Employer Attitudes Towards the Work Inclusion of People With Disability

Employer Attitudes Towards the Work Inclusionof People With DisabilityLaura Nota, Sara Santilli, Maria C. Ginevra and Salvatore Soresi

Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Accepted for publication 16 October 2013

Background This study examines the importance of work

in life of people with disability and then focuses on

employer attitudes towards these people. In the light of

Stone and Colella’s model, the study examines the

employer attitudes and the role of variables such as

type of disability, employer experience in the hiring of

persons with disabilities, the description of hypothetical

hirees with disabilities, the ways in which employers

evaluate work performance and social acceptability, and

the work tasks that they consider appropriate for

workers with disability.

Method Eighty employers were randomly assigned to

standard condition (candidates with disability were

presented by referring to the disability they presented)

or positive condition (candidates were presented with

reference to their strengths).

Results It was found that the type of disability and its

presentation influence employer attitudes. In addition,

realistic and conventional tasks were considered

appropriate for hirees with disabilities.

Conclusions Implications were discussed.

Keywords: disability, employer attitudes, work inclusion

Introduction

The workplace inclusion of people with disabilities has

become a pressing issue in our ostensibly ‘modern’

society; in particular, in Europe, the employment rate

for people with disability is only 11.3%, and 10.3% of

disabled unemployed individuals are currently seeking

work (European Commission 2008). In Italy, up to 66%

of people with disability remain excluded from the

work market: only 3.5% are employed and 0.9% are

seeking work. Among individuals with disability

actually employed, those with physical disability have

the highest employment rate (16.3%), as compared to

the other types of disability.

In general, the situation, moreover, is apparently

worsening, due to the rather new phenomenon of

constant job market uncertainty, caused by globalization

and by continual and rapid technological advances

(Wehmeyer et al. 2011). The current economic crisis

businesses are undergoing is associated with fewer

investments in human capital, reducing hiring

opportunities thereby, especially for people considered

unable to continually meet high productivity standards

(Stensrud 2007). Specifically in the Italian context, data

on the impact of the economic crisis reveal a severe

drop in the number of disabled workers hired, with a

2-year hiring reduction of 34% (National Institute of

Statistics 2011).

Yet work is a crucial issue in the lives of people with

disability to the construction of personal identity, life

needs satisfaction and finding meaning in one’s life, and

it also provides important opportunities for applying

knowledge acquired and personal talents (Szymanski &

Hershenson 2005). Moreover, competitive employment

contexts allow people with disability to work alongside

non-disabled individuals and to reap the same benefits,

such as standard wages and contracts as these other

workers, in similar jobs for the same business (Verdugo

et al. 2006).

Despite various national and state policies promoting

supported employment, the placement of adults with

intellectual or developmental disabilities in competitive

context is quite low (39%) (Wehman 2011). Stigma still

plays an important role in this phenomenon, as people

with disability are avoided by others, subjected to

prejudice, and are frequently viewed as being less

desirable employees than individuals with no disability

(Colella et al. 1998).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 10.1111/jar.12081

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2013

Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

In this respect, Stone & Colella (1996) developed a

model to describe and account for the issue of

workplace discrimination, by listing factors influencing

the ways in which disabled individuals are treated in

organizations, which both (i) disabled workers’

(applicant/employee) attributes and (ii) observer (co-

worker/employer) characteristics.

In the light of this approach, this study therefore

focused on surveying employer attitudes and on

examining the role of some variables that could

characterize them.

Attitudes towards employees with disability: the

characteristics of persons with disability

Type of disability

Stone and Colella’s model (1996) suggests that the most

critical factor characterizing employer work attitudes

is a type of disability, positing that the degree of

progressiveness, chronicity and/or visibility of a given

disability is directly related to the probability of the

person with this disability being classified as undesirable

by observers, which then elicits negative emotional

reactions in them. For example, McMahon et al. (2008)

observed people with intellectual disability filed more

hiring discrimination allegations than people with

sensory disability, especially in consideration of the fact

that they could require long training times and intensive

on-the-job support.

Another intervening variable in this regard is the

perception of potential for disruptiveness or

dangerousness, for example, of the extent to which a

given individual with disability will likely comply with

norms or rules, perform poorly, create unease in co-

workers, and/or cause tension or uncertainty in social

interaction. Bell & Klein (2001) observed that

hypothetical hirees with physical disability obtained

more positive evaluations than those with mental illness

and neurological disability did. Similarly, Russinovaa

et al. (2011) found that employers tend to use more

negative words (e.g. dangerous, unpredictable) when

they describe individuals with mental illnesses than

candidates presenting physical disability and were more

concerned about their work and social performance.

Type of presentation (focus on disability versus focus on

strengths)

Ren et al. (2008) observed that the ways in which a

person with disability was described to employers were

associated with different attitudes of the human

resource professionals surveyed. The meta-analysis

results yielded showed that when people with disability

(e.g. physical disability, mental disability, or unspecified

disability) were presented via descriptions of their work

experience in previous jobs or work activities, attitudes

about their hiring and performance potential were more

positive than in the condition not presenting this type of

information.

Taken together, these findings suggest that potential

employers receiving information on applicants’

strengths, such as skills acquired and positive behaviour

shown to be useful in the workplace, tend to show more

positive attitudes towards these candidates.

Attitudes towards employees with disability: employer

characteristics

Attitudes towards work performance and social acceptability

The foremost aspect of concern for employers is that of

business productivity, which leads them to observe

closely employee performance. Moreover, the current

high degree of competition and continued technological

advances on the global scale have raised the business

expectations, which in turn are associated with ever

higher-performance standards (Shinkle 2012). In this

respect, Louvet et al. (2009) showed that people tend to

evaluate workers with disability as being less competent

professionally than people without disability. These

more negative evaluations can reduce the likelihood of

hiring people with disability (Henkens et al. 2008). They

are rated more positively, however, in terms of being

likable and socially accepted, than for work

performance.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that employer

attitudes about the work performance of people with

disability are more negative than those concerning their

potential for social acceptability and quality of social

interaction in the workplace.

Type of previous experience

Hernandez et al. (2008) observed that employers with

previous experience with disabled individuals tend to

react more positively to them and to hire them more

frequently than employers with little or no contact.

Moreover, McManus et al. (2010) maintain that, in

addition to the degree of contact and knowledge about

disability, quality of interaction is another key element

to consider in attitude research. In fact, they observed

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

that greater quality of contact was associated with more

positive attitudes and stated that these findings add

support to previous results, suggesting that positive

experiences lead to less intergroup anxiety and hostility.

Some researchers, however, were unable to replicate

these findings. For example, Popovich et al. (2003) did

not observe positive attitudes in employers who had

previous experiences with the work inclusion of people

with disability.

Type of work considered appropriate for disabled individuals

Observers use job prototypes and stereotypes about

specific disabilities to examine the degree of matching

between a person’s abilities and the perceived job

requirement. For example, Louvet (2007) observed that

employment discrimination was more frequent for jobs

involving a high degree of interpersonal contact and, in

particular, towards individuals with highly visible

disabilities (e.g. wheelchair need) due to fear of eliciting

discomfort and social avoidance in potential customers.

Moreover, Gouvier et al. (2003) conversely examined the

interaction between job complexity (lower/higher

intellectual requirement) and type of disability (physical

disability/intellectual disability/mental illness), finding

that applicants with chronic mental illness were

significantly less likely to be hired than other applicants,

even for a low-complexity task (e.g. janitor).

A job’s cognitive complexity is the variable employers

take into consideration when examining the possibility of

including persons with disability in their workplace.

According to Holland’s (1997) RIASEC classification,

Gottfredson (1986) highlighted that investigative

occupations tend to be characterized by a high degree of

complexity; social, artistic and enterprising occupations,

by an average degree of complexity; and realistic and

conventional occupations, by a low degree of complexity.

Specifically, realistic occupations are viewed as being less

complex than conventional ones, as the latter also involve

the use of calculations and quantifications.

Research goals and hypotheses

In the light of the above-described findings, we opted to

survey a group of employers who might actually find

themselves in the position of having to hire individuals

with disability or who have already hired. They were

involved in the industrial sector, which still employs the

greatest number of employees in Italy (National

Institute of Statistics 2011) and in Europe (European

Union 2011).

We believe that studies similar to the one presented

herein can play a key social role: although employers

surveyed in field settings tend to show more negative

attitudes towards individuals with disability than

observed in laboratory settings (Ren et al. 2008), the data

yielded thereby can be very enlightening for social health

workers, researchers and/or career counsellors interested

in studying and promoting work inclusion processes.

Hence, we proposed descriptions of hypothetical

candidates with disability who were seeking a job.

Specifically, we referred to young adults with intellectual

(Down syndrome; intellectual disability) or sensory

(hearing; SD) disability, or presenting problems with

aggressiveness and angry outbursts (psychological

problems; PP). This latter is the category of workers

with the fewest job inclusion opportunities in Italy, also

due to the current economic crisis (National Institute

of Statistics 2011).

We therefore hypothesized that, in function of the

disabled person’s described characteristics, the employers

would show more positive attitudes towards people with

less severe disability and in particular towards

individuals with SD and in particular:

(a) as regard ‘type of disability’, more positive attitude

for both job performance and social acceptability, and

more negative attitudes towards the applicant

presenting PP, at least in terms of social acceptability.

(b) as regards ‘type of presentation’, a more positive

attitude in the presence of descriptions highlighting

the applicants’ strengths.

With respect to the employer characteristics, it was

expected that they would show:

(c) a more negative attitude towards the applicants’

potential work performance than towards their social

acceptability;

(d) a more positive attitude by employers with

previous experience hiring people with disability.

(e) It was also expected that, for type of work

considered appropriate for disabled individuals, the

employers would indicate realistic and conventional

jobs as being more suitable.

Method

Participants

We recruited 80 Italian employers, company’s owners,

working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry

businesses (50–250 employees and annual sales less than

50 million Euros): 54 men and 26 women, aged

26–77 years (mean age = 43.05; SD = 10.9). Forty employers

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 3

had previous experience in hiring people with disability

in their companies, and 40 did not have this type of

experience. With respect to educational level, eight

employers (10%) had received a middle school diploma;

49 (61.25%) had obtained a high school diploma and 23

(28.75%) a university degree.

Instrument

The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire,

‘Work for people with disability’ (see Table 1), which

examines employers’ attitudes towards people with

disability. The instrument was developed through a pilot

study by Santilli (2010) and based on the work of (i)

Louvet et al. (2009), who underscored the need to

examine social judgment aspects towards people with

disability in work contexts presenting both performance

and social acceptability aspects, and (ii) Gouvier et al.

(2003), who used brief descriptions about hypothetical

candidates’ disabilities, including a few notes on

the candidates’ educational and training pathways.

The questionnaire presented descriptions of three

hypothetical candidates with disability, the first

characterized by a SD; the second by intellectual

disability; and the third with PP. The employers were

first asked to indicate what job positions and tasks each

candidate would be capable of carrying out in their

companies. Ten 7-point scale items followed, to examine

the employers’ attitudes towards workers with disability.

The principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis conducted by

Santilli (2010) on the 10 items suggested a two-factor

solution. The first factor (38.5% of the variance), Work

Performance, was composed of seven items and

concerned attitudes about work performance (a = 0.88).

The second factor (17.7% of the variance), Social

Acceptability, comprised three items and reflected

attitudes towards the candidate’s potential for being

socially accepted (a = 0.78). The two average scores of the

Work Performance and Social Acceptability subtests were

used to verify our hypotheses a, b, c and d, as attitude

indicators for each disability (the higher the value, the

more positive the attitude). To verify hypothesis e, we

examined the job task descriptions employers indicated

as being possible for the hypothetical workers with

disability, (classified into one of Holland’s six categories,

1997) for each candidate.

Experimental design

This study is an analogue research design that uses

written description of potential hiree with disability, to

assess the employer attitudes towards people with

disability. Because of the simulated nature, analogue

research is characterized by high level of internal

validity, allows to control every aspect of the stimuli

presented to employers and ensure that the only

difference between the stimulus provided to two groups

(standard presentation condition and positive

presentation condition) lies in the independent variables

being investigated (Gouvier et al. 2003).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two

experimental conditions: one in which candidates with

disability were presented by referring to the disability

and the difficulty they presented (standard presentation

condition: focus on disability) and one in which the

candidates were presented with reference also to their

positive aspects (positive presentation condition: focus

on strengths). Among the 40 employers with experience

hiring people with disability in their businesses, 20 were

randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’

Table 1 Items of ‘Work for people with disability’

Questionnaire

Work for people with disability

Question: Which job function or work task he/she

could take in your company?

Work performance subtest

1. Do you believe that the probability that he/she finishes

a task alone is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely)

2. Do you believe that the probability that he/she performs

his/her tasks properly is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely)

3. Do you believe that his/her work performance will be

(1 = very poor; 7 = very good)

4. Do you believe that his/her capacity to consider details

is (1 = very poor; 7 = very good)

5. Do you believe his/her need to receive assistance and

supervision from co-workers is (reversed score; 1 = very

low; 7 = very high)

6. Do you believe that he/she is perceived to be a ‘resource’

in the workplace (1 = not at all; 7 = very much)

7. Do you believe that his/her tendency to make mistakes is

(reversed score; 1 = very low; 7 = very high)

Social acceptability subtest

8. Do you believe that others will avoid him/her (reversed

score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much)

9. Do you believe that his/her co-workers will care about

him/her (1 = not at all; 7 = very much)

10. Do you believe that his/her presence in

the workplace diminishes

opportunities for his/her co-workers to do their jobs well

(reversed score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much)

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

4 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition.

Twenty of the 40 employers without experience were

randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’

condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition.

As regards, in the ‘standard presentation’ condition,

for example, for SD, participants received the following

description: ‘Carolina is a young woman with a severe

hearing disability; in addition to not hearing, she

usually emits only some sounds, which are difficult to

understand. She has trouble reading and understanding

texts requiring logical reasoning processes. She attended

a vocational school and obtained a high school diploma.

Her teachers described her as a person with listening

comprehension and verbal expression problems, but

they also stated she tends to be calm and self-controlled.

She has moreover participated in-service business

training.

Only the participants in the ‘positive presentation’

condition received, for example, the following addi-

tional information in the instructions: ‘Carolina has

participated in business internships, and her business

tutors have described her as a dedicated young woman,

who carried out her tasks when receiving clear written

instructions’.

Both male and female candidates were described for

each disability, and gender was randomly assigned to

the two conditions, with the same percentage.

Procedure

The company’s owner who participated in the study

was identified by contacting local business associations

and the work inclusion services (SIL - Servizio per

l’Inserimento Lavorativo) for two provinces in north-

eastern Italy. In a preliminary step, the employers,

whose list of names was provided by these services,

were contacted by phone and were informed as to the

purpose of the study; they were given details on

participation in the study (including its voluntary and

anonymous nature) and about the researchers. They

were asked whether they had experience of employment

of workers with disabilities. Of those who accepted to

participate, approximately 98% of the employers

completed and sent the questionnaire back. Employers

opting to participate were sent the questionnaire via

email. To reduce social desirability bias, it was specified

that there were no right or wrong answers and that the

researchers were exclusively interested in surveying the

employers’ ideas.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 2 shows the correlations obtained, Skewness

values, the standard error for Skewness, Kurtosis values

and the standard error for Kurtosis. Significant

correlations were observed between Work performance

and Social acceptability in all three conditions. The

Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, conducted to determine

whether the results were analysable via parametric

analyses and to verify whether the participants’ scores

reflected a normal distribution, resulted that all our

values were higher than the critical value (P ≤ 0.05), and

we therefore considered the parametric statistics to be

appropriate for analysing the data. Lastly, to determine

Table 2 Correlations between variables

Subtests and type of disability 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Work performance SD – 0.48** 0.54** 0.40** 0.33** 0.21*

2. Social acceptability SD – 0.31** 0.64** 0.22* 0.34**

3. Work performance intellectual disability – 0.49** 0.37** 0.14

4. Social acceptability intellectual disability – 0.20* 0.36**

5. Work performance PP – 0.33**

6. Social acceptability PP –

Skewness 0.01 �0.67 �0.19 �0.63 �0.02 0.41

Standard error of skewness 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27

Kurtosis �0.75 �0.24 �0.53 0.13 �0.44 �0.49

Standard error of kurtosis 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.54

*P = 0.05.

**P = 0.01.

SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 5

whether there were any significant across-group

differences in relation to both the participants’ and job

candidates’ gender and the gender of the workers

described in the survey. No significant employer gender

differences in attitudes towards workers (Lambda di

Wilks = 0.899, F6,67 = 1.259, P = n.s.) or candidate

gender differences (Lambda di Wilks = 0.865,

F6,67 = 1.742, P = n.s) resulted.

Hypotheses a, b, c, d

A 3 9 2 9 2 9 2 mixed design multivariate analysis of

variance (MANOVA) was conducted with respect to

employers’ attitude towards workers with disabilities.

Type of disability (SD, intellectual disability and PP)

and performance area (work performance, social

acceptability) were treated as within-participant

variables. Presentation condition (standard versus

positive) and previous employer experience hiring

workers presenting disability (experience versus no

experience) were treated as between-participant

variables.

(a) Type of disability. The MANOVA (see Table 3)

showed a main effect for the type of disability

observed F1,72 = 44.952, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.38. A

post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni-adjusted critical

P showed that the participants, regardless of

performance area (work performance versus social

acceptability), rated the candidates with intellectual

disability and SD more positively than candidate

with PP. No differences emerged between candidates

with SD and intellectual disability. Moreover, a

significant interaction was also yielded for Type of

disability 9 Performance area, F1,72 = 98.651,

P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.578. Bonferroni-corrected post

hoc t tests revealed that the worker with PP was

rated less positively than SD and intellectual

disability candidates in terms of social acceptability.

(b) Type of presentation. A main effect for the

candidates’ type of presentation (‘standard’ versus

‘positive’) was significant, F1,72 = 6.616, P = 0.012, g2

partial = 0.084. Specifically, regardless of the type of

disability, the employers showed more positive

attitudes in the ‘positive presentation’ condition. A

significant interaction was also yielded for Type of

disability 9 Type of presentation 9 Performance

area, F1,72 = 5.845, P = 0.012, g2 partial = 0.075.

Bonferroni-corrected post hoc t tests revealed that in

the ‘positive presentation’ condition, participants

rated the candidate with PP more positively in social

acceptability than they did in the ‘standard

presentation’ condition; they also rated the candidate

with SD more positively in work performance than

they did in the ‘standard presentation’ condition. As

regards candidate with intellectual disability,

employers showed more positive attitudes both in

work performance and social acceptability in the

‘positive presentation’ condition.

(c) More focus on work performance. A main effect for

work performance (within-variable) was yielded

F1,72 = 93.454, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.565. The

employers rated all candidates (intellectual disability,

SD and PP) more positively in terms of social

acceptability than in work performance.

(d) Type of employer experience. A main effect for

previous employer experience with disabled workers

Table 3 Means and standard deviations

Subtests and type of disability

Positive presentation condition Standard presentation condition Total

Previous

experience

No

previous

experience Total

Previous

experience

No

previous

experience Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

1. Work performance SD 4.38 1.29 3.89 1.03 4.12 1.17 3.48 1.05 3.39 1.33 3.43 1.19 3.79 1.23

2. Social Acceptability SD 5.82 1.15 4.98 1.30 5.39 1.28 5.20 1.38 5.63 1.16 5.43 1.27 5.41 1.27

3. Work performance intellectual disability 3.77 1.06 3.58 0.92 3.67 0.98 3.37 1.27 3.21 1.37 3.29 1.31 3.48 1.16

4. Social Acceptability intellectual disability 5.91 0.82 5.40 0.96 5.65 0.92 5.45 1.14 5.23 1.06 5.33 1.09 5.50 1.01

5. Work performance PP 4.06 1.27 4.27 1.26 4.17 1.25 3.36 1.15 3.78 1.13 3.59 1.14 3.89 1.22

6. Social Acceptability PP 4.11 1.19 3.75 1.83 3.92 1.55 2.80 0.67 3.33 1.56 3.09 1.25 3.52 1.46

SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

6 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

was not observed, F1,72 = 0.328, P = n.s. Significant

interactions were not yielded.

(e) Type of work activity considered appropriate. The job

tasks the employers mentioned as being most

appropriate for disabled individuals in their

company contexts were first coded according to the

Holland Codes (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic,

Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) (Holland

1997). We then applied the two-way log linear model

to categories mentioned by at least 10% of the

participants. Specifically, Realistic and Conventional

tasks were more frequently cited than the other

categories, in all of the three disability conditions.

Table 4 shows the Holland categories identified,

the frequencies and percentages with which the

employers mentioned each category, and an example

of participant answers for each category. The

following two variables were examined: (a) type of

disability: SD, intellectual disability, PP; and (b)

Holland category. The log linear analysis indicated

only a statistically significant main effect for Holland

category, k = �0.033, z = �0.971, P = 0.001. The

Realistic category was more frequently mentioned

than the Conventional one for candidates with

intellectual disability, SD and PP.

Conclusions

The present study was based on Stone & Colella’s (1996)

research and aimed to contribute to a better

understanding of which variables characterize the way

potential employers actually think (and who, in any

event, facilitate access to the world of work for people

with impairments).

Firstly, itwas found that considering the typeofdisability

as an essential element influencing attitudes enabled us to

show that our participants’ attitudes were more negative

towardspeoplewithPP, than theywere for candidateswith

intellectual disability and SD, especially in terms of social

acceptability. Although providing support for the idea that

type of disability is a significant factor characterizing

employer attitudes (Stone & Colella 1996; Colella et al.

1998), our results highlight how psychological problems

represent the condition most frequently associated with a

negative view (Russinovaa et al. 2011). With respect to first

hypothesis, we underscore that people with SD were not

evaluated most positively overall and that indeed, no

differences emerged for intellectual disability and SD. This

finding could be due to the fact that, of the three disabilities

presented, PP are generally less known and understood

than hearing impairment (SD) and Down syndrome

(intellectual disability) are, and that this lack of knowledge

in an observer can elicit more negative views. In fact, the

literature reports data supporting the idea that greater

knowledge of the problems that people with disability

experience can obviate stereotypes and a higher degree of

personal interaction (Dixon et al. 2003). Other research

findings support the idea thatDown syndrome is one of the

most well-known intellectual disability among the general

population(Bittles et al.2006).

With respect to the variable of type of presentation,

providing descriptions of some of the candidates’

strengths and appropriate conduct in previous work

experiences allowed us to show that, as expected, this

extra information was associated with more positive

employer attitudes, as compared to the results in the

condition describing their disability only. This result is

in line with Stensrud (2007), who observed that

receiving descriptions of what potential hirees actually

know how to do help them better understand how to

place them, diminishing the risks involved in this type

of decision thereby.

Table 4 Frequencies and percentage of use of Holland categories and example of answers

Holland categories

Candidates with SD (n = 80)

Candidates with intellectual disability

(n = 80) Candidates with PP (n = 80)

F % Example of answer F % Example of answer F % Example of answer

Realistic 45 56.3 Packager 33 41.3 Simple assembly worker 29 36.3 Post-assembly baler

Investigative 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artistic 1 1.3 Graphic designer 0 0 0 0

Social 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enterprising 0 0 2 2.5 Sales 1 1.3

Conventional 19 23.8 Archivist 19 23.8 Receptionist 14 17.5 Accountant

No answer 15 18.8% 26 32.5 36 45

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 7

In this respect, it was found that all types of disability

(intellectual disability, PP and SD) benefited from the

presentation focusing on positive aspects. As regards

intellectual disability, in particular, and the other

disability considered (PP and SD), this finding is crucial

(also in line with World Health Organization

recommendations ICF; World Health Organization

2001), because it allows to underscore what people with

disability can actually do. This approach can facilitate

their levels participation, the inclusion into their

communities and their quality of life (Nota et al. 2006;

Schalock & Verdugo 2008; Soresi et al. 2011).

Concerning the variable of employer characteristics,

the type of dimension evaluated was, as expected,

associated with different results: overall, the employers

rated the social acceptability levels of people with

disability more positively than they did their work

performance. This finding is in line with Louvet et al.’s

(2009) results showing that people tend to more

positively rate disabled individuals in terms of their

social ‘worth’ and use this tendency in some

compensatory way for conversely rating performance

negatively. Moreover, our comparison of attitudes

towards performance versus social acceptability also

obtained the strongest effect size: a possible explanation,

which also reflects Luthans & Youssef’s (2007) findings,

is that the employers focused more on the candidates’

performance levels. This phenomenon, which is also

increasingly impacting people with disability, especially

with intellectual disability, given the world of work’s

current characteristics, can also even more negatively

influence people with disability who cannot easily step

up their performance levels, either quantitatively or

qualitatively (Henkens et al. 2008).

Previous employer experience hiring disabled workers

conversely showed no relation with their attitudes. In

fact, no significant differences were observed between

employers with or with no previous hiring experience

of this type. Considering that the experience was not

associated with more positive or negative attitudes, it is

most probably the quality of these contacts that

characterize the relevance of this dimension, as also

suggested by McManus et al. (2010). In fact, our

participants were managing mid-size business in the

Italian context. In these situations, employers interact

with intermediaries and not always directly with

workers, as conversely occurs with smaller companies

(McMahon et al. 2008). This scenario can therefore limit

occasions for employers to more closely examine, and

have direct awareness of, the consequences of hiring a

disabled worker.

Lastly, in reference to the work tasks employers

considered to be appropriate for hirees with disability in

their companies, as expected, Realistic and Conventional

tasks (mostly the former) were most frequently

mentioned. Although our study involved industrial

sector employers, where realistic tasks are frequently

encountered (Holland 1997), it is likely, in agreement

with Gottfredson (1986), that these tasks are perceived

as being less complex and therefore more easily carried

out by people with disability.

As regards in particular people with intellectual

disability, we can conclude that, although their hiring is

perceived by employers less negatively than other

situations such as PP, benefits from the presentation

that focuses on their positive aspects include more

helpful attitudes in employers in both work performance

and social acceptability. Moreover, as for other types

of disability, employers mentioned jobs with a low degree

of complexity (Realistic activities) as most appropriate

for people with intellectual disability, and this can reduce

their jobopportunities.

Practical suggestions for career counsellors and social

health workers interested in work inclusion processes

The data yielded in the present study confirm that

career counsellors and social health workers interested

in work exclusion cannot afford to disregard potential

employer attitudes (frequently considered the best

predictors of behavioural intentions) and that they must

have a full grasp of this phenomenon, so as to recognize

situations presenting greater impenetrability to workers

with disability. To increase the likelihood of breaking

through (and hopefully, breaking down) these barriers,

well thought-out job applicant presentations should be

prepared for potential employers. In particular, during

the early phases of work inclusion, it is important that

practitioners clearly describe to employers what

applicants with disability know how to do, the

experiences they have acquired in other training and

work contexts, tasks that can perform, etc.

It is indeed possible to elicit good impressions and

more positive potential employer attitudes. Practitioners

must, of course, avoid using diagnostic labels and

should mostly provide descriptions of actions and

activities that can be put to good workplace use, as also

suggested by the World Health Organization (World

Health Organization 2001).

Moreover, as Horner-Jhonson (2002) underscored,

knowledge of potential employer attitudes can help

shed light on salient aspects to be emphasized in

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

8 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

sensitization campaigns targeting employers. Efforts

should be made to develop these campaigns, in a

general endeavour to facilitate work inclusion processes.

An overall rethinking of stereotypes and negative

attitudes towards the work performance potential of

individuals with disability should be fostered. To

promote a positive image, campaigns in aid of people

with intellectual disability should present the skills

these individuals have acquired in training and work

contexts, their career achievements and their ability to

support co-workers.

Our findings can also be used to work with people

with disability, especially those with intellectual

disability, within a preventive perspective to help them

list their skills and strengths. Career counsellors and

social health workers could teach them how to analyse

their work and training experiences, identify the

actions carried out, career achievements, skills acquired

and how to record them for example in appropriate

notebooks, diaries, etc. These actions could be useful to

the career development and self-presentation of people

with intellectual disability in training and work

contexts. Moreover, they can be taught to manage job

interviews, highlighting their strengths, to mention

skills and experience they have acquired in training

and work contexts, and to discuss these in terms of

work skills as well as social skills, and to list work

tasks they might have covered, which pertain to

various professional fields (Realistic, Conventional,

but also to the Social, Artistic, Enterprising and

Investigative).

Highlighting to employers the skills and strengths of

people with disability, stimulating novel ideas on

possible actions that the employers themselves could

carry out in the workplace, and, at the same time,

enhancing the skills of individuals with disability so

they become aware of what they are able to do, are all

actions that can increase the likelihood of work

inclusion for people with disability. This is in line with

Burges et al. (2007), which have also shown that workers

with intellectual disability have better levels of

workplace inclusion when employers, co-workers and

people with intellectual disability were trained through

job training programmes.

Limitations and future directions

The present study is limited in a number of ways. First,

the present study is an analogue design that utilizes

paper stimuli rather than actual individuals with

disability. Second, we involved only company’s owners

working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry

businesses, of two provinces in north-eastern Italy. This

may affect the generalization of results to other forms of

more structured company. Future studies could involve

participants of more structured company, other Italian

regions and other business. Thirdly, we examined three

types of disability only and only one hypothetical

candidate for each type of disability. Future research

should examine different disabilities, for example, how

employers view multiple disability, severe intellectual

disability or complex psychiatric conditions. Furthermore,

more male than female employers were involved.

This gender gap actually reflects, however, the current

Italian work context. Lastly, it could be useful to

compare employers who, in these times of socio-

economic change, are experiencing the current crisis

differently and the impact of these differences on their

attitudes.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Laura Nota,

Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and

Applied Psychology, University of Padua, 35131 Padua,

Italy (e-mail: [email protected]).

References

Bell B. S. & Klein K. J. (2001) Effect of disability, gender and job

level on rating of job applicant. Rehabilitation Psychology 46,

229–246.

Bittles A. H., Bower C., Hussain R. & Glasson E. J. (2006) The

four ages of Down syndrome. European Journal of Public

Health 17, 221–225.

Burges P., Ouellette-Kuntz H. & Lysaght R. (2007) Public views

on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal

of Vocational Rehabilitation 26, 29–37.

Colella A., De Nisi A. S. & Varma A. (1998) The impact of

ratee’s disability on performance judgments and choice as

partner: the role of disability-job fit stereotypes and

interdependence of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology 83,

102–111.

Dixon K. A., Kruse D. & Van Horn C. E. (2003) Restricted

Access: A Survey of Employers About People With Disabilities and

Lowering Barriers to Work. The State University of New Jersey,

John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers,

Washington, DC.

European Commission (2008) Directorate-General for Employment,

Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2008). Employment in

Europe 2008.

European Union (2011) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2011.

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 9

Gottfredson L. S. (1986) Occupational aptitude patterns map:

development and implications for a theory of job aptitude

requirements. Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, 254–291.

Gouvier W. D., Sytsma-Jordan S. & Mayville S. (2003) Patterns

of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: the

role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact.

Rehabilitation Psycholog 48, 175–181.

Henkens K., Remery C. & Schippers J. (2008) Shortages in an

ageing labour market: an analysis of employers’ behaviour.

International Journal of Human Resource Management 19,

1314–1329.

Hernandez B., McDonald K., Divilbiss M., Horin E., Velcoff J.

& Donoso O. (2008) Reflections from employers on the

disabled workforce: focus groups with healthcare, hospitality

and retail administrators. Employ Respons Rights Journal 20,

157–164.

Holland J. L. (1997) Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of

Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd edn.

Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa.

Horner-Johnson A. (2002) Attitudes toward people with intellectual

disabilities in Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences

and Engineering, Vol. 63 (6–B).

Louvet E. (2007) Social judgment toward job applicants with

disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences.

Rehabilitation Psychology 52, 297–303.

Louvet E., Rohmer O. & Dubois N. (2009) Social Judgment of

people with a disability in the workplace: how to make a

good impression on Employers. Swiss Journal of psychology 68,

153–159.

Luthans F. & Youssef C. M. (2007) Emerging positive

organizational behavior. Journal of Management 33, 321–349.

McMahon B. T., Roessler R., Rumrill P. D. Jr, Hurley J. E., West

S. L., Chan F. & Carlson L. (2008) Hiring discrimination

against people with disabilities under the ADA:

characteristics of charging parties. Journal of Occupational

Rehabilitation 18, 122–132.

McManus J. L., Feyes K. I. & Saucier D. A. (2010) Contact and

knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with

intellectual disabilities. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships 28, 579–590.

National Institute of Statistics (2011) Italian Statistical Yearbook:

The Country’s Situation in 2010. ISTAT, Roma.

Nota L., Soresi S. & Perry J. (2006) Quality of life in adults with an

intellectual disability: the Evaluation of Quality of Life

Instrument. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50, 371–385.

Popovich P. M., Scherbaum C. A., Scherbaum K. L. & Polinko

N. (2003) The assessment of attitudes toward individual with

disabilities in the workplace. The Journal of Psychology 137,

163–177.

Ren L. R., Paetzold R. L. & Colella A. (2008) A meta-analysis of

experimental studies on the effects of disability on human

resource judgments. Human Resource Management Review 18,

191–203.

Russinovaa Z., Griffinb S., Blocha P., Wewiorskic N. &

Rosoklijad I. (2011) Workplace prejudice and discrimination

toward individuals with mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation 25, 227–241.

Santilli S. (2010) Il lavoro per le persone con disabilit�a [Work for

people with disability]. Unpublished manuscripts.

Department of Psychology, University of Padua, Padua.

Schalock R. L. & Verdugo M. A. (2008) Quality of life: from

concept to application in the field of intellectual disabilities.

Evaluation & Program Planning 31, 181–190.

Shinkle G. A. (2012) Organizational Aspirations, Reference

points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the

future. Journal of Management 38, 415–455.

Soresi S., Nota L. & Wehmeyer M. (2011) Community

involvement in promoting inclusion, participation, and self-

determination. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15,

15–28.

Stensrud R. (2007) Integrating the Disabled into the Work

Force: developing relationships with employers means

considering the competitive business environment and the

risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50, 226–237.

Stone L. D. & Colella A. (1996) A model of factors affecting the

treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of

Management Review 21, 352–401.

Szymanski E. M. & Hershenson D. B. (2005) An ecological

approach to vocational behavior and career development of

people with disability. In: Rehabilitation Counseling (eds R. M.

Parker, E. M. Szymanski & J. B. Patterson) pp. 225–280. Pro-

Ed, Austin, TX.

Verdugo M. A., Jordan de Urries F. B., Jenaro C., Caballo C. &

Crespo M. (2006) Quality of Life of Workers with an

Intellectual Disability in Supported Employment. Journal of

Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 19, 309–316.

Wehman P. H. (2011) Employment for persons with disabilities:

where are we now and where do we need to go? Journal of

Vocational Rehabilitation 35, 145–151.

Wehmeyer M. L., Palmer S. B., Davies D. K. & Stock S. (2011)

The Role of Technology Use by a Person with Intellectual or

Developmental Disabilities as a Family Support. Rivista di

studi familiari 2, 90–99.

World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of

Functioning, Disability and Health. ICF. WHO, Geneva.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

10 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities