Implicit and explicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities.

Negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities continue to exist (Link, Phelan, Bresnahan, Stueve, & Pescosolido, 1999). These attitudes are linked to behaviors such as social rejection (Davis, 1961; Evans, 1976; Link et al., 1999; Wright, 1983) and maintenance of higher levels of social distance toward persons with disabilities (Link et al., 1999; Olkin & Howson, 1994). Even though there is some suggestion that attitudes toward persons with disabilities have modestly improved in recent years (Kolodziej & Johnson, 1996), negative public attitudes have been recognized as frequent impediments to the success of persons with disabilities in social, educational and vocational contexts (Rao, 2004; Rubin & Roessler, 1995; Rusch, Wilson, Hughes, & Heal, 1995).

Examination of attitudes toward persons with disabilities has been unfortunately complicated by the limited number of assessments available and concerns about the validity of these self-report measures. Societal perceptions about persons with disabilities have most commonly been investigated through direct (i.e., explicit) means. Direct examinations have typically involved self-report surveys focused on the term "disability" without mention of specific disabling conditions or the context in which the disability occurs (Wong, Chan, Cardoso, Lam, & Miller, 2004).

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) developed by Yuker, Block, and Campbell (1960) is one of the most widely used explicit or direct measures. The differing forms of the ATDP assess unidimensional attitudes about disability on a positive to negative continuum (Livneh, 1985). Despite its popularity, several researchers have questioned both the validity and usefulness of the measure. One major controversy involves the ATDP's structure; more recent work has indicated it measures a multidimensional rather than unidimensional attitude structure (Antonak, 1980; Livneh, 1985).

Partly as a response to concerns about the ATDP, the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (SADP) was developed approximately 20 years later (Antonak, 1982). The SADP is a multidimensional instrument that assesses disability attitudes as three components: Optimism-Concern for Human Rights, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Pessimism-Hopelessness. Despite the move to better understand the complexities of attitudes toward persons with disabilities, the ATDP and the SADP are both self-report measures that examine attitudes toward persons with disabilities as a group. In addition, both assess attitudes from a social perspective as opposed to a personal one. Questions typically center on how persons are, or should be, treated at the societal level (Gething, Lacour, & Wheeler, 1994). Both measures are subject to concerns about the influence of socially desirable responses and false positive scores. Although it may have been socially acceptable in Shakespeare's time to openly express negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities, it is much less so today. Hence, persons who hold negative attitudes may seek to hide them and may distort their responses to explicit assessments so that they make socially desirable responses. Each of these problems makes it difficult to accurately determine the prevalence of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

Relatively recent research in social psychology introduces the possibility of assessing implicit attitudes, in addition to explicit attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit attitudes and other implicit cognitive forms (e.g., stereotypes) reflect the continuing influence of past experience and learned associations. This influence is beyond conscious control and may be invoked or primed by even briefly presented stimuli (cf., Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986). Because they are beyond conscious control, measures of implicit attitudes are thought to be relatively immune from the influence of social desirability and self-presentation. This should be a major advantage in an area such as disability attitude research where these concerns are present (cf. Antonak & Livneh, 1995).

Although attitudes have been overwhelmingly measured using explicit measures, the role of implicit processes in social attitudes has been evident for a very long time (Greenberg & Banaji, 1995). Consider two of several possible examples. Halo effects, the first of these, involve the influence of an existing, but irrelevant, attribute on perceptions of a novel attribute (e.g., Thorndike, 1920). These effects are manifest in studies that have shown the height of university instructors to be erroneously recalled as a function of their academic status (Wilson, 1968), consumer products to be better liked if attractively wrapped (Howard, 1992), and attractive persons to be perceived as more intellectually competent than unattractive persons (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). A second example involves the influence of existing schemas on "instant attitudes" toward persons and events logically unrelated to the schema. Studies here have shown that strangers who have been to one's hometown are often better liked than those who have not (Fiske, 1982).

Implicit attitudes and other implicit cognitions have been described and measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT assesses implicit attitudes by measuring the speed of automatic, that is to say, non-consciously mediated, associations between attitude targets and concepts. Although the IAT procedure will be explained later in greater detail, consider a response to a target-concept, person with an amputation, which has been paired with an attribute, sad. For persons who have a negative attitude toward persons with disabilities--what we believe to be a "familiar" or stereotypical attitudinal association--the response should be quick and easily retrieved. This is due to their pre-existing association between amputation and sad. The IAT procedure then reverses the presentation such that the target-concept, person with an amputation, is paired with another attribute, happy. This is not the respondents' automatic association and should result in slower responses despite their best conscious efforts. The prior implicit association or attitude will interfere with their response. Further, the strength of this effect (i.e., the difference between the two response times) will be influenced by the strength of the pre-existing attitude. If the attitude is strong or well established, the effect will be larger. If it is weak, the effect will be smaller or non-existent because there is no prior association to overcome.

This study examines whether implicit and explicit attitude measures produce similar results regarding attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Do implicit measures reveal greater acceptance or greater negativity toward persons with disabilities than do explicit measures? Can researchers continue to trust explicit measures or should other strategies be considered? We chose to examine this in the context of athletics. Athletes with disabilities reflect a group who can be said to have minimized the physical differences between the stereotyped disabled person and the able-bodied. They are vigorous, active, and competitive persons. Negative implicit attitudes toward these persons should be especially telling; they would reflect a learned negative association with disabilities that transcends or ignores the athlete's mastery and achievement.

Method

An experimenter greeted participants and explained that the study examined attitudes toward athletes with and without disabilities. This involved identifying photographs of different athletes and responding to attitude measures on a computer. After giving their informed consent to participate, students followed directions shown on the computer screen. The program first assessed implicit attitudes, followed by explicit attitudes, and demographic information.

Participants

A total of 115 students (53 men, 62 women) participated. The mean age was 21.2 (SD = 3.05). Most participants were Caucasian-Americans (94.8%) with others being African American (4.3%) or unidentified (.9%). Most students were either sophomores (38.3%) or juniors (31.3%), with other years also represented (freshman = 4.3%, senior = 25.2%, other = .9%). No participant had an apparent visual, motor, or physical disability. Students received research participation credit for their assistance.

Implicit Attitudes

Materials

Twenty color photographs of athletes playing one of five sports were used as target stimuli (i.e., soccer, tennis, track, basketball, and skiing). Half of them were of athletes with no apparent physical disabilities, while the other half involved athletes with obvious physical disabilities. "Able-Bodied Athletes" (men = 6; women = 4) played on university teams, intramural teams, and other, non-professional groups. "Disabled Athletes" 1 (men = 5; women = 5) were of similar age to the able-bodied athletes and were drawn from websites maintained by universities and associations of athletes with disabilities. Photographs were displayed as approximately 100 x 150 mm. (4 x 6 in.) images and were credited to their respective association or photographer at the end of the experiment. Identifying words or team logos were digitally removed from the photographs. Sports were chosen so that for every able-bodied athlete (e.g., a skier completing a slalom course), a similar photograph showing an athlete with a disability (e.g., a skier with an amputation completing a slalom course) was available. Athletes with disabilities were shown playing soccer with crutches, playing wheelchair tennis, running track races in wheelchairs, playing wheelchair basketball, and skiing with only one pole due to an arm amputation.

Attribute words had been normatively identified as either pleasant or unpleasant (Bellezza, Greenwald, & Banaji, 1986) and had been used with prior IAT research (e.g., Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Pleasant words included: Honor, Lucky, Diamond, Loyal, Freedom, Gift, Happy, Jolly, Rich, and Love. Unpleasant words included: Evil, Rotten, Poverty, Disaster, Vomit, Hatred, Sad, Greedy, Dirty, and Worthless.

Apparatus

Students responded on one of several IBM-compatible computers running Inquisit software (Version 1.33 or 2.01) in a Windows 98, 2000, or XP environment (Draine, 2003, 2005). To avoid having the explicit attitude scales serve as primes for implicit responses, the program always presented the IAT first, followed by explicit attitude scales. Students were told to respond as quickly as they could to the IAT while making as few errors as possible. There was no request for speed on the explicit scales.

Procedure

Participants first made an initial target discrimination involving two attitude targets (e.g., Disabled Athlete--Able-Bodied Athlete). In one version, the phrase Disabled Athlete appeared on the left side of the screen, while Able-Bodied Athlete appeared on the right. Centered below the two targets was a single randomly presented photograph of either an athlete with a disability or an athlete with no visible physical disabilities. The student's task was to press as rapidly as possible either the left (f) key if the photograph was of the left appearing target or the right (j) key if the concept was of the right appearing target. The correct response to this version's first trial would be the left (f) key because the photograph of "amputee soccer" is associated with the target phrase "Disabled Athlete." Following the student's correct response, the next of the 20 trials began. If the response was in error, the word Error flashed in red on the screen for 400 milliseconds after which the next trial began.

Students similarly discriminated between the attribute Pleasant or Unpleasant. These two words appeared to the left and right of the screen with one of 20 words appearing in random order centered below. Because the first word in the example "Honor" is a pleasant attribute, the correct response would be the left (f) key. As in step one, correct responses were followed by the next trial; incorrect responses received an error message for 400 ms, followed by the next trial.

The third step combined steps one and two such that a response key was shared. In this version, the phrase "Disabled Athlete or Pleasant" appeared on the left, while "Able-Bodied Athlete or Unpleasant" appeared on the right. Centered below was a randomly chosen word from the previous attribute list or a photograph from the target list. A correct response to the first example photograph of amputee soccer would require pressing the left (f) key. So that error messages would not interfere with responses, none were presented in this step; the next trial always followed the student's response. By combining the two lists, 40 trials in all were used.

The fourth step reverses the association between Pleasant and Unpleasant. On this step, the word "Unpleasant" appears on the left of the screen and "Pleasant" on the right. In contrast to step two, a correct response to the first example word, "Gift," would be the right (j) key. Correct responses and errors were treated as in step one. The fifth step is similar to step three, but includes the target with the reversed attributes (e.g., "Disabled Athlete or Unpleasant" on the left). Once again, a randomized list of concepts and attributes appeared centered below. It should be noted that a new and independent random order of words and photographs was created for each step and for each participant. As with step three, no error messages were presented. These five steps constituted the first of two blocks of discriminations shown to participants. The second block and other variations are described later.

Attitudes are inferred from relative response speeds to the IAT's tasks. Slower responses to step three's attitudinally "unfamiliar" pairs (Disabled Athlete--Pleasant and Able-Bodied Athlete--Unpleasant) than to step five's familiar pairs (Disabled Athlete--Unpleasant and Able-Bodied Athlete--Pleasant) imply that the unfamiliar pairs are harder to retrieve.2 In contrast, the faster responses to the familiar pairs imply that these pairs are more easily associated and are easier to identify. Responses to word pairs that are not familiarly associated require more time and cognitive effort than pairs that "fit" existing associations. Furthermore, unlike responses to explicit rating scales, responses to the IAT are not under conscious control. It is thus possible to infer cognitive processes with the IAT that are independent of self-presentational processes.

Explicit Attitudes

After students had completed the IAT, the program next presented the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons scale, Form O, (SADP) (Yuker, 1988; Yuker, & Block, 1986) and the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons, Form R (SADP) (Antonak, 1982, 1985). These were followed by the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (SDS) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Students responded to these Likert-format scales directly on the computer by clicking the appropriate scale points with the computer mouse.

As noted earlier, the ATDP has been widely used to assess attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Form O, the preferred version, includes 20 items in Likert-format. Median reliabilities for Form O, summarized by Yuker and Block (1986), are high (five week test-retest = .83, 4 to 16 month test-retest = .68, split half = .80, alpha = .76). Likewise, the validity of the scale using several approaches (i.e., content, predictive, concurrent, and construct validity) is acceptably high.

In contrast to the unidimensional ATDP, the SADP was constructed as a multidimensional scale (Antonak, 1982). The version used here, Form R, consists of 24 items in Likert-format. Antonak's factor analysis of the items indicates that they are defined by three factors that he labeled: Optimism-Concern for Human Rights, Behavioral Misconceptions, and Pessimism-Hopelessness. Reliabilities of the subscales are reported as acceptably high (e.g., split-half, scale 1-3 = .71, .55, and .61; overall Cronbach's alpha = .88) and do not measure overlapping concepts. Construct validity may also be considered good, although the first factor is itself composed of three dimensions (Antonak, 1985).

The Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (SDS) is a widely used measure designed to detect excessive response distortion (i.e., "faking good"). It consists of 33 culturally approved, but behaviorally improbable, items, for example, "I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble" (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The more items a person says are self-descriptive, the higher is their social desirability score. Reliability and validity of the scale are good, although questions about the SDS's factorial structure have been raised (Leite & Beretvas, 2005).

Demographic Information and Conclusion

The program concluded by asking students their sex, ethnicity, class standing, and age. Students were thanked for their help by both the program and the experimenter. They were then debriefed and given their participation credit.

Design and Hypotheses

Response latencies (or their log transformations) served as the dependent variable for IAT analyses. The first independent variable was the sex of the participant and was, of course, a between subjects variable. Because prior research has shown that women have less negative attitudes toward disabled persons than men (Yuker, 1988), we hypothesized that this would also be true for implicit attitudes. This was not a hypothesis we held with conviction, however. Women may simply be more sensitive to appearing less biased against persons with disabilities.

Two additional independent variables were used to test for procedural bias. In the IAT version described earlier, Disabled Athlete--Pleasant (an unfamiliar pairing) appeared on the left in step 3, while Disabled Athlete--Unpleasant (a familiar pairing) followed in step 5. In order to test for position effects, a second IAT block was given to all participants; in this block the left-right placement of the athlete-attribute shown in the first block was reversed. This defined the within-subjects independent variable of target-attribute placement. Left-hand positions for the five steps of Block 2 were: Able-bodied Athlete, Unpleasant, Able-bodied Athlete--Unpleasant, Pleasant, and Able-Bodied--Pleasant. Right-hand positions used the alternative target or attribute. Thus after responding to Block 1, a participant would see another unfamiliar target-attribute pairing followed by a familiar pairing but with the left-right positions of the target-attributes reversed. The two blocks just described constituted Version 1. Another group of participants were given Version 2 which was identical to Version 1, except that participants in both Blocks 1 and 2 saw a familiar target-attribute pair first (i.e., step 3, left: Disabled Athlete--Unpleasant) followed by an unfamiliar pair (i.e., step 5, left: Disabled Athlete--Pleasant). Block 2 of Version 2 then reversed the left-right position of the target-attributes. This difference permitted us to test familiarity order as a between-subjects variable. We anticipated no response differences for either target-attribute position (within-subjects) or for familiarity order (between-subjects).

Results

Implicit Stereotypes: IAT

The variance of latency data, such as generated by the IAT, needs to be stabilized prior to use in inferential analyses. To do so, responses below 300 ms were recoded as 300 ms and those above 3000 ms were recoded as 3000 ms (Greenwald, et al., 1998). After dropping the first two trials of each block, raw values were then log-transformed.

Using the log-transformed values, a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. Target-attribute placement order, a within-subjects variable, was not statistically significant either in interaction with other variables or as a main effect, F (1,111) = 0.288, p = 0.003. The between-subjects variable of familiarity order was significant, F (1,111) = 316.38, p = 0.00. This is potentially misleading, however. High positive IAT scores indicate negative attitudes toward athletes with disabilities when the unfamiliar conditions were presented first. High negative scores also show negative attitudes when the familiar conditions came first. Thus, although there were significant differences due to familiarity order, both orders indicated negative attitudes toward athletes with disabilities. When the absolute values of the IAT scores were entered, the difference evaporated, F (1,111) = .304, p = 0.582. Thus, there were no meaningful differences attributable to procedure in IAT results. The between-subjects variable of participant sex was also tested in this analysis; it, too, was non-significant, F (1,111) = 1.11, p = 0.29. Men and women's responses to the implicit attitude measure were not meaningfully different from each other.

Both untransformed and log transformed latency values are shown in Table 1 ; these data reflect the "unfamiliar" vs. "familiar" attribute-target association comparison and the position-order comparison (i.e., Versions x Blocks). Each block produces one IAT effect; each effect is the difference between the initial combined task and the reversed combined task (e.g., step three and five in Block 1). Consider the more intuitively understandable untransformed latencies in this table. Participants were able to respond more rapidly to the familiar association of an able-bodied athlete paired with pleasant words and disabled athlete paired with unpleasant words than they were to the unfamiliar idea of able-bodied athlete paired with unpleasant words and disabled athlete paired with pleasant words (mean IAT = 273.4 ms). The size of this effect is estimated by din Table 1 (d = 1.09; d log = 1.15); it and all other effect estimates shown are "large" using Cohen's taxonomy (1992). Table 1 also shows, as indicated by the earlier non-significant F-tests done with the log-transformed versions of these values, that the size of the IAT effect is similar regardless of whether disabled athlete was placed on the right or left of the screen. Whether a familiar association was presented first or second also produces similar effects when the absolute value of the effect is considered.

Explicit Attitudes

An initial t-test across the two experimental versions showed no differences on either of the two explicit attitude scales. Responses were, accordingly, pooled for the following analyses. Although men and women did not differ in their responses to the IAT, they significantly differed on ATDP, t (113) = -2.398, p = .018, and came close to doing so on the SADR t (113) = -1.830, p = .070. Men's scores on the ATDP, M = 82.9; SD = 14.77, were less favorable than women's, M = 89.0; SD = 12.49; men were more prone to see persons with disabilities as different from non-disabled persons. Nonetheless, both men, MDN = 85, and women, MDN = 90, had more positive median values than the normative values for the test, 75.1 and 79.2, respectively (Yuker & Block, 1986). The sample's overall values, MDN = 88, M = 86.2; SD = 13.87, were also higher than Yuker and Block reported, MDN = 79.7. In contrast to the ATDP, overall SADP scores for the current sample were slightly lower and more negative, M = 112.30; SD = 17.47, than the values reported by Antonak (1982), M = 121.5; SD = 13.23. Men had a mean SADP score, M = 109.1; SD = 18.85, that was non-significantly lower than did women, M = 115.0; SD = 15.85.

The overall mean for the SDS, M = 15.66; SD = 5.19, was only somewhat higher than reported by Crowne and Marlowe (1960), M = 13.72; SD = 5.78. This sample of persons thus showed only a slightly greater tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner than Crowne and Marlowe observed with their sample. Men and women's scores on the SDS were not significantly different from each other, M = 16.38; SD = 5.25; Women M = 15.05; SD = 5.11, respectively.

Implicit and Explicit Measures

Correlations among implicit and explicit measures are shown in Table 2. High scores for both the ATDP and SADP indicate more positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Because high absolute values on the IAT reflect more negative attitudes, the sign of the correlation with explicit measures has been reversed. Thus, a positive correlation in this table indicates that attitudinally positive IAT scores are associated with positive explicit scores.

All explicit scores had statistically significant correlations with each other. This is true for the full ATDP and SADP scores and for the SADP's three factor scores. As will be recalled, implicit scores were drawn from different participant groups. Correlations across the different IAT comparisons were accordingly not possible. Nonetheless, Table 2 shows the correlations between each participant group's implicit and explicit measures. Of these comparisons, only the IAT, Version 1, correlated with an explicit measure, ATDP, r = .240, p < .05 and r = .288 (log), p < .05. No measure, either explicit or implicit, correlated with the SDS.

Discussion

Hardin and Hardin observed that, "... in many ways, persons with disabilities who participate in the world of sports provide prima facie contradictions to accepted societal norms regarding disability (Hardin & Hardin, 2003, p. 248)." This is the group that contradicts the stereotype of persons with disabilities. This is the group that persons "admire" for their "perseverance" and "courage." It is also the group that should be least likely to be the target of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities. This is not what we found, however. When compared to able-bodied athletes, implicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities were consistently negative. Further, the size of this effect was large.

Results for explicit measures of general attitudes toward persons with disabilities were mixed. ATDP scores were slightly more positive than the norm, while SADP scores were slightly more negative. Both of these instruments are, of course, general, context-free measures of attitudes toward persons with disabilities. In contrast, the IAT assessed specific implicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities. In some ways, then, these are measures of two different topics using two different approaches.

Greenwald & Nosek (2001) characterized the relationship between implicit and explicit measures as "consistently positive, while also being quite variable (p. 89). Although in one case we observed a positive correlation between the two approaches was obtained, for others there was no meaningful correlation. This is not dissimilar from what others have found with other topics.

Indeed, a larger and more consistent relationship might be troublesome. Explicit measures, unlike implicit measures, are subject to self-presentational manipulation (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001). If the two were strongly correlated regardless of self-presentational pressures, the implication would be that implicit measures behave similarly to explicit measures and do not improve upon them. Even though neither the ATDP nor SADP manifested associations with the social desirability measure, SDS, one cannot rule out self-presentational processes for the low correspondence between explicit and implicit measures. As several researchers have shown, persons are often not aware of their bias toward others (e.g., Devine, 1989) or may wish to deny it even to themselves. As previously noted, the lack of comparability between topic and method for the explicit and implicit measures may have also served to weaken their relationship.

Future research would do well to compare implicit attitudes toward persons with disabilities with unobtrusive behaviors or measures (e.g., error-choice test methods, Antonak & Livneh, 1995). Such research could establish the predictive relationship between implicit attitudes toward persons with disabilities in specific contexts and behavior toward those with disabilities in these contexts. IAT research in other areas, for example, smoking, attitudes toward homosexuals, US presidential candidates, consumer product choice, and arachnophobia, have shown a strongly predictive relationship using such strategies. One might also expect it with attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

One of the strengths of the IAT is its flexibility in tailoring assessment of attitudes toward specific targets and contexts. To our knowledge, no other study has examined attitudes toward persons with disabilities in this way. Certainly, none has examined implicit attitudes toward athletes with disabilities. We did this across a relatively broad range of athletic activities, making our results reasonably general. Nonetheless, our responses were those of midwestern college students. Whether persons from other contexts would respond the same is an open question. Although there are many advantages to the use of photographs as stimuli, a disadvantage is that it limits the range of disabling conditions to those that are "visible." Prior studies have consistently shown both mental retardation and mental illness to be highly stigmatized (Thomas, 2001).

The impact of negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities remains an important issue. Biased perceptions have been considered to be underlying causes for the high levels of unemployment and marginalization that those with disabilities frequently experience. General understanding about attitude formation regarding disability has been hampered, though, due to the methodological limitations inherent in past studies. Particular concerns about the validity of self-report measures and issues pertaining to socially desirable responses continue to be problematic. As a consequence, both the focus and method of the current study provides several important areas for consideration.

First, and perhaps most importantly, results suggest that attitudes about those with disabilities continue to differ from those held toward nondisabled persons. Despite the similarity of settings and behaviors, the experience of disability appears to remain highly salient to the observer. Because prior experiences or contact with persons with disabilities were not examined, it is not known whether these factors have the potential to influence or alter responses and perceptions.

Rather than using labels or brief written descriptions about disability, the IAT permitted us to examine attitudes toward persons with disabilities in a relatively novel way. Participants responded to photographs of persons with disabilities in settings that highlighted both their abilities and strengths. Chan and associates (2002) stressed the importance of emphasizing assets when examining disability-related attitudes. The use of photographs of athletes also allowed the researchers to challenge prior perceptions about the physical abilities and the fitness of persons with disabilities that the respondents might have held. A third factor for consideration relates to the limitations of self-report measures. Participants reported generally positive attitudes about persons with disabilities on both the ATDP and SADE But when asked to relate positive terms and attributes with photographs of athletes through the use of a computer program, participants demonstrated a difference in response time in reaction to those with and without visible disabilities. It took greater time to connect persons with disabilities to positive word associations. Whether the respondents were purposely more positive when completing their self-reported scales or responding in a manner that might be considered as more socially acceptable is not known. Nonetheless, it does reiterate prior misgivings about the potential to fake positive attitudes on measures such as the ATDP (Cannon & Szuhay, 1986; Vargo & Semple, 1984; Yuker, 1986) and other self-report processes.

References

Antonak, R. F. (1980). Psychometric analysis of the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons scale, Form-O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 23, 169-176.

Antonak, R. F. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. The Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13(2), 22-29.

Antonak, R. F. (1985). Construct validation of the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 16(1), 7-10, 48.

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1995). Direct and indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, with an exegesis of the error-choice test method. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40, 25-38.

Bellezza, F. S., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1986). Words high and low in pleasantness as rated by male and female college students. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18, 299-303.

Cannon, B. J., & Szuhay, J. A. (1986). Faking can elevate scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 30(2), 120-123.

Chan, F., Wang, M. H., Thomas, K. R., Wong, D., Chan, C. C. H., Lee, G., & Lui, K. (2002). Conjoint analysis in rehabilitation counseling research. Rehabilitation Education, 16, 179-195.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163-170.

Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interactions by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120-132.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Draine, S. (2003). Inquisit (Versions 1.33) [Computer Software]. Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.

Draine, S. (2005). Inquisit (Version 2.0) [Computer Software]. Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but ...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Evans, J. H. (1976). Changing attitudes towards disabled persons: An experimental study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 19, 572-579.

Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.

Feldman, D., Gordon, P. A., White, M. J., & Weber, C. (2002). The effects of people-first language and demographic variables on beliefs, attitudes and behavior intentions toward people with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 33, 18-25.

Fiske, S. T. (1982). Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 55-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gething, L., Lacour, J., & Wheeler, B. (1994). Attitudes of nursing home administrators and nurses towards people with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 60, 66-70.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit Association Test at age 3. Zeitschrift far Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 85-93.

Hardin, B., & Hardin, M. (2003). Conformity and conflict: Wheelchair athletes discuss sport media. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 246-259.

Howard, D. J. (1992). Gift-wrapping effects on product attitudes: A mood-biasing explanation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3, 197-224.

Kolodziej, M. E., & Johnson, B. T. (1996). Interpersonal contact and acceptance of persons with psychiatric disorders: A research synthesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1387-1396.

Leite, W. L. & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of Scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 140-154.

Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A. (1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1328-1333.

Livneh, H. (1985). Factor structure of attitudes toward people with disabilities--A replication. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29, 53-58.

Olkin, R., & Howson, L. J. (1994). Attitudes toward and images of physical disability. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 81-96.

Rao, S. (2004). Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature review. College Student Journal, 38, 191-198.

Rubin, S. E., & Roessler, R. T. (1995). Foundations of the Vocational Rehabilitation Process (4th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Rusch, F. R., Wilson, P. G., Hughes, C., & Heal, L. W. (1995). Interaction of persons with severe mental retardation and their nondisabled co-workers in integrated work settings. Behavior Modification, 19(1), 59-77.

Thomas, A. (2001). The multidimensional character of biased perceptions of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67, 3-9.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29.

Vargo, J. W., & Semple, J. E. (1984). Honest versus fake scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale--Form A. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 27, 182-185.

Wilson, P. R. (1968). Perceptual distortion of height as a function of ascribed academic status. Journal of Social Psychology, 74, 97-102.

Wong, D. W., Chan, F., Cardoso, E. D. S., Lam, C. S., & Miller, S. M. (2004). Rehabilitation counseling students' attitudes toward people with disabilities in three social contexts: A conjoint analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47, 194-204.

Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Yuker, H. E. (1986). The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale: Susceptibility to faking. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29, 200-204.

Yuker, H. E. (Ed.). (1988). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. New York: Springer.

Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scales: 1960-1985. Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University Center for the Study of Attitudes toward Persons with Disabilities.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons. Albertson, New York: Human Resources Foundation.

Michael J. White Phyllis Gordon

Ball State University Ball State University

Vance Jackson

Ball State University

Phyllis Gordon

Ball State University

Michael J. White, Department of Counseling Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306-0585. Email: [e-mail]

Table 1
IAT Difference-Score Indices by Association

                                        IAT Latency
                                     Difference (ms.)

Athlete and                       Mean     SD       d (a)
Attribute Comparisons
"Unfamiliar" before
Familiar Associations (b)

Disabled + Pleasant
(L) or Able-Bodied +
    Unpleasant (R)
    before Disabled +
    Unpleasant (L) or
    Able-Bodied +
    Pleasant (R)
    (Version l, Block 1)          273.4    249.8    1.09

Able-Bodied + Unpleasant
(L) or Disabled +
   Pleasant (R) before
    Able-Bodied +
   Pleasant (L) or
   Disabled + Unpleasant [R]
   (Version 1, Block 2)           320.9    185.8    1.73
                       Average    297.1    143.2    2.08

"Familiar" before
Unfamiliar Associations

Disabled + Unpleasant
(L) or Able-Bodied +
Pleasant (R) before Disabled +
Pleasant (L) or Able-
Bodied + Unpleasant (R)
(Version 2, Block 1)             -308.2    320.7   -0.96

Able-Bodied + Pleasant
(L) or Disabled +
Unpleasant (R) before
Able-Bodied +
Unpleasant (L) or
Disabled + Pleasant (R)
(Version 2, Block 2)              -297.1   238.1    -1.3
Average                           -302.6   231.1    -1.3

                                     Log of IAT Latency
                                         Difference

Athlete and                       Mean     SD       d (a)
Attribute Comparisons
"Unfamiliar" before
Familiar Associations (b)

Disabled + Pleasant
(L) or Able-Bodied +
    Unpleasant (R)
    before Disabled +
    Unpleasant (L) or
    Able-Bodied +
    Pleasant (R)
    (Version l, Block 1)          .230     .200     1.15

Able-Bodied + Unpleasant
(L) or Disabled +
   Pleasant (R) before
    Able-Bodied +
   Pleasant (L) or
   Disabled + Unpleasant [R]
   (Version 1, Block 2)           .281     .150     1.88
                       Average    .255     .123     2.08

"Familiar" before
Unfamiliar Associations

Disabled + Unpleasant
(L) or Able-Bodied +
Pleasant (R) before Disabled +
Pleasant (L) or Able-
Bodied + Unpleasant (R)
(Version 2, Block 1)              -.241    .246     -0.98

Able-Bodied + Pleasant
(L) or Disabled +
Unpleasant (R) before
Able-Bodied +
Unpleasant (L) or
Disabled + Pleasant (R)
(Version 2, Block 2)              -.263    .207     -1.27
Average                           -.252    .184     -1.37

Note. Scores are the differences between the two sequential
comparisons. Positive scores indicate a quicker response
for the second comparison; negative scores indicate a
quicker response for the first comparison. Higher absolute
values indicate a more negative attitude toward athletes
with disabilities. IAT = Implicit Association Test.

(a) Effect size, d= M/SD; (b) n = 69; (c) n = 46

Table 2
Correlations Between Implicit and Explicit Attitude Measures

                                   ATDP      SADP      SADPI

Attitude              (ATDP)        --
Toward Disabled
Persons Scale--
Form O

Scale of             R (SADP)     .632 **
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form

Scale of            R, Factor 1   .472 **   .892 **     --
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP 1)

Scale of            R, Factor 2   .619 **   .857 **   .593 **
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP2)

Scale of            R, Factor 3   .587 **   .793 **   .515 **
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP3)

Crowne-Marlowe                     .059      -.020     .011
Social
Desirability
Scale (SDS)

Implicit                           .240*     .231      .204
Association
Test Version 1

Implicit                           -.107     -.071     -.029
Association
Test Version 2

Natural                            .288*     .236      .203
Logarithm
of IAT
Version 1

Natural                            -.067     -.022     .029
Logarithm
of IAT
Version 2

                       SADP2       SADP3      SDS

Attitude
Toward Disabled
Persons Scale--
Form O

Scale of
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form

Scale of
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP 1)

Scale of                --
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP2)

Scale of              .689 **       --
Attitudes Toward
Disabled
Persons--Form
(SADP3)

Crowne-Marlowe         -.022       -.021      --
Social
Desirability
Scale (SDS)

Implicit              .261 *       .102      -.164
Association
Test Version 1

Implicit               -.110       -.072     .152
Association
Test Version 2

Natural                .226        .167      -.136
Logarithm
of IAT
Version 1

Natural                -.057       -.077     .139
Logarithm
of IAT
Version 2

Note: All participants completed the ATDP, SADP,
& SDS (n = 115) and either Version 1 (n = 69)
or Version 2 (n = 46) of the IAT.
To maintain connotative consistency, the signs
of correlations between the IAT and explicit
measures have been reversed; a positive
correlation means positive attitudes toward
persons with disabilities were expressed
on both measures.

* p < .05; ** p < .01.