Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, Vol. 18, No.

3, September 2006 (

C 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10882-006-9015-7

Changing Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism:

A Process of Persuasive Communication
Jonathan M. Campbell1,2

Published online: 22 August 2006

The purposes of this paper are two-fold. First, the initial introduction of a
child with autism to typically developing peers is conceptualized as a process
of persuasive communication. Second, relevant literature is organized and re-
viewed according to important components and processes involved in persua-
sive communication, including effects of source, message, receiver, and chan-
nel. Research about perceptions of children with autism is highlighted when
available. When findings for autism were unavailable, literature on children’s
perceptions of peers with physical and medical disabilities is reviewed as well
as perceptions of adults with severe mental illness. From the perspective of
persuasion theory, limitations of the literature and future research questions
are identified that are relevant to introducing children with autism to peers
for the first time.
KEY WORDS: autism; attitudes; persuasion; inclusion; peers.

The school I attended was a small private school for normal children. Mother had
discussed my problems extensively with the teachers. On the first day of school I
was kept home so that the teachers could explain to the other children that I was
different – Temple Grandin (1986, p. 28).

Dr. Temple Grandin’s experience of being educated alongside

“normal” children was likely an aberration at a time when children with
autism were often seen as needing intervention outside of mainstream
education. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act adopted in
1975 and reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
1 Departmentof Educational Psychology, University of Georgia.
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Educational Psy-
chology, University of Georgia, 325 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602-7143; e-mail:
jmcmpbll@uga.edu.

251

1056-263X/06/0900-0251/0

C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
252 Campbell

(IDEA) in 1997 mandated free and appropriate public education for stu-
dents with disabilities, such as autism, to take place in the least restric-
tive and most integrative environments possible (Public Law 94–142, 1975;
Public Law 105–17, 1997). Least restrictive educational environments take
many forms, such as full inclusion or limited participation with typical peers
during a portion of the school schedule. Regardless of whether schools im-
plement fully inclusive educational policies or not, federal law mandating
the education of children with autism within least restrictive settings has
no doubt led to increased contact between children with autism and typi-
cally developing peers at school (e.g., Harrower and Dunlap, 2001; McHale
and Simeonsson, 1980). Hypothesized benefits associated with mainstream-
ing and inclusive education include less prejudice and stigmatization (e.g.,
Burack et al., 1997). For children with autism in particular, social (as op-
posed to academic) benefits of inclusive educational practices have been
emphasized, such as greater access to appropriate social behavioral models,
responsive social partners, and participation in normalized social experi-
ences (Burack et al., 1997); however, the social benefits of educating chil-
dren with autism in inclusive settings are not well established (Mesibov and
Shea, 1996).

A MULTIDIMENSIONAL DEFINITION OF ATTITUDES

Prior to discussing attitude change, it is essential to introduce a work-

ing definition of attitudes. Attitudes are frequently defined as consisting of
affective, behavioral, and cognitive components or dimensions (e.g., Azjen,
2001; Gottlieb and Gottlieb, 1977; Nowicki and Sandieson, 2002; Triandis,
1971), or the “ABCs” of attitudes (Taylor et al., 2003). Within the context of
perceiving children with disabilities, the affective component of attitudes in-
volves statements of the individual’s feeling toward the child with a disabil-
ity, such as “I would be afraid of a new child with autism” (Rosenbaum et al.,
1986a). The behavioral component involves statements of intention to inter-
act with a child with disability, sometimes referred to as behavioral inten-
tions or conative attitudes (e.g., Gottlieb and Gottlieb, 1977; Rosenbaum
et al., 1986a, 1986b; Swaim and Morgan, 2001). An example of a behav-
ior attitude or intention is “I would sit next to a child with autism during
lunch.” The cognitive dimension of attitudes involves statements of belief
about a child with a disability, such as “I think the new child with autism
is sad,” or “Children with autism are good at reading.” The distinctions are
important to introduce as research on children’s attitudes toward peers with
disabilities, including autism, may measure single components of attitudes
or all three dimensions identified in the definition. In the literature review,
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 253

I highlight which attitude component or dimension was evaluated using the

tripartite definition of attitudes introduced.

ATTITUDES TOWARD CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

The anticipated benefit of improved attitudes toward children with de-

velopmental disabilities, such as autism, simply as a result of increased con-
tact has not been realized. There is a documented hierarchy of negative atti-
tudes toward individuals with different types of disabilities, with individuals
with mental retardation and psychiatric illness experiencing more social re-
jection and negative evaluation than those with physical disabilities (e.g.,
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowicki and Sandieson, 2002). Children with autism
are also viewed negatively by peers when compared to a typically develop-
ing child, with both behavioral and cognitive attitudes affected (Campbell
et al., 2004; Swaim and Morgan, 2001). Given that the behavioral presen-
tation of autism frequently occurs alongside cognitive delays, a question
arises as to where autism might exist within this hierarchy; that is, are chil-
dren with autism associated with cognitive disability, psychiatric illness, or
perhaps both?

Stigma of Mental Illness

Stigmas are defined as negative stereotypes (Corrigan and Penn, 1999)

and fall within the cognitive domain according to the multidimensional def-
inition of attitudes. Adult stigmas about severe mental illness consist of
three factors: (a) fear and exclusion, persons with mental illness should be
feared and shunned; (b) authoritarianism, persons with mental illness are
irresponsible and unable to care for themselves; and (c) benevolence, per-
sons with mental illness are innocent and childlike and need care (Corrigan
and Penn, 1999). Authoritarianism and benevolent cognitive attitudes are
predictive of less favorable behavioral attitudes, such as willingness to rent
a room to an adult with severe mental illness (Corrigan et al., 2001a).
Corrigan and Penn explain that typical practice for stigma researchers is to
separate mental illness from developmental disabilities. Therefore, it is not
known whether individuals with autism (either children or adults) are sub-
ject to the three stigmas associated with severe mental illness as is the case
for other specific mental disorders, such as schizophrenia (Corrigan, 2000).

Stigma and Children with Autism

At present, the literature has documented that children with autism

are perceived more negatively than typical peers; however, research on the
254 Campbell

specific stigmatizing effects of autism on children is fairly limited. How well

the stigmas of fear/exclusion, authoritarianism, and benevolence apply to
children with autism is unknown. Kennedy et al. (2004) identified one pos-
sible “autism stigma,” that a child with autism may be perceived as unintelli-
gent. Gray (1993, 2002) has examined the family perspective of stigma asso-
ciated with autism and outlined two factors unique to children with autism,
which are relevant to others’ perceptions. In particular, Gray explains that
unusual social and disruptive behaviors are frequently exhibited by children
with autism who show no discernible physical impairments. The discrep-
ancy between social behaviors and typical physical appearance may yield
particularly negative perceptions, that of a high degree of personal respon-
sibility to the child with autism (and parents) as no clear visible explanation
exists for unusual behaviors. For example, a child who exhibits intrusive
social behavior with the trisomy 21 variant of Down syndrome typically re-
veals an identifiable explanation for the behavior, mainly through the facial
features associated with trisomy 21 (e.g., an upward slant to the eyes; Gray,
2002). As one mother of a child with autism explained, “I wish he were
Down’s syndrome. . .They would see the Down’s syndrome and know there
was a problem” (Gray, 2002, p. 743).

THE DISCLOSURE OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

From Dr. Grandin’s (1986) account of her initial introduction, it is

unclear if her teacher identified her “difference” as autism. The scientific
literature identifies a problem relevant to disclosure; that is, peers report
negative impressions toward autism despite increased contact between chil-
dren with autism and typical peers. Whether to disclose that a child has
autism to school professionals and classmates has been debated for years,
with opponents arguing that disclosure of disability may lead to stigmatiz-
ing responses. Proponents of disclosure, on the other hand, have argued
that disclosure of autism is appropriate and may lead to improved commu-
nication between families and school professionals and peer relationships
within the school setting. For example, children with autism whose diag-
nosis was disclosed fully to school professionals and peers received more
consistent social support within the classroom and during playground activ-
ities (Ochs et al., 2001). Several publications endorse disclosing the disabil-
ity of autism to school professionals, parents and classmates, outlining dif-
ferent techniques and strategies (e.g., Indiana Resource Center for Autism
and WTIU, Indiana University Public Television (IRCA), 1991; Lisser and
Westbay, 2001; Mesibov et al., 2001).
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 255

INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND INTRODUCTION

CONCEPTUALIZED AS PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION

The purposes of this paper are two-fold. First, I propose that the initial
introduction of a child with autism to typically developing peers can be un-
derstood as a process of persuasive communication. Second, with this con-
ceptualization, I organize and review relevant literature according to im-
portant components and processes involved in persuasive communication.
Within the context of the review, research regarding perceptions of children
with autism is highlighted when available. When findings for autism are un-
available, literature on children’s perceptions of peers with physical and
medical disabilities is reviewed as well as perceptions of adults with severe
mental illness. From the perspective of persuasion, I also identify important
research questions and future work that is relevant to introducing children
with autism to peers.
The overarching purpose of persuasive communication is to produce
attitude and, ultimately, behavioral change. Persuasion and attitude
change have been a robust area of research within social psychology for
many decades, yielding multiple theories of attitude formation, attitude
change, and the role of persuasive communication in changing attitudes.
Essentially, understanding persuasive communication and attitude change
requires consideration of “who says what, how, to whom, and with what
effect” (Triandis, 1971, p. 145). Despite different assumptions and explana-
tions for attitude change across theories, similar components of persuasion
are frequently identified, including: source (the “who”), message (the
“what”), channel/medium (the “how”), and receiver/target/audience (the
“whom”) (e.g., Pornpitakpan, 2004; Taylor et al., 2003; Triandis, 1971). Us-
ing Triandis’ (1971) categories, the literature is organized according to the
following variables: (a) source, (b) message, (c) receiver/target/audience,
and (d) channel/medium (see Table I).

SOURCE EFFECTS

Likeability

The impact of source characteristics on attitude change has been the

source of study for over 50 years with many variables examined, such as
likeability, credibility, and power (see Pornpitakpan, 2004 for a review). In
general, sources perceived as likable and credible by the audience are more
successful in producing attitude change. Attractiveness and similarity are
characteristics of likeability that have been examined within the persuasion
256
Table I. Components of Persuasive Communication, Important Factors Associated with
Each Component, and General Findings Regarding Attitudes toward Children with Disabili-
ties
Persuasive
component Important factors or types
Source Credibility (trustworthiness, Greater perceived credibility, more
expertise)
Likeability (similarity,
attraction)
Power, status, and authority Greater authority, more persuasive
Specific sources: teacher,
parent, professional, peers,
self
Message Explanatory information:
Perceptions of perceived
responsibility and stability
Descriptive information:
Degree of similarity
Directive information
Perceiver/target/ Sex
audience Age
Prior knowledge
Personality characteristics
Channel/medium Media modality
Educational versus
experiential approach
Characteristics of Demographic characteristics
child with
autism
Behavioral characteristics
Campbell
General findings and conclusions (Autism
findings highlighted when available)
persuasive. More important with naı̈ve
audience
Greater perceived likeability, more
persuasive
Teachers influence students attitudes
toward unfamiliar peers. Peers of high
sociometric status > peers of low
sociometric status in influencing peers’
behaviors toward autism
For 5th graders, mother < persuasive than
teacher, professional, videotape; father
< persuasive than teacher for
behavioral and cognitive attitudes
toward autism
Explanatory information alters mental
health stigmas; when combined with
descriptive information, better than
descriptive information alone for autism
Some evidence that descriptive
information improves attitudes toward
children with mental retardation
Recommended in autism literature, but
efficacy is not documented
Girls more favorable than boys
No reliable age differences for elementary
school children
Less knowledge about autism relates to
incorrect beliefs about etiology, such as
social or parenting factors
Empathy improves attitudes toward
physical illness; sociometric status
affects attitudes for autism
For high-trustworthy sources, visual >
text, audio; for low-trustworthy sources,
visual < text, audio. In vivo = videotape
for attitudes toward schizophrenia
Experiential > educational for altering
attitudes towards children with physical
disabilities
Attitudes may improve as similarity
increases between child with autism and
target group
Presence of prosocial behavior improves
attitudes toward children with mental
retardation and chronic illness
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 257

literature (e.g., Burgoon et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2003), with sources gener-
ally perceived as more attractive and more similar to the audience yielding
more attitude change. For example, Feldman (1984) found that high school
students reported more favorable attitudes towards healthy eating when
information was provided by a communicator of greater similarity. With re-
spect to changing cognitive attitudes (i.e., stigmas) toward adults with men-
tal illness, such as psychosis, college students were more responsive to ed-
ucational intervention provided by a source perceived as likable (Corrigan
et al., 2001b). For the same college sample, cognitive attitude change did
not correlate with interest in the topic of the educational intervention.

Credibility

Quintilian, a famed Roman orator from the 1st century A.D., argued
that credible communicators “should possess and be regarded as possessing
genuine wisdom and excellence of character” (cited in Rhoads and Cialdini,
2003, pp. 522–523). Research has supported Quintilian’s age-old assertions
about the active ingredients involved in credibility; individuals perceived as
both expert and trustworthy produce attitude change across a variety of do-
mains, such as business, management, marketing, politics, and legal arenas
(e.g., Rhoads and Cialdini, 2003; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Taylor et al., 2003).
It appears to be the case that trustworthiness and expertise differentially
impact attitude change, with each variable contributing uniquely to percep-
tions of credibility (Pornpitakpan, 2004). With respect to changing stigmas
about mental illness with a college student population, ratings of credibil-
ity correlated with responsiveness to education about severe mental illness
(Corrigan et al., 2001a). Of particular relevance to the introduction of a
child with autism to a naı̈ve group of peers, literature suggests that naı̈ve
audiences are more persuaded by high credible versus low credible sources
(Pornpitakpan, 2004).

Power, Status, and Authority

Persuasion research has documented that characteristics of power,

status, and authority serve to influence attitudes and behavioral change.
In contrast to adults, children are more susceptible to this type of influ-
ence. Behavioral theories of attitude formation posit that parents, teach-
ers, and other powerful adult figures strongly influence children’s atti-
tudes (e.g., Taylor et al., 2003). For example, children’s attitudes toward
peers with cerebral palsy or mental retardation correlated significantly with
mother and father attitudes (Rosenbaum et al., 1988). The magnitude of the
258 Campbell

relationship was moderated by child gender. Boys’ attitudes were equally

related to mothers’ and fathers’ attitudes, while girls’ attitudes were more
strongly related to mothers’ attitudes versus fathers’ attitudes. That adults
with power and authority influence children’s attitudes is not surprising,
perhaps of more interest are changes that occur as children’s attitudes
are influenced by different sources throughout development. For exam-
ple, Rosenbaum et al. (1988) hypothesized that peers exert the strongest
influence on attitudes for early adolescents, and further noted that the
influence of school professionals, such as teachers and principals, has re-
mained largely unexplored. One finding regarding peer influence also de-
serves note, Sasso and Rude (1987) documented that peer tutors of high
sociometric status were more influential than peer tutors of low sociometric
status in increasing the social behaviors of typical peers towards children
with autism.

The Classroom Teacher and Other Adults as Sources

From Dr. Grandin’s account, the classroom teacher served as the mes-
senger to the classroom of typically developing peers; teachers are often rec-
ommended as appropriate sources for initial disclosure (e.g., Mesibov et al.,
2001). Outside the autism literature, research has documented that teach-
ers significantly influence children’s initial perceptions of unfamiliar peers
who are non-disabled. For example, Barker and Graham (1987) found that
teacher praise of a target child resulted in peers’ positive perceptions while
teacher criticism resulted in negative perceptions, regardless of the target
child’s performance. Similarly, White et al. (1998) documented that teacher
praise mitigated initially negative first- and second-graders’ perceptions of
an unfamiliar child. In addition to teachers, parents and other school pro-
fessionals are called upon to intervene on behalf of children with autism
when they are introduced into regular education settings (e.g., Lisser and
Westbay, 2001; Mesibov et al., 2001).
Given that teachers, parents, and other professionals provide intro-
ductory information, our research group has examined the influence of
source of information on peers’ attitudes towards an unfamiliar child with
autism (Ferguson and Campbell, 2004). Our findings suggest that elemen-
tary school students report different behavioral and cognitive attitudes to-
ward an unfamiliar child with autism depending on who provides the infor-
mation. Children received identical information about autism from one of
five sources: (a) a videotaped adult voice-over, (b) their teacher, (c) a hypo-
thetical mother (i.e., a role enacted by a graduate student), (d) a hypothet-
ical father (i.e., the author), or (e) an outside professional (i.e., a “doctor”
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 259

enacted by the same graduate student portraying the mother). Several in-
teractions were found between grade and information source, with fifth
graders generally reporting less favorable cognitive and behavioral atti-
tudes toward the child with autism when information was presented by a
parent versus their teacher or the professional (Ferguson and Campbell).
The difference between the mother and professional source is particularly
intriguing as these roles were enacted by the same person delivering an
identical message.

Other Sources: Instructional Materials

and Self Disclosure

Instructional videotapes have been created to assist with the intro-

duction of autism to typically developing peers, such as “Autism: Being
Friends” (IRCA, 1991) and recommended in parent guides (e.g., Ozonoff
et al., 2002). The videotape produced by the IRCA includes a variety of
descriptive, explanatory, and instructive information about autism (see sec-
tion below for definitions), which is provided by two sources, an adult male
via audio voice-over, and Jimmy, a high-functioning boy with autism. Al-
though analogue research has used an adult female voice-over on videotape
(e.g., Campbell et al., 2004; Swaim and Morgan, 2001), I am not aware of re-
search that has examined the effectiveness of other videotaped instructional
materials available for purchase.
In addition to an unfamiliar narrator on videotape, the child with
autism may also introduce himself or herself to the new peer group, as de-
scribed in Lisser and Westbay’s (2001) account. In this instance, Max, a
handsome second grade boy with Asperger’s disorder, introduces himself
and Asperger’s disorder to new classmates within the context of a short au-
tobiographical book. Lisser and Westbay describe the effectiveness of the
autobiographical technique in narrative form. In “Autism: Being Friends”
(IRCA, 1991), Jimmy provides explanatory information about autism, i.e.,
“It’s not a disease, it’s something you’re born with,” as well as instructional
information about how to interact with him, i.e., “Let’s all learn to grow up
together and help each other.” Outside of the autism literature, Gray and
Rodrigue (2001) examined sixth through eighth graders behavioral and cog-
nitive attitudes toward children with cancer who introduced themselves and
disclosed their medical status on videotape, or were introduced by a peer.
No differences were observed between self and peer disclosure. Similar to
limited knowledge about the effectiveness of prepared videotaped materi-
als, I am not aware of additional systematic research that has examined the
effectiveness of “self” as source.
260 Campbell

MESSAGE

Descriptive Information: Highlighting Similarities

Nabors and Larson (2002) delineated two types of information that

have been used to introduce peers with disabilities to typically developing
peers: (a) descriptive information that typically highlights similarities be-
tween the child with a disability and typical peers, and (b) explanatory in-
formation that typically includes medical or causal information about the
disability. Provision of descriptive information is based on Heider’s (1958)
cognitive consistency theory, which posits that individuals are motivated to
experience consistent attitudes. In its most basic form, cognitive consistency
theory asserts that one’s perceived similarity with another is a positive ex-
perience and increases attraction. That is, persons tend to “like” those who
exhibit characteristics similar to themselves, which also helps understand
why source similarity affects attitudes (Burgoon et al., 2002). As applied to
initial perceptions of a child with autism, Heider’s (1958) theory predicts
that the greater the degree of perceived similarity between the target and
the child with autism, the more positive the target’s attitudes.
Descriptive information highlighting similarities between an unfamil-
iar child with mental retardation and an audience of typically developing
children has improved initial responses (Bak and Siperstein, 1987). Bak
and Siperstein showed fourth- through sixth-grade-students videotaped vi-
gnettes of unfamiliar children with or without mental retardation. Authors
then provided target children with information about the unfamiliar child,
such as preferences regarding play activities, watching television, and fa-
vorite foods. Children who perceived the child with mental retardation as
more similar to themselves reported more favorable initial behavioral and
cognitive attitudes.

Explanatory Information: Manipulating Attributions

Provision of explanatory information is based on attribution theory. In

its most basic form, attribution theory is a model of motivation based on
humans’ strong tendency to form causal and coherent interpretations of ev-
eryday occurrences, such as “Why did I fail this test?” or “Why is that new
kid in the class rocking back and forth?” (e.g., Corrigan, 2000; Taylor et al.,
2003; Weiner, 1980, 1993). Attribution theory describes relationships be-
tween perceptions of others and behavior, such as offering assistance (e.g.,
Weiner, 1980). An attributional analysis typically begins with an outcome,
such as success (or failure) or appropriate (or inappropriate) social behav-
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 261

ior, and questions about “why” the outcome occurred follow. Attributions
of perceived responsibility or controllability (e.g., an individual’s perceived
control or lack of control of their own behavior) influence others’ affec-
tive responding (e.g., anger or sympathy), which, in turn, influences oth-
ers’ behavioral intentions (e.g., willingness to provide social support). For
example, Juvonen (1992) found that the greater the perceived responsi-
bility of a hypothetical peer for atypical behavior, the less sympathy and
more anger reported by typical peers. Further, the more anger reported
by children, the less likely children were willing to offer social support
(Juvonen, 1992).
In contrast to predictions, however, the impact of explanatory informa-
tion on typical peers’ perceptions of children with different disabilities has
often produced non-significant or negative findings. For children with med-
ical conditions and physical disabilities, such as obesity (Bell and Morgan,
2000), epilepsy and diabetes (Potter and Roberts, 1984), Tourette’s Disor-
der (Friedrich et al., 1996), visual impairment (Siperstein and Bak, 1980) or
being portrayed in a wheelchair (e.g., Nabors and Larson, 2002), explana-
tory information has not altered peers’ perceptions or behavioral inten-
tions. Sigelman (1991) found that the provision of explanatory information
reduced perceptions of perceived responsibility for children; however, in-
formation did not improve affective attitudes towards obese or wheelchair-
bound peers. For some children, the addition of explanatory information
to descriptive information has resulted in more negative ratings (Bell and
Morgan; Potter and Roberts). Findings from the obesity literature suggest,
however, that younger children are more responsive to explanatory infor-
mation than older children (Bell and Morgan).

Directive Information: Providing a Plan of Action

Persuasive messages have also provided instruction and guidance

about how to interact and respond to children with autism (e.g., IRCA,
1991; Lisser and Westbay, 2001; Mesibov et al., 2001). For example, in the
videotape “Autism: Being Friends” an adult voice-over describes appro-
priate behaviors for peers when interacting with children with autism. The
voice-over directs children to help people with autism such as “showing
them how to play,” “helping them find the place” during classroom instruc-
tion, “looking for things they do well,” and “talking and listening to them”
(IRCA, 1991). The videotape also provides models, who demonstrate ap-
propriate behaviors with children with autism. For example, surrounded by
a group of schoolchildren, a girl helps a boy with autism put on a coat after
which the two children hug. Within the context of his autobiography, Max
262 Campbell

provides direction to peers about how to help improve his social interac-
tions by stating, for example, “What I need is for people to include me even
when I seem out of it.” (Lisser and Westbay, 2001, p. 162).
From a theoretical perspective, direct guidance about how to behave
toward a child with autism may serve to improve children’s perceptions of
self-efficacy, or their perceptions about their abilities to execute a behav-
ior (Bandura, 1977). Directive information about appropriate behavior may
be more effective when combined with a model that demonstrates the de-
sired behavior with a child with autism and receives reinforcement for doing
so. Provision of descriptive or explanatory information, either alone or in
combination, does not provide guidance regarding how a typical classmate
might behave with an unfamiliar child with autism. A persuasive message
that includes descriptive, explanatory, and directive information may prove
to be the most effective message in altering children’s attitudes toward chil-
dren with autism.

Providing Information to Children About Autism

In the case of autism, negative attitudes by peers have been shown

to persist despite providing children with explanatory information about
autism (Swaim and Morgan, 2001). Recently, however, our research group
documented less negative cognitive and behavioral attitudes toward an
unfamiliar child with autistic behavior when explanatory information was
added versus absent from a videotaped message containing descriptive in-
formation (Campbell et al., 2004). Third graders and girls responded more
positively to descriptive and explanatory information about autism when
compared to fourth and fifth graders and boys (Campbell et al.). To date,
I am not aware of research that has examined the effects of providing only
descriptive information to peers about children with autism or the effects of
providing directive information, either alone or in combination, with other
message types.

PERCEIVER-TARGET-AUDIENCE CHARACTERISTICS

Sex

Sex and age are the two most widely studied perceiver character-
istics in understanding initial attitudes toward children with disabilities.
Rosenbaum et al. (1988) identify sex as the most powerful perceiver char-
acteristic in determining attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, with
girls reliably reporting more favorable attitudes than boys. For example,
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 263

Gray and Rodrigue (2001) found that adolescent girls were more favorable
in rating new peers with cancer when compared to boys. With respect to
attitudes about children with autism, girls and boys do not differ in terms of
their behavioral and cognitive attitudes when only descriptive information
is presented (Campbell et al., 2004; Swaim and Morgan, 2001). When com-
pared to boys, however, girls report more favorable behavioral attitudes
when descriptive and explanatory information about autism is presented
when compared to descriptive information alone (Campbell et al.). Sex dif-
ferences also appear to be relatively stable across the lifespan. For example,
Rosenbaum et al. (1987) found that mothers rated children with disabilities
more favorably than fathers. Sex differences may be related to different so-
cialization experiences for boys and girls, with girls expected to be more
nurturing and caring when compared to boys; however, no definitive expla-
nation exists (e.g., Slininger et al., 2000).

Age

As early as the age of four, children report preferences for physical

versus social-psychological explanations of disabilities, such as blind-
ness and learning disabilities, although understanding of specific causal
mechanisms (e.g., inheritability) does not emerge until about age seven
(Smith and Williams, 2004). General conclusions regarding how age affects
attitudes toward children with disabilities have varied in the literature
(Nowicki and Sandieson, 2002; Ryan, 1981; Rosenbaum et al., 1988). Ryan
(1981) suggested that children’s attitudes toward individuals with physical
disabilities improve from early childhood to adolescence, decline from
adolescence to young adulthood when they improve until “the fifties,”
and decline again. Rosenbaum et al. reported no effect of age on attitudes
for children between the ages of 8 and 14 using the same instrument, the
Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes Toward Children with Handicaps (CATCH;
Rosenbaum et al., 1986a). In a meta-analytic review of 20 studies pub-
lished between 1990 and 1998, Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) found no
relationship between age and attitudes for children between 3 and 12 years
of age. With respect to cognitive attitudes toward autism, Campbell et al.
(2004) found a small, yet significant, negative relationship between age and
attitudes, r(573) = −.14, for third, fourth, and fifth graders.

Prior Knowledge

For adults, beliefs about the etiology of autism are predicted by prior
knowledge of autism, with greater knowledge positively associated with
biomedical explanations of autism, and less knowledge more predictive
264 Campbell

of psychosocial explanations of autism (Furnham and Buck, 2003). Little

is known about possible relationships between children’s prior knowledge
about autism and their cognitive beliefs. To date, research on peers’ initial
attitudes toward autism has focused on children who are naı̈ve to autism
(e.g., Swaim and Morgan, 2001). A naı̈ve audience may be the most appro-
priate group to study at this time as many children report no knowledge of
autism in the presence of knowledge about other disabilities, such as physi-
cal and sensory disabilities (e.g., Campbell et al., 2004; Magiati et al., 2002).

Personality and Behavioral Characteristics

In addition to demographic variables, personality and behavioral char-

acteristics affect persuadibility in adults, such as anxiety, self-esteem, per-
ceived locus of control, and authoritarianism, among others (Taylor et al.,
2003). When compared to adults, less is known about the impact of person-
ality characteristics and persuadibility of children. Some research has ex-
amined the specific effects of personality on attitudes toward children with
disabilities. For example, self-reported empathy resulted in more favorable
behavioral and cognitive attitudes toward an unfamiliar peer with cancer
(Gray and Rodrigue, 2001). Campbell et al. (2005) examined the influence
of sociometric status and the interactive effects of sociometric status and
explanatory information on peers’ attitudes toward autism. In contrast to
sociometrically average and rejected children, neglected children reported
more negative attitudes toward the child with autism and less willingness to
engage in academic activities with him. Campbell et al. also predicted that
popular children would be the most responsive to causal information about
autism; however, rejected children reported more willingness to engage in
activities with the child with autism in the presence of explanatory informa-
tion when compared to other sociometric groups.

CHANNEL/MEDIUM

Media Modality

As highlighted earlier in the manuscript, several media modalities exist

for introducing autism to typical peers, such as an “in vivo” presentation,
videotape, or written materials (e.g., Ferguson and Campbell, 2004; IRCA,
1991; Lisser and Westbay, 2001). For adult audiences, Pornpitakpan (2004)
found that source trustworthiness and media type interact, with high-
trustworthy sources demonstrating greater persuasion when the message
was presented via television versus written and radio media. Conversely,
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 265

low-trustworthy sources demonstrated less persuasive impact when the

message was presented via television versus written media. Therefore, for
high-trustworthy sources, persuasiveness improves when the source is seen
as opposed to heard or “read.”
Reinke et al. (2004) examined the impact of contact on altering college
students’ attitudes toward adults with schizophrenia, and provided vary-
ing levels of stigma disconfirming information either in vivo or via video-
tape. Reinke et al. (2004) found that in vivo and videotaped messages were
equally effective for changing behavioral attitudes when moderately dis-
confirming information was presented. The in vivo condition appeared to
be slightly more effective than videotape; however, the difference did not
reach statistical significance. In Ferguson and Campbell’s (2004) investiga-
tion, descriptive and explanatory information about autism was provided
either via videotape or four in vivo sources, with no consistent differences
between live or videotape channels of presentation. Outside of the Fergu-
son and Campbell study, the impact of media modality on attitudes toward
autism has been unexplored.

Educational and Experiential Approaches

The bulk of literature reviewed thus far has focused on the persuasive
effects of educational approaches in improving children’s attitudes; how-
ever, experiential approaches have also been used to improve attitudes. Ex-
periential approaches are grounded in contact theory and characterized as
involving direct contact with individuals with disabilities. Essentially, con-
tact theory proposes that prejudice and discrimination toward a group is re-
duced when contact occurs under certain conditions, such as groups sharing
equal status and for a sustained period of time (Allport, 1954). Kolodziej
and Johnson (1996) conducted a quantitative synthesis of 35 studies that
evaluated the effects of contact on adults’ attitude change toward individ-
uals with psychiatric disorders. The contact hypothesis was supported, as
contact was found to be associated with less stigmatizing attitudes toward
individuals with psychiatric disorders.
Contact theory has also been evaluated in research involving adapted
physical education for children with physical, intellectual, and behav-
ior/psychological disabilities (e.g., Slininger et al., 2000; Tripp et al., 1995). In
support of contact theory, children enrolled in schools with integrated ver-
sus segregated special education programming reported more positive atti-
tudes toward children with behavior disorders (Tripp et al., 1995). Slininger
et al. (2000) also found a contact intervention to be effective for boys ver-
sus girls for increasing behavior and cognitive attitudes toward peers with
266 Campbell

intellectual and physical disabilities. Further, Clunies-Ross and O’Meara

(1989) documented the benefits of a combined educational and experien-
tial program (versus no treatment control) for improving fourth graders’
behavioral attitudes towards children with physical and learning disabili-
ties, but not behavioral disabilities. Clunies-Ross and O’Meara’s program
included an educational film, a disability simulation experience (i.e., sitting
in a wheelchair), and a recreational activity with children with intellectual
disabilities.
Using a well-designed and randomized trial, Rosenbaum et al. (1986b)
directly compared the effectiveness of an educational and experiential pro-
gram designed to improve children’s attitudes toward disability. Authors
compared (a) the Kids-on-the-Block program (KOB), a puppet-based ed-
ucational intervention that provides descriptive and explanatory informa-
tion about different disabilities, including mental retardation and cerebral
palsy; and (b) a “buddy” program that involved direct contact between typ-
ical children and children with disabilities over a period of three months.
The buddy program proved more effective than KOB. The major differ-
ence between KOB and the buddy program was the educational versus ex-
periential aspect of intervention; therefore, contact with a child with autism
may be the more effective method for producing attitude change. Authors
also explained the difference, in part, due to the absence of behavioral in-
struction for the KOB program. The KOB program presents explanatory
and descriptive information in order to correct misconceptions about dif-
ferent disabilities and highlight similarities; however, the program does not
provide information about how to interact with children with disabilities
(Rosenbaum et al., 1986b).

THE CHILD WITH AUTISM

Behavioral Presentation

Initial attitudes have been shown to differ according to the behavioral

presentation of the individual, such as the frequency or type of symptomatic
behavior or the presence of socially appropriate behavior. For example,
adults respond more favorably to an unfamiliar individual with tic behavior
when tics are exhibited with less frequency (Woods et al., 1999). Individuals
described as exhibiting positive (e.g., bizarre behaviors such as speaking
incoherently) versus negative (e.g., staring quietly at the ground while
sitting on a bench) behavioral symptoms were rated as more dangerous
and threatening by adults (Schumacher et al., 2003). For children, socially
appropriate behavior has been shown to reduce the negative impact of
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 267

inappropriate social behavior as rated by unfamiliar peers (Nangle and

Foster, 1992). Peers’ attitudes toward children with chronic illness have also
been shown to improve in the presence of socially appropriate behavior
(Alderfer et al., 2001). Behavioral and cognitive attitudes of fourth through
sixth-grade students improve toward children with mental retardation when
prosocial versus socially withdrawn or aggressive behavior is exhibited
(Siperstein and Bak, 1985). With respect to autism, the impact of prosocial
behavior on initial attitudes has not been evaluated; however, I predict that
the presence of prosocial behavior would reduce negative attitudes.

Demographic Factors: Sex, Age, and Race/Ethnicity

As cognitive consistency theory would suggest, Yuker (1994) argues

that demographic characteristics of individuals with disabilities are impor-
tant mostly in terms of similarity. Attitudes towards unfamiliar children
with autism may be influenced by the degree of perceived similarity in terms
of age, sex, and ethnicity. In support of Yuker’s notion, Gray and Rodrigue
(2001) found that girls rated new females more favorably than new males,
and that boys rated new male peers more favorably than new females, re-
gardless of whether cancer was present or absent in vignettes. For the case
of autism, analogue videotapes have consisted of only boys; therefore, it is
not known if girls are viewed differently or if sex differences increase when
the audience perceives a girl with autism. It may be the case that girls will
report even more favorable attitudes toward a girl with autism when com-
pared to boys due to documented sex differences and increased similar-
ity between the target and unfamiliar child. Cultural differences also exist
regarding attitudes towards children with disabilities. For example, Tirosh
et al. (1997) found that Israeli children reported more favorable affective,
behavioral, and cognitive attitudes towards children with disabilities when
compared to Canadian children. Interestingly, boys’ and girls’ attitudes did
not differ for Israeli children, while sex differences were documented in the
Canadian sample.

FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

OF A PERSUASION CONCEPTUALIZATION

From the perspective of persuasive communication, there appears to

be a host of practical research questions identified in the present review.
To start, much of the persuasion literature pertains to adults and relatively
little appears to have examined attitude change in adults toward individuals
with disabilities. Within the context of attitude change of children toward
268 Campbell

disabilities, message and target variables have been the most researched,
particularly the effects of providing explanatory information to children
about disabilities, and age and gender differences in responsiveness to ex-
planatory information. Little literature exists regarding other important as-
pects of persuasion, i.e., source and channel, and the potential interactions
that might exist between persuasion variables. For autism, research regard-
ing the impact of source and channel variables seems to be particularly war-
ranted in light of recommended introduction practices that have not been
empirically evaluated, such as videotapes, autobiographical introductions,
and letters to parents. Returning to Triandis’ (1971) description of pro-
cesses important in attitude change and persuasion as applied to autism,
we know little about the effects of “who says what, how, to whom” (p. 145).

INTRODUCTION AS A SINGLE COMPONENT

FOR EFFECTIVE INCLUSION

Of course, the initial introduction process represents only one part of

a comprehensive approach to effective inclusive education. Harrower and
Dunlap (2001) review effective practices for successfully including children
with autism into mainstream educational settings, such as interventions de-
signed for the child with autism, peer-mediated interventions, and multi-
component approaches. Antecedent interventions implemented with chil-
dren with autism, such as priming, prepractice, and picture scheduling, have
resulted in increased social interactions with typical peers. Peer-mediated
interventions implemented with typical students, such as individual and
classroom-wide peer tutoring, have resulted in increased social interac-
tions between children with autism and typical peers. Finally, multicom-
ponent approaches have been implemented that incorporate educational
approaches along with peer tutor training and other strategies (Harrower
and Dunlap, 2001).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Philosophical changes and legal mandates continue to ensure inclusive

educational practices for children with autism. As children with autism con-
tinue to be educated alongside typically developing children, professionals
must continue to understand how best to educate a child with autism in an
inclusive educational setting. Initial introduction of autism to a classroom
of typically developing peers is an important component of successful in-
clusive education, and additional research is needed regarding how best to
prepare typical classmates for entry of children with autism (e.g., Volkmar,
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 269

2001). Conceptualizing the process of initial introduction as an occasion for

persuasive communication may result in a better understanding of peers’
initial attitudes and how these may be improved. A considerable number of
research questions are generated in the review; many, if not all, appear to
hold practical relevance for preparing a classroom for entry of a child with
autism.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Preparation of this article was supported in part by a research grant

from the Organization for Autism Research Foundation awarded to the
author.

REFERENCES
Alderfer, M. A., Wiebe, D. J., and Hartmann, D. P. (2001). Social behaviour and illness in-
formation interact to influence the peer acceptance of children with chronic illness. Br. J.
Health Psychol. 6: 243–255.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.
Azjen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52: 27–58.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol.
Rev. 84: 191–215.
Bak, J. J., and Siperstein, G. N. (1987). Similarity as a factor effecting change in children’s
attitudes toward mentally retarded peers. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 91: 524–531.
Barker, G. P., and Graham, S. (1987). Developmental study of praise and blame as attribu-
tional cues. J. Educ. Psychol. 79: 62–66.
Bell, S. K., and Morgan, S. B. (2000). Children’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a
peer presented as obese: Does a medical explanation for the obesity make a difference?
J. Pediatr. Psychol. 25: 137–145.
Burack, J. A., Root, R., and Zigler, E. (1997). Inclusive education for students with autism:
Reviewing ideological, empirical, and community considerations. In Cohen, D. J., and
Volkmar, F. R. (eds.), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders (2nd
ed.), Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 796–807.
Burgoon, J. K., Dunbar, N. E., and Segrin, C. (2002). Nonverbal influence. In Dillard, J. P.,
and Pfau, M. (eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 445–473.
Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., and Marino, C. A. (2005).
Peers’ attitudes toward autism differ across sociometric groups: An exploratory investiga-
tion. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 17: 283–300.
Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., and Marino, C. A.
(2004). Combined descriptive and explanatory information improves peers’ perceptions
of autism. Res. Dev. Disabil. 25: 321–339.
Clunies-Ross, G., and O’Meara, K. (1989). Changing the attitudes of students towards peers
with disabilities. Australian Psychol. 24: 273–284.
Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for research
methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychol.: Science and Practice 7: 48–67.
Corrigan, P. W., Edwards, A. B., Green, A., Diwan, S. L., and Penn, D. L. (2001a). Prejudice,
social distance, and familiarity with mental illness. Schizophr. Bull. 27: 219–225.
Corrigan, P. W., and Penn, D. L. (1999). Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psy-
chiatric stigma. Am. Psychol. 54: 765–776.
270 Campbell

Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Lundin, R. K., Penn, D. L., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., Campion, J.,
Mathisen, J., Gagnon, C., Bergman, M., Goldstein, H., and Kubiak, M. A. (2001b). Three
strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness. Schizophr. Bull. 27: 187–
195.
Feldman, R. H. L. (1984). The influence of communicator characteristics on the nutrition atti-
tudes and behavior of high school students. J. Sch. Health 54: 149–151.
Ferguson, J. E., and Campbell, J. M. (2004). Information source affects peers’ initial attitudes
toward autism. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Friedrich, S., Morgan, S. B., and Devine, C. (1996). Children’s attitudes and behavioral inten-
tions toward a peer with Tourette’s syndrome. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 21: 307–319.
Furnham, A., and Buck, C. (2003). A comparison of lay-beliefs about autism and obsessive-
compulsive disorder. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 49: 287–307.
Gordon, P. A., Feldman, D., Tantillo, J. C., and Perrone, K. (2004). Attitudes regarding inter-
personal relationships with persons with mental illness and mental retardation. J. Rehabil.
70: 50–56.
Gottlieb, J., and Gottlieb, B. W. (1977). Stereotypic attitudes and behavioral intentions toward
handicapped children. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 82: 65–71.
Grandin, T. (1986). Emergence: Labeled Autistic, Arena Press, Novato, CA.
Gray, D. E. (1993). Perceptions of stigma: The parents of autistic children. Sociol. Health Illn.
15: 102–120.
Gray, D. E. (2002). “Everybody just freezes. Everybody is just embarrassed”: Felt and enacted
stigma among parents of children with high functioning autism. Sociol. Health Illn. 24:
734–749.
Gray, C. C., and Rodrigue, J. R. (2001). Brief report: Perceptions of young adolescents about
a hypothetical new peer with cancer: An analog study. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 26: 247–252.
Harrower, J. K., and Dunlap, G. (2001). Including children with autism in general education
classrooms: A review of effective strategies. Behav. Modif. 25: 762–784.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Indiana Resource Center for Autism and WTIU, Indiana University Public Television (Pro-
ducer) (1991). Autism: Being friends [Videotape]. (Available from the Indiana Insti-
tute on Disability and Community, 2853 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47408-2696.
http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/cedir/autism.html#video.).
Juvonen, J. (1992). Negative peer reactions from the perspective of the reactor. J. Educ. Psy-
chol. 84: 314–321.
Kennedy, T., Regehr, G., Rosenfield, J., Roberts, S. W., and Lingard, L. (2004). Exploring the
gap between knowledge and behavior: A qualitative study of clinician action following an
educational intervention. Acad. Med. 79: 386–393.
Kolodziej, M. E., and Johnson, B. T. (1996). Interpersonal contact and acceptance of persons
with psychiatric disorders: A research synthesis. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 64: 1387–1396.
Lisser, M., and Westbay, J. (2001). Making friends with aliens: Inclusion and collaborative
autobiography. In Andron, L. (ed.), Our Journey through High Functioning Autism and
Asperger Syndrome: A Roadmap, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 133–
175.
Magiati, E., Dockrell, J. E., and Logotheti, A. (2002). Young children’s understanding of dis-
abilities: The influence of development, context, and cognition. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 23:
409–430.
McHale, S. M., and Simeonsson, R. J. (1980). Effects of interaction on nonhandicapped chil-
dren’s attitudes toward autistic children. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 85: 18–24.
Mesibov, G., and Shea, V. (1996). Full inclusion and students with autism. J. Autism Dev.
Disord. 26: 337–346.
Mesibov, G. B., Shea, V., and Adams, L. W. (2001). Understanding Asperger Syndrome and
High Functioning Autism, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Nabors, L. A., and Larson, E. R. (2002). The effects of brief interventions on children’s
playmate preferences for a child sitting in a wheelchair. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 14:
403–413.
Persuasion and Children’s Attitudes Toward Autism 271

Nangle, D. W., and Foster, S. L. (1992). The effects of a positive behavioral context on the
social impact of aggressive behavior. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 20: 543–553.
Nowicki, E. A., and Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes
towards persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 49:
243–265.
Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O., and Sirota, K. G. (2001). Inclusion as social practice:
Views of children with autism. Soc. Dev. 10: 399–419.
Ozonoff, S., Dawson, G., and McPartland, J. (2002). A Parent’s Guide to Asperger Syndrome
and High-Functioning Autism: How to Meet the Challenges and Help your Child Thrive,
The Guilford Press, New York.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five
decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34: 243–281.
Potter, P. C., and Roberts, M. C. (1984). Children’s perceptions of chronic illness: The roles of
disease symptoms, cognitive development, and information. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 9: 13–27.
Reinke, R. R., Corrigan, P. W., Leonhard, C., Lundin, R. K., and Kubiak, M. A. (2004). Ex-
amining two aspects of contact on the stigma of mental illness. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 23:
377–389.
Rhoads, K. V. L., and Cialdini, R. B. (2003). The business of influence: Principles that lead
to success in commercial settings. In Dillard, J. P., and Pfau, M. (eds.), The Persuasion
Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 513–542.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., and King, S. M. (1986a). Children’s attitudes toward
disabled peers: A self-report measure. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 11: 517–530.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., and King, S. M. (1986b). Improving attitudes toward
the disabled: A randomized controlled trial of direct contact versus Kids-on-the-Block. J.
Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 8: 302–307.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., and King, S. M. (1987). Parental attitudes toward chil-
dren with handicaps: New perspectives with a new measure. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 8:
327–334.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., and King, S. M. (1988). Determinants of children’s atti-
tudes toward disability: A review of evidence. Child. Health Care 17: 32–39.
Ryan, K. M. (1981). Developmental differences in reactions to the physically disabled. Hum.
Dev. 24: 240–256.
Sasso, G. A., and Rude, H. A. (1987). Unprogrammed effects of training high-status peers to
interact with severely handicapped children. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 20: 35–44.
Schumacher, M., Corrigan, P. W., and DeJong, T. (2003). Examining cues that signal mental
illness stigma. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 22: 467–476.
Sigelman, C. K. (1991). The effect of causal information on peer perceptions of children with
physical problems. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 12: 237–253.
Siperstein, G. N., and Bak, J. (1977). Instruments to measure children’s attitudes toward the
handicapped: Adjective Checklist and Activity Preference List. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Siperstein, G. N., and Bak, J. J. (1985). Effects of social behavior on children’s attitudes toward
their mildly and moderately mentally retarded peers. Am. J. Ment. Retard. 90: 319–327.
Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., and Jankowski, C. M. (2000). Children’s attitudes toward peers with
severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 17: 176–196.
Smith, L. A., and Williams, J. M. (2004). Children’s understanding of the causal origins of
disability. J. Cogn. Dev. 5: 383–397.
Swaim, K. F., and Morgan, S. B. (2001). Children’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward
a peer with autistic behaviors: Does a brief educational intervention have an effect? J.
Autism Dev. Disord. 31: 195–205.
Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A., and Sears, D. O. (2003). Social Psychology (11th edition), Upper
Saddle River, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Tirosh, E., Schanin, M., and Reiter, S. (1997). Children’s attitudes toward peers with disabili-
ties: The Israeli perspective. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 39: 811–814.
272 Campbell

Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and Attitude Change, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Tripp, A., French, R., and Sherrill, C. (1995). Contact theory and attitudes of children in phys-
ical education programs toward peers with disabilities. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 12: 323–332.
Volkmar, F. (2001). Editorial preface. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31: 117–118.
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivation behavior: An
analysis of judgments of help-giving. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39: 186–200.
Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social mo-
tivation. Am. Psychol. 48: 957–965.
White, K. J., Jones, K., and Sherman, M. D. (1998). Reputation information and teacher feed-
back: Their influences on children’s perceptions of behavior problem peers. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol. 17: 11–37.
Woods, D. W., Fuqua, R. W., and Outman, R. C. (1999). Evaluating the social acceptability of
persons with habit disorders: The effects of topography, frequency, and gender manipula-
tion. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 21: 1–18.
Yuker, H. E. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward people with disabilities. J. Soc.
Behav. Pers. 9(5): 3–22.