View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Students' Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disability

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Students' Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disability
Language: English
Authors: Brown, Hilary K., Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene, Lysaght, Rosemary, Burge, Philip
Source: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Jul 2011 24(4):322-332.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2011
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 12
Grade 9
High Schools
Descriptors: Physical Disabilities, Mental Retardation, Foreign Countries, Grade 9, Grade 12, High School Students, Intention, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Comparative Analysis, Peer Relationship, Inclusion, Negative Attitudes
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00616.x
ISSN: 1360-2322
Abstract: Background: The objectives of this study were: (i) to compare the behavioural intentions of high school students towards individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with physical disabilities and (ii) to explore reasons for these behavioural intentions. Materials and methods: A sample of 319 Grade 9 and Grade 12 students in Ontario, Canada, completed a questionnaire regarding their behavioural intentions towards peers with intellectual or physical disabilities. They also responded to open-ended questions concerning their feelings about participating in a class task or social activity with these individuals. Results: Behavioural intentions towards students with intellectual disabilities were significantly more negative than were those towards students with physical disabilities. This difference was also reflected in responses to the open-ended questions. Common reasons for discomfort were perceived dissimilarities in interests or abilities. Conclusions: Future efforts should aim to help students with and without disabilities find commonalities and to encourage reciprocity in their interactions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2011
Accession Number: EJ927708
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGcFRWTn9PW0QlMufG3iO7IAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNHOfK6QC3d2NXKoLgIBEICBmgQl4uDivdDNx-9sXn0uWNZ6uD25zRY98Vy9MhHNwpf7RKWRx24dIv_Y5r2rhuvb9IlvXMXbVJ-qhiZ9yL_9tt-ZhG7a4493S9vZe-V3Gu9E_bKwtCRlduWe_hVMdrSMCT-ODs4BkRnvoWyzynyt99gWucIHS3Dakl3dhs0-kjKvX090hfIcOWDYuCAjnDvxytImF9kLhgqR0H8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0061038031;e0301jul.11;2019Jun04.08:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0061038031-1">Students' Behavioural Intentions Towards Peers with Disability. </title> <p>Background  The objectives of this study were: (i) to compare the behavioural intentions of high school students towards individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with physical disabilities and (ii) to explore reasons for these behavioural intentions. Materials and methods  A sample of 319 Grade 9 and Grade 12 students in Ontario, Canada, completed a questionnaire regarding their behavioural intentions towards peers with intellectual or physical disabilities. They also responded to open‐ended questions concerning their feelings about participating in a class task or social activity with these individuals. Results  Behavioural intentions towards students with intellectual disabilities were significantly more negative than were those towards students with physical disabilities. This difference was also reflected in responses to the open‐ended questions. Common reasons for discomfort were perceived dissimilarities in interests or abilities. Conclusions  Future efforts should aim to help students with and without disabilities find commonalities and to encourage reciprocity in their interactions.</p> <p>Keywords: behavioural intentions; homophily; intellectual disability; physical disability; adolescence</p> <p>Inclusive education is an important element of the current societal and political focus on social inclusion for individuals with disabilities. Based on the belief that it is the right of students with disabilities to be educated with their non‐disabled peers, inclusive practices are thought to promote social justice and acceptance of diversity ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]). Proponents of this model argue that by learning to understand, accept, and value each other ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]), students with and without disabilities are able to achieve enhanced social and cognitive growth ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]). Inclusive education is therefore thought to promote students' social and academic achievement and strengthen community ties among groups with and without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref6">13</reflink>]). Several processes are believed to support these outcomes. Theories of social learning and social referencing posit that students without disabilities learn, from those around them, how to treat individuals with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]). Moreover, according to contact theory, contact with individuals with disabilities in integrated settings improves attitudes towards them by reducing negative stereotypes ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the physical integration of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms does not guarantee true inclusion, and it may even have negative consequences ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]). For example, despite the intended benefits of inclusion, one study found that students with intellectual disabilities who were placed in a regular classroom tended to socialize only with other students with intellectual disabilities or remained completely isolated. Their interactions with students without disabilities were brief and superficial ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]). Furthermore, students with physical, sensory or learning disabilities are less likely than their non‐disabled peers to report feelings of belonging, safety and acceptance and are more likely to report loneliness and isolation. They are also less likely to perceive other students as being kind and tend to report greater levels of interpersonal conflict at school ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>These continued negative experiences reflect research showing that in order for contact between individuals with and without disabilities to have a beneficial effect on interactions, contact must be meaningful and positive ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]). This finding has implications for inclusive education practices and for research aiming to improve the experiences of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. One of the major barriers to the social inclusion of students with disabilities is the attitude of their non‐disabled peers towards them ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>While many studies have examined factors associated with negative attitudes towards specific disability groups (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]), few have directly compared students' attitudes towards persons with intellectual disabilities and those with physical disabilities. Some research suggests that there may be greater stigma associated with intellectual disabilities compared to physical disabilities. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>] found that children aged 4–10 hold more negative attitudes towards peers with intellectual disabilities or intellectual and physical disabilities than towards those with no disability or only physical disabilities. Similar results were found when measuring the attitudes of 9‐ to 12‐year olds towards children with intellectual or behavioural disabilities versus those with physical disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]). Although others reported no differences in attitudes among younger children ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]), some research suggests that young children may not differentiate between disability types and may instead make general categorizations of 'normal' versus 'abnormal' ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]). Studies have shown stronger negative attitudes towards disabilities that are marked by impairments in language ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>]) and social skills ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]) than towards disabilities without these characteristics. Intellectual disabilities, which are more often characterized by these traits than are physical disabilities, are therefore a more likely target of negative attitudes.</p> <p>While there may be a bias against intellectual disabilities compared to physical disabilities, several studies have reported that responses on these attitudinal measures generally tend to fall on the positive end of the scale ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]). When viewed in isolation, these findings suggest that inclusive practices have been successful in producing positive attitudes towards persons with disabilities. However, if these results are a true reflection of the beliefs of non‐disabled students, why is it that students with disabilities continue to report feelings of loneliness and isolation ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref31">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>])? This discontinuity has led some to question the ability of attitudinal measures to accurately predict the behaviours of students without disabilities and, in turn, the experiences of individuals with disabilities.</p> <p>The relation between attitudes and behaviour is complex. While some define attitudes as being separate from behaviours ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]), others argue that they are multidimensional and encompass cognitive, affective and behavioural components ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]). However, there is consensus that behavioural intentions (i.e. what people say they will do) rather than attitudes should be the focus of research, as statements of intention are more strongly predictive of actual behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]). Measures of behavioural intentions may therefore be more indicative of the success of inclusive practices in promoting positive interactions between students with and without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref37">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>] studied the behavioural intentions and attitudes of fifth and sixth grade students in Greece (<emph>n </emph>= 229) and the United Kingdom (<emph>n </emph>= 234) towards students with physical (i.e. mobility or sensory) disabilities. Their scale contained items examining both attitudes and behavioural intentions, but the types of items – and their implications for actual behaviour – were not differentiated in the analysis. However, their discussion offers insight into reasons behind the continued negative experience of students with disabilities in integrated settings and therefore merits attention. While overall, non‐disabled students held positive attitudes and behavioural intentions towards their peers with physical disabilities, there was an interesting trend in the responses to the scale items. Specifically, children expressed more positive answers to questions that examined social or emotional concern (e.g. 'Would you care if other children made fun of him/her?') versus close social relationships (e.g. 'Would you make him/her your best friend?'). A similar trend along a continuum of social closeness held for items which explicitly examined behavioural intentions (e.g. 'Would you ask him/her to sit beside you' versus 'Would you make him/her your best friend?').</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>] suggested that students may hold feelings of social politeness, or even protection, towards those with disabilities, but may not have the desire or comfort level to establish the closeness that is required for friendship ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]). Reciprocity (i.e. equality in prosocial interactions) is an important component of friendship, especially during adolescence ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]). The hypotheses generated by Nikolaraizi and de Rebekiel are reflected in the findings of an observational study of student behaviours. This study showed that, in interactions between students with and without disabilities, those without disabilities tended to take on an assistive (i.e. unidirectional) role rather than a social (i.e. reciprocal) role ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>]). Similarly, others have found that individuals with intellectual disabilities tend to only form friendships with individuals who also have intellectual disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, a weakness of previous literature has been the inability to do more than hypothesize regarding the reasons behind students' behavioural intentions and the reluctance or inability of students without disabilities to form reciprocal relationships with students with disabilities. More definitive explanations are offered by [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>], who interviewed eight seventh‐grade boys about their perspectives on the benefits and challenges of having social relationships with classmates with disabilities. The boys voiced a hesitation to form friendships with peers with dissimilar interests or level of functioning. They were also concerned that their disabled peers would not invest equal effort into the relationship and noted that there were limited opportunities to engage in extra‐curricular activities together. Moreover, they were apprehensive about the reactions of others if they were seen with peers with disabilities. Unfortunately, the authors failed to specify disability type, making it difficult to ascertain whether students' responses would have differed depending on the type of disability of the individual under consideration. Moreover, this research was focused on middle school children, leaving undetermined the concerns felt by older students.</p> <p>Our objectives were, therefore: (i) to compare the behavioural intentions of Grade 9 and Grade 12 students towards peers with intellectual disabilities and those with physical disabilities and (ii) to explore reasons for differences in these behavioural intentions, both between disability types and between activities differing in social closeness.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-2">Materials and Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0061038031-3">Measures</hd> <p>The questionnaire was adapted from the National Survey of Student Attitudes, developed by [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>] and used by Special Olympics U.S.A. to survey the attitudes of Japanese and American youth towards individuals with intellectual disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]). With the permission of the questionnaire's authors, the survey was modified in several ways: language was changed to be consistent with Canadian terminology (i.e. using 'intellectual disability' instead of 'mental retardation'), questions referring to Special Olympics were removed, and questions were repeated to allow a second focus on physical disabilities. Two versions of the questionnaire were developed, with either intellectual disability or physical disability questions asked first. These versions were randomly distributed to students in order to account for possible response order bias. Questionnaires contained definitions of intellectual and physical disabilities in order to ensure respondents' comprehension. Intellectual disabilities were defined as follows: 'People with an intellectual disability find it harder to learn and understand than other people. Other terms which are sometimes used to describe this group include "people with mental retardation" or "people with developmental disabilities"'. Physical disabilities were defined as follows: 'A physical disability is a condition that considerably limits one or more basic activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, carrying, hearing, or seeing'.</p> <p>The questionnaire explored knowledge of and contact with persons with disabilities, perceptions of peers with disabilities and behavioural intentions. Respondents also provided demographic information: grade level, age, gender and personal disability status. Only the behavioural intentions scale is analysed in this article. This scale consisted of 12 questions (repeated for intellectual or physical disability). Each item asked the student whether he or she would engage in an activity with a peer with a disability and was scored on a 4‐point scale (0<emph> </emph>= <emph>no</emph>, 1<emph> </emph>= <emph>probably no</emph>, 2<emph> </emph>= <emph>probably yes</emph> and 3<emph> </emph>= <emph>yes</emph>). [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>] found the Cronbach's alpha for the internal consistency of the scale to be 0.93. A factor analysis revealed a single major factor accounting for 54% of the variance. All items were highly loaded on the factor, with loadings ranging from 0.54 to 0.82. In the current study, to facilitate comparisons, responses were collapsed into <emph>agree</emph> (<emph>probably yes</emph> and <emph>yes</emph> responses) and <emph>disagree</emph> (<emph>probably no</emph> and <emph>no</emph> responses).</p> <p>Students were also asked two open‐ended questions. These were repeated for intellectual and physical disability and were: 'How would you feel if a student with a(n) [intellectual/physical] disability asked to work on a class task with you, and this task would affect your grades?' and 'How would you feel if a student with a(n) [intellectual/physical] disability asked you to spend time with him/her outside of school?' Between 260 and 275 respondents provided answers to each open‐ended question.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-4">Procedure</hd> <p>The impetus for this study came from a group of recent high school graduates with intellectual disability who were providing advice to a larger research program on inclusion of persons with intellectual disabilities. They sought assistance from these researchers to complete a survey which would help them understand their high school experiences, gauge whether things had changed, and help them in their advocacy efforts. A research team was devised which included university faculty members, research assistants, and former high school students with disabilities from the region under study. Following approval by the Queen's University Research Ethics Board and by the school boards and school administrators, a letter was sent home with all Grade 9 and Grade 12 students informing them and their parents that the survey would be conducted in their class in March 2009. Parents were given the option of requesting that their child/children be excluded from the survey. Research team members visited classes to explain the nature of the survey to the students. Respondents completed the survey anonymously and voluntarily. Each participant was given the option of completing a ballot to win a $5 gift card.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-5">Participants</hd> <p>Recruitment took place at two rural schools in Ontario, Canada. Each school taught four grade levels, from Grade 9 (approximately age 14) to Grade 12 (approximately age 17). According to enrolment figures provided by school administrators, there were 557 eligible participants. In all, 347 questionnaires (62.3%) were returned. Twenty‐two students did not provide a valid grade level, and six had more than three missing values on the behavioural intentions scale; these participants were removed, leaving a final sample size of 319 participants. The sample comprised 189 Grade 9 students (59.2%) and 130 Grade 12 students (40.8%). Of these, 51.4% were male and 47.6% were female. (Three students did not report their gender.) Students with (1.9%) and without disabilities were included.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-6">Analysis</hd> <p>The sample was characterized using descriptive statistics. Confidence intervals (95%) were used to determine whether statistically significant differences existed in behavioural intentions towards the two disability groups. Participants with more than three missing values for the behavioural intentions scale (intellectual disability and/or physical disability versions) were dropped. For those participants with enough valid data, missing values were imputed using the median value for that item across participants. This was done for 23 participants (7.2% of the sample).</p> <p>Responses to open‐ended questions were thematically grouped by a university faculty member and a graduate student. Thematic groupings were developed through an iterative process, whereby the researcher and student studied the responses independently and met several times to discuss their choices. Where there were disagreements about groupings, items were discussed until consensus was reached. Responses were coded first according to the level of concern expressed about engaging in the activity: <emph>concerns</emph>, <emph>conditional concerns</emph> or <emph>no concerns</emph>. Within each of these categories, responses were classified according to the reason the respondent gave for the presence or absence of concerns.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-7">Results</hd> <p>The Cronbach's alpha for the internal consistency of the behavioural intentions scale was 0.95 for both the intellectual disability and the physical disability versions. Responses to the items (percentages and 95% confidence intervals to show statistical significance) are ordered by willingness, from highest to lowest, to participate in the activities with individuals with intellectual disabilities (Table 1). Comparative responses for physical disability are listed alongside. It is clear from the responses that respondents were more willing to engage in assistive or more distant roles (e.g. 'lend a student with a(n) [intellectual disability/physical disability] a pencil or pen') than social roles (e.g. 'talk about personal things with a student with a(n) [intellectual disability/physical disability]'). Although they followed the same general continuum of preference, responses to the questions regarding physical disabilities were ranked in a slightly different order compared to those for intellectual disability. Most notably, respondents were the least likely to endorse the question about choosing a peer with a disability to be on one's team in gym class when this question involved a person with a physical disability. In contrast, this item was ranked fifth when it was posed with regard to intellectual disability.</p> <p>1  Percentage in agreement with each item for intellectual or physical disability (N = 319)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th><italic> </italic></th><th><italic>% Agree (95% CI) (intellectual disability)</italic></th><th><italic>% Agree (95% CI) (physical disability)</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Lend a student with a(n) [ID/PD] a pencil or pen</td><td>93.4 (90.7–96.1)</td><td>96.2 (94.1–98.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Say hello to a student with a(n) [ID/PD]</td><td>90.9 (87.7–94.1)</td><td>95.0 (92.6–97.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Stand next to a student with a(n) [ID/PD] while waiting in line</td><td>89.3 (85.9–92.7)</td><td>95.3 (93.0–97.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Talk to a student with a(n) [ID/PD] during free time or lunch</td><td>66.8 (61.6–72.0)</td><td>81.2 (76.9–85.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Choose a student with a(n) [ID/PD] to be on your team in gym class</td><td>62.7 (57.4–68.0)</td><td>57.7 (52.3–63.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Work together with a student with a(n) [ID/PD] on a project in class</td><td>60.8 (55.4–66.2)</td><td>76.2 (71.5–80.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Sit next to a student with a(n) [ID/PD] on the bus for a field trip</td><td>48.3 (42.8–53.8)</td><td>79.0 (74.5–83.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Spend time with a student with a(n) [ID/PD] outside of school</td><td>47.3 (41.8–52.8)</td><td>65.5 (60.3–70.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Invite a student with a(n) [ID/PD] to your home</td><td>43.6 (38.2–49.1)</td><td>61.8 (56.5–67.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Go to the movies with a student with a(n) [ID/PD]</td><td>42.9 (37.5–48.3)</td><td>63.3 (58.0–68.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Invite a student with a(n) [ID/PD] to go out with you and your friends</td><td>40.1 (34.7–45.5)</td><td>63.6 (58.3–68.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Talk about personal things with a student with a(n) [ID/PD]</td><td>38.6 (33.3–43.9)</td><td>64.9 (59.7–70.1)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ID, intellectual disability; PD, physical disability.</p> <p>With the exception of the gym class question, none of the confidence intervals for responses to items for intellectual versus physical disability overlapped, indicating significant differences. Specifically, apart from this question, behavioural intentions towards activities with persons with intellectual disabilities tended to be more negative than those towards activities with persons with physical disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-8">Open‐ended questions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0061038031-9">Class task</hd> <p>Themes within the open‐ended responses are presented in Table 2. When describing their feelings about participating in a class task with an individual with an intellectual disability, many respondents indicated concern. Several expressed general discomfort, but the majority of concerns were related to either the impact that the situation might have on the respondent's grades or on the level of performance that the student with an intellectual disability would be able to maintain during the task. For example, one respondent said: 'I would feel kind of worried. I want to do well in class, and having a partner with intellectual disabilities may distract me from doing the best I can'. Interestingly, a number of respondents who voiced concerns also relayed an effort to justify or indicate no social offence in their response. For example: 'I would give the person a chance, but I'd rather have another partner that [excels] in school too. Not that I am putting anyone down, I just prefer working with someone intellectually equal with me'. Many respondents had concerns that were conditional on the accommodations the teacher was willing to make, the characteristics of the student with the intellectual disability (i.e. his or her capabilities or the severity of his or her condition), or how well the respondent knew the student. While a number of respondents who expressed concerns said that they would prefer to work alone or with a different partner, a few said that despite their concerns, they would work with the student with an intellectual disability.</p> <p>2  Responses to open‐ended questions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th><italic>Intellectual disability</italic></th><th><italic>Physical disability</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Class task</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Concerns because of:</td><td>General discomfort or awkwardness</td><td>General discomfort or awkwardness</td></tr><tr><td>Impact of disability on grades or performance</td><td>Impact of disability on grades or performance</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Concerns conditional on:</td><td>Teacher's accommodations</td><td>Capability or effort of student with a disability</td></tr><tr><td>Capability or effort of student with a disability</td><td>Type of disability</td></tr><tr><td>Severity of student's condition or type of condition</td><td>Personality or how well respondent knows student with a disability</td></tr><tr><td>How well respondent knows student with a disability</td><td /></tr><tr><td valign="top"> No Concerns because:</td><td>Teacher will make accommodation</td><td>Teacher will make accommodation</td></tr><tr><td>Student with disability will contribute in unique ways</td><td>All students are the same, regardless of disability</td></tr><tr><td>All students are the same, regardless of disability</td><td>Respondent will help student or increase own effort</td></tr><tr><td>Respondent will help student or increase own effort</td><td>Physical disability does not affect intellectual ability</td></tr><tr><td>Respondent would be honoured to be asked</td><td>Respondent would be honoured to be asked</td></tr><tr><td>Social activity</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Concerns because of:</td><td>Dependency of student with a disability</td><td>Dependency of student with a disability or inaccessibility of environment</td></tr><tr><td>General discomfort or awkwardness</td><td>General discomfort or awkwardness</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of common interests</td><td>Lack of common interests</td></tr><tr><td>Other time commitments</td><td>Other time commitments</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of supervision</td><td>Lack of supervision</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Concerns conditional on:</td><td>Type of activity</td><td>Type of activity</td></tr><tr><td>Capability of student with a disability</td><td>Personality or how well respondent knows student with a disability</td></tr><tr><td>Personality or how well respondent knows student with a disability</td><td>Having interests in common</td></tr><tr><td>Having interests in common</td><td /></tr><tr><td valign="top"> No Concerns because:</td><td>Situation would be an interesting challenge or learning experience</td><td>All students are the same, regardless of disability</td></tr><tr><td>All students are the same, regardless of disability</td><td>Physical disability does not affect intellectual ability</td></tr><tr><td>Respondent would be honoured to be asked</td><td>Respondent would be honoured to be asked</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Fewer concerns were reported when the question was posed in relation to physical disability. However, several respondents still expressed discomfort, and many of them expressed guilt over this or tried to justify their answer. For example: 'I still feel uncomfortable either way. I know this may sound mean, but basically I don't think I could ever feel comfortable enough to be friends with a disabled person'. Several respondents again voiced grade‐related concerns: 'My grades are important to me so I probably would not do a class task with a physically disabled student. I think I would do better on a task with a non‐disabled student'. Several respondents expressed concerns that were conditional on the type of task, how well the respondent knew the student, or the severity or type of disability in question (e.g. 'It honestly depends on the type of physical disability. If the person cannot hear or see it would be really hard and I probably would not enjoy it; but if the person could not walk, it wouldn't bother me because they would still be able to help in some way').</p> <p>However, a greater majority did not have concerns over participating in a class task with a student with a physical disability. A large number noted that the disability was not intellectual and would therefore not affect performance on a class task. For example: 'A physical disability has zero impact on intellectual capacity, so assuming they are a good student, I would be happy to work with them'. Other respondents went on to comment how students with physical disabilities were no different than other students; for example: '[It] doesn't matter if they have a physical disability. [They] are still a person. You don't... treat them badly just because they are different'. Several respondents said they would be honoured to be asked. A smaller number noted that, although they would work with the student, accommodations would need to be made. These included understanding from the teacher, increased effort on the part of the respondent on his or her share of the task, or increased help given by the respondent to the student.</p> <p>Although less often than for physical disability, several respondents did not have concerns about completing a class task with a student with an intellectual disability. Some made comments about the equality of students with intellectual disability (e.g. 'I would feel as though they have as much potential as anyone else to have good ideas and I would do my best to create a good project for both of us to succeed'). More often, respondents who did not have concerns made assumptions about accommodations that would be made or the increased effort that they would need to expend (e.g. 'I would still [work] with the individual, speak to a teacher about having individual grading on [the] assignment, and help the student through the project'). A few welcomed the challenge, and some said that they would be honoured (e.g. 'I would probably be really happy that they picked me and respect me enough to want to work with me...').</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-10">Social activity</hd> <p>When asked if they would participate in a social activity with a student with an intellectual disability, many respondents raised concerns. Some were related to the perceived dependence of the student with an intellectual disability: 'I might agree. But it would be different than hanging out with my own friends. I would feel like I was babysitting more than having fun'. Several respondents noted that they would prefer to have an adult present. Some thought they would be embarrassed or feel awkward spending time together outside of school (e.g. 'I wouldn't [want] him/her to embarrass me in public'). Several respondents noted that a major concern would be lack of time, once school, work and other friends were prioritized and said that they would make up an excuse to avoid hurting the student. Several respondents were worried that they would not have the same interests as the student. Similarly, many of their concerns were dependent upon the characteristics of the student (i.e. the person's personality or the severity of their condition) or the activity in question. Many respondents said that their willingness depended on how well they knew each other. For instance, 'I wouldn't mind if they were my friend but if I didn't really know them I probably wouldn't but it would have more to do with the fact that I didn't know them, not because of the disability'.</p> <p>Fewer concerns were expressed when the question was about physical disabilities, but many of the themes were the same. Several respondents were concerned that the physical disability would mean that the student would not be able to participate in activities that the respondent wanted to do: 'I would feel a little down because our activities would be limited'. Several of these respondents expressed guilt over these feelings (e.g. 'I would feel pretty mean for saying no to them because I don't think that hanging out with a disabled kid would be very fun') or said that they would make up an excuse. Similar to responses relative to intellectual disability, several respondents said they would not want participation in the activity to detract from time available to spend with other friends or noted that they would be uncomfortable unless other friends or adults were present. As with intellectual disability, these concerns tended to be dependent upon how well the respondent knew the student (e.g. '...If my best friend one day got paralysed and was in a wheelchair, she would still be my best friend and we would hang out. If the person wasn't my friend I'd say no'). Similarly, willingness was also dependent upon the student's personality, the type of activity, or the presence of common interests.</p> <p>However, for physical disability, responses with no concerns were more numerous. A large number of respondents noted that the physical disability would make no difference – either because of shared intellectual capacity or because of other issues of equality. For example: '... I would be fine with it because this disability does not constrict the mental relationship you could share with them. The person would also be able to understand possible complex situations and would be able to have an intellectual conversation'. As with the class task, several respondents saw the situation as a learning opportunity and expressed feeling honoured to be asked: 'People with physical disabilities are cool to hang out with because they have experienced stuff that I wouldn't. I would feel interested or willing to learn more about them'.</p> <p>These sentiments were echoed in the responses to the questions about intellectual disability – although by fewer respondents. A small number of respondents commented that they would consider a friend with an intellectual disability to be just the same as any other friend: 'I would be okay with this. I am not going to reject or ignore a friend, someone who I enjoy spending time with, because they have an intellectual disability'. Others reported feeling honoured (e.g. 'I would love to. I would probably be very flattered. I think it is important to encourage people with intellectual disabilities to make friends with others'). Still others saw it as more of a personal challenge or learning experience.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-11">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0061038031-12">Willingness to interact</hd> <p>Responses to the behavioural intentions scale items indicated that respondents were more willing to interact with students with disabilities on activities that maintained a social distance (e.g. 'Lend a student with [ID/PD] a pencil or pen') than on activities that were more personal in nature (e.g. 'Invite a student with [ID/PD] to go out with you and your friends'). Overall, the results are similar to [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>], who noted a resistance to interact with individuals with physical disabilities in reciprocal or friendship‐based situations.</p> <p>Several major themes emerged from the open‐ended questions which may offer insight into the reasons why respondents were more uncomfortable with socially close situations. A common thread through many of the responses seemed to be a resistance to interact with a student who was perceived to be dissimilar to oneself – either because of a lack of common interests (particularly for the social activity) or because of a different level of functioning (particularly for the class task). Likewise, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>] found that seventh grade boys frequently expressed uneasiness about forming friendships with individuals with disabilities because of a perceived divergence in interests or abilities.</p> <p>There is a long history of research showing that, starting at an early age, individuals are inclined to select friendships and associate most with others whom they perceive to be similar to themselves ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]). This tendency is known as homophily – a process by which individuals 'coordinate their choices of friends and their behaviours... so as to maximize congruency within the friendship' ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]). This is particularly true of adolescents, who tend to spend time with others who share their behaviour patterns. Moreover, adolescents are likely to abandon relationships when this similarity disappears ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>] found that, even in settings that promote interactions among dissimilar groups, individuals tend to associate more with those who are similar to themselves. At an age when blending in is important, adolescents without disabilities may resist interacting with individuals with disabilities – individuals that adolescents have grouped and deemed to be 'different' on several social criteria.</p> <p>A second theme identified in our analysis was the fear that the proposed interactions would require a greater level of responsibility on the part of the respondent. For the class task, even respondents who did not voice concerns seemed to feel that they would need to help the student with a disability or would need to exert greater effort themselves in order to complete the task or achieve a desired grade. This response was particularly prominent when the target individual had an intellectual disability. For the social situation, many respondents reported feeling as though they would need to 'babysit' or otherwise make special accommodations for the individual with a disability. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that middle school boys thought that, because of the perceived dependence of individuals with physical disabilities, they would need to take on greater responsibility when spending time together ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]). Similarly, others have demonstrated the tendency for even positive interactions to be unidirectional or assistive, i.e. lacking reciprocity ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>For both the class task and the social activity, many respondents who had concerns tried to indicate no social offense in their opinions, suggesting that students know the socially acceptable response but remain uncomfortable with disability. This finding reflects the assertion of [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref59">20</reflink>] that social inclusion may promote increased cognitive awareness of disability but does not necessarily produce an affective change. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>] hypothesized that, rather than increasing knowledge, reducing anxiety over interactions with dissimilar others may be the key to improving social relationships. Likewise, the findings of the current study suggest that students' willingness to interact with peers with intellectual or physical disabilities may be inhibited by significant discomfort or uneasiness. Future educational efforts should focus on targeting individuals' concerns, reducing anxiety surrounding interactions, and praising the positive qualities in youth who befriend others who have differences.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-13">Intellectual versus physical disability</hd> <p>On the behavioural intentions scale, a significantly lower proportion of individuals were willing to participate in each activity when the item was about intellectual disability compared to when it was about physical disability (with the exception of the item about gym class). The responses are reflective of previous literature showing that attitudes towards those with intellectual disabilities tend to be more negative than attitudes towards those with physical disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref61">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]). Responses to the open‐ended questions show similar results: there appeared to be more concerns regarding activities with individuals with intellectual disabilities versus physical disabilities. Interestingly, those who did not have concerns about interacting with individuals with a physical disability tended to comment that this was because they shared a common level of intellectual capacity with the individual. Relating this finding back to the theory of homophily, it is possible that level of intellectual ability is perceived to be more crucial to establishing the similarity needed for friendship than is physical ability. Future efforts should focus on helping individuals without disabilities to see commonalities between themselves and individuals with intellectual disabilities in order to reduce perceived differences. Because knowing an individual well was reported to be an important factor for these students, attention could also be directed to enhancing opportunities for shared task participation, as in organized social events, group projects and discussions.</p> <p>It may also be necessary to adapt expectations relative to notions of 'inclusion'. Based on the views expressed in this study, students may be unlikely to share close friendships with persons whom they perceive as unlike themselves in terms of interests and ability to relate on an intellectual level. If inclusion efforts focus instead on achieving respect, tolerance, and fairness, interventions might be directed towards enhancing understanding of disability accommodation, human rights, and good citizenship.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-14">Limitations</hd> <p>In the current study, behavioural intentions were used as an approximation of how students without disabilities will treat their peers with disabilities. A more ideal approach would be to document students' actual behaviours. Measuring behavioural intentions leaves open the margin between what students say they will do and what they will actually do. This problem is reflected in the hypothetical nature of the open‐ended questions in particular. Studies using self‐report questionnaires are based on these hypothetical questions, and it is possible that some of the hesitation voiced by respondents is due to their assumption that they would not know the target individual. For some individuals, willingness to engage may be reduced because of this lack of familiarity rather than because of the disability itself. However, the majority of the respondents who had concerns provided responses that were detailed enough to show the aspects of the disability (i.e. level of functioning, lack of common interests) with which they were uncomfortable. Moreover, the behavioural intentions scale seemed to differentiate between items along a gradient of socially distant to personal interactions – leading to the conclusion that these items are reasonably predictive of behaviours in 'real life' situations.</p> <p>A further limitation relates to the wording of the open‐ended question regarding working on a class task with a student with a disability. To distinguish between formative (not graded) and summative (graded) assignments and thus improve the question's clarity, the present authors worded the question to state that the task would affect the student's grade. It is possible that this phrase biased students towards a negative perception of the scenario. However, the assumption of many students that the effect would be negative is important in itself and suggests that integrated classes have not reduced negative biases concerning the ability of students with disabilities. This finding signals the importance of providing support and guidance in the classroom so that neither student's academic performance is negatively impacted and so that both students can expect a positive experience in such a scenario.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-15">Implications</hd> <p>Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. It is clear that much of the resistance to interacting with individuals with disabilities is due to discomfort that is strong enough to outweigh the tendency to provide socially acceptable responses, and that this discomfort is explained by a perceived dissimilarity between people with and without disabilities. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>] recommended that teachers need to provide opportunities for students with and without disabilities to have meaningful, reciprocal (equal‐status) interactions. Our study, as well as previous research (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]), has shown that much of the interactions between individuals with and without disabilities has been unidirectional and that students without disabilities feel that they need to take on an assistive or educative role in the exchange. This finding provides evidence for the need to support interactions between students with and without disabilities that encourage each to play a valuable role. Moreover, there is a continued need to reduce the stigma surrounding intellectual disability in particular; an increase in knowledge may not be sufficient for this. Instead, future efforts should focus on increasing the level of reciprocity between students when interacting on class tasks and should promote opportunities for meaningful social interactions as well.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-16">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors wish to acknowledge the Kemptville Consumer Consultation Group for their efforts in launching the survey; without their initiation of the project, this analysis would not have been possible. The authors thank Gary N. Siperstein and Jennifer Norins Bardon from the Centre for Social Development and Education (University of Massachusetts at Boston) for their permission to adapt and use the behavioural intentions items from their questionnaire. Finally, the authors are grateful to the school boards, school personnel and students who participated in making the survey a success.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-17">Source of Funding</hd> <p>Funding for the South Eastern Ontario Community‐University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities (<ulink href="http://www.seocura.org">http://www.seocura.org</ulink>) was provided by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [#833‐20003‐1008]. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of all SEO CURA in ID partners, researchers, collaborators or of SSHRC.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-18">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>No conflict of interest has been declared.</p> <hd id="AN0061038031-19">Correspondence</hd> <p>Any correspondence should be directed to Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz, Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Queen's University, 191 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON, Canada K7M 8A6 (e‐mail: helene.kuntz@queensu.ca).</p> <ref id="AN0061038031-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrams D., Jackson D. & St Claire L. (1990) Social identity and the handicapping functions of stereotypes: children's understanding of mental and physical handicap. Human Relations 43, 1085 – 1098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen I. (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50, 179 – 211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen I. & Fishbein M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berndt T. J. (1982) The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development 53, 1447 – 1460.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bunch G. & Valeo A. (2004) Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and special education schools. Disability & Society 19, 61 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bunch G., Finnegan K., Humphries C., Doré R. & Doré L. (2005) Finding A Way Through the Maze: Crucial Terms Used in Education Provision for Canadians with Disabilities. The Marsha Forest Centre, Toronto.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref43" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Butler R. S. & Hodge S. R. (2004) Social inclusion of students with disabilities in middle school education classes. Research in Middle Level Education Online 27. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx">http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx</ulink> (accessed on 15 March 2010).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Corbin S., Norins Bardon J. & Siperstein G. N. (2005) Changing attitudes, changing the world. Available at: <ulink href="http://www.specialolympics.org/uploadedFiles/LandingPage/WhatWeDo/Research%5fStudies%5fDesciption%5fPages/Policy%5fpaper%5fyouth%5fattitudes.pdf">http://www.specialolympics.org/uploadedFiles/LandingPage/WhatWeDo/Research%5fStudies%5fDesciption%5fPages/Policy%5fpaper%5fyouth%5fattitudes.pdf</ulink> (accessed on 15 March 2010).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cummins R. A. & Lau A. L. D. (2003) Community integration or community exposure? A review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 16, 145 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond K. E., Hestenes L. L., Carpenter E. S. & Innes F. K. (1997) Relationships between enrolment in an inclusive class and preschool children's ideas about people with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 17, 520 – 536.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doré R., Dion E., Wagner S. & Brunet J.‐P. (2002) High school inclusion of adolescents with mental retardation: a multiple case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 37, 253 – 261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson E. & McVilly K. (2004) Friendship activities of adults with intellectual disabilities in supported accommodation in Northern England. Journal of Research in Intellectual Disabilities 17, 191 – 197.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher D. (1999) According to their peers: inclusion as high school students see it. Mental Retardation 37, 458 – 467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florian V. & Kehat D. (1987) Changing high school students' attitudes towards disabled people. Health and Social Work 12, 57 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gifford‐Smith M. E. & Brownell C. A. (2003) Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology 41, 235 – 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer P. & Brandstatter V. (1997) Implementation, intentions, and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 186 – 199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemphill L. & Siperstein G. N. (1990) Conversational competence and peer response to mildly retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 128 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan A., McLellan L. & Bauman A. (2000) Health promotion needs of young people with disabilities: a population study. Disability and Rehabilitation 22, 352 – 357.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes C., Rodi M. S., Lorden S. W., Pitkin S. E., Derer K. R., Hwang B. & Cai X. (1999) Social interaction of high school students with mental retardation and their general education peers. American Journal on Mental Retardation 104, 533 – 544.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalymon K., Gettinger M. & Hanley‐Maxwell C. (2010) Middle school boys' perspectives on social relationsihps with peers with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education 31, 305 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kandel D. B. (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology 84, 427 – 436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajewski J. & Flaherty T. (2000) Attitudes of high school students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation 38, 154 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajewski J. & Hyde M. S. (2000) Comparison of teen attitudes toward individuals with mental retardation between 1987 and 1998: Has inclusion made a difference? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 35, 284 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajewski J. J., Hyde M. S. & O'Keefe M. K. (2002) Teen attitudes toward individuals with mental retardation from 1987 to 1998: impact of respondent gender and school variables. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 37, 27 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magiati I., Dockrell J. E. & Logotheti A.‐E. (2002) Young children's understanding of disabilities: the influence of development, context, and cognition. Applied Developmental Psychology 23, 409 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDougall J., DeWit D. J., King G., Miller L. T. & Killip S. (2004) High school‐aged youths' attitudes towards their peers with disabilities: the role of school and student interpersonal factors. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 51, 287 – 313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson M., Smith‐Lovin L. & Cook J. M. (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27, 415 – 444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nikolaraizi M. & de Rebekiel N. (2002) A comparative study of children's attitudes towards deaf children, children in wheelchairs, and blind children in Greece and in the UK. European Journal of Special Needs Education 16, 167 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowicki E. A. (2006) A cross‐sectional multivariate analysis of children's attitudes towards disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 49, 243 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowicki E. A. & Sandieson R. (2002) A meta‐analysis of school‐age children's attitudes toward persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 49, 243 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettigrew T. F. & Tropp L. R. (2006) A meta‐analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, 751 – 783.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Place K. & Hodge S. R. (2001) Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in general physical education: a behavioural analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 18, 389 – 404.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts C. M. & Lindsell J. S. (1997) Children's attitudes and behavioural intentions toward peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 44, 133 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siperstein G. N., Bak J. J. & Gottlieb J. (1997) Effects of group discussion on children's attitudes towards handicapped peers. The Journal of Educational Research 70, 131 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siperstein G. N., Parker R. C., Norins Bardon J. & Widaman K. F. (2007) A national survey of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children 73, 435 – 455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend M. A. R., Wilton K. M. & Vakilirad T. (1993) Children's attitudes toward peers with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 37, 405 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tripp A., French R. & Sherrill C. (1995) Contact theory and attitudes of children in physical education programs towards peers with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 12, 323 – 332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yazbeck M., McVilly K. & Parmenter T. R. (2004) Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities: an Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15, 97 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hilary K. Brown; Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz; Rosemary Lysaght and Philip Burge</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref63"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ927708
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Students' Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disability
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brown%2C+Hilary+K%2E%22">Brown, Hilary K.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ouellette-Kuntz%2C+Helene%22">Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lysaght%2C+Rosemary%22">Lysaght, Rosemary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burge%2C+Philip%22">Burge, Philip</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Jul 2011 24(4):322-332.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+12%22">Grade 12</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Disabilities%22">Physical Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+12%22">Grade 12</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intention%22">Intention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Attitudes%22">Negative Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00616.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-2322
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: The objectives of this study were: (i) to compare the behavioural intentions of high school students towards individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with physical disabilities and (ii) to explore reasons for these behavioural intentions. Materials and methods: A sample of 319 Grade 9 and Grade 12 students in Ontario, Canada, completed a questionnaire regarding their behavioural intentions towards peers with intellectual or physical disabilities. They also responded to open-ended questions concerning their feelings about participating in a class task or social activity with these individuals. Results: Behavioural intentions towards students with intellectual disabilities were significantly more negative than were those towards students with physical disabilities. This difference was also reflected in responses to the open-ended questions. Common reasons for discomfort were perceived dissimilarities in interests or abilities. Conclusions: Future efforts should aim to help students with and without disabilities find commonalities and to encourage reciprocity in their interactions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2011
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ927708
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ927708
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00616.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 322
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 9
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 12
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Negative Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Students' Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disability
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brown, Hilary K.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lysaght, Rosemary
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burge, Philip
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2011
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-2322
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1