The Journal of Psychology, 2003, 137(2), 163-177 The Assessment of Attitudes Toward Individuals With Disabilities in the Workplace PAULA M. POPOVICH CHARLES A. SCHERBAUM KAREN L. SCHERBAUM NATALE POLINKO Department of Psychology ABSTRACT. The authors conducted 2 studies to develop and test measures that assess beliefs about what constitutes a disability. affective reactions to working with individuals with disabilities, and beliefs about the reasonableness of workplace accommodations, in genera! and within the context of the Americans With Disabitities Act (ADA). The results al, more physical and sensory-motor conditions were considered disabilities logical conditions. Furthermore, the conditions believed to be disabili- ‘d not necessarily match what is covered by the ADA. Gender and experience with dividuals who aze disabled were also found to predict affective reactions and the =ea- senableness of accommodations. implications for organizations are discussed. Key words: Americans With Disabilities Act, attitudes, disability TN 1990, Congress enacted the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) to protect the rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace. A disability is any phys- or mental condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities (Equa! Employment Opportunity Commission, 1991). The guidelines associated with the ADA stipulate that employers must make task or social alterations to the job or the work environment {i.e.. reasonable accommodations) that permi: per- sons with disabilities :o perform the major functions of the job and thereby facil- Portions of ihis research were presented in 2000 at the annual meetings of the Midwest- ern Psychological Association. Chicago, IL, and the American Psychological Scciety, j-square statistics for all 42 conditions that could or could not be con- ies by our participants are available on request from the first author. correspondence to Paula M. Popovich, Department of Psychology, Porter versity, Athens, OH 45701; popovich@ohio.edu (e-mail). Hail. Ohio U 163164 The Journal of Psychology itate the assimilation of people with disabilities into the workplace (Cleveland, Barnes-Farrell, & Ratz, 1997). The success of these attempts to assimilate people with disabilities into the workplace often depends on the cooperation of individuals currently in the orga- nization (Hall & Hall, 1994; Stone & Colella, 1996). As a result, understanding the attitudes held by employers and employees about individuals with disabilities in the workplace and the accommodations they require have received increasing attention from both practitioners and scientists (Stone, 1997). Research on attitudes toward individuals who are disabled is not novel (e.g., Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The results of such research indicate that, in general, people hold negative attitudes toward individuals who are disabled (Livneh, 1982). The posited sources of these negative attitudes range from attri- butions (Weiner, 1993) to socialization experiences (Livneh, 1982) to stigmati- zation (Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). Furthermore, the findings from this body of research indicate that there are individual differences in the negativity of the attitude based on the attributes of the observer. For example, research has indicated that women and those with experience with individuals who are dis- abled tend to have more positive attitudes than do men and those with no expe- rience (Jones et al., 1984; Jones & Stone, 1995; Livneh, 1982). Although there is a substantial body of literature on attitudes toward indi- viduals who are disabled, very little of this literature has examined these issues in the context of organizations. Moreover, the research that has been conducted on disability issues in organizations has focused primarily on personnel decisions and how they are related to the characteristics of individuals or programs (e.g., Florey & Harrison, 2000). These studies have increased our understanding of the treatment of individuals with disabilities in organizations, but none of this research directly addresses the various elements of the attitudes held toward members of this group or the beliefs about individuals with disabilities that underlie the personnel decisions and the treatment of individuals with disabilities in organizations. This lack has limited our ability to understand and design inter- ventions that address the discriminatory behaviors that affect persons with dis- abilities in the workplace. Thus, it is not surprising that we have not been able to help employ the estimated 8.2 million individuals with disabilities who want to work yet are unable to find employment (Epstein, 1995). Another factor that limits our understanding and interventions is that the ADA provides only general guidelines and not specific instructions. Specifically, the ADA does not provide a list of what is and what is not a disability or what is a rea- sonable accommodation. Under the ADA, these decisions are made on a case-by- case basis. As a result, there is confusion and disagreement over what constitutes a “disability” and “reasonable” accommodations for an employer to make available. Moreover, recent Supreme Court decisions have only muddied the waters further by including factors such as the ability to the correct a condition (e.g., glasses for impaired vision; Sutton v, United Air Lines, 1999) in making these decisions.Popovich, Scherbaum, Scherbaum, & Polinko__165 This confusion or lack of accurate knowledge may be reflected in the atti- tudes and beliefs that employers and employees have about working with persons with disabilities and the accommodations they believe are reasonable. For exam- ple, Katz (1960) has argued that one function of attitudes is knowledge or under- standing of the world. In this case, the information may not necessarily be accu- rate and the cost of inaccurate information is high for both employers and employees with disabilities. Thus, increasing our understanding of the various s of attitudes toward individuals with disabilities in the workplace is a nec- essary first step in developing effective interventions to improve treatment of such individuals. Specifically, we need to develop an understanding of what is considered a disability and a reasonable accommodation as to whether these beliefs match the legal prescriptions. To date, little empirical work has been directed toward this important initial step. There are numerous approaches or frameworks for understanding the con- struct of “attitude” {e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; McGuire, 1985). Included in frameworks and approaches are a cognitive component, consisting of the deas and beliefs one has about the attitude object, as well as an affective com- ponent, coasisting of the feelings and reactions one has toward the object. In this article, we examine attitudes through these two components. Multiple compo- t attitude frameworks have been used io understand attitudes and beliefs it other employment concepts, such as affirmative action (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 2000; Kravitz & Platania, 1993). However, the multiple component approach has yet to be applied to our understanding of affective reactions and fs about individuals with disabilities in the workplace as well as the accom- raodations they may also require. Our purpose in these studies was to examine beliefs about what cor a disability, affective reactions toward working with individuals with disabili- ties in the workplace, and beliefs about the reasonableness of common work- place accommodations. We conducted two studies to develop and test scales tha: would assess (a) beliefs or cognitions about what constitutes a disability, (b) affective reactions concerning working with persons who have disabilities, (c) beliefs or cognitions about the reasonableness of workplace accoramo- dations for persons who have disabilities. We also examined possible gender and experience differences that have been reported in previous attitude research, In the first study, we developed items for these scales and used them to assess attitudes toward persons with disabilities. For this first study, we did not provide the participants with any definition of what constitutes a disability because our goal was to develop scales that would be able to reflect a broad range of attitudes as well as more specific reactions. In the second study, the scales were giver to the participants along with the ADA’s definition of disability. We did this to determine participant attitudes toward working with individuals in the workplace. specifically within the context of the ADA guidelines.