|
Article Excerpt
Society's attitude towards disability and its implications to the rehabilitation of people with disabilities have been one of the research foci in the field of rehabilitation (Antonak & Livneh, 2000; Yuker, 1988). Attitudes are regarded as latent or inferred psychosocial processes that lie dormant within a person unless evoked by specific referents (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Because of the differences in physical appearance or mental capacity, people with disabilities are often perceived as crippled, childish, useless, dangerous, and abnormal. They have problems receiving equal access to education, employment, health care, and social activities in communities (Brostrand, 2006; Gordon, Feldman, Tantillo, & Perrone, 2004; Hernandez, Keys, & Balcazar, 2000; Tsang, Chan, & Chan, 2004; Yuker, 1988). Although attitudes toward people with disabilities are improving, the primary source of the difficulties encountered by people with disabilities is still the public attitudes rather than a person's physical or mental limitations (Chubon, 1992; Hahn, 1993; Vash, 2001). In order to improve rehabilitation services, it is important to continue investigating factors affecting attitudes toward people with disabilities and to foster a positive change of attitudes toward this population.
Previous research indicated that knowledge of disabilities, personal contact, types of disability, and ethnic background might influence a person's view of people with disabilities. Individuals who had more contact with persons with disabilities were more positive about people with disabilities than those who had less contact (Chan et al, 1988; Chan, Lee, Yuen, & Chan, 2002; Chen, Brodwin, Cardoso, & Chan, 2002; Gething, 1992). Persons who were more knowledgeable about disabilities through university training and professional practices held a more favorable attitude than those who had less knowledge (Chan et al., 2002; Gething, 1992; Hunt & Hunt, 2000). The pubic, in general, tended to hold a more positive attitude towards individuals with physical disabilities than towards persons with development disabilities (PWDD) and psychiatric disabilities (Chan et al, 1988; Chan et al, 2002; Gilfoyle & Gliner, 1985; Gottlieb & Gottlieb, 1977; Voeltz, 1980). However, several researchers reported that American college students majoring in special education were more in favor of PWDD than those with physical and psychiatric disabilities (Wang, Thomas, Chan, & Cheing, 2003). This preference, according to Wang et al. (2003), may be due to the emphasis of educating students with developmental disabilities (DD) in special education programs in the U.S. Findings about gender influences were inconsistent. Some researchers found that women tended to hold a more favorable attitude towards people with disabilities than men did (Chen et al, 2002; Yuker & Block, 1986). Others reported that there was no significant difference in attitudes toward people with disabilities between men and women (Chan et al, 1988; Yang, Leung, Wang, & Shim, 1996).
In terms of the influence of ethnic backgrounds on attitudes toward people with disabilities, findings of previous studies consistently revealed that the Chinese in Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the U.S. were more likely to stigmatize people with disabilities and had greater desire to distance themselves from those with disabilities compared to other ethnic groups (Chan et al, 1988; Chan et al., 2002; Chen et al, 2002; Wang et al, 2003; Westbrook & Legge, 1993; Westbrook, Legge, & Pennay, 1993). Previous researchers attributed the negative attitude of the Chinese to cultural-related factors such as the influence of the Confucian tradition and collectivistic orientation (Westbrook & Legge, 1993; Westbrook et al., 1993). They stated that the contemporary conceptualizations of disabilities and rehabilitation services in the Western countries were based on equity, normalization, and empowerment and these principles are congruent with individualistic cultural values (Westbrook & Legge, 1993; Westbrook et al., 1993). On the other hand, collectivistic values emphasize interdependency and sacrifice for others within a group and such a strong emphasis companied by a fear of the inability to fulfill contributory roles may be responsible for the high level of stigma of disability among the Chinese (Westbrook & Legge, 1993; Westbrook, Legge, & Pennay, 1993).
These cultural interpretations have some merits, in that the model proposes that socialization patterns and institutional practices within a culture can aid or hinder the development of positive/negative attitudes toward people with disabilities. From this perspective, changing values and practice during the process of socialization would facilitate attitudes change to the desired direction. However, despite much speculation, there is no published research assessing this cultural thesis empirically.
According to Triandis (1996), individualism and collectivism are cultural syndromes. They reflect shared attitudes, beliefs, norms, roles, and values organized around a central theme. The central theme of individualism is the concept of the personal goals, uniqueness, and autonomous from groups (Triandis, 1995). Individualism can be classified into two types: horizontal and vertical individualisms. Horizontal individualism refers to a cultural pattern that sees the self as independent and the same as the self of others (Triandis, 1995). Vertical individualism refers to a cultural pattern that views the individual as more or less equal in status with others, although it also stresses the independence of the self (Triandis, 1995).
On the other hand, the central theme of collectivism is the concept of individuals as aspects of groups or collectives (Triandis, 1995). Collectivism can be classified into two types: horizontal and vertical collectivisms. Horizontal collectivism is defined as a cultural pattern in which the individual sees the self as an aspect of an in-group and all members of the group as equal (Triandis, 1995). Vertical collectivism is defined as a cultural pattern in which the individual sees self as an aspect of an in-group, but the members of the in-group are more or less equal in status with others (Triandis, 1995).
In all cultures, people have access to all about-mentioned four cultural patterns. However, in individualism dominated cultures such as the U.S. mainstreaming culture, people would be more likely to have the individualistic tendency (Triandis, 1995). On the contrary, individuals in collectivism dominated cultures such as the Chinese culture would be more likely to have the collectivistic tendency (Triandis, 1995). Triandis and his associates (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clark, 1985) pointed out that individualism and collectivism could be analyzed at both cultural (between countries) and personal (within cultures) levels. They suggested that the terms of idiocentrism and allocentrism might be used to correspond the terms of individualism and collectivism when the analysis was done at the personal level (Triandis et al, 1985). However, in the literature, some followed Triandis et al's suggestion (Lee, 2000; Verkuyten & Masson, 1996). Others continued using the individualism-collectivism terms when analyzing cultural tendencies within a culture (Early & Randel, 1997; Moorman & Blackely, 1995). In the present study, we decided to use the individualism-collectivism terminology in order to be consistent with the terms used in Westbrook & Legge (1993)'s study.
The purpose of our study was to empirically examine relationships between the individualistic...
|
