Attitudes toward People with Developmental Disabilities in Chinese and American Students: The Role of Cultural Values, Contact, and Knowledges

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. …