teaching about psychosocial aspects of...
TRANSCRIPT
The Generalist’s Corner
Teaching About Psychosocial Aspects ofDisability: Emphasizing Person–EnvironmentRelations
Dana S. Dunn1
AbstractThis article presents some psychosocial aspects of disability linked to the person–environment relation that teachers should sharein the psychology classroom. Disability is an often-overlooked form of diversity, one that teachers should discuss alongside race,gender, sexual orientation, social class/socioeconomic status (SES), religiosity, and aging. The experience of disability and disabilityculture are important topics that should be shared with and understood by secondary and postsecondary students, particularlybecause people with disabilities are no longer at the social margins of everyday life in the United States. To that end, I reviewdefinitions for disability as well as a nascent model for understanding the experience of disability, some select but fundamentalpsychosocial constructs regarding disability, and a representative negative (stigma and stereotyping) and positive (disabilityidentity) context example from the social psychological literature on disability. I then close with suggestions for teaching aboutdisability.
Keywordsdisability, disability identity, fundamental negative bias, insider–outsider distinction, person–environment relation, rehabilitationpsychology, stigma, WHO ICF model
What should teachers of psychology and their students know
about disability? In psychology, the study of disability is cen-
tered on the subfield known as rehabilitation psychology (in the
humanities and other social sciences, the topic is housed under
disability studies; e.g., Davis, 2013; Goodley, 2011). Rehabi-
litation psychologists are concerned with the psychological and
social consequences of disability (e.g., Frank, Caplan, &
Rosenthal, 2010), and they work to identify approaches to pre-
vent and resolve challenges associated with the experience of
disability. As I will illustrate in this article, a fundamental
psychosocial aspect of disability is that it results from the rela-
tion between people and the environments they inhabit. In
essence, the world was designed for nondisabled people, which
means that when someone with a disability has difficulty navi-
gating within it (physically, socially, cognitively, emotionally),
such difficulty emerges from the environment—a missing curb
cut, no entrance ramp, a poorly placed elevator, no Braille
signage, social ‘‘norms,’’ and so on—and not the person with
the disability.
Social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) recognized that
environmental factors like these routinely override the beha-
vioral impact of personal factors, including personality or other
dispositional variables (see, e.g., Nisbett, 1980; Ross & Nisbett,
1991). Lewin discerned that the ways people perceive social and
physical environments (also known as the situation) has a pro-
found influence on both their actions and subjective experiences.
Although both personal and situational factors are important,
Lewin (1935) argued that the interaction between the two—
the person–environment relation—is actually what produces
behavior, leading to his oft-cited maxim that behavior is a
function of the person and his or her perceived environment,
or B ¼ f (P, E; see Dunn, 2011; Marrow, 1977).
The purpose of this article is to present some psychosocial
aspects of disability linked to the person–environment relation
that teachers should share in the classroom, particularly
because people with disabilities (PWDs) are often treated as
an invisible minority (Asch & McCarthy, 2003). Disability is a
form of diversity, albeit one that is too often absent from psy-
chology courses and the typical discipline-based textbooks,
notably those in introductory psychology. In fact, teachers
should discuss disability alongside race, gender, sexual orien-
tation, social class/socioeconomic status (SES), religiosity, and
age (Dunn & Hammer, 2014). I maintain that the experience of
disability and disability culture are important topics that should
be shared with and understood by secondary and postsecondary
1 Department of Psychology, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Dana S. Dunn, Department of Psychology, Moravian College, 1200 Main Street,
Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Teaching of Psychology1-8ª The Author(s) 2016Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0098628316649492top.sagepub.com
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
students, particularly because PWDs are no longer at the social
margins of everyday life in the United States. Rather, due to
political and social changes, notably the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act (ADA, 1991), increasing numbers of PWDs now
pursue higher education and employment, while also demand-
ing their civil rights and appropriate acknowledgment from the
wider culture. I review definitions for disability as well as a
model for understanding the experience of disability, some
select but fundamental psychosocial constructs regarding dis-
ability, and a representative negative and positive example
from the social psychological literature on disability. I then
close with suggestions for teaching about disability.
Defining Disability
When psychologists use the term disability, what do they
mean? Generally speaking, the psychological literature defines
disability as a condition or characteristic connected to a partic-
ular person. The presence of a disability usually means that
activities routinely executed by an individual (e.g., walking,
talking, reading, writing) are in some way restricted or must
be accomplished in some unaccustomed manner. Thus, a per-
son who lost her left leg in a car accident has a disability, as
does an individual with congenital deafness. However, disabil-
ities are not just physical—they can be psychological, as when
a person experiences chronic depression that is physiological in
origin. Disabilities can also occur together, as when a man who
had a mild stroke develops a slower gait when walking and also
experiences aphasia, which slows his speech.
Professionals also use the term impairment to refer to dis-
ability; however, this term has a different meaning in profes-
sional contexts than in everyday language. The International
Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)
model (to be discussed shortly) uses impairment when identi-
fying a disruption at the system level of a bodily organ (e.g.,
leg, arm, brain) that leads to some loss of function or an obser-
vable abnormality (World Health Organization [WHO], 2001).
In addition, within the context of the ICF model, the term
abnormality denotes a deviation from some agreed upon
norm—it most emphatically does not indicate the presence of
any ‘‘defect’’ (WHO, 2001). Impairments are long-lasting chal-
lenges, if not necessarily permanent ones, as they most often
are due to injury, disease, or some other chronic health condi-
tion. Impairments are consequential for people’s lives, as they
create disruptions in emotional, cognitive, and physiological
processes (e.g., Livneh, 1987).
A third term, handicap, is often used in daily language when
discussing disability, but it, too, has a specific, psychosocial
meaning. Like impairment, ‘‘handicap’’ does not refer to some-
thing about a person; rather, a handicap—or, more likely, a
handicapping quality—is something found in or linked to the
environment. In this context, the word environment entails
some constraint found in a given situation (e.g., a structural
feature of a building, such as steps or a steeply inclined ramp)
or some challenging terrain that makes mobility difficult (e.g.,
uneven sidewalks). Someone who relies on a wheelchair is thus
handicapped or disadvantaged by aspects of the environment;
however, she is not handicapped herself.
Disability and Biased Perceptions
Distinctions among the terms disability, impairment, handicap,
and environment are important because students, like most
nondisabled observers, often view the presence of a disability
as a personally defining quality. When a person is perceived by
others to be disabled, such categorization ‘‘essentializes’’ the
disability—in the minds of others, the disability represents the
essence of the person, superseding all of his or her other qua-
lities, good or bad (Dunn, Fisher, & Beard, 2013). Because
disability looms large in others’ perceptions, it triggers not only
curiosity (observers are drawn to differences) but also what is
known as the fundamental negative bias (Wright, 1988), a
conceptual relative of the fundamental attribution error (Ross,
1977). Whereas the latter bias leads perceivers to attribute the
source of behavior to people’s presumed personalities rather
than to situational influences (e.g., the student who is routinely
late to class is lazy, not the victim of car trouble or a challen-
ging commute), the fundamental negative bias causes them to
focus on some presumed negative quality linked to PWDs.
Consider a typical example. In a public venue, an attractive
young woman using a wheelchair is approached by a stranger
who is entirely comfortable saying ‘‘Why, you’re much too
pretty to be in a wheelchair.’’ What sounds like an innocent,
even flattering, comment actually contains a value judgment—
that attractive people do not use wheelchairs and, by implica-
tion, do not have disabilities. Salient characteristics that stand
out (i.e., the wheelchair, some unknown disability) prompt the
stranger, who then codes these characteristics as negative (per-
haps the perceiver believes attractive people must be physically
perfect). As Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs
(2001) persuasively argued, ‘‘Bad is stronger than good,’’ so
much so that any perceived negative quality squelches the
impact of any positive information. In fact, the sizable litera-
ture concerning nondisabled people’s attitudes toward PWD
can be summed up rather concisely: At best, their attitudes are
ambivalent, while in the main, they tend to be negative (Chan,
Livneh, Pruett, Wang, & Zheng, 2009; Dunn, 2015; Vil-
chinsky, Findler, & Werner, 2010).
Understanding the Experience of Disability:The WHO ICF Model
How should students understand the experience of disability?
The ICF model is a good start (WHO, 2001). As shown in
Figure 1, each PWD reacts and functions in a unique way due
to the influence of personal (e.g., gender, lifestyle, education,
age, coping style) and environmental (e.g., physical, cultural,
attitudinal, social, familial, technological) factors identified by
Lewin (1935). These contextual factors are important because
they can change or otherwise influence other components in the
model, including performing a given activity (some behavior),
participation (involvement in some life situation, such as
2 Teaching of Psychology
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
attending class, making a meal, or shopping), body functions
(physiological and psychological systems), structure (organs,
limbs, and components therein), and health conditions (disease,
injury, disorder). Simply put, a person’s health condition or
impairment, coupled with contextual factors (personal, envi-
ronmental), will affect body functions and structure, activity,
and participation. Thus, behavior results from an array of fac-
tors that influence one another, not merely a disability per se.
The dynamic complexity of the model means that one PWD
can enjoy a high quality of life and relatively unrestricted
activities—in other words, living a good life (Dunn & Brody,
2008)—whereas another PWD might be continually chal-
lenged by personal and situational factors that, coupled with
health conditions, body functions, and structure, limit partici-
pation in a variety of desired activities (for more detailed dis-
cussion of the model, see Chan, da Silva Cordoso, &
Chronister, 2009).
As a brief aside, well-intentioned, but inherently flawed,
‘‘consciousness-raising’’ exercises, such as having a nondis-
abled person use a wheelchair for an hour or two or covering
the eyes of a sighted person to mimic blindness, are not appro-
priate ways to help students understand or experience disability
(Dunn, 2005; Dunn et al., 2013). Such ‘‘snapshot’’ exercises
lack integrity, giving participants a quick and false sense of
what a disability is like. Living with a disability is not the same
as acting disabled for a short time. Instead of engaging in such
role-playing, for example, nondisabled persons would learn
more by shadowing a disabled individual for a meaningful
amount of time in order to learn how the person navigates
social, psychological, and physical environments. A more fruit-
ful approach is to help students appreciate the challenges posed
by trying to adopt the perspectives of others whose experiences
(like disability) vary from their own (for one activity that
explores the possibility that everyone has some type of disabil-
ity, consider the mine-thine exercise; Dunn, Fisher, & Beard,
2012; Wright, 1975; Wright & Lopez, 2002).
Some Fundamental Psychosocial Constructs
There are a variety of important psychosocial constructs con-
cerning disability (Dunn, 2015; Wright, 1983). Helping stu-
dents to recognize some of these constructs in action will not
only help them to understand disability but may also lead them
to temper their biases when interacting with PWDs in the
future. These constructs include the insider–outsider distinc-
tion, adjusting to disability, assets, self-perception of bodily
states, and human dignity.
Insider–Outsider Distinction
As demonstrated by the fundamental attribution error, we know
that others’ behavior engulfs our field of perception, so that as
observers, we routinely attribute the cause of behavior to the
person rather than the situation (Ross, 1977). Tamara Dembo
(1902–1993), a student of Lewin’s, added a further attribu-
tional concept related to the person–environment relation, one
related to social psychology’s actor–observer effect (Jones &
Nisbett, 1971). Dembo (1964, 1970, 1982) distinguished
between individuals who have a disability (insiders), and know
what it is like, and nondisabled observers (outsiders), who can
only imagine what the experience of disability must be like.
The insider–outsider distinction is an important concept for
students to appreciate because, as outsiders, they, too, often
assume what a disability, whether congenital or acquired, must
be like—and they frequently conclude that it is not only neg-
ative and disruptive to daily living but also defining for the
individual. Outsiders rarely recognize disability as one quality
among many in a person’s life; instead, outsiders presume the
disability is an ongoing focus, a troubling preoccupation, for
the PWD.
In contrast, insiders actually know what the experience of
being disabled is like, that its presence does not necessarily
predict or preclude quality of life or influence well-being.
Figure 1. The World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Model.
Dunn 3
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Instead, disability is one life quality among many others (e.g.,
mental and physical health, career, stress, hobbies and interests,
role as spouse or parent, community volunteer; Duggan &
Dijkers, 2001) that becomes a PWD’s focus only when others
(i.e., outsiders) or situational constraints make it salient. To be
sure, disability can be an important part of a disabled person’s
identity, but that often renders it a positive rather than a neg-
ative quality (Dunn, 2015; Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).
Adjusting to Disability
Adjusting to disability—understanding and coping with phys-
ical, psychological, or other chronic health changes—applies to
individuals who become disabled at some point in their lives,
often through illness, disease, or accident. Conceptually, how-
ever, adjustment does not apply to people who have congenital
disabilities, as their conditions have always been present and
are, in a very real sense, part of who they are. Thus, when
describing how newly disabled people cope with their condi-
tions, rehabilitation psychologists try to be specific.
Discussing how people adapt following disability onset
entails knowing how affected individuals understand the trig-
gering event and how any psychological and physical changes
are gradually integrated into their identities, body images, and
daily living. Adaptation is an active process, one where the
individual, family and friends, and rehabilitation professionals
continually reflect on the disability’s impact. Across time, indi-
viduals with acute disabilities move toward a more idealized
state known as adjustment (Livneh & Antonak, 1997; Sme-
dana, Bakken-Gillen, & Dalton, 2009).
Adjustment occurs once individuals are satisfied with and
accepting of their own person–environment relations, so that
any physical or psychological losses or changes do not repre-
sent ongoing preoccupations. During adjustment, individuals
adopt constructive, positive outlooks regarding their abilities,
and what they believe they can accomplish moving forward
(Wright, 1983). Favorable adjustment to disability is also
marked by personal mastery or feelings of independence and
having problem-solving skills for daily life, navigating social
situations and physical environments, and developing and
maintaining a positive self-concept (Dunn, 2015).
Naturally, across time, some individuals who acquire a dis-
ability cope better than others (recall the person–environment
relation and Figure 1). Wright (1983) thus introduced a third
process called acceptance into the general discussion of dis-
ability adjustment. An individual with a disability displays
acceptance, when the disability reduces neither his or her
self-worth nor future outlook, thereby representing a realistic
appraisal of the circumstances accompanied by positive efforts
and attention to available assets.
Assets as Important
Regardless of a disability’s severity, PWDs should be seen as
either having or able to develop some psychosocial asset or set
of assets (e.g., Wright, 1983). Assets are the accessible or
potential and distinct resources in each person, which can serve
as a point of pride or solace after disability onset. Assets refer to
tangible (e.g., income) or intangible (e.g., self-concept) factors
and can be personality related (e.g., sense of humor, resilience),
achieved or attainable (e.g., degree, awards), motivational in
nature (e.g., tenacity, self-discipline), or even an interest or hobby
(e.g., watching football, reading). Assets remind PWDs about
their accomplishments or capabilities for the future or about
what skills they can learn or relearn following bodily changes
or trauma (for more on assets, including additional examples,
see Dunn, 2015). Following the onset of disability, for example,
rehabilitation psychologists routinely ask about a person’s assets
or strengths to promote positive outlooks for the future.
Self-Perception of Bodily States
Both social psychology and rehabilitation psychology share the
view that people’s subjective perceptions affect their thoughts,
feelings, and action (e.g., Wegner & Gilbert, 2000). For exam-
ple, the attribution literature in social psychology is replete
with studies demonstrating that people do not see reality from
any sort of veridical perspective; rather, their perceptions of
reality (or the reality of others) are influenced, or even biased,
by their expectations, stereotypes, and past experiences (e.g.,
Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Within rehabilitation psychology, prac-
titioners know that the experience of particular bodily states,
such as pain or fatigue, is based on individuals’ self-
perceptions of the phenomena not only the actual sensations.
Such perceptions are malleable, so that they can be influenced
or altered in positive or negative directions based on attitudes
(their own, their family’s, or even their therapist’s), expecta-
tions (their own, those shared by family, friends, and medical
staff), and environmental reinforcement (physical, social, and
psychological). Rehabilitation professionals encourage dis-
abled people to shift their perceptions in positive directions
that promote adjustment to disability and a beneficial per-
son–environment relation emphasizing their individual worth.
Human Dignity
No matter its severity, any form of disability—physical, intel-
lectual, cognitive, or other—or the presence of some chronic
illness has no bearing on any individual’s right to be respected,
encouraged, and treated as a whole and deserving person. As
Wright (1987) expressed it, ‘‘An essential core-concept of
human dignity is that a person is not an object, not a thing’’
(p. 12). This core psychosocial construct should be kept in
mind as I turn to the social challenges posed by disability as
a stigma that can trigger stereotypic thought.
Negative Context: Stigma, Stereotyping,and Disability
To nondisabled persons, a disability often represents a stigma,
that is, some quality that is construed as being broadly negative
in a given context or cultural setting (Corrigan, 2014; Crocker,
4 Teaching of Psychology
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Major, & Steele, 1998). When a disability is stigmatizing, it
serves as a social marker so that PWDs are seen and often treated
as distinctly different from nondisabled people (see also Goff-
man, 1963). The perceived difference can promote negative
stereotypic judgments in the minds of nondisabled observers,
which in turn can lead to the devaluation of PWDs, beliefs that
they are somehow deviant, and attempts to maintain physical
and psychological distance from them (Major & Crocker, 1993).
Jones and colleagues (1984) identified six stigmatizing dimen-
sions (see Table 1), although PWDs are most likely to be stig-
matized by visible disabilities (e.g., physical differences, such as
a missing limb or the inability to walk) or some indicator of the
presence of a disability (e.g., a wheelchair, a leg brace or cane, a
walker, salient bodily movements, or unusual gait).
Perceived stigmas often trigger emotional reactions, and
Dovidio, Pagano, and Hebl (2011) suggested such reactions
could lead to prejudice and discrimination based on normative
psychological processes. In effect, perceivers categorize stig-
matized others quickly and efficiently into different groups,
essentially categorizing them as ‘‘like us’’ or ‘‘not like us,’’
‘‘friend’’ or ‘‘stranger,’’ and so on (Macrae & Bodenhausen,
2001). Such categorization simplifies social life. But at the
same time, individual identities are lost, differences among
persons are minimized (‘‘Those people are all alike’’), and
perceived between-group differences are amplified (‘‘We are
distinct, different, perhaps even unique’’). Unfortunately, the
perceived similarities among the out-group members and the
presumed differences within the in-group are seen as character-
based traits. As a result, observers are subsequently likely to
apply stereotypes—associations (good or bad) or beliefs (pos-
itive or negative)—to individuals in both groups (e.g., Nelson,
2009). Such oversimplified portrayals of others nonetheless
organize observers’ thoughts, beliefs, expectations, and fre-
quently behaviors toward groups, including PWDs. Fortu-
nately, both the experience of and research concerning
disability are not all negative.
Positive Context: Disability Identity
Identities enable people to display their individuality while also
making sense of themselves and creating connections to other
people and groups (Oyserman, Elmore, & Smith, 2012). Dis-
ability identity refers to the beneficial self-beliefs that PWDs
hold regarding their disabilities, as well as any ties they possess
to members of the disability community (e.g., Dunn & Burcaw,
2013; Gill, 1997). Given that the process of adjustment to dis-
ability is on a continuum, PWDs can vary in terms of how well
developed their disability identities turn out to be (Dunn,
2015). Those who feel very much a part of the disability com-
munity are likely to have a moderate to high level of identifi-
cation, while those who are activists, seeking social, political,
and economic gains for PWDs, will also tend to have a high
level of identity. In contrast, individuals who can ‘‘pass’’ as
nondisabled or who choose not to connect with the disability
community are presumed to have a low or even no level of
identity. A PWD who has a few friends who are also disabled
but is not active in the disability community might be found
more toward the middle of the continuum.
Table 2 contains a list of six themes relating to disability
identity that Dunn and Burcaw (2013) examined. The first two
themes—communal attachment and affirmation of disability—
are linked to the notion that part of disability identity begins
with connection to disability culture and affiliation with other
PWDs. As aspects of disability identity, self-worth, pride, and
discrimination emerged from research concerning disability
politics and a desire for more civil rights and the accompanying
struggle to obtain them. In addition, these three themes support
PWDs by helping them to combat daily hassles, stereotypes,
and the general negative attitudes held by nondisabled people
regarding disability. The final entry in Table 2, personal mean-
ing, refers to constructively thinking about and coping with the
onset and aftermath of disability, just as it can also refer to an
individual’s acceptance of his or her disability.
One way to learn about disability identity and the role of
these themes is to read narratives (e.g., books, essays, blog
entries) written by PWDs regarding their own disability expe-
rience (for a list of relevant works, see Dunn & Burcaw, 2013).
Critically reading such self-narratives is one way for students
and nondisabled people more generally to reflect on the insi-
der–outsider distinction, that is, seeing such disability stories as
being reliable accounts of PWDs’ experiences as opposed to
rationalizations or defensive self-attributions. Social
Table 1. Stigmatizing Dimensions.
Source/responsibility for condition—Is a stigma congenital, accidental, orself-inflicted?
Aesthetic—Does the stigma distress or otherwise upset other people?Apparent or concealable—Is a stigma obvious (e.g., amputation) or
invisible (e.g., psychological or mood disorder)?Disruptiveness—Does the stigma’s presence hinder or otherwise
prevent social interaction or communication?Perilous—Can the stigma be seen as contagious or even dangerous to
others?Course of the mark—Will the stigma change over time, getting worse
or even better?
Note. Adapted from Jones et al. (1984).
Table 2. Disability Identity: Six Key Themes.
Communal attachment—wishes to affiliate with other PWDsAffirmation of disability—holds thoughts and feelings of being part of
society and of enjoying the same rights and responsibilities of othercitizens
Self-worth—values the self with disability and feels equal to nondisabledpeople
Pride—feels proud of identity despite recognizing that disabled is oftenviewed by nondisabled people to be a devalued quality
Discrimination—aware that being a people with disability means being arecipient of prejudicial behavior in daily life
Personal meaning—finds significance in, identifies benefits with, andmakes sense of disability
Note. Adapted from Dunn and Burcaw (2013).
Dunn 5
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
psychological research, for example, demonstrates that such
self-narratives are constructive, allowing individuals to cope
with negative life events and stressors (e.g., Pennebaker,
2004). For more on disability identity, see Bogart (2014,
2015) and Darling (2013).
Teaching About Disability: Closing Thoughts
Given that disability is largely ignored in the mainstream psy-
chological curriculum, teachers of psychology will be doing a
good service by introducing students to some fundamental psy-
chosocial constructs regarding disability as well as the impor-
tance of the person–environment relation. Beyond discussing
these topics, teachers should consider the fact that students’
unfamiliarity with disability is itself a social–psychological
challenge. Many well-intentioned nondisabled people are
uncertain of how to behave when interacting with a PWD.
Attitudinal research demonstrates that meaningful, equal status
exchanges between nondisabled persons and PWDs can reduce
prejudicial or ambivalent feelings (e.g., Amsel & Fichten,
1988; Mason, Pratt, Patel, Greydanus, & Yahya, 2004).
Table 3 lists some useful suggestions and guidelines for
helping nondisabled individuals navigate their encounters with
PWDs (Dunn, 2015; Wright, 1983). The overarching goal, of
course, is to treat PWDs as people, thereby respecting their
privacy, integrity, and dignity. As the entries in Table 3 indi-
cate, the PWD should guide any interaction, deciding when and
whether any disclosure regarding his or her disability will take
place. For their part, nondisabled people should respect the
choice of PWDs in this regard, allowing them to lead.
Reducing uncertainty and promoting understanding of dis-
ability are important goals. The psychology classroom is a
good place to begin, but in the end, students must learn to
recognize disability as a form of diversity that will likely touch
their lives at some point, when in a social interaction; when a
chronic disease affects a friend or family member; or through
some change to their own physical, psychological, or health
condition. If we live long enough, after all, most of us may
expect to experience disability at some point. Viewing disabil-
ity as another important aspect of being human, then, is a way
to promote the humanity of PWDs. As Michel de Montaigne
(1850/1991) put it centuries ago, ‘‘I do not suffer from that
common failing of judging another man by me; I can easily
believe that others have qualities quite distinct from my own
. . . I more readily acknowledge our differences than our simi-
larities’’ (p. 257).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104
Stat. 327. (1991).
Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. S. (1988). Effects of contact on thoughts
about interaction with students who have a physical disability.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 54, 61–65.
Asch, A., & McCarthy, H. (2003). Infusing disability issues into the
psychology curriculum. In P. Bronstein & K. Quina (Eds.), Teach-
ing gender and multicultural awareness (2nd ed., pp. 253–269).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.
(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology,
5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Bogart, K. R. (2014). The role of disability self-concepts in adaptation
to congenital or acquired disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59,
107–115. doi:10.1037/a0035800
Bogart, K. R. (2015). Disability identity predicts lower anxiety and
depression in multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 60,
105–109.
Chan, F., da Silva Cordoso, E., & Chronister, J. A. (Eds.). (2009).
Understanding psychosocial adjustment to chronic illness and dis-
ability: A handbook for evidence-based practitioners in rehabilita-
tion. New York, NY: Springer.
Chan, F., Livneh, H., Pruett, S., Wang, C.-C., & Zheng, L. X. (2009).
Societal attitudes toward disability: Concepts, measurements, and
interventions. In F. Chan, E. da Silva Cordoso, & J. A. Chronister
(Eds.), Understanding psychosocial adjustment to chronic illness
and disability: A handbook for evidence-based practitioners in
rehabilitation (pp. 333–367). New York, NY: Springer.
Corrigan, P. W. (Ed.). (2014). The stigma of disease and disability:
Understanding causes and overcoming injustices. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Table 3. Some General Suggestions for Interacting With People WithDisabilities (PWDs).
Although curiosity is normal, avoid asking about a disability unless thePWD alludes to it during a conversation.
Avoid talking about a disability unless the PWD wants to do so.Never ask questions about a person’s disability immediately.During social interaction, consider the mood of the PWD.Instead of dwelling on disability, put your focus on the person.Don’t steer a discussion away from disability if a PWD clearly has a
need to discuss it with you.Avoid being solicitous to PWDs: offer assistance only when asked or if
the circumstance truly demands it.Trying to ‘‘move things along’’ or ‘‘speed them up’’ by assisting or
expediting without being asked is usually not helpful.Speak to a PWD directly; do not ask an attendant or family member
about a PWD’s needs.Similarly, restrain the desire to ask about or engage with any service
animal.Employ the golden rule: treat PWDs as you prefer to be treated.
Note. Adapted from Wright (1983, p. 306).
6 Teaching of Psychology
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Darling, R. B. (2013). Disability and identity: Negotiating self in a
changing society. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Davis, L. J. (Ed.). (2013). The disability studies reader (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
de Montaigne, M. (1991). The complete essays (M. A. Screech Trans.).
New York, NY: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1850)
Dembo, T. (1964). Sensitivity of one person to another. Rehabilitation
Literature, 25, 231–235.
Dembo, T. (1970). The utilization of psychological knowledge in
rehabilitation. Welfare Review, 8, 1–7.
Dembo, T. (1982). Some problems in rehabilitation as seen by a
Lewinian. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 131–139. doi:10.1111/j.
1540.4560.1982.tboo848.x
Dovidio, J. F., Pagatto, L., & Hebl, M. R. (2011). Implicit attitudes and
discrimination against people with physical disabilities. In R. L.
Weiner & S. L. Wilborn (Eds.), Disability and age discrimination:
Perspectives in law and psychology (pp. 157–184). New York,
NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6293-5_9
Duggan, C. H., & Dijkers, M. (2001). Quality of life after spinal cord
injury: A qualitative study. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46, 3–27.
doi:10.1037/0090-5550.46.1.3
Dunn, D. S. (2005). Negotiating realities to understand others: Teach-
ing about meaning and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 24, 30–40. doi:10.1521/jscp.24.1.30.59176
Dunn, D. S. (2011). Situations matter: Teaching the Lewinian link
between social psychology and rehabilitation psychology. Journal
of the History of Psychology, 14, 405–411.
Dunn, D. S. (2015). The social psychology of disability. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, D. S., & Brody, C. (2008). Defining the good life following
acquired physical disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53,
413–425.
Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring first
person accounts of disability experience. Rehabilitation Psychol-
ogy, 58, 148–157. doi:10.1037/a0031691
Dunn, D. S., Fisher, D. J., & Beard, B. M. (2012). Revisiting the mine-
thine problem: A sensitizing exercise for clinic, classroom, and
attributional research. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57, 113–123.
Dunn, D. S., Fisher, D. J., & Beard, B. M. (2013). Disability as
diversity rather than (in)difference: Understanding others’
experiences through one’s own. In D. S. Dunn, R. A. R. Gurung,
K. Naufel, & J. H. Wilson (Eds.), Controversy in the psychol-
ogy classroom: Using hot topics to foster critical thinking
(pp. 209–223). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14038-013
Dunn, D. S., & Hammer, E. D. (2014). On teaching multicultural
psychology. In F. L. Leong, L. Comas-Dı́az, G. C. Nagayama Hall,
V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multi-
cultural psychology, Vol. 1: Theory and research (pp. 43–58).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.
1037/14189-003
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to
culture (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frank, R. G., Caplan, B., & Rosenthal, M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of
rehabilitation psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Gill, C. J. (1997). Four types of integration in disability identity devel-
opment. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 9, 39–46. doi:10.
1016/S1052-2263(97)00020-2
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled
identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduc-
tion. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D.
T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology
of marked relationships. New York, NY: Freeman and
Company.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer:
Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones,
D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner
(Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94).
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Livneh, H. (1987). Person-environment congruence: A rehabili-
tation perspective. International Journal of Rehabilitation
Research, 10, 3–19. doi:10.1097/00004356-198703000-
00001
Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. F. (1997). Psychosocial adaptation to
chronic illness and disability. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). Social cognition: Cate-
gorical person perception. British Journal of Social Psychology,
92, 239–255.
Major, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma: The affective conse-
quences of attributional ambiguity. In D. M. Mackie & D. L.
Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in intergroup perception (pp. 345–370). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Marrow, A. J. (1977). The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt
Lewin. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mason, A., Pratt, H. D., Patel, D. R., Greydanus, D. E., & Yahya, K. Z.
(2004). Prejudice toward people with disabilities. In J. L. Chin (Ed.),
The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Disability, reli-
gion, physique, and other traits (Vol. 4, pp. 52–93). Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Nelson, T. D. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and
discrimination. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Nisbett, R. E. (1980). The trait construct in lay and professional
psychology. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social
psychology (pp. 109–130). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. (2012). Self, self-concept,
and identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook
of self and identity (2nd ed., pp. 69–104). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Writing to heal: A guided journal for reco-
vering from trauma & emotional upheaval. Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger Publications.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:
Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
174–221). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dunn 7
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person in the situation. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smedana, S., Bakken-Gillen, S. K., & Dalton, J. (2009). Psycho-
social adaptation to chronic illness and disability: Models of
measurement. In F. Chan, E. da Silva Cardoso, & J. A. Chronister
(Eds.), Understanding psychosocial adjustment to chronic illness
and disability: A handbooks for evidence-based practitioners in
rehabilitation (pp. 51–73). New York, NY: Springer.
Vilchinsky, N., Findler, L., & Werner, S. (2010). Attitudes towards
people with disabilities: The perspective of attachment theory.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 55, 198–306. doi:10.1037/a0020491
Wegner, D. M., & Gilbert, D. T. (2000). Social psychology—The sci-
ence of human experience. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The
message within: The role of subjective experience in social cogni-
tion and behavior (pp. 1–9). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of
functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Wright, B. A. (1975). Sensitizing outsiders to the position of the
insider. Rehabilitation Psychology, 22, 129–135. doi:10.1037/
h0090837
Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Wright, B. A. (1987). Human dignity and professional self-monitor-
ing. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 18, 12–14.
Wright, B. A. (1988). Attitudes and the fundamental negative bias.
In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities
(pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Springer.
Wright, B. A., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Widening the diagnostic
focus: A case for including human strengths and environmental
resources. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of
positive psychology (pp. 26–44). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Author Biographies
Dana S. Dunn is professor of psy-
chology at Moravian College in Beth-
lehem, PA. He earned his PhD in
experimental social psychology from
the University of Virginia and his BA
in psychology from Carnegie Mellon
University. A fellow of the American
Psychological Association (Divisions
1, 2, and 22) and the Association for
Psychological Science. Dunn is active
in the Society for the Teaching of Psy-
chology (Division 2 of APA) where
he served as President in 2010. In
2013, Dunn received the Charles
L. Brewer Distinguished Teaching of Psychology Award from the
American Psychological Foundation, and in 2015, he was APA’s
Harry Kirke Wolfe lecturer. He is a member of the editorial boards
of several journals and is a frequent speaker at national and regional
psychology conferences. Dunn is past board member of the Eastern
Psychological Association and formerly served on the program com-
mittee for the National Institute for the Teaching of Psychology. He is
a member of the Board of the Foundation for Rehabilitation Psychol-
ogy and a former member of APA’s Committee on Disability Issues in
Psychology. The author of over 150 articles, chapters, and book
reviews, Dunn writes about the teaching of psychology, the social
psychology of disability, and liberal arts education. He is the author
or editor of 30 books and writes a blog on the teaching psychology
called ‘‘Head of the Class’’ for Psychology Today. He is currently
Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Bibliographies (OB): Psychology. His
recent books include The Social Psychology of Disability (Oxford,
2015), The Oxford Handbook of Undergraduate Psychology Educa-
tion (Oxford, 2015), and Pursuing Human Strengths: A Positive Psy-
chology Guide (Worth/Macmillan, 2016).
8 Teaching of Psychology
by guest on May 14, 2016top.sagepub.comDownloaded from