-
Effects of different forms of school contact onchildrens
attitudes toward disabled and non-
disabled peers
Pam Maras*
University of Greenwich, London
Rupert Brown
University of Kent at Canterbury
Background. There have been fluctuations in research interest
into theinclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream
schools over the lasttwenty years. It is still not clear what
methods, practices and types of contactare most likely to promote
positive attitudes in children toward disabled peersand disability
generally.
Aims. To consider two theoretical models of inter-group contact,
bothclaiming to identify precursors for generalised attitude
change, in relation tothe attitudes of non-disabled children toward
disabled peers as a function ofdifferent classroom contact.
Sample. Participants were 256 non-disabled school children aged
5 11 years(128 girls and 128 boys).
Methods. Measures of sociometric preference and the evaluation
ofpsychological and physical attributes were used to ascertain
childrensperceptions of known and unknown peers with
disabilities.
Results. A relationship was found between the type of contact
the children hadwith disabled peers, and their perceptions of
psychological and physicalattributes (stereotypes) of groups of
unknown disabled and non-disabledpeers.
Conclusions. Results show generalisation of stereotypic
attitude/judgmentsfrom one type of disability to another as a
consequence of the two types ofcontact situation. Findings have
important implications for integratingdisabled children into
mainstream.
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Pam Maras,
School of Social Science, University ofGreenwich, Avery Hill
Campus, Avery Hill Road, London SE9, UK (e-mail:
[email protected]).
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2000), 70, 337 351
Printed in Great Britain
# 2000 The British Psychological Society
-
The twenty years following the Warnock Report (DES, 1978),
subsequent legislation
(e.g., DES, 1981; DfE, 1998, 1993) and codes of practice (e.g.,
DfE, 1994) saw aplethora of debate and research on the integration
of children with special educational
needs (SENs) into mainstream schools. Controversy encompassed a
range of disciplines
and focused on political, social, pedagogical and theoretical
issues. Debate
encompassed a range of often competing positions, from the view
that prejudice is
socially constructed (e.g., see Barnes, 1996; Oliver, 1990;
Shakespeare & Watson, 1997)
to the perspective that disabled people s cognitions about their
situations are at the rootof others attitudes toward them (e.g.,
Johnston, 1997). Since the mid 1990s research
and interest in integration has seemingly waned, the focus
having turned more toward
the behaviour of children and young people in and out of school
(Maras, 1996). The
descriptor i`ntegration has been superseded in common parlance
by i`nclusion . These
changes in discourse are reflected in and reflect government
papers (e.g. DfEE, 1997,1998) which, though adopting the term
inclusion, link it directly to schools and school
effectiveness (see White & Barber, 1997): a marriage which,
it has been suggested, is
fraught with tensions (Lunt & Norwich, 2000).
Notwithstanding these changes in focus, issues in the area of
inclusion and attitudes
to disability remain the same and many research questions remain
unresolved; it is stillnot clear whether, and what form of, contact
arising out of inclusive practice produces
positive outcomes in terms of non-disabled children s attitudes.
Despite the shift away
from research and moves toward ideological debate in the area,
the number of children
and young people with SENs being included in mainstream schools,
with the exception
of children with behaviour problems, is seemingly increasing
(Norwich, 1990, 1994,
1997). However, theory about the most effective methods of
achieving this inclusion isstill relatively undeveloped in relation
to the impact of contact on non-disabled (ND)
children s attitudes toward disabled peers with whom they have
contact and, more
importantly, toward disabled people generally. From a social
psychological viewpoint
increased moves toward inclusion have a direct effect on the
amount of social
interaction occurring between mainstream children and children
with disabilities and ontheir subsequent social perceptions.
There is some evidence on the effects of educational integration
on ordinary
children s attitudes (Brinker 1985). In the literature that
addresses this issue and that
has looked at children s attitudes towards peers with
disabilities in other settings,
several broad underlying themes can be identified. Some research
has focused oncontact per se (McConkey, McCormick, & Naughton,
1983), exposure and visibility
(Furnham & Pendred, 1984; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell,
1984), and perceived
similarities (Siperstein & Chatillon, 1982). The broad
conclusion from this work is that
contact per se will have positive outcomes and will be even more
effective where
similarities are perceived. Other research has added to the
picture by looking at
cognitive mechanisms which might identify why exposure could be
an important featurein attitude formation (Lewis & Lewis 1987).
A third strand of research has been
concerned with the effects of contact improving attitudes toward
disability (e.g.,
Chesler, 1965), the structure of contact (e.g., Acton &
Zarbatany, 1988) and on the
impact of co-operation in improving attitudes (e.g., Armstrong,
Johnson, & Balow,
1981; Johnson & Johnson, 1981). However, little is still
known about the precisemethods of inclusion which produce the most
positive effects and, in particular, how
338 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
improved attitudes can be encouraged, not just towards a few
individuals, but towards
disabled children in general. In some earlier research we showed
how a plannedintervention involving co-operative activities between
children with and without
disabilities can generate more favourable intergroup attitudes
(Maras & Brown, 1996).
In this paper we further examine this issue by studying children
s attitudes in a range of
schools where different inclusive practice is in place. We
should note that in this paper
we are not assuming links between children s attitudes and their
understanding of
SENs. See Dockrell, Logotheti, and Magiati (1998) for work in
this area.The research reported in this paper utilised two
contrasting theoretical perspectives
on contact. For both, the generalisation of attitudes arising
out of a contact situation is
a desired outcome. One perspective maintains that for attitudes
arising out of contact to
be generalised, references to relevant categories should be
de-emphasised we call this
interpersonal, `decategorised contact (Brewer & Miller,
1984). The second proposesthat for positive attitude change arising
out of contact to be generalised, some category
salience should be retained and additional features, such as the
acknowledgement of
valued differences between groups should be highlighted this we
refer to as inter-
group, `decategorised contact (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Brewer and Miller see the
blurring or breaking down of group or category boundaries as
essential topersonalisation (and the reduction of categorical
biases). Hewstone and Brown
propose that maintaining group boundaries can be beneficial for
aiding positive
generalisation since the transfer of positive attitudes from the
individuals one has met in
the contact situation to other category members not encountered
is thereby facilitated.
In both models, the importance of Allport s (1954) conditions
for successful contact
(i.e., co-operative activity between equal status participants
with strong institutionalsupport for the goal of integration) is
recognised.
There is some research evidence which supports both perspectives
(see Bettencourt,
Charlton, & Kernahan, 1997; Brown, Vivian, & Hewstone,
1999;Maras & Brown, 1996;
Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985; Vivian, Hewstone, &
Brown, 1997). However, with the
exception of Maras and Brown (1996), there is little evidence
from naturalistic contextsin support of these models and, again
with the exception of Maras and Brown (1996),
both models and much of the research they have instigated have
been mainly concerned
with contact between ethnic, national or ad hoc groups. It
remains to be seen how
applicable they are to social situations involving children with
and without disabilities.
The research reported in this paper tested the appropriateness
of Hewstone andBrown s (categorised) and Brewer and Millers
(decategorised) theories of contact as
models for improving attitudes within the social context of
inclusive education for
disabled children. It was hypothesised that the former
theoretical stance would be the
most conducive to generalised attitude change. It should be
noted, however, that we did
not preclude the notion that in `categorised contact situations
where the additional
features of institutional support and valued differences are not
present, resultingattitudes may well still be generalised but may
not be positive.
Context
The research was conducted in a large local education authority
(LEA) in Southeast
England. An extensive preliminary survey identified models of
integration effectivewithin the LEA that related directly to the
two models of contact (Maras, 1993):
339Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
1. Where integration was taking place but where children with
disabilities were not
clearly identified by the schools to their mainstream peers as
being members of a widergroup (interpersonal `decategorised
contact).
2. Where integration was occurring but where children with
disabilities were clearly
identified by the schools as members of a group of similar
others (inter-group
`categorised contact). This identification took several forms.
For example, teachers
talked about disability to the children and the disabled
children were taught separately
for all or part of the time. Further examples of this can be
seen below in Table 1.Within these models children with three types
of disability were included: hearing
impairment (HI), learning disabilities (LD) and physical
disabilities (PD). Schools were
also identified where no obvious inclusion of disabled children
(ND) was taking place;
two of these served as control schools. The identification of
categorisation, or not (type
of contact) and the matching of schools was crucial to the
design of the reported study.Initially type of contact was assessed
by looking at the visibility of children with
disabilities, along with criteria such as school size,
significant numbers and spread
across classes of children with significant SENs. Categorisation
in terms of withdrawal,
adult helpers, physical location of children with SENs (i.e., in
mainstream or separate
classrooms) and the use of aids, such as body-worn hearing aids
in the case of childrenwith HI, were considered. This involved both
the survey to class and head teachers
described above and follow-up visits to specific schools. As
part of this process both
teachers and headteachers along with other appropriate adults
such as SENs teachers
were interviewed, observations were carried out and at least two
further follow-up visits
were made to schools thought to fit the models. Eight schools
were finally identified
and took part in the study. Only schools where one type of
disability (LD, HI, PD ornone) predominated participated in the
study. Thus there were two schools representing
each type of disability inclusion. Table 1 provides examples of
how the two types of
contact (`categorised and `decategorised ) were operationalised
in the schools where HI
children were integrated.
Table 1. Features of categorised and decategorised schools where
children who are
hearing impaired are included
CATEGORISED CONTACT DECATEGORISED CONTACT
Group and individual differences and simila-rities are
acknowledged.
Only individual differences and similarities
areacknowledged.
HI unit is in a separate building from themainstream school.
Reverse integration takesplace in a structured way.
HI unit is in mainstream school. Reverseintegration DOES NOT
take place in astructured way.
HI children are encouraged to wear `body-worn hearing aids.
HI children are discouraged from wearingbody-worn aids.
HI is discussed formally with mainstreamchildren & they are
given information abouthow to communicate with HI children.
HI is NOT discussed formally with mainstreamchildren & they
are NOT given informationabout how to communicate with HI
childrenunless they request it.
340 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
Method
Design
The study employed a cross-sectional design involving the type
of disability and method
of inclusion in each school, thus yielding a conceptual 3 6 2
between-subjects design:Type of Disability (LD, HI, PD) 6 Method of
Inclusion (`categorised , `decate-gorised ). Two additional schools
which had no disabled children were used as controls.
The sample included two age groups (infant and junior) and equal
numbers of girls and
boys. Because neither age nor sex of participating children is
directly relevant to our
current concerns they are ignored in analyses reported below.
For information,however, no relevant age or sex differences were
found.
Participants
A total of 256 children from two National Curriculum (NC) years
one/two (infant aged
5 7 years, mean age 6.1 years) and three/four (junior aged 8 11
years, mean age 9.9
years), 128 girls and 128 boys. Ten children moved or were
absent for at least one of the
three sessions. The children were randomly selected from within
four classes in each ofeight schools in a large LEA in Southeast
England. This sampling method was used to
reduce possible contaminating effects of idiosyncrasies of
schools and class teachers.
Parental permission to participate in the study was obtained
prior to random selection.
Procedure
Stimuli: The study utilised stimuli reported in past research
(Maras & Brown, 1996).
Data described here used stimulus photographs of unknown
children with (DIS) andwithout (ND) disabilities to elicit children
s reactions [standard stimuli (SS)]. The
photographs showed children with physical disabilities (PD)
sitting in wheelchairs,
children with hearing impairment (HI) wearing body-worn hearing
aids and children
with learning disabilities (LD) who had Downs Syndrome. Piloting
determined that the
different disabilities were obvious to children of this age. The
non-disabled childrenwere matched with the disabled children for
age, sex and other features such as posture.
These standard stimuli photographs of unknown children were
modified to show the
children in pairs and groups.
Photographs were also taken of all known non-disabled and
disabled children (KC)
in the participating classes; these were utilised to determine
sociometric choice andpreference.
Measures: Three measures used in this research were also
utilised in our past work
(Maras & Brown, 1996). The first measure consisted of five
`post-boxes into which the
children were asked to post the photographs of the known and
unknown individual
children depending on how much they wanted to play with them
(`always, `a lot ,
s`ometimes , `not much or `never ), thus supplying a measure of
sociometric preference.The second, a five happy/sad faces Likert
type scale, was modified for measuring affect
or liking. The third measure consisted of five different sized
balloons. This was designed
for measuring amount of certain physical and psychological
attributes.
Interview procedure: As in the previous study (Maras &
Brown, 1996), participating
children used the measures and stimuli for two tasks described
below. In addition, semi-structured interviews were carried out
with each child to elicit pre-existing stereotypes
341Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
and attitudes about disability generally and then specifically
about HI, LD and PD.
Prior to data collection the children were familiarised with the
measures and theresearcher. Data collection was carried out over
two sessions. All sessions were run in
the same way. Each child was seen individually in a quiet place
away from the
classroom and verbatim instructions were used (Maras, 1993;
Maras & Brown, 1996).
The children first responded to the measure of sociometric
preference using both known
(KC) and unknown (SS) stimuli individually. They then responded
to the evaluative
measures of psychological and physical attributes in respect of
stimuli photographs ofthe unknown children with and without
disabilities (SS) which were presented in boy/
girl matched pairs (i.e., LD, HI, PD & ND). Order of
presentation for the sociometric
preference task was random. For the evaluation task the
disabled/non-disabled stimuli
were presented in a systematically ordered manner.
Results
These two procedures generated the various dependent measures
for the study: the
amount of liking for and evaluation of abilities of each of the
disability target categories
(LD, HI, PD, none) and sociometric preference for these
categories and known peers.Although the study was originally
conceived of as a 3 6 2 (Type of Disability 6Method of Inclusion)
design, in order to incorporate the control schools, statistically
it
was simpler to treat the eight participating schools as
different levels of a single factor,
and then to include Disability of Stimuli as a within-subjects
factor1. Thus the initial
overall analyses adopted an 8 6 [4] mixed ANOVA strategy: School
6 [Stimuli]. Sexand Age were included as between-subjects variables
but are not reported below forsimplicitys sake. None of the results
we report was qualified by these factors (i.e., there
were no reliable interactions involving sex and age).
We first present general findings from the study. Several of
these analyses relate
directly to our theoretical perspectives on contact but are
necessarily quite complex in
nature. In order to show the trends more clearly, we then focus
exclusively on the datafrom schools where children who are hearing
impaired (HI) are included since it is in
these schools where the pattern of findings is most clear.2
Six mixed model ANOVAs (described above) were run on the
intergroup attitude
indices (hearing ability, school work, physical education
ability, running, hardworking,
thinking, liking, and `play with) using ratings of SS as the
dependent measure. Giventhat our hypotheses concern the effects of
different kinds of inclusive practice adopted
by schools on intergroup attitudes, our primary interest is in
statistical interactions
involving the School and targeted Stimuli variables. Such
interactions indicate attitudes
toward particular stimulus groups vary as a function of the type
of integrated contact
the participating children had experienced. Before discussing
such interactions, it is
worth noting one consistent and highly significant finding which
was observed on allmeasures: without exception, a main
within-subjects effect for Stimuli (ps < .001)
indicated that the three disabled groups were consistently
evaluated as less able (and
less likeable) than the ND children. On several of the indices
this main effect provided a
reassuring validation of our stimulus materials i.e., the
children clearly understood
and indicated to us that, for example, ND children could r`un
better than children withphysical disabilities. Nevertheless, it
was noticeable that such r`ealistic biases also
342 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
generalised inappropriately to other categories of disability
e.g., children with LD and
HI were also judged to be able to run less well than ND
children. It was also clear thaton the affective dimension l`iking
, disabled children were generally (and significantly)
less liked than non-disabled stimuli.
Of central interest in this paper are differences between rating
of stimuli as function
of different contact experiences (i.e., different schools). Such
results would demonstrate
a significant interaction involving type of school and stimuli.
Such interactions were
observed on five dependent measures: t`hinking (F (21,660) =
5.51, P < .001);`hearing (F (21,657) = 3.95, p < .001);
r`unning (F (21,690) = 3.10, p < .001);
`Physical Education (F (21,666) = 1.78, p < .05); and l`iking
(F (21,669) = 1.62,
p < .05); this last effect also involved sex of subject. To
present the full results from all
these interactions would be both complex and burdensome for the
reader. Thus we have
chosen to exemplify these effects by reporting fully the effects
observed in the schoolswhere children who are HI are included. To
interpret the significant interactions
reported below we employed a relatively conservative procedure.
This involved the
assessment of pair-wise differences within each type of school
(decategorised,
categorised and control) using Tukeys HSD post hoc
procedure.
Results from the schools where hearing impaired children are
included
Liking: As noted above, disabled children were rated as
significantly less likeable than
ND children in all of the schools. As can be seen below (Figure
1) the difference
between ratings of disabled and ND children was greatest in the
school where contact
was categorised and this difference is consistent for all three
types of disability.
Hearing: When asked how well unknown children can hear (a
dimension directlyrelevant to the contact situation in these
schools) all of the children indicated that the
HI children could hear significantly less well than the other
disabled groups (LD & PD).
The children who had had contact rated the HI children lower
than the control children
who had had no contact perhaps indicating a first effect of
contact could be to make
the children more aware of the particular disability. Although
the pattern is much thesame in the three types of schools, the
differences are much sharper in the categorised
school than the decategorised and control schools. In all three
conditions the children
attribute a degree of hearing impairment to the groups to which
it is not relevant (LD &
PD); this is especially the case for PD stimuli children (Figure
2).
Schoolwork:Now we consider a dimension that is more relevant to
the general schoolcontext schoolwork. Here, again, there is a
general trend to downgrade all of the
disabled children, particularly the PD group in the categorised
and control schools (see
Figure 3). Contact, however, seems to have produced differing
effects. In the control
schools the HI children are rated significantly higher than the
PD children and there is
no significant difference between the children s ratings of the
LD and PD children. In
the decategorised school there is no significant difference in
the ratings of any of thedisabled groups. In the categorised school
the pattern is somewhat different. As with
their rating of hearing, there was far more differentiation
between disabilities and the
PD children are rated significantly lower than both the HI and
LD children (Figure 3).
Thinking: Finally we consider a dimension that is more abstract
and less directly
relevant to these particular contact situations thinking. Once
again, all three disabledgroups are rated significantly lower than
the non-disabled group. In the control schools
343Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
HI children are rated significantly higher than PD and LD
between whom there is no
significant difference. A similar picture emerges in the
decategorised school with nosignificant difference between any of
the disabled groups. In the categorised school an
entirely different pattern can be seen. Here, PD children and
more importantly HI
children (a disabled group with whom they have contact), are
rated significantly less
able to think than LD children (to whom the dimension is
relevant) (Figure 4).
The data described so far have presented a somewhat negative
picture of contact. The
most deleterious effects of contact appear to be in the
categorised school in which thechildren differentiate between the
disabled groups more than in the decategorised and
control schools and downgrade the disabled group they know (HI)
on dimensions that
are not relevant (schoolwork and thinking). In addition, in the
categorised school, the
sharper differences spill over onto another disability (PD).
Furthermore, children in all
of the contact situations clearly differentiate between disabled
children generally andnon-disabled children.
Sociometric preference ( p`lay with data): Data on the
participating children s
sociometric preferences for known and unknown DIS and ND peers
were then
analysed. These revealed a number of significant main effects
and interactions but none
of these involved the simple School x Stimuli interaction of
interest in this paper and sowill not be discussed further. Thus
for sociometric preferences disability seemed not to
be a relevant factor in the children s judgments. Suffice it to
say that the most powerful
results observed on these measures involved Sex x Gender of
stimuli interactions,
Figure 1. Liking for SS in schools where children with hearing
impairment are
integrated and control schools
LD = learning disability; HI = hearing impairment; PD = physical
disability; ND = nodisability. Bars for each type of disability not
sharing the same subscript in each type of contactare significantly
different by Tukeys HSD test, p < .05.
344 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
reflecting the well documented finding of preference for same
sex playmates amongstyoung children (La Freniere, Stayer, &
Gauthier, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1976). For
both known and unknown children these interactions (F (1,168) =
235.54 and
F(1,221) = 278.88, both p < .0001) completely masked all
other statistical effects.
Attitude generalisation: It will be recalled that attitude
generalisation from the known
contact person to other members of his or her category is the
desired outcome of bothof the models of contact considered earlier.
One index of this is provided by correlating
the participants ratings of how much they would like to play
with known and unknown
same-sex children by gender. This strategy was employed to rule
out confounding
effects of children s own gender preference referred to above.
There was a significant
correlation between ratings of known and unknown girls in the
categorised school. Inthe schools with decategorised contact the
correlations were lower and significantly
smaller than those in the categorised school. A similar pattern
was observed amongst
the boys although the difference between the correlations just
failed to achieve
conventional levels of statistical significance. Correlations
were also carried out on the
children s mean ratings of the known and unknown non-disabled
children. Here all but
one of the correlations were significantly different from zero
at the .01 level and Z testsrevealed no significant differences
between any of the correlations in the categorised
and decategorised schools. This indicates that the difference in
generalisation of
Figure 2. Hearing rated for SS in schools where children with
hearing impairment are
integrated and control schools
LD = learning disability; HI = hearing impairment; PD = physical
disability; ND = nodisability. Bars for each type of disability not
sharing the same subscript in each type of contactare significantly
different by Tukeys HSD test, p < .05.
345Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
attitudes visible in Table 2 was confined to the situationally
relevant stimuli category i.e., those with HI and was not a generic
effect.
Discussion
In this paper we have reported findings from a large
cross-sectional study involvingseveral schools practising different
policies of inclusion for children with disabilities.
The focus was on mainstream children s attitudes towards their
peers with disabilities
and the first notable result was that, in general, the
participants showed marked
differentiation in their evaluations of, and liking for, the
standard photographic stimuli
used to measure attitudes. As can be seen in Figures 1 4, this
differentiation took the
form of a consistently more favourable attitude towards the ND
stimuli than all threedisabled groups. Notice how the right hand
bars in these figures are always significantly
higher than the remaining three bars. It is against this
background of generic in-group
preference that the effects of different types of intra-school
contact between children
with and without disabilities must be assessed.
These effects were indicated by the presence of statistically
reliable interactionsbetween school and stimuli on most measures.
The simplest way to describe these
interactions is to note that, in schools in which there was a
concentration of children
with a particular form of disability, those that down-played the
salience of that
disability category what we have termed decategorised schools
tended to have
Figure 3. Schoolwork rated for SS in schools where children with
hearing impairment
are integrated and control schools
LD = learning disability; HI = hearing impairment; PD = physical
disability; ND = nodisability. Bars for each type of disability not
sharing the same subscript in each type of contactare significantly
different by Tukeys HSD test p < .05.
346 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
children with less differentiated (and less biased) attitudes
than those who placed more
emphasis on disability (categorised schools). In fact, the
decategorised schools generally
tended to resemble the `no contact control schools in the
profile of their intergroupattitudes on different evaluative
dimensions. This pattern is well exemplified in the
schools with significant numbers of children with hearing
impairments, whose results
we have presented in detail (Figure 1 4). Note how the
differences between the HI and
ND bars are always greater in the categorised schools than in
the decategorised or
control schools.
At first glance, such findings clearly offer more support to
Brewer and Miller s (1984)contact model than to Hewstone and Brown
(1986). As predicted by Brewer and Miller,
where a social category is psychologically less significant it
loses its power to organise
(and bias) people s attitudes. Nevertheless, despite this
empirical support, from an
applied perspective the Brewer-Miller model does not offer a
very optimistic prognosis
for school inclusion policies. For, although children in the
decategorised schools had
less biased attitudes than those in the categorised schools,
these attitudes were not onthe whole any more favourable than those
shown by children in the control schools.
Against this baseline, then, even decategorised contact seems to
be having scant effect
on mainstream children s attitudes toward disability.
Inclusion policies more closely resembling Hewstone and Brown s
(1986) version ofthe contact hypothesis would appear to have even
lower chances of success, if these
Figure 4. Thinking rated for SS in schools where children with
hearing impairment are
integrated and control schools
LD = learning disability; HI = hearing impairment; PD = physical
disability; ND = nodisability. Bars for each type of disability not
sharing the same subscript in each type of contactare significantly
different by Tukeys HSD test, p < .05.
347Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
findings are a guide. A plausible reason for the more sharply
differentiated and negative
intergroup attitudes observed in the categorised schools is that
the contact which
occurred here was hardly optimal in terms of Allport s (1954)
criteria. Qualitative data
from the interviews indicated that the children were not given
much information about
the nature of different disabilities and many felt uncomfortable
about meeting their
disabled peers. In other contexts, anxiety has been shown to be
negatively associatedwith favourable intergroup attitudes
(Greenland & Brown, 1999; Islam & Hewstone,
1993; Stephan & Stephan, 1985), and it would be surprising
if similar processes were
also not operative in school contexts. Moreover, by common
consent, class sizes in
these schools were large, thus creating demands on teachers time
and precluding the
possibility of frequent and effective co-operative learning
activities. There was a strikingcontrast between the generally
negative effects of contact in these schools and the
positive outcomes observed in an earlier study of a contact
situation involving regular
structured co-operative encounters between children with and
without severe learning
difficulties (Maras & Brown, 1996).
Despite the practical difficulties of trying to apply Hewstone
and Browns (1986)model in sub-optimal conditions, theoretically
their hypothesis received at least partial
support from the observation that attitude generalisation
appeared more in evidence in
the categorised than the decategorised schools. This was shown
by the stronger
correlations between sociometric preferences for known and
unknown peers with
disabilities in the former than the latter schools. A likely
reason for this is that the
heightened salience of the disability categories in categorised
schools permittedpsychological transfer of feelings about a known
exemplar category to other members
of that category not yet met. Of course, in this instance the
generalisation was probably
of negative attitudes, but this need not always be the case
(Maras & Brown, 1996; Van
Oudenhouven, Groenewoud, & Hewstone, 1996; Brown et al.,
1999).
Before concluding it is appropriate to enter four caveats about
our research designwhich qualify our conclusions. Because the study
was conducted in a real-life context,
exploiting ongoing policy differences in several schools, we do
not have the luxury of a
true experimental design in which children were randomly
assigned to different contact
experiences. In addition, our characterisation of the different
inclusion policies as
involving categorised and decategorised contact was undoubtedly
an imperfect one
Table 2. Correlations between children s ratings of `play with
known and unknown
children who are hearing impaired
Contact with children who areHearing Impaired
Correlation between known and unknown stimuliphotographs of
children who are Hearing Impaired
Girls Boys
Categorised .56** .32**De-categorised .00 7.06Difference between
schools (Zscore) N = 64
2.41** 1.52
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
348 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
since there were probably other variables confounded with this
distinction. Still, the
consistency and (statistical) strength of our findings across
several different measuresgive us some confidence that they are not
completely spurious and can be meaningfully
related to the theoretical and policy issues we identified at
the outset. Our main
conclusion is that most schools we studied were not providing
the conditions which
promoted the most effective forms of contact between different
groups of their students.
The challenge for teachers and education policy-makers alike is
to re-create in
mainstream classrooms the kinds of co-operative and equal status
learning contextswithin a national curriculum that currently allows
little time for alternative methods.
In conclusion, we have intentionally not in this paper linked
our theoretical
conceptualisations to pedagogy. However, given current increased
interest in links
between research, theory and pedagogy it is interesting to note
that current debates on
`unique vs. `generalisable differences as recently summarised by
Lewis and Norwich(1999) bear more than a passing conceptual
resemblance to the social psychological
perspectives outlined in this paper. Perhaps, therefore, work
aimed at linking delivery
and practice to work on social psychological processes might
prove a useful way
forward. The challenge of course is accommodating moral often
posing as theoretical
tensions between views that purport inclusion per se and those
that see education (andlearning) for all as a main goal for the
future.
NOTES1 For illustrative purposes scores for the control schools
are derived from the mean scores of bothcontrol schools in Figures
1 4. In addition a mean score was also computed for the three
non-disabled pairs of stimuli. Prior analysis revealed that this
strategy was appropriate, as there waslittle difference between the
childrens evaluations of the ND pairs when they were included in
theanalysis separately.2 Results from the other schools show
broadly similar patterns and can be obtained from the
firstauthor.
Acknowledgment
The research reported here was funded by grant (#F2368) from the
Leverhulme Trust.
References
Acton, H.M., & Zarbatany, L. (1988) Interaction and
performance within cooperative groups:Effects on nonhandicapped
students attitudes toward their mildly mentally retarded
peers.American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95, 16 23
Allport, G.W. (1954 ed.) The nature of prejudice.
Cambridge/Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Armstrong, B., Johnson, D.W.,
& Balow, B. (1981). Effects of cooperative vs.
individualisticlearning experiences on interpersonal attraction
between learning-disabled and normal-progress elementary school
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 102 109.
Barnes, C. (1996).Disability and the myth of the independent
researcher.Disability & Society, 11,107 110.
Bettencourt, B.A., Charlton, K., & Kernahan, C. (1997).
Numerical representation of groups incooperative settings: Social
orientation effects on ingroup bias. Journal of Experimental
SocialPsychology, 33, 630 359.
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact
hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on
349Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers
-
desegregation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in
contact: The psychology ofdesegregation (pp. 281 302). New York:
Academic Press.
Brinker, R.P. (1985). Interactions between severely mentally
retarded students and other studentsin integrated and segregated
public school settings.American Association on Mental
Deficiency,89, 6587 6594.
Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M (1999). Changing
attitudes through intergroup contact:The effects of membership
salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 741 764.
Chesler, M.A. (1965). Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the
physically disabled. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
2, 877 882.
Department for Education (1993). Education Act. London:
HMSO.Department for Education (1994). Code of practice on
identification and assessment of specialeducational needs. London:
HMSO.
Department for Education and Employment (1998). Meeting special
educational needs: Aprogramme of action. London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Employment (1997). Excellence for
all children: Meeting specialeducational needs (Green Paper).
London: HMSO.
Department of Education and Science (1978). Report of the
committee of enquiry into theeducation of handicapped children and
young people. (Warnock Report). London: HMSO.
Department of Education and Science (1981). Education Act.
London: HMSO.Dockrell, J., Logotheti, A.E., & Magiati, I.
(1998). Primary school childrens representations ofspecial
educational needs: Patterns of awareness and social/locational
influences in Greekchildren. British Psychological Society Annual
Conference of the Education Section, Exeter.
Furnham, A., & Pendred, J. (1984). Attitudes towards the
mentally and physically disabled.British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 56, 179 187.
Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Categorisation and
intergroup anxiety in contact betweenBritish and Japanese
nationals. European Journal of Social Psychology 29, 503 521.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An
inter-group perspective on theContact Hypothesis. In M. Hewstone
& R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in
inter-groupencounters (pp.1 44). Oxford: Blackwell.
Islam, M.R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as
predictors of intergroup anxiety,perceived ingroup variability and
outgroup attitudes: An integrative model. Personality andSocial
Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700 710.
Johnston, M. (1997). Representations of disability. In K.J.
Petrie & J.A. Weinman (Eds.),Perceptions of health and illness:
Current research and applications (pp. 189 212). Singapore:Harwood
Academic Publishers.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1981). The integration of
the handicapped into the regularclassroom. Effects of cooperative
and individualistic instruction. Contemporary
EducationalPsychology, 6, 344 353.
Johnson, R. et al. (1979). Interaction between handicapped and
non handicapped teenagers as afunction of situational goal
structuring: Implications for mainstreaming.American
EducationalResearch Journal, 16, 161 167.
La Freniere, P., Stayer, F.F., & Gauthier, R. (1984). The
emergence of same sex affiliativepreferences among school peers: A
developmental/ethological perspective. Child Development,55 1958
1965.
Lewis, A., & Lewis, V. (1987). The attitudes of young
children towards peers with severe learningdifficulties. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 287 292.
Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (1999). Mapping a pedagogy for
special educational needs. ResearchIntelligence, 69, 9 13.
Lunt, I., & Norwich, B. (1999). Can effective schools be
inclusive schools? London: Institute ofEducation, London
University.
Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1976). Gender segregation in
childhood. Advances in ChildDevelopment and Behaviour, 20, 239
287.
Maras, P. (1993).The integration of children with disabilities
into the mainstream: Effects of schooland age on mainstream
childrens attitudes toward disability. Unpublished doctoral
thesis,University of Kent.
350 Pam Maras and Rupert Brown
-
Maras, P. (1996). `Id rather have dyslexia: Perceptions of EBDs.
Educational and ChildPsychology, 13 (1), 32 43.
Maras, P., & Brown, R. (1996). Effects of contact on
childrens attitudes towards disability: Alongitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2113 2134.
McConkey, R., McCormick, B., & Naughton M. (1983). A
national survey of young peoplesperceptions of mental handicap.
Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 27, 171 183.
Miller N., Brewer, M.B., & Edwards K. (1985). Co-operative
interaction in desegregated settings:A laboratory analogue. Journal
of Social Issues, 41, 63 79.
Norwich, B. (1990). Special needs in ordinary schools.
Reappraising special needs education.London: Cassell.
Norwich, B. (1994). Segregation and inclusion. English LEA
statistics 1998 1992. Bristol: Centrefor Studies in Integration in
Education.
Norwich, B. (1997). A trend towards inclusion. Bristol: Centre
for Studies in Integration inEducation.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.Shakespeare, T., & Watson N. (1997). Defending the
social model. Disability and Society, 12 (2),293 300.
Siperstein, G.N., & Chatillon A.C. (1982). Importance of
perceived similarity in improvingchildrens attitudes towards
mentally retarded peers.American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
86(5), 453 458.
Spillers, C.S. (1982). An investigation of childrens attitudes
towards physically disabled peers.Mid-American Review of Sociology,
7 (1), 55 69.
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety.
Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157 175.Strohmer, D.C., Grand, S.A.,
& Purcell M.J. (1984). Attitudes towards persons with a
disability:An examination of demographic factors, social context,
and specific disability. RehabilitationPsychology, 29 (3), 131
145.
Van Oudenhouven, J.P., Groenewoud, J.T., & Hewstone, M.
(1996). Cooperation, ethnic salienceand generalisation of
interethnic attitudes.European Journal of Social Psychology, 26,
649 662.
Vivian, J., Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1997). Intergroup
contact: Theoretical and empiricaldevelopments. In R. Ben-Ari &
Y. Rich (Eds.), Understanding and enhancing education fordiverse
students. An international perspective (pp. 13 46). Jerusalem.
Bar-I1amUniversity Press.
White, J., & Barber, M. (1997). Perspectives on school
effectiveness and school improvement.London: Bedford Way
Papers.
Received 3 September 1999; final version received 20 January
2000
351Childrens attitudes toward disabled peers