effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions

Effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions

of persons with mental retardation

Paul E. Panek *, Melissa K. Jungers

Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University at Newark, University Drive, Newark, OH 43055, United States

Received 15 January 2007; accepted 22 January 2007

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of age, gender, and causality on the perceptions of persons with

mental retardation. Participants rated individuals with mental retardation using a semantic differential scale

with three factors: activity, evaluation, and potency. Target individuals in each scenario varied on the

variables of age (8, 20, 45), gender (male, female), and causality of mental retardation (genetic, self-

inflicted, inflicted by others). Perceptions differed significantly according to causality, with those with

mental retardation due to inheritance/genetics (Down Syndrome) evaluated most positively and thosewhose

mental retardation was self-inflicted viewed most negatively (brain damage due to drinking cleaning fluid).

Female participants gave higher ratings than male participants for target subjects on evaluation and potency

factors. Implications of findings for persons with mental retardation are discussed.

# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Causality; Mental retardation; Perceptions

Within a society, individuals hold ideas of what it means to be normal (Towler & Schneider,

2005). When individuals deviate from those expectations or norms in terms of a particular

attribute, such as persons with mental illness, the obese, and the homeless, they are often

stigmatized (Goffman, 1963; Towler & Schneider, 2005). One particularly stigmatized group are

persons with mental retardation (Gray, 1993; Towler & Schneider, 2005).

Extensive research in psychology and other disciplines suggests that there is a preponderance

of negative stereotypes associated with persons with disabilities both in the United States and in

other countries (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1993; Gartner, Lipsky, & Turnbull, 1991; Nelson, 1994;

Tang, Davis, Wu, & Oliver, 2000). In fact, for several decades, rehabilitation researchers and

social scientists have investigated peoples willingness to interact with members of potentially

Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

* Tel.: +1 740 366 3321; fax: +1 740 366 5047.

E-mail address: [email protected] (P.E. Panek).

0891-4222/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2007.01.002

stigmatized groups such as people with disabilities, diseases, psychological disorders, or

divergent values and lifestyles (Sigelman, 1991). Although societys attitude toward persons with

disabilities has been predominantly negative, these attitudes appear to be multi-faceted and vary

as a function of many factors such as culture, demographics, type of disability, age of the

evaluator, and gender of both the individual with the disability and the person evaluating the

individual with a disability and factors intrinsic to the specific disability/impairment such as

locus and visibility (Deal, 2003; Gething, 1991).

Consequently, the literature reveals a hierarchy of disabilities, with mental retardation

consistently ranking at or near the bottom (most negative, least accepted) compared to other

disabilities (e.g., Tringo, 1970; Yuker, 1988). Further, attitudes toward persons with disabilities

follows a developmental trend as reactions to disability increase in favorability from early

childhood to adolescence, decrease in late adolescence, and increase again in young adulthood

through late adulthood (e.g., Harper & Peterson, 2001; Smith, Flexer, & Sigelman, 1980;

Weiserbs & Gottlieb, 1995). Also, females are generally more accepting of peers with disabilities

than are males (e.g., Panek & Smith, 2005; Werner & Davidson, 2004). However, research

suggests that women with disabilities are viewed more negatively than men with disabilities, both

in self-perceptions and the perceptions of others (Fine & Asch, 1985; Gartner et al., 1991).

Additionally, other researchers suggest that women with disabilities such as mental retardation

can be viewed as having two handicaps or stigmatizing conditions, being a woman and having a

disability (e.g., Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991; Lloyd, 1992).

Furthermore, research suggests that the cause of the disability/condition may influence views

of the individual with that disability/condition. Thus, according to Weiners (1985), Weiner and

Graham (1984) attribution theory, affective responses to other people are more positive when the

cause of their problems or failings is perceived as uncontrollable then when it is perceived as

controllable. That is, to what extent is the person responsible for a specific disability as opposed

to outside forces, such as the environment or biological factors, causing the disability (Corrigan

et al., 2000). Disabilities or conditions that are self-induced (e.g., alcoholism, cocaine addiction),

are generally viewed more negatively than when the condition was not self-induced (e.g.,

physical disability, cancer) (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2000; St. Claire, 1993; Towler & Schneider,

2005;Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982;Weiner, Perry, &Magnusson, 1988). In fact, in a study

of 54 stigmatized groups, controllability was found to be a particularly important dimension by

which the stigmatized are differentiated (Towler & Schneider, 2005).

Although both the age and the gender of the evaluator have been the focus of research, the

effect of the target persons age and gender has not been extensively investigated. Past research

has typically excluded the age and gender of a person with a disability, such as mental retardation,

who is being perceived/evaluated by the participants (e.g., Ahlborn et al., 2008; Smith et al.,

1980; Weiserbs & Gottlieb, 1995). However, these factors may be potentially relevant to

determining an evaluators perceptions of individuals with mental retardation.

Although there is extensive research indicating that individuals express different attitudes/

perceptions toward different categories of disabilities such as mental, behavioral,

physical, relatively little research has focused on investigating attitudes toward different

disabilities within a specific disability category. Available research suggests that individuals

manifest different attitudes/perceptions toward individuals with different conditions within a

particular disability category. For example, Corrigan et al. (2000) found that raters differentially

evaluated among four psychiatric groups (cocaine addiction, depression, psychosis, mental

retardation) and two physical health groups (cancer, AIDS), and these differences were attributed

to the controllability and stability (i.e., how relatively permanent) of the investigated conditions.

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132126

The current study investigated college students perceptions of persons with mental

retardation of three different ages arising from one of three different causes, by using the

semantic differential scales (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). The semantic differential

scales has been an extensively used method of assessing attitudes/perceptions of persons with a

variety of disabilities such as mental retardation in the literature (see Antonak & Livneh, 2000).

The three causes of mental retardation investigated were the result of inheritance/genetics (Down

Syndrome), the actions of others (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), and self-inflicted (brain damage due

to drinking cleaning fluid). Although brain damage could be caused by a variety of factors, in the

present investigation it was presented as being self-inflicted: the result of drinking cleaning fluid.

Specifically, the primary purpose of the current investigation was to examine the effects of age

(8, 20, 45-years), gender (male, female) and causality (genetic, self-inflicted, inflicted by others)

on the perceptions of persons with mental retardation.

Based on the literature, we hypothesized that persons with mental retardation which was the

result of self-inflicted causes would be perceived, on the evaluation factor, more negatively by

both male and female raters than persons with mental retardation attributed to inheritance/

genetics or the actions of others. On the other hand, persons with mental retardation which can be

attributed to inheritance/genetics would be perceived more positively than persons with mental

retardation attributed to other causes. Also, we hypothesized that there would be a U-shaped

function in which perceptions of the 8-year and 45-year old target persons would receive the most

positive evaluations and the 20-year old would receive the most negative evaluations, on the

evaluation factor, by both male and female raters. Third, we hypothesized that females with

mental retardation at each target age level and cause of mental retardation would be perceived

more negatively on the evaluation factor than males. Finally, we hypothesized that female raters

would give more positive ratings on the evaluation factor than male raters for all causes of mental

retardation. No a priori hypotheses were made for the potency and activity factors.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

Participants were 116 undergraduate students (N = 42 males; N = 74 females) ranging in age

from 18 to 41 years (M = 19.5; S.D. = 3.44) at a regional campus of a Midwestern State

University. These participants were enrolled in sections of Introductory Psychology, were

volunteers and received research credit for participation in the study.

1.2. Procedure

Participants received a packet containing a description of three (see Fig. 1) target persons who

differed on the variables of gender (male, female), age (8-years, 20-years, 45-years), and cause of

mental retardation (genetic, self-inflicted, inflicted by others). The description of the Down

Syndrome target person is presented in Fig. 1. The description of the brain damage target was

______ is a ____-year old man (woman) with mental retardation. His (her) mental retardation is

attributed to brain damage caused by drinking household cleaning fluid when he (she) was 6 years

old. Although the cleaning fluid bottle was stored in a locked cabinet, he (she) was able to break

the lock, open the bottle, and drink the fluid. The description for the Fetal Alcohol target person

was _____ is a ____ -year old man (woman) with mental retardation. His (Her) mental

retardation is attributed to being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which is the result of her

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132 127

(his) mothers alcohol abuse while she was pregnant. Thus, there were 18 different

combinations of target persons. A Latin-square design was used so that participants each received

three target persons, but only one target person from a particular age or causal category.

Participants evaluated the target persons on the semantic differential scales (Osgood et al., 1957)

using standard instructions and procedures. The semantic differential scale assesses attitudes on

three factors: evaluation, potency, and activity (Ahlborn et al., in 2008; Antonak and Livneh,

2000; Osgood et al., 1957). The bi-polar adjective pairs for each of the three factors (see Fig. 1)

were: Evaluation (GoodBad, WorthlessValuable, UnpleasantPleasant, FairUnfair); Potency

(WeakStrong, HighLow, LightHeavy, YoungOld); and, Activity (FastSlow, Passive

Active, RelaxedTense, AgitatedCalm). Participants were also asked (see Fig. 1): How

responsible is the target person for his/her mental retardation? and Could this mental

retardation have been prevented?

1.3. Scoring

In line with standard scoring procedures for the semantic differential technique, each of the 12

adjective pairs was rated on a seven-point scale for each concept, and means and standard

deviations were computed for items associated with each factor: Evaluation, Potency, Activity


Fig. 1. Example of target person with mental retardation presented to participants.

(see Osgood et al., 1957 for a discussion of these factors). Final values for these factors ranged

from 1 (extremely positive rating) to 7 (extremely negative rating). Positive ratings are indicated

by a score of less than 3, ratings greater than 4 indicate negative ratings, and ratings of 4 is

considered a neutral rating. Incomplete responses by a subject for one of the three target

combinations resulted in the removal of the subjects data for that target combination from the

final analysis. Incomplete responses were found in 3.6% of the data.

2. Results

There were several significant differences regarding the scenario of the target person. An

ANOVA examining scores on the three semantic differential factors by the three causal scenarios

revealed significant differences among the causal scenarios on the evaluative factor (F(2,

336) = 4.41; p < .05), but not on the potency or activity factors. According to the evaluativefactor means, individuals in the Down Syndrome scenario were viewed most positively (lower

score) and individuals in the Brain Damage scenario were viewed most negatively (higher score)

(Fig. 2). Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons show a significant difference in evaluation judgments

between individuals in the self-inflicted (Brain Damage) and genetic (Down Syndrome)

scenarios.

The responsibility aspect also differed significantly by scenario (F(2,336) = 193.38, p < .05),with target persons with Brain Damage due to drinking cleaning fluid being viewed as most

responsible for their condition. Dunnetts C post hoc analyses revealed significant differences

among the Brain DamageDown Syndrome pair and the Brain DamageFetal Alcohol Syndrome

pair. There was no difference in judgment of responsibility for target individuals in the Fetal

Alcohol Syndrome and the Down Syndrome scenarios. (Dunnetts C was used as a more

conservative test to control for unequal variance.) Similarly, there were significant differences by

scenario for preventability (F(2, 336) = 675.85, p < .05), with Down Syndrome seen as least


Fig. 2. Evaluation means by causal condition. Note that a lower score is a more positive evaluation.

preventable. Follow-up analyses show all pairwise comparisons for preventability were

significant, with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome judged as most preventable and Down Syndrome

judged as least preventable. See Table 1 for a chart of responsibility and preventability judgments

by scenario.

There were no significant differences by gender or age of the target person on the three factors

of the semantic differential scale or in the preventability of the condition or responsibility for the

condition. Finally, in terms of the gender of the raters, there were significant differences in

judgments made by male and female paticipants for evaluation (F (1, 115) = 7.41, p < .05) andpotency (F(1,115) = 6.47, p < .05) factors, with female raters giving lower (more positive)ratings than male raters.

3. Discussion

These results have a number of implications for current perceptions of persons with mental

retardation (intellectual disabilties). First, we hypothesized that persons with mental retardation

as a result of self-inflicted causes (brain damage) would be perceived more negatively by both

male and female raters than persons with mental retardation attributed to other causes and

persons with mental retardation due to genetics would be perceived more positively. Our data

support this hypothesis and were consistent with previous research (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2000; St.

Claire, 1993; Towler & Schneider, 2005; Weiner et al., 1982, 1988). Disabilities or conditions

that were self-induced (self-inflicted brain damage), were perceived more negatively than when

the same condition/disability (mental retardation) was not self-induced (e.g., Down Syndrome).

Thus, the current study supports previous research suggesting that causality of the disability

influences the opinions others have of a person with a disability. This aligns with Weiners

attribution theory (Weiner, 1985; Weiner & Graham, 1984). That is, affective responses to other

people were more positive when the cause of their disability was uncontrollable (i.e., Down

Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) than when it was controllable (self-inflicted brain damage).

Affective responses towards individuals also depended on how much responsibility the person

had for his or her own disability/condition (self-inflicted brain damage), as opposed to outside

forces, i.e., environment or biological factors, being responsible (Down Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol

Syndrome).

The results of the preventability and responsibility questions provided further support for this

interpretation. Individuals with Down Syndrome were viewed more positively than those in the

brain damage scenario. Evaluators perceived both that their disability was not preventable and

that they were not responsible for their disability/condition. Alternatively, individuals with

mental retardation which was attributed to self-infliction (brain damage) were evaluated quite

negatively. Evaluators perceived both that these individuals were responsible for their disability/

condition and that the disability could have been prevented.


Table 1

Mean judgments (and standard deviations) of responsibility and preventability as a function of causal scenario

Causal scenario Responsible Preventable

Self-inflicted (Brain Damage) 3.71* (1.82) 1.70* (1.27)

Genetic (Down Syndrome) 6.72 (1.02) 6.35* (1.20)

Inflicted by others (Fetal Alcohol Sydrome) 6.83 (0.66) 1.11* (0.39)

1 = most responsible/most preventable; 7 = least responsible/least preventable.* Significantly differs from other scenarios.

In terms of age of the target person with mental retardation, we hypothesized that there would

be a U-shaped function in which perceptions of the 8-year and 45-year old target persons would

receive the most positive evaluations and the 20-year old would receive the most negative

evaluations by both male and female raters. This pattern was not observed in the data.We propose

that raters in the current study focused on the causality of the disability/condition and ignored the

ages of the target persons in the scenarios. Perhaps the condition/disability overshadowed the age

of the target person on the evaluation factor.

Third, we hypothesized that females with mental retardation at each age level and cause of

mental retardation would be perceived more negatively than males. This hypothesis was not

supported by the results of the current investigation. Specifically, there were no significant

differences by gender of the target person on the three factors of the semantic differential scale or

in the preventability of the condition or responsibility for the condition.Wewere surprised by this

finding since previous research has indicated that women with disabilities are viewed more

negatively than men with disabilities, both in self-perceptions and the perceptions of others (e.g.,

Fine & Asch, 1985; Gartner et al., 1991). Although the exact explanation for this discrepancy

cannot be determined by the current data, we suggest several potential explanations. First,

societys attitudes toward women have improved recently and women with mental retardation/

intellectual disabilities are no longer evaluated more negatively than men with mental

retardation. Alternatively, the condition of mental retardation in and of itself may be perceived by

the raters as the most significant and/or salient trait or characteristic of the target person, thus

potentially negating all other characteristics of the individual such as gender and age.

Finally, we hypothesized that female participants would give more positive ratings than male

participants for all causes ofmental retardation.More positive ratings of individuals were observed

across the three causes for the evaluation and potency factors. This result was in line with previous

research that indicates females are generally more accepting of persons with disabilities such as

mental retardation compared to males (e.g., Panek & Smith, 2005; Werner & Davidson, 2004).

However, our findings were not without limitations. For example, we only tested college

students. Thus, our findings might not be generalizable to members of the community at large.

Further, our findings were limited in that the data was collected in one geographical area

(Midwest of the United States). Thus, it is possible that our results would potentially be different

if collected in another geographical area or other sample populations, e.g., special education

teachers, high school students, etc. Finally, there was no comparison of target persons with

mental retardation to individuals without mental retardation or to individuals with other

disabilities, e.g., orthopedic impairments, physical impairments.

Future research should examine whether similar findings would be observed with non-college

student populations such as individuals at-large in the community. Further research is needed to

determine if causality and preventabilty would similarly influence attitudes toward persons with

other disabilities such as orthopedic impairments or mental illness. Finally, it would be

interesting to observe if similar findings in terms of causality and preventability would be

observed in other counties and/or cultures. For example, further research could compare

collectivist cultures/countries to individualistic cultures/countries.

References

Ahlborn, L. J., Panek, P. E., & Jungers, M. K. (2008). College students perceptions of persons with intellectual disability

at three different age levels. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 6169.

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disability and

Rehabilitation, 22, 211224.


Bogdan, R., & Biklen, D. (1993). Handicapism. In M. Negler (Ed.), Perspectives of disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 6976). Palo

Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.

Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Ludin, R. K., Wasowski, K. U., Campion, J., Mathisen, J., Goldstein, H., Bergman, M., &

Gagnon, C. (2000). Stigmatizing attributions about mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 91102.

Deal, M. (2003). Disabled peoples attitudes toward other impairment groups: A hierarchy of impairments. Disability &

Society, 18, 897910.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1985). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.),

Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. K., & Turnbull, A. P. (1991). Supporting families with a child with a disability: An international

outlook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.

Gething, L. (1991). Generality vs. specifity of attitudes towards people with disabilities. British Journal of Medical

Psychology, 64, 5564.

Gray, D. E. (1993). Perceptions of stigma: The parents of autistic children. Sociology of Health & Illness, 15, 102120.

Goffman, I. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hanna, W. J., & Rogovsky, B. (1991). Women with disabilities: Two handicaps plus. Disability, Handicap & Society, 6,

4963.

Harper, D. C., & Peterson, D. B. (2001). Children in the Philippines: Attitudes toward visible physical impairment. Cleft

Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 38(6), 566576.

Lloyd,M. (1992). Does she boil eggs? Towards a feminist model of disability.Disability, Handicap& Society, 7, 207221.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois

Press.

Nelson, J. A. (1994). Broken images: Protrayals of those with disabilities in American media. In J. A. Nelson (Ed.), The

disabled, the media, and the information age (pp. 124). Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Panek, P. E., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Assessment of terms to describe mental retardation. Research in Developmental

Disabilities, 26, 565576.

Sigelman, C. K. (1991). Social distance from stigmatized groups: False consensus and false uniqueness effects on

responding. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36, 139151.

Smith, T. E., Flexer, R. W., & Sigelman, C. K. (1980). Attitudes of secondary principals toward the learning disabled, the

mentally retarded, and work-study programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 1113.

St. Claire, L. (1993). Does medics social identification increase handicap for mentally retarded patients? Journal of

Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 183195.

Tang, C. S., Davis, C., Wu, A., & Oliver, C. (2000). Chinese childrens attitudes toward mental retardation. Journal of

Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 12, 7387.

Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preferences toward disability groups. Journal of Special Education, 4, 295306.

Towler, A. J., & Schneider, D. J. (2005). Distinctions among stigmatized groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

35, 114.

Werner, P., &Davidson,M. (2004). Emotional reactions of lay persons to someonewith alzheimers disease. International

Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 391397.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548573.

Weiner, B., & Graham, S. (1984). An attributional approach to emotional development. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B.

Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 16672191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226.232.

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 55, 738748.

Weiserbs, B., & Gottlieb, J. (1995). The perception of risk over time as a factor influencing attitudes toward children with

physical disabilities. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 689699.

Yuker, H. E. (1988). Perceptions of severely and multiply disabled persons. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1,

516.


Effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions of persons with mental retardationMethodParticipantsProcedureScoring

ResultsDiscussionReferences

effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions

Documents