Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 10–17


c Cambridge University Press 2012. doi 10.1017/jrr.2012.1

Attitudes Toward Individuals With Disabilities:

The Effects of Age, Gender, and Relationship
Jason J. Barr1 and Kristi Bracchitta2
1
Monmouth University, USA
2
College of Mount Saint Vincent, USA

Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities are influenced by the amount of contact one has with such
individuals. This research investigated if the relationship a person has with individuals with disabilities is
associated with positive attitudes more so than mere contact with such individuals. Increased contact with
friends with disabilities and activities with individuals with disabilities were associated with more positive
altitudes. Contact with relatives and classmates with a disability was not associated with more positive
attitudes. Age and gender were found to moderate these relationships. Contact with friends with disabilities
increased positive attitudes for younger but not older participants. Contact with classmates with disabilities
decreased positive attitudes for males but not females. This research can help us better understand disability-
related bias.

 Keywords: disabilities, attitudes, gender differences, intergroup contact theory

In contemporary Western society, there is still the belief ATTITUDES

that individuals with disabilities are inferior to or less
competent than individuals without disabilities (Hunt
& Hunt, 2000). Individuals with disabilities are often
considered deviant from individuals without disabilities
because they fail to fit the description of normalcy con-
strued by beauty, attractiveness, and able-bodiedness (Seo
& Chen, 2009). If a particular group is labelled un-
favourably by society, an individual in that group will
likely encounter hindrances imposed on them as he or
she strives for personal goals and acceptance into soci-
ety (Smart, 2008). It is well supported that increased
contact with individuals with disabilities promotes more
favourable attitudes toward such individuals (Hunt &
Hunt). However, many studies have focused on mere
quantity of contact with individuals with disabilities. Re-
search has shown that both the quality and quantity of
contact play an important role in the reduction of in-
tergroup biases (Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, & Voci,
2005). Contact remains a very important variable in ex-
amining the relationships between two different groups;
therefore in the current study, our goal was to demon-
strate that not only does the quantity of contact affect
attitudes, but so does the type of relationship a person
has with an individual with a disability.
The attitudes of others have important influences on indi-
viduals with disabilities (Yuker, 1994). Negative attitudes
toward groups of individuals are thought to result in dis-
criminatory behaviour and stereotypical responses toward
these individuals (Hunt & Hunt, 2000), and research
suggests that individuals with disabilities are aware of
this differential treatment (Abbott & McConkey, 2006).
This may lead individuals with disabilities to experience
negative self-evaluations, feelings of powerlessness, and
frustration (Jahoda & Markova, 2004). However, posi-
tive attitudes can facilitate the inclusion and acceptabil-
ity of such individuals (Findler, Vinshinsky, & Werner,
2007). While individuals without disabilities may ex-
press discomfort and uncertainty about how to act in
the presence of individuals with disabilities (Loo, 2000),
negative attitudes do not always imply negative reactions.
Anderson and Antonak (1992) believe that it is unwise to
assume that just because unfavourable attitudes toward
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Jason J. Barr, PhD, Asso-
ciate Professor & Chair, Educational Leadership, School Counseling
& Special Education, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West
Long Branch, NJ 07764, United States. Email: jbarr@monmouth.edu

10

individuals with disabilities were reported, people would
not necessarily act negatively toward individuals with dis-
abilities.
Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities vary as
a function of many variables, such as culture, demo-
graphics, type of disability, age, and gender (Deal, 2003).
There is a mixed reaction among researchers on gen-
der differences in attitudes toward individuals with dis-
abilities. Generally, females appear to be more accepting
of individuals with disabilities than males (Nowicki &
Sandieson, 2002). This has been supported with adults
(Hunt & Hunt, 2000; Seo & Chen, 2009), adolescents
(McDougall, DeWit, King, Miller, & Killip, 2004) and
young children (Panek & Smith, 2005). However, Tamm
and Prellwitz (2001) found that females and males were
about equal in their views toward individuals with disabil-
ities. Laws and Kelly (2005) found that attitudes toward
behavioural and intellectual disabilities among males and
females were alike, but females showed a more positive
attitude toward individuals with physical disabilities than
males.
The association between attitudes toward individu-
als with disabilities and age is unclear as well (Nowicki,
2006). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities fol-
lows a developmental trend as favourable attitudes in-
crease from early childhood to adolescence, decrease in
late adolescence, and increase again in young adulthood
through late adulthood (Harper & Peterson, 2001). Inter-
estingly, younger children show more negative attitudes
toward opposite-sex children with disabilities (Wood-
ward, 1995).
CONTACT
One important factor to consider when investigating at-
titudes toward individuals with disabilities is the amount
of contact one has had with such individuals (Yuker,
1994). Allport (1954) noted that contact between social
groups may decrease prejudice. Subsequent research has
found varying degrees of support for Allport’s intergroup
contact theory. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) conducted a
meta-analysis of over 500 studies on intergroup contact
theory (involving multiple groups; not just groups with
disabilities) and concluded that contact alone is sufficient
for greater understanding between groups. Seo and Chen
(2009) found that adults who reported more favourable
attitudes toward individuals with disabilities also reported
having greater contact with these individuals. Similar re-
sults were found for adolescents (McDougall et al., 2004)
and children (Kalyva & Agaliotis, 2009).
An important distinction needs to be considered be-
tween the quantity of contact versus the quality of con-
tact with individuals with disabilities. McManus, Feyes,
and Saucier (2010) found that greater quality of contact
uniquely predicted more positive attitudes toward indi-
viduals with disabilities while greater quantity of contact
ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
and increased knowledge of disabilities was not related to
positive attitudes. Smart (2008) found that positive at-
titudes toward individuals with disabilities occur when
contact conveys information that disconfirms stereo-
types, is personal, intimate, and rewarding. In addition,
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) suggest that having contact
in a more structured setting and with institutional sup-
port increases positive attitudes even further. For exam-
ple, Meyer, Gouvier, Duke, and Advokat (2001) found
that students without disabilities reported they had de-
veloped more favourable attitudes toward peers with dis-
abilities after presenting a project for a class assignment
with them. Fichten, Schipper, and Cutler (2005) deter-
mined that individuals who volunteered with children
with disabilities experienced less discomfort around indi-
viduals with disabilities. Conversely, individuals who had
casual experiences with individuals with disabilities, such
as neighbours, did not have more positive attitudes than
those with other types of experiences (Hampton & Xiao,
2007). Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak (1997) found
that when prospective special educators were exposed to
a videotape that portrayed positive images of individuals
with disabilities there was little influence on attitudes.
However, in a second condition, participants viewed the
videotape in addition to being instructed by an educa-
tor with an obvious physical disability. It was only when
participants had actual contact with the instructor with
a physical disability that attitudes were more favourable.
Mpofu (2003) concluded that as education and practi-
cal experiences concerning individuals with disabilities
increase, positive attitudes significantly increase.
THE CURRENT STUDY
Many of the studies performed in the past have treated
contact as a broad, one-dimensional category. In a review
of over 20 studies, it was determined that the more de-
tailed the assessment of contact, the more likely the study
was to find significant relationships between contact and
attitudes (Makas, 1993). Also, previous research has not
investigated if the type of relationship a person has with
individuals with disabilities has an effect on positive at-
titudes. Being able to measure more than one dimension
of contact toward individuals with disabilities would help
us better understand differences in attitudes that people
hold toward such individuals. This would help us un-
derstand the nature of disability-related bias (Pruett, Lee,
Chan, Wang, & Lane, 2008). Finally, past studies have
treated attitudes toward individuals with disabilities as a
single, broad category. Therefore, multidimensional mea-
sures of attitudes are needed to consider attitude variation
(McCaughey & Strohmer, 2005).
The first purpose of this research was to understand if
the type of relationship a person has with an individual
with a disability is associated with different dimensions
of their attitudes toward such individuals. Specifically,
Journal of Relationships Research 11
 JASON J. BARR
we looked at the amount of contact participants had
with individuals with disabilities across four categories of
relationships, including friends, relatives, classmates, and
engaging in an activity.
Hypothesis 1: Positive attitudes toward people with dis-
abilities will be associated with relationships with high
levels of voluntary contact with people with disabilities.
Specifically, we hypothesise that friendships and engag-
ing in activities with individuals with disabilities will be
associated with positive attitudes.
The second purpose of this research was to under-
stand the moderating effects of age and gender on the
relationship between contact with and attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities. Because research has shown
that attitudes change with age and that there are gender
differences in attitudes toward individuals with disabili-
ties, the role of age and gender were of interest.
Hypothesis 2a: Age will significantly moderate the rela-
tionship between contact with and attitudes toward in-
dividuals with disabilities. Specifically, older individuals
will show more positive attitudes toward individuals with
disabilities.
Hypothesis 2b: Gender will significantly moderate the re-
lationship between contact with and attitudes toward in-
dividuals with disabilities. Specifically, females will show
more positive attitudes toward individuals with disabili-
ties.
Methods
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 228 students, 42 men (18%) and
186 women (82%), with ages ranging from 18 to 24
years (M = 19.10 years, SD = 1.08 years) drawn from
two undergraduate institutions. We recruited participants
from introductory psychology and educational psychol-
ogy courses at two separate undergraduate institutions. In
both settings, the researcher described the nature of the
research to all of the participants, answered any questions
that arose, and asked all students to read and sign the
consent form. All students who were present in class on
the day of data collection completed the survey. Students
who agreed to participate in the research received the
packet of surveys to complete during class. Ten surveys
were discarded due to incomplete or missing data.
Materials
Participants completed the Scale of Attitudes toward Dis-
abled Persons (SADP; Antonak, 1982). The SADP con-
sists of 24 Likert-scale items with values ranging from 1
(I disagree very much) to 6 (I agree very much). The origi-
nal factor analysis of the SADP supported a three-factor
solution (Antonak). These three factors or subscales were
Optimism, Misconceptions, and Hopelessness. The first
12 Journal of Relationships Research
subscale, Optimism, measures positive views of individ-
uals with disabilities as well as statements affirming the
human rights of individuals with disabilities to live in
the mainstream of society. The second subscale, Miscon-
ceptions, measures common mistaken beliefs about the
behaviour of individuals with disabilities. The third sub-
scale, Hopelessness, measures negative, pessimistic beliefs
about the educability, maturity, and morality of individ-
uals with disabilities. The reliability of the original scale
was reported to range from .81 to .85 (Antonek & Livneh,
1988). In the present study, the alpha coefficients for the
Optimism, Misconceptions, and Hopelessness subscales
were .81, .79, and .80, respectively.
We designed a 12-question survey to determine partic-
ipants’ contact with individuals with disabilities. Partici-
pants were asked how much contact they had with rela-
tives, friends, classmates, or in activities with individuals
with physical, developmental, or behavioural disabilities.
The definition of relatives, friends, classmates and activ-
ities were implicit, as was the definition of physical, de-
velopmental, and behavioural disabilities, so participants
could include individuals who they felt belonged in a
particular category. Participants were encouraged to only
consider each person they know with a disability within
one relationship category. While a participant could have
a friend with a disability and engage in an activity with
that friend, the friendship is more salient than the activ-
ity. Participants answered each question on an 8-point
scale ranging from No contact (0) to Constant (7). In the
present study, the alpha coefficient was .73.
Prior to conducting any analyses, a statistical power
analysis was conducted to ensure the sample was adequate
to conduct the multivariate analyses (Cohen, 1988). Since
there were too few participants reporting contact with
each disability category (physical, developmental, be-
havioural) across each relationship category (friend, rela-
tive, classmate, activity) there was not enough power to
properly conduct multivariate analyses needed to answer
the research questions. Therefore, the disability type was
collapsed into a single contact variable. The amount of
contact for each relationship category was determined
by summing the amount of contact they had with all
individuals with all disabilities within each relationship
category.
Results
We first explored if there was a significant difference be-
tween each relationship type in the overall amount of
contact participants had with individuals with disabili-
ties through a repeated measures ANOVA with a Huynh-
Feldt correction. Effect sizes were calculated with η2 as
a means of further illuminating the magnitude of associ-
ations. There was a significant difference in the amount
of contact between each relationship type, F(2.94,
667.45) = 38.31, p < .01, η2 = .15. Post hoc tests using

TABLE 1
Correlations Between Relationships and Attitudes
Hopelessness Misconceptions Optimism
Relative contact − .03 − .12
Friend contact − .11 − .21**
Classmate contact − .04 − .13
Activity contact − .23** − .23**
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01.
the Bonferroni correction show that classmate contact
(M = 2.39, SD = 1.75) was significantly higher than
activity contact (M = 1.88, SD = 1.77). Activity contact
was significantly higher than friend contact (M = 1.47,
SD = 1.69). Friend contact was significantly higher than
relative contact (M = 1.13, SD = 1.47). Using Cohen’s
(1988) categories, the effect size for this equation was
small.
To test hypothesis 1, that positive attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities will be associated with re-
lationships with high levels of voluntary contact with
individuals with disabilities, we explored the associations
between each type of relationship and participants’ atti-
tudes toward individuals with disabilities. All correlations
are presented in Table 1. Having contact with a relative
or a classmate with a disability was not associated with
any attitude variable. Having friends with a disability
was associated with less misconceptions and more opti-
mism. Engaging in an activity with an individual with a
disability was associated with less hopelessness, less mis-
conceptions, and more optimism.
To test hypothesis 2a, three multiple regression anal-
yses were conducted predicting attitudes (hopelessness,
misconceptions, optimism) to test both main and moder-
ating effects of age on relationships and attitudes. Age was
entered in step 1; relationships (relative, friend, classmate,
activity) were entered in step 2; four age × relationship
interactions were entered in step 3. As a precaution sug-
gested by Aiken and West (1991), all predictor variables
were centred prior to the analyses, whereby the mean was
subtracted from the variables to reduce multicollinearity.
Effect sizes were calculated with R2 as a means of further
illuminating the magnitude of the variance accounted for.
For the first regression analysis with hopelessness as the
dependant variable, the overall regression equation was
significant, F(9, 218) = 2.71, p < .01, R2 = .10. There
were main effects for age in the first and second steps of
the model. Also in the second step, there was a main effect
of activity contact. In the third step of the model, none
of the interaction terms were significant. For the second
regression analysis with misconceptions as the dependant
variable, the overall regression equation was significant,
F(9, 218) = 4.04, p < .01, R2 = .14. In the first and
second step of the model, there was a main effect of age.
In the third step of the model, the interaction of age ×
ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
4.8 Age
-1 SD
4.7 Mean
.13
Misconceptions
+1 SD
.21**
.09 4.6
.22**
4.5
4.4
Low High
-1 SD
Mean
+1 SD
Friend contact
FIGURE 1
Misconceptions, contact with a friend with a disability, and age.
friend contact was significant. For the third regression
analysis with optimism as the dependant variable, the
overall regression equation was significant, F(9, 218) =
3.36, p < .01, R2 = .12. In the first and second step of
the model, there was a main effect of age. In the third
step of the model, none of the interaction terms were
significant. Using Cohen’s (1988) categories, the effect
size for all equations were small.
Since the age × friend contact interaction was sig-
nificant for misconceptions, follow-up simple slope tests
were conducted (Aiken & West, 1991) and are presented
in Figure 1. Effect sizes were calculated with Cohen’s d
as a means of further illuminating the magnitude of the
variance accounted for. For younger participants (1 SD
below the mean), contact with a friend with a disabil-
ity had a significant slope on misconceptions, B = .27,
SE (B) = .03, t(226) = 2.99, p < .01, d = .40. Similar
results were also found for those participants whose age
was at the mean, B = .14, SE (B) = .02, t(226) = 2.21,
p < .01, d = .29. In contrast, for older participants (1 SD
above the mean), contact with a friend with a disability
did not have a significant slope on misconceptions, B =
.02, SE (B) = .04, t(226) = 0.15, p = .88. Thus, the
relation between contact with a friend with a disability
and misconceptions held only for younger participants.
However, using Cohen’s (1988) categories, the effect size
for all equations were small.
To test hypothesis 2b, three multiple regression anal-
yses were conducted predicting attitudes (hopelessness,
misconceptions, optimism) to test both main and mod-
erating effects of gender on relationships and attitudes.
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) was entered in step 1;
relationships (relative, friend, classmate, activity) were en-
tered in step 2; four gender × relationship interactions
were entered in step 3. As a precaution suggested by Aiken
and West (1991), all predictor variables were centred prior
to the analyses, whereby the mean was subtracted from
Journal of Relationships Research 13
 JASON J. BARR
4.9
Optimism
4.8
4.7
4.6
Low Mean High
-1 SD +1 SD
Class Contact
FIGURE 2
Gender moderates the relationship between optimism and class contact.
the variables to reduce multicollinearity. Effect sizes were
calculated with R2 as a means of further illuminating the
magnitude of the variance accounted for.
For the first regression analysis with hopelessness as
the dependant variable, the overall regression equation
was significant, F(9, 218) = 2.56, p < .01, R2 = .10.
There was a main effect for gender in the first and second
step of the model. Also in the second step, there was a
main effect of activity contact. In the third step of the
model, none of the interaction terms were significant. For
the second regression analysis with misconceptions as the
dependant variable, the overall regression equation was
significant, F(9, 218) = 2.63, p < .01, R2 = .10. There
was a main effect for gender in the first and second step
of the model. In the third step of the model, none of the
interaction terms were significant. For the third regression
analysis with optimism as the dependant variable, the
overall regression equation was significant, F(9, 218) =
2.55, p < .01, R2 = .10. There was a main effect for
gender in the first step and a main effect for activity
contact in the second step. In the third step of the model,
the interaction of gender × class contact was significant.
Using Cohen’s (1988) categories, the effect size for all
equations were small.
Since the gender × class contact interaction was sig-
nificant for optimism, follow-up simple slope tests were
conducted (Aiken & West, 1991) and are presented in
Figure 2. Effect sizes were calculated with Cohen’s d as a
means of further illuminating the magnitude of the vari-
ance accounted for. For males, contact with a classmate
with a disability had a significant slope on optimism, B =
−.37, SE (B) = .05, t(226) = −2.24, p < .01, d = −.30.
In contrast, for females, contact with a classmate with a
disability did not have a significant slope on optimism,
B = .05, SE (B) = .03, t(226) = 0.56, p = .55. Thus, the
relation between contact with a classmate with a disability
and optimism held only for male participants. However,
14 Journal of Relationships Research
using Cohen’s (1988) categories, the effect size for all
Male equations were small.
Female
Discussion
Previous research supports the notion that increased con-
tact with individuals with disabilities promotes more
favourable attitudes toward such individuals (i.e., Kalyva
& Agaliotis, 2009; Seo & Chen, 2009; McDougall et al.,
2004; Hunt & Hunt, 2000). The current study generally
supports this notion and the notion that there are gen-
der and age differences in attitudes toward individuals
with disabilities. However, the current results demon-
strate that quantity of contact is not the only variable
associated with positive attitudes. The type of relation-
ship one has with an individual with a disability is also
associated with attitudes. While increased contact with
individuals with disabilities may allow others to gain a
more accurate view and a better understanding of indi-
viduals with disabilities, the relationship which one has
with an individual with a disability might provide im-
portant information about disabilities, which could affect
attitudes.
The first purpose of this research was to understand if
the type of relationship a person has with an individual
with a disability is associated with different dimensions
of their attitudes toward such individuals. Specifically,
we looked at the amount of contact participants had
with individuals with disabilities across four categories of
relationships to see if positive attitudes would be associ-
ated with relationships with high levels of voluntary con-
tact such as friendships and engaging in activities. While
participants reported the most amount of contact with
classmates with disabilities, positive attitudes were most
strongly associated with increased contact with friends
with disabilities and increased contact in activities with
individuals with disabilities. Such results are supported by
Allport’s (1954) theory, that while the amount of contact
reduces negative attitudes, the impact of contact depends
on the quality of the contact situation (e.g., equal status
of a relationship).
Being friends with and engaging in an activity with oth-
ers are both voluntary relationships. Being friends with
a person is also a personal relationship where the person
without a disability views the friend with a disability in
many contexts and may develop a more realistic view of
what people with disabilities can do, which may help di-
minish misconceptions. However, such personal contact
might include the reality that the disability is permanent,
which could increase a sense of hopelessness. Also, in
friendships, the friend with a disability might admit their
strengths, weaknesses, and fears. Engaging in an activity is
also a voluntary relationship; however, it is not a personal
relationship. Engaging in an activity might only superfi-
cially improve attitudes as the person without a disability
does not view the person with a disability in multiple

contexts and might not have much personal interaction
with the person. Also, the person with a disability might
choose a particular activity because he or she excels at it
or where their disability would be minimised. Another
possibility is that those who already had more positive at-
titudes chose to engage in activities with individuals with
disabilities.
Relative contact and classmate contact were not as-
sociated with positive attitudes toward individuals with
disabilities. Interestingly, participants reported the least
amount of relative contact and the most amount of class-
mate contact with individuals with disabilities. Possibly,
contact with relatives with disabilities might take place
in limited settings where the person without a disability
does not get exposed to the strengths of the person with
a disability, although this could vary greatly depending
upon the type of relative (immediate vs. extended family
member). Similar to contact with friends with disabilities,
contact with a relative with a disability is a personal rela-
tionship. Therefore, family members without a disability
might develop a more realistic view of the permanence of
the disability and the capabilities of the family member
with a disability. Contact with classmates with disabilities
is neither personal nor voluntary and might not offer op-
portunities for individuals with and without disabilities
to interact.
The second purpose of this research was to under-
stand the moderating effects of age and gender on the
relationship between contact with and attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities. Our hypothesis that older
individuals will show more positive attitudes toward in-
dividuals with disabilities was partially supported. Age
was a moderator for the relationship between contact
with friends with a disability and misconceptions. For
younger participants (about 18 years old; 1 SD below
the mean age), as contact with friends with disabilities
increased, misconceptions decreased. Older participants
(about 20 years old, 1 SD above the mean age) did not
show a significant decrease in misconceptions as contact
with friends with disabilities increased. This is consis-
tent with the notion that attitudes toward individuals
with disabilities follow a developmental trend (Harper &
Peterson, 2001). Misconceptions are a cognitive belief.
Possibly, these cognitive beliefs are set by early adulthood
and will not change even with increased contact with in-
dividuals with disabilities. Once set, these beliefs might
become the framework for how we perceive all individu-
als with disabilities, thus developing a pervasive pattern
of responding toward them, which might not be easily
changed. Therefore, younger participants might be more
likely to change their attitudes based upon contact with
individuals with disabilities. This would hold true espe-
cially for friendships as they are voluntary and personal
relationships. Having friends with disabilities seems to
be a critical relationship needed to diminish misconcep-
tions about disabilities as we get older as it would expose
ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
a friend without a disability to a more realistic view of
what individuals with disabilities can do.
Our second hypothesis that females will show more
positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities was
partially supported. Females did demonstrate more pos-
itive attitudes overall. Gender was a moderator for the
relationship between contact with classmates with a dis-
ability and optimism. For male participants, as contact
with classmates with disabilities increased, optimism de-
creased. As this difference was only supported for males
and classmate contact, it could be possible that the im-
personal or the nonvoluntary nature of the interactions
that take place in a classroom might help maintain or
increase males’ negative beliefs. Another variable, em-
pathy, could account for these differences as females
have consistently scored higher in empathy than males
(Eisenberg, 2006). Hyde (2006) suggests that females
have been socialised into nurturing and caretaking roles,
and that this can account for differences in male and fe-
male attitudes. However, any gender differences should
be interpreted with caution as there were a disproportion-
ately higher number of females than males in the current
sample.
Effect sizes were calculated as a means of further il-
luminating the magnitude of associations between con-
tact and attitudes. Using Cohen’s (1988) categories of
.20 as small, .50 as medium, and .80 or higher as large,
all of the effect sizes in this study were small. Fergu-
son (2009) posited that d = .41, r = .2, and R2 /η2 =
.04 are the recommended minimum effect sizes repre-
senting a ‘practically’ significant effect for social science
data. Using these criteria, most effect sizes exceeded the
recommended minimum, demonstrating practically sig-
nificant effects, except the significant slope males had on
optimism (d = −.30) and the significant slope for partic-
ipants whose age was at the mean on misconceptions (d =
.29). Thompson (2008) claims that correct interpretation
should focus on the comparison of new results with the
prior effect sizes in the related literature. Pettigrew and
Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis of over 500 studies on inter-
group contact found the strength of the effect of contact
on attitudes was .21. The effect sizes in the current study
ranged from .10 to .40, demonstrating that while the ef-
fect sizes in the current study were small by traditional
standards, the effect sizes were similar to many other stud-
ies conducted on the relationship between contact and
attitudes.
Although the present study adds to the body of lit-
erature on attitudes and contact with individuals with
disabilities, it is not without its limitations. One limita-
tion is how we operationalised contact and relationships.
There are no standardised measures of contact and there
is little agreement in the literature as to what consti-
tutes contact, regardless of the population of interest. As
yet, no alternative method exists to get at the aspects of
contact that require respondents’ knowledge and
Journal of Relationships Research 15
 JASON J. BARR
reporting of their own prior experiences, and for this
we must continue to reply on self-reports, which suf-
fer from systematic response bias (Sharp & Hewstone,
2010). One way to demonstrate the importance of a
phenomenon is to show that the phenomenon can be
detected even in the least auspicious of circumstances
(Cortina & Landis, 2009). Although effect sizes were not
large by traditional standards, the fact that participants
showed differences in attitudes based upon four broad
categories of relationships is evidence that the effect of
these relationships was very powerful. Future researchers
should attempt to operationalise relationships in more
detail as the four broad categories of relationships could
have several subcategories within them.
The scale we chose for the present research seems to
only assess the cognitive component of attitudes. Accord-
ing to the tricomponent model of attitudes (Rosenberg,
Hoveland, McGuire, Abelson, & Brehm, 1960), attitudes
are composed of three components: cognitive, affective,
and behavioural. The results may have been different if
we had investigated the other components of attitudes
as well. Future researchers should address this limita-
tion by investigating the other attitudinal components as
well. Future research should also attempt to differentiate
attitudes toward different types of disabilities. Thomas
(2001) stressed that a single, generalised attitude toward
individuals with disabilities ignores the vast differences
among them. Finally, future research should also assess
the differences in attitudes toward and contact with in-
dividuals with disabilities between individuals with and
without disabilities. Having a disability might change
how one perceives others with disabilities and influence
the amount of contact they had with others with dis-
abilities. This would allow us to better understand the
differences between relationship, attitudes, and type of
disability in much more detail.
The final limitation is the correlational nature of this
research. As a result, we cannot ascribe a firm cause-
and-effect relation regarding the effect of contact on at-
titudes and the type of relationship. Future researchers
should address this limitation by conducting longitu-
dinal studies. A longitudinal design would allow for
the examination of the development of attitudes and
changes in contact with individuals with disabilities over
time.
Previous research has shown that the amount of contact
with individuals with disabilities has an important influ-
ence on the attitudes toward such individuals. While this
research supports that notion, this research demonstrates
that the type of relationship one has with an individual
with a disability also is an important factor to consider.
This research also shows that the relationship between age
and attitudes, as well as gender and attitudes, might be
much more nuanced than originally thought. Therefore,
this research can help us better understand the nature of
disability-related bias.
16 Journal of Relationships Research
References
Abbott, S., & McConkey, R. (2006). The barriers to social inclu-
sion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities. Journal
of Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 275–287.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Anderson, R.J., & Antonak, R.F. (1992). The influence of attitudes
and contact on reactions to persons with physical and speech
disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 35, 240–248.
Antonak, R. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of
the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons. The Journal of
Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13, 22–29.
Antonak, R., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes to-
ward people with disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher.
Beattie, J., Anderson, R., & Antonak, R. (1997). Modifying atti-
tudes of prospective educators toward students with disabilities
and their integration into the regular classroom. Journal of Psy-
chology, 131, 245–259.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cortina, J.M., & Landis, R.S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell
a big story, and when larger effect sizes don’t. In C.E. Lance &
R.J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and
urban legends (pp. 287–336). New York: Routledge.
Deal, M. (2003). Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impair-
ment groups: A hierarchy of impairments. Disability and Society,
18, 897–910. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000127317
Eisenberg, N. (2006). Prosocial behaviour. In G.G. Bear & K.M.
Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and
intervention (pp. 313–324). Washington, DC: National Associ-
ation of School Psychologists.
Ferguson, C.J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians
and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
40, 532–538. doi: 10.1037/a0015808
Fichten, C.S., Schipper, F., & Cutler, N. (2005). Does volunteering
with children affect attitudes toward adults with disabilities? A
prospective study of unequal contact. Rehabilitation Psychology,
50, 164–173. doi: 10.1037/0090-5550.50.2.164
Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The mul-
tidimensional attitudes scale toward persons with disabili-
ties. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 166–176. doi:
10.1177/00343552070500030401.
Hampton, N.Z., & Xiao, F. (2007). Attitudes toward people with
developmental disabilities in Chinese and American students:
The role of cultural values, contact, and knowledge. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 73, 23–32.
Harper, D.C., & Peterson, D.B. (2001). Children in the Philip-
pines: Attitudes toward visible physical impairment. Cleft
Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 38, 566–576. doi: 10.1597/1545-
1569(2001)038<0566:COTPAT>2.0.CO;2
Hunt, B., & Hunt, C. (2000). Attitudes toward people with disabil-
ities: A comparison of undergraduate rehabilitation and business
majors. Rehabilitation Education, 14, 269–283.
Hyde, J.S. (2006). Half the human experience: The psychology of
women. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Jahoda, A., & Markova, I. (2004). Coping with social stigma:
People with intellectual disabilities moving from institutions

and family home. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48,
719–729.
Kalyva, E., & Agaliotis, I. (2009). Con contact affect Greek chil-
dren’s understanding of and attitudes towards peers with physi-
cal disabilities? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24,
213–220.
Kenworthy, J.B, Turner, R.N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A.
(2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In
J.F. Dovidio, F. John, P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On
the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278–292).
Malden, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Laws, G., & Kelly, E. (2005). The attitudes and friendship in-
tentions of children in United Kingdom mainstream schools
towards peers with physical or intellectual disabilities. Jour-
nal of Disability, Development, and Education, 2, 79–99.
doi: 10.1080/10349120500086298
Loo, R. (2000). Attitudes of management undergraduates toward
persons with disabilities: A need for change. Rehabilitation Psy-
chology, 46, 288–295. doi:10.1080/10349120500086298
Makas, E. (1993). Getting in touch: The relationship between
contact with and attitudes towards people with disabilities. In
M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability (pp. 121–136). Palo
Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.
McCaughey, T.J., & Strohmer, D.C. (2005). Prototypes
as an indirect measure of attitudes toward disability
groups. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48, 89–99. doi:
10.1177/00343552050480020301
McDougall, J., DeWit, D.J., King, G., Miller, L.T., & Killip, S.
(2004). High school-aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers
with disabilities: The role of school and student interpersonal
factors. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Ed-
ucation, 51, 287–313. doi: 10.1080/1034912042000259242
McManus, J.L., Feyes, K.J., & Saucier, D.A. (2010). Contact and
knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with in-
tellectual disabilities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
28, 579–590.
Meyer, L., Gouvier, W.D., Duke, M., & Advokat, C. (2001). In-
fluence of social context on reported attitudes of nondisabled
students toward students with disabilities. Rehabilitation Coun-
seling Bulletin, 45, 50–52.
Mpofu, E. (2003). Enhancing social acceptance of early adolescents
with physical disabilities: Effects of role salience, peer interac-
tion, and academic support interventions. International Journal
of Disability, Development, and Education, 50, 435–454.
Nowicki, E.A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis
of school-aged children’s attitudes towards persons with
ATTITUDES TOWARD INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
physical and intellectual disabilities. International Journal of
Disability, Development, and Education, 49, 243–265. doi:
10.1080/1034912022000007270
Nowicki, E.A. (2006). A cross-sectional multivariate analysis
of children’s attitudes towards disabilities. Journal of Intellec-
tual Disability Research, 50, 335–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2788.2005.00781.x
Panek, P.E., & Smith, J.L. (2005). Assessment of terms to describe
mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26,
565–576. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.11.009
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of inter-
group contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90, 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pruett, S.R., Lee, E.J., Chan, F., Wang, M.H., & Lane, F.J.
(2008). Dimensionality of the Contact with Disabled Per-
sons Scale: Results from exploratory and confirmatory fac-
tor analyses. Rehabilitation Counseling, 51, 210–221. doi:
10.1177/0034355207311310
Rosenberg, M.J., Hoveland, C.L., McGuire, W.J., Abelson, R.P.,
& Brehm, J.W. (1960). Attitude organization and change. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Seo, W., & Chen, R.K. (2009). Attitudes of college students to-
ward people with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 40, 3–8.
Sharp, M., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Impact of contact effects on
attitudes and contact: Evidence of the validity of self-reports of
intergroup contact. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in
Applied Psychology, 17, 5–15.
Smart, J. (2008). Disability, society, and the individual (2nd ed.).
Austin, TX: ProEd.
Tamm, M., & Prellwitz, M. (2001). ‘If I had a friend in a
wheelchair’: Children’s thoughts on disabilities. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 27, 223–240.
Thomas, A. (2001). The multidimensional character of biased
perceptions of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabili-
tation, 67, 3–9.
Thompson, B. (2008). Computing and interpreting effect sizes,
confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes.
In J.W. Osborne (Ed.) Best practices in quantitative methods
(pp. 246–262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woodward, R. (1995). The effects of gender and type of disability
on attitudes of children toward peers with physical disabilities.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29, 219–227.
Yuker, H. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward people
with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Journal of Social
Behaviour and Personality, 9, 3–22.
Journal of Relationships Research 17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.