that may
influence their attitudes toward people with disabilities. Future
studies are also advised to trace the sequence of reactions toward
people with disabilities. Such studies might further validate our
suggestion that the activation of attachment schemas contributes to
attitudes only in terms of thoughts and behavioral intentions, while
even the existence of a secure attachment does not override the
initial negative emotional reactions people have toward persons
with disabilities. Additional experimental research examining ac-
tual interactions between real people is required to verify this
suggestion. It would also be useful to look at people who have
experience dealing with others with disabilities (e.g., people who
have a sibling with a disability) to test the limit of the negative
emotions effect.
Practical Implications
Understanding the attachment-disability issue not only adds
theoretical insight but also bears practical implications. Informa-
tion about the public’s tendency to accept or reject persons on the
basis of their disabilities is relevant to planning and evaluating
interventions designed to increase social integration. Based on the
current findings, resources should be provided to change the atti-
tudes of people with anxious-attachment orientation. In addition,
interventions for changing attitudes should target each attitude
dimension separately, with a particular emphasis on the affect
dimension. Our findings suggest that the affect factor is so innate
that even those personality constructs which emerge at the earliest
developmental stages—i.e., security and ego-strengths— do not
moderate it.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward
people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales. Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of attitudes toward
persons with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22, 211–224.
305
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Towards a social-psycholog-
ical answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In
R. C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp.
257–277). New York: Free Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement
of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S.
Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46 –76).
New York: Guilford Press.
Butler, T., Giordano, S., & Neren, S. (1985). Gender and sex-role attributes
as predictors of utilization of natural support systems during personal
stress events. Sex Roles, 13, 515–524.
Chan, F., Livneh, H., Pruett, S., Wang, C. C., & Zheng, L. X. (2009).
Societal attitudes toward disability: Concepts, measurements, and inter-
ventions. In F. Chan, E. Da Silva- Cardoso, & J. A. Chronister (Eds.),
Understanding psychosocial adjustment to chronic illness and disability
(pp. 333–370). New York: Springer.
Cook, D. (1992). Psychological impact of disability. In R. M. Parker &
E. M. Szymanski (Ed.), Rehabilitation counseling basics and beyond
(pp. 249 –272). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Corcoran, K., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy,
perspective taking and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 78, 473– 483.
DePoy, E., & Merrill, S. (1988). Value acquisition in an occupational
therapy curriculum. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 8, 259 –
274.
Fichten, C. S., & Amsel, R. (1988). Thoughts concerning interaction
between college students who have a physical disability and their non-
disabled peers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 22– 40.
Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The Multidimensional
Attitudes Scale toward persons with disabilities (MAS): Construction
and validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 166 –176.
Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). An attachment-
theoretical approach to compassion and altruism. In P. Gilbert (Ed),
Compassion: Conceptualizations, research and use in psychotherapy
(pp. 121–147). New York: Routledge.
Jandrey, B. L. (1998). Attitudes toward persons with a physical disability:
The contributing factor of attachment style in a law enforcement popu-
lation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Joireman, J. A., Needham, T., & Cummings, A. (2002). Relationship
between dimensions of attachment and empathy. North American Jour-
nal of Psychology, 4, 63– 80.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott,
R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships.
New York: Freeman.
Livneh, H. (1988). A dimensional perspective on the origin of negative
attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes
toward people with disabilities (pp. 35– 46). New York: Springer.
Marini, I. (2001). Cross-cultural counseling issues of males who sustain a
disability. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 32, 36 – 44.
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing:
Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1217–1230.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult
attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful
events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and
close relationships (pp. 143–165). New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). Attachment style and affect regula-
tion: Implications for coping with stress and mental health. In G. J. O.
306 VILCHINSKY, FINDLER, AND WERNER
Fletcher, M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Interpersonal processes (pp. 537–557). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Blackwell Publishers.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and
fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 273–280.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli,
N. (2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others’ needs: Evidence
that activation of the sense of attachment security promotes empathic
responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1205–
1224.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup
bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative
reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 97–115.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Struc-
ture, dynamics and change. New York: Springer.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect
regulation. In J. Cassidi & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 503–531). New York:
Springer.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. E. (2005).
Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Augmentation of attachment se-
curity increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 817– 839.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and
affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive conse-
quences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27,
77–102.
Noonan, J. R., Barry, J. R., & Davis, H. C. (1970). Personality determi-
nants in attitudes toward visible disability. Journal of Personality, 38,
1–15.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual
Review of Psychology, 44, 117–154.
Rimmerman, A., Hozmi, B., & Duvdevany, I. (2000). Contact and attitudes
View publication stats
toward individuals with disabilities among students tutoring children
with developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disability, 25, 13–18.
Sakellariou, D. (2006). If not the disability, then what? Barriers to reclaim-
ing sexuality following spinal cord injury. Sexuality and Disability, 24,
101–111.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity. Sex-
uality and Disability, 17, 53– 64.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and
evidence. In D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal
relationships (Vol. 4, pp. 29 –70). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Siller, J. (1963). Reactions to physical disability. Rehabilitation Counsel-
ing Bulletin, 7, 12–16.
Siller, J. (1984). The role of personality in attitudes toward those with
physical disabilities. In C. J. Golden (Ed.), Current topics in rehabili-
tation psychology (pp. 201–227). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Siller, J. (1995). Reactions to physical disability by the disabled and the
nondisabled. In J. Siller & K. R. Thomas (Eds.), Essays and research on
disability (pp. 3–10). Athens, GA: Elliot & Fitzpatrick. (Original work
published 1959)
Vilchinsky, N., & Findler, L. (2004). Attitudes toward Israel’s Equal
Rights for People with Disabilities Law: A multi-perspective approach.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 49, 309 –316.
Vilchinsky, N., Werner, S., & Findler, L. (2010). Gender and attitudes
toward people using wheelchairs: A multidimensional approach. Reha-
bilitation Counseling Bulletin, 53, 163–174.
Westmaas, J. L., & Cohen-Silver, R. (2001). The role of attachment in
response to victims of life crises. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 425– 438.
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1984). Effect of sex-role
orientation on behavioral self-disclosure. Journal of Research in Per-
sonality, 18, 541–553.
Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach. New
York: Harper & Row.
Received February 4, 2010
Revision received May 31, 2010
Accepted June 1, 2010 䡲