Employment expectations as a differential indicator of attitudes toward people with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

The ability of the Employment Expectation Questionnaire-Beta version (EEQ-B) to differentially describe employment relevant attitudes towards people with disabilities was investigated. Labels of cognitive disability and gender w~re manipulated ~n an analog study. Respondents from a convenience sample of students read stimulus material concerning a Job and Job applicant and then rated the applicant's qualification for the job. A significant effect was found for disability, but not for gender or interaction effects. Post hoc contrasts suggest that labels of cognitive disability (mental retardation, mental illness, and traumatic brain injury) had a differential effect across the factors of the EEQ-B. The value of researching attitudes towards workers with disabilities is predicated on the following assumptions: (a) Employment-relevant attitudes can be identified, described, and measured; (b) the attitudes of significant others can mediate employment outcomes for people with disability; and (c) counselor efforts can effect positi ve change in employment-relevant attitudes. The study of employment-relevant attitudes towards people with disabilities has been a vital point of professional inquiry for several decades (Greenwood & Johnson, 1987). Employer attitudes are thought to be of particular value, given the potential amount of control they possess over employment outcomes (Levy, Jesop, Rimmerman, Francis, & Levy, 1993; Millington, Szymanski, & Hanley-Maxwell, 1994). ' Yet relevant attitudes remain difficult to define (Diksa & Rogers, 1996), measure (Schmelkin, 1988), and, consequently, to change (Greenwood & Johnson, 1987). The productive study of attitudes towards people with disabilities, has been a challenge to investigators (Millington, Strohmer, Reid, & Spengler, 1996; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960) for decades. Often, the subject of research are attitudes per se, with behavioral, cognitive, and affective aspects of attitudes receiving less attention (Grand, Bernier, & Strohmer, 1982; Marinelli, 1974; Millington et al., 1996). Generally, attitudes towards people with disabilities are thought to be complex and differentiated by disability category (Fuqua, Rathbun, & Gade, 1984), severity (Weller & Aminadav, 1989), attribution (Bordieri & Drehmer, 1987), and context (Gordon, Minnes, & Holden, 1990; Grand et al., 36 1982). But descriptive knowledge of attitudes without reference to subsequent cognition and behaviors ignores the motive for studying the construct in the first place: Attitudes are thought responsible for bias in decision-making processes that result in discriminatory behaviors. Future strategies for studying disability attitudes must identify relevant attitudes by context, and attempt to link them to process and outcomes. In the context of the workplace, employment expectations may provide a more utilitarian conceptualization of employ, ment-relevant attitudes. Where attitudes tend to be contextfree generalized value statements (e.g., cosmetic aversion, net affect; Kohler & Graves, 1973), expectations are context-specific prediction of behavioral outcomes (e.g., reliability, social integration; Millington et a!., 1994). Attitudes shape expectations (Gordon et a!., 1990), which are realized in the criteria of employment selection. Thus expectations are a surface representation of underlying attitudes that have the advantage of being tied to observable and measurable behaviors. Millington et a1.(1994) conceptualized employment expectations as predictions of job relevant behavior used by employers as criteria of screening and hiring new employees. In employment selection the goal of the employer is to acquire the most desirable worker. From the employer perspective, the most desirable worker is the one who will minimize cost and maximize productivity (Millington, Asner, Linkowski, & Der-Stepanian, 1996). Screening criteria are behaviors associated with worker cost to the organizaVolume 28, Number 4, Winter 1997 tiona Hiring criteria are behaviors associated with benefit to the organization. The employer's challenge is to use these criteria to predict which applicant will provide the most profitable mix of work-relevant behaviors. Millington, Reid, and Leierer (1997) suggest that a large number of work relevant behaviors are possible criteria of selection, but that these behaviors group around a much smaller set of factors, and that these factors provide the structure for employer decision-making. The authors have identified five factors including: (a) Job knowledge/production skills, the knowledge, skills, and abilities a worker has, or develops on the job, that effect ability to get the job done; (b) socialization and emotional coping skills, the social skills the worker has that effect ability to get along with coworkers and supervisors and cope with stress in the workplace; (c) trainability/task flexibility, the academic and thinking skills a worker has that effect ability to learn new skills, and be flexible in taking on new tasks; (d) dependability, the behaviors that demonstrate accountability for time-on-task; and (e) motivation/satisfaction, the behaviors that indicate commitment to and satisfaction with work. While the factors surfaced are non-inclusive and strictly preliminary, there is some empirical and theoretical support for their role in employment selection (Bills, 1988; Bluestone, 1989; Christman & Slaten, 1991; Krefting & Brief, 1977; Pooley & Bump, 1993). This model for investigating employmentrelevant attitudes suggests that disability-related attitudes may be differentiated across the factors of selection; that attitudes should be definable in terms negative or positive distortions of expectations; and that distortions in expectation profiles may result in biased employment outcomes. ' This study is a continuation of the analysis initiated in Millington et ala (1997). Whereas the previous analysis identified potential factors of employment selection, this analysis addresses the descriptive nature of expectation profiles. In this study we examine the effect of cognitive disability labels and gender on expectation profiles.