Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

Do contacts make a difference?

The effects of mainstreaming on student attitudes
toward people with disabilities
Donna Kam Pun Wong *
University of Hong Kong, Social Work & Social Administration, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Received 7 November 2006; accepted 22 November 2006

Abstract
This article examines the effects of mainstreaming on the attitudes of non-disabled students, in a
secondary school, toward people with disabilities. Responses from 389 Form 1 and Form 2 students were
analyzed. A 47-item Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale was used to measure student
attitudes at the beginning and end of the school year. The effect of educational intervention and daily
classroom contacts on student attitudes was examined. The competitive and achievement orientation of
Hong Kongs educational environment poses formidable barriers to the adoption of effective inclusive
practices in the classroom. The results of this study indicate that educational intervention outside the
classroom has a small effect in changing students attitudes.
# 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Inclusion; Disabilities; Peer attitudes; Social contacts; Educational intervention

Hong Kong lags far behind most other countries in its educational provisions for children with
special needs. It was not until 1997 that the Department of Education launched the Integrated
Education Pilot Project in an attempt to enhance the equal opportunities and social interactions of
students with and without disabilities in mainstream schools. The project aimed at supporting
children with special needs in mainstream schools by building up a whole school approach to
replace the previous pull-out model. The project targeted the mainstreaming of students with
mild learning disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, physical handicaps or
autistic disorders. Schools that were prepared to welcome disabled students were given extra
financial aid for equipment and accommodation alterations, for resource teachers and training

* Tel.: +852 28592089; fax: +852 28587604.

E-mail address: donnawkp@hku.hk.
0891-4222/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2006.11.002

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

71

support for teachers (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2002). Since 1997, the number of
children with disabilities in mainstream schools has gradually increased. This study aims to
examine the effects of mainstreaming on non-disabled students attitudes toward people with
disabilities. The effects of educational intervention and daily social contacts on student attitudes
toward people with disabilities were examined by comparing attitude scores at the beginning and
the end of the school year in a mainstream secondary school which admitted five students with
disabilities into its junior forms.
1. Literature review
Social contact with peers with disabilities is considered to be a key variable in shaping attitudes
(Manetti, Schneider, & Siperstein, 2001; Maras & Brown, 2000; Rimmerman, Hozmi, &
Duvdevany, 2000). Maras and Brown (1996) conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine the
temporal effects of inter-group contact on the attitudes of non-disabled children toward disability.
The children, aged from 8 to 10 years old, were randomly assigned to participate in the experimental
group of an integrated program or a control group. Twenty-six children in the integrating
(experimental group) and 24 children, without disabilities in the non-integrating (control group)
had their attitudes measured 3 times over a 3-month period. The experimental group became more
positive in their social orientations over time, while little change was seen in the controls. However,
the study also revealed that children with disabilities were still rated unfavorably in comparison to
their non-disabled peers despite the improvement in attitudes over the 3-month period. The
researchers suggested that future research should focus both on preparing mainstream children and
teachers for the inclusion of disabled students in their classrooms, and on the effects of attitudes
toward children with disabilities who are integrated into mainstream schools.
Hendrickson, Shokoohi-Yekta, Hamre-Nietupski, and Gable (1996) examined what 1137
middle and high school students felt about forming friendships with peers with severe
disabilities. The majority of these students were willing to form friendships with peers with
severe disabilities. Some of the reasons students gave for being friends with disabled students
were altruistic. They saw themselves as the person responsible for initiating the friendship. The
main barriers to forming friendships with peers with severe disabilities were a sense of
incompetence, discomfort and anxiety about being teased by others, and a fear of non-acceptance
by their own circle if they interacted with disabled students.
Another study by Maras and Brown (2000), which attempted to compare two theoretical
models of social contact, produced negative findings. This study differentiated between two types
of inclusive school settings as reflecting an interpersonal model and an inter-group model of
social contact. A total of 256 children, aged between 5 and 11, were selected from 4 classes in
each of the 8 participating schools. The children were asked to indicate their preference for who
they wanted to play with. Personal interviews were also conducted to elicit pre-existing
stereotypes and attitudes about disabilities in general. A negative response to contact with people
with disabilities was found in all of the schools. Qualitative data indicated that children felt
uncomfortable in relation to peers with disabilities if they were not given adequate information
about the nature of the disabilities. The contrast between these findings and those of the earlier
study by the same researchers (Maras & Brown, 1996) was noted. The discrepancies in peer
acceptance between the two studies were attributed to the presence in the earlier study of regular
structured co-operative activities between students with and without disabilities.
Rimmerman, Hozmi, and Duvdevany (2000) examined the effects of contact with children
with developmental disabilities on the attitudes of Israeli volunteer students. They measured the

72

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

attitude of 139 volunteer students using the Disability Factor Scale-General (Siller, 1988), taking
both the baseline and post-test measurement after 4 months of contact through tutoring. The scale
includes seven factors: interaction strain, rejection of intimacy, generalized rejection,
authoritarian virtuousness, inferred emotional consequences, distressed identification, and
imputed functional limitation. Using a quasi-experimental design, the 62 volunteers who chose to
tutor children with disabilities were taken to be the experimental group, and the other 77
volunteers who chose to tutor children without disabilities were the controls. In both groups, prior
contact with people with disabilities was also taken to be an independent variable. Regardless of
prior contacts, the students who tutored children with developmental disabilities had more
positive attitudes on the factors of rejection of intimacy and generalized rejection. The group of
volunteers who had both prior and current contact with people with disabilities had a more
favorable attitude on both the imputed functional limitation and also generalized rejection
factors. Initial contact served to remove the rejection of people with disabilities, while prolonged
contact helped to develop a more balanced and realistic understanding of the ability and
functional capacities of disabled people. The study concluded that the association between
contact and attitudes is related to time and length of exposure.
As noted by Verplanken and Meijnders (1994), the positive evaluation of peers with
disabilities is based on a process of cognitive reasoning, while the negative affective response is
based on emotions that occur mainly without reasoning. Hastings and Graham (1995) opine that a
cognitive understanding of and positive values toward disability would necessarily enhance
social acceptance of students with disabilities in the integrated classroom. However, if an
interaction with children with disabilities is seen as threatening the social status and self image of
their non-disabled peers, there would be a high incidence of non-acceptance. In a meta-analysis
of research from 1990 to 2000, Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) reviewed a total of 20 studies on
attitudes of children without disabilities in inclusive educational settings, and concluded that
children preferred peers without disabilities compared to those with physical or intellectual
disabilities. Positive evaluations of peers with disabilities may not be able to counteract the
negative affective outcomes of social interactions in real life situations. Structuring a favorable
contact situation seemed to be crucial for positive attitudes to be upheld and negative attitudes to
be rectified.
Judging from the literature reviewed, it can be concluded that the proximity and presence of
students with disabilities in the general classroom does not automatically bring about positive
attitudes. On the whole, students with disabilities were less popular, and active facilitation and
thoughtful intervention seems to hold the key to positive social acceptance in the general
classroom. The results of attitudinal studies in inclusive educational settings pointed to the
importance of structured intervention to increase the chance of positive social interactions.
Hence, the dynamics of attitude change are closely intertwined with social influences, and in
particular with the interpersonal context of social groupings and self identity. Many researchers
(Archie & Sherrill, 1989; Hastings & Graham, 1995; Horne, 1985) have found that attitude
change in children depends on whether the interactions are meaningful and carefully structured.
The study reported herein examined the effects of mainstreaming on non-disabled student
attitudes toward people with disabilities. The following hypotheses will be tested to understand
the importance and nature of social contacts in fostering attitude changes.
1. At the end of the academic year, attitude changes towards people with disabilities for those
students who are in the same class as the disabled students will be significantly more positive
than the rest of the student sample.

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

73

2. At the end of the academic year, attitude changes toward people with disabilities for those nondisabled students who have participated in educational programs will be significantly more
positive than the rest of the student sample.
2. Method
2.1. Subjects
The study targeted the 406 Form 1 and Form 2 students at a mainstream secondary school. In
the 10 classes of Form 1 and Form 2 students, there were only 5 students with special needs. Of
these students, 3 had autism, 1 had a hearing impairment and 1 had a physical impairment.
Students with special needs were in 4 out of the 10 classes. The class sizes and the distribution of
students with special needs are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Measure: Questionnaire on Student Attitudes toward People with Disabilities
The attitudes of students toward people with disabilities were examined with a questionnaire
that incorporated a 47-item Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale (please
refer to Appendix A). The scale was developed locally in the Baseline Survey of Students
Attitudes towards People with a Disability (Pearson, Wong, & Hui, 2003) a study conducted by
the Equal Opportunities Commission in Hong Kong. The Students Attitudes towards People
with a Disability Scale was constructed by drawing references from three of the most widely used
attitude scales: the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons (Antonak, 1988), of which the
Chinese version has been validated in the local context (Chan, Hua, Ju, & Lam, 1984); the
Acceptance Scale by Voeltz (1980); and the Student Questionnaire by Shapiro (1999). Four
components, constructed as four sub-scales, included social acceptance (SA), optimism-human
rights (OH), behavioural misconceptions (BM) and pessimism-hopelessness (PH).
In the Baseline Survey of Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability (Pearson, Wong,
& Hui, 2003), the four sub-scales had Cronbachs Alpha scores ranging from 0.69 to 0.85, which
supported the reliability of these scales (Pearson et al., 2003). In this same study, the sub-scales
were also able to differentiate student attitudes toward people with different types of disabilities.
The sub-scales scores showed that students had less favorable attitudes toward people with
Table 1
Distribution of students with disabilities within the student sample
Class

No. of students

A1A
A1B
A1C
A1D
A1E
A2A
A2B
A2C
A2D
A2E

38
37
42
42
41
40
40
42
42
42

Total

406

Types/number of student with special needs

Autism/1
Autism/1
Hearing impairment/1
Nil
Nil
Physical impairment/1; Autism/1
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
5

74

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

intellectual impairment and the ex-mentally ill than toward people with physical, visual or
hearing impairments. This predictive power supported the general validity of the scale.
2.3. Procedure
The questionnaire was administered at the beginning and end of the school year and a matched
paired t-test was performed to analyze the changes in attitudes of the students. The independent
variables were program participation, demographic variables, and classmates or non-classmates.
The questionnaire involved paper and pencil responses and was administered by the respective
class teachers during class lessons. Students were assured of confidentiality and there was
voluntary participation in the research. An instruction sheet and report form was given to teachers
for standardization of the administration procedures and for the reporting of any special incidents
or problems in the data collection procedures. A total of 406 questionnaires were collected in
September of 2002. By the end of the school year (June 2003), 400 students had participated in
the post-test measurement. After matching and cleaning up the aggregated data set, responses
from 389 students were analyzed.
3. Results
3.1. Reliability and validity of the instrument
The mean age of the student was 13.3 with a standard deviation of 0.97. The ratio of male
(49.9%) and female students (50.6%) was quite balanced. The item scores for attitude statements
in each sub-scale of the Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale were computed
and Cronbachs Alpha scores of the scale were analyzed for both the baseline and post-test
scores. The attitude scale had a total of 47 items with four sub-scales, which were social
acceptance (SA) (17 items), optimism-human rights (OH) (8 items), behavioral misconceptions
(BM) (13 items) and pessimism-hopelessness (PH) (9 items). Students were asked to rate their
agreement and disagreement to the items on a 4-point scale. The Cronbachs alpha scores ranged
from 0.68 to 0.90 which indicated that all four sub-scales had high reliability in both the baseline
and post-test measurements (Table 2).
It is commonly believed and empirically supported that the attitude construct has relatively
stable properties, and should reflect a stable representation of the students evaluation and
acceptance of people with disabilities. A comparison between the baseline and post-test
measurements with paired t-test indicated that there were no significant differences for all of the
four attitude sub-scales. There were also high correlations between the baseline and post-test
scores of individual students (Table 3). This further supported the stability and reliability of the
Table 2
Reliability analysis of the Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale (N = 406)
Sub-scales

Social acceptance (17 items)

Optimism-human rights (8 items)
Behavioral misconceptions (13 items)
Pessimism-hopelessness (9 items)

Cronbachs Alpha
Pre-test

Post-test

0.90
0.80
0.84
0.77

0.90
0.82
0.85
0.79

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

75

Table 3
Correlations of pre-test and post-test scores of the Students Attitudes Sub-scales (N = 389)
Sub-scales

Social acceptance (17 items)

Optimism-human rights (8 items)
Behavioral misconceptions (13 items)
Pessimism-hopelessness (9 items)

0.64***
0.56***
0.64***
0.51***

***

p < 0.001.

attitude scale as there was high congruency in the testretest reliability. This demonstrated that
the attitude sub-scale constructs were rather stable over time. The longitudinal comparison
ensured that the variations in the attitude scores could be attributed to independent variables
rather than the natural maturity of students over the timeframe of 1 year.
3.2. Attitude changes of classmates
Independent sample t-tests were performed to examine the differences in attitude changes
between classmates and non-classmates. Four classes with 144 students belonged to the
classmate group and the rest (245 students) constituted the non-classmate group (Table 4). The ttest statistics indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups
(Table 4). Hence, the classmates were not becoming more positive or negative in their attitudes
toward disability as a result of being in the same class as the students with disabilities. ANOVA
was also computed to explore whether there were significant differences among the classes.
These results were negative.
In the post-test questionnaire, one question was asked to ascertain the students subjective
perception of attitude changes over the past year. As shown in Table 5, 88 students, comprising
22.1% of the student sample, reported having developed a different attitude in the past year. Among
this group of 88 students, 46.6% attributed the change in attitude to the influence of TV programs,
27.3% to educational programs in school, 23.9% to newspapers/magazines and 22.7% considered
the source of influence came from contacts at school with students with disabilities (Table 5).
3.3. Attitude changes of program participants
Statistical computations were made to identify the effects of educational programs. Ninetyeight students in Forms 1 and 2 had participated in educational programs that aimed to facilitate
social interactions between students with and without disabilities. The programs were specially
Table 4
t-Test comparison of attitude changes between classmates and non-classmates (N = 389)

SA CHANGE
HR CHANGE
BM CHANGE
PH CHANGE
a

Classmates (n = 144)

Non-classmates (n = 245)

Ma

Ma

0.15
0.51
0.30
0.69

S.D.
7.18
3.44
5.15
4.33

0.23
0.10
0.52
0.04

Effect size (pooled S.D.)

S.D.
5.00
3.06
4.20
3.03

0.01
0.13
0.05
0.18

A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.

0.13.
1.23
0.45
1.74

76

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

Table 5
Perceived factors of forming different impressions on people with disabilities in the past year (N = 88)
No. of students

Educational programs at school

Contact with SN classmates at school
Contact with other people with SN
Family/relatives
Friends
Television programs
Newspapers/magazines

24
20
10
10
12
41
21

27.3
22.7
11.4
11.4
13.6
46.6
23.9

Total

88

100.0

Table 6
t-Test comparison of attitude changes between program participants and non-participants (N = 389)
Participants
(n = 98)

SA CHANGE
HR CHANGE
BM CHANGE
PH CHANGE
a
b
**

Non-participants
(n = 291)

Ma

S.D.

1.52
0.18
0.33
0.08

6.81
3.40
4.88
3.66

Ma

Effect size (pooled S.D.)

S.D.

0.78
0.40
0.48
0.40

5.45
3.14
4.47
3.54

3.01**,b
1.53
0.28
1.16

0.40
0.18
0.03
0.13

A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.
Equal variances not assumed (F = 8.11, **p < 0.01).
p < 0.01.

designed to instill a message of acceptance toward people with disabilities. The attitude changes
of the program participants along each sub-scale were compared with the rest of the sample and it
was found that there was a positive change in social acceptance (Table 6). On average, the
program participant group scored an attitude mean difference of 1.52 in social acceptance
(t = 3.01, p < 0.05), whereas the other students did not have a significant attitude change (mean
difference = 0.78). The effect size is 0.4, which is moderate (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan,
1999). To further ascertain the direction of the attitude change, the attitude scores were
compressed into two points, with 1 indicating a more negative orientation and 0 a positive
orientation. As shown in Table 7, the compressed scores of program participants still showed a
Table 7
t-Test comparison of compressed attitude changes between program participants and non-participants (N = 389)
Participants
(n = 98)
Ma
CSA CHANGE
CHR CHANGE
CBM CHANGE
CPH CHANGE
a
b
**

1.30
2.58
0.46
0.35

Non-participants
(n = 291)
S.D.
3.26
3.00
3.02
1.76

Ma
0.18
2.67
0.70
0.15

Effect size (pooled S.D.)

S.D.
2.36
2.52
2.43
1.55

0.43
0.03
0.09
0.12

A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.
Equal variances not assumed (F = 8.11, **p < 0.01).
p < 0.01

3.15**,b
0.29.
0.74.
1.07

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

77

Table 8
Multiple regression analysis in predicting attitude changes (N = 389)
Variables
Sex
Age
Fathers education
Mothers education
Housing
Number of computers
Have participated in programs
Have known or been in contact with disabled people

Standardized Beta
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.13
0.06

t
0.83
0.81
0.95
0.39
0.17
1.00
3.02**
1.47

positive and significant attitude change (t = 3.15, p < 0.05) in the social acceptance sub-scale.
The effect size is 0.43, which is moderate (Springer et al., 1999).
3.4. Prediction of attitude change
Regression analysis was computed to eliminate the possible spurious effects of sociodemographic variables from the main effects of the key independent variables of program and
contact. Multiple regression analysis was performed on the four attitude change scores with the
following as independent variables: sex, age, education of father, education of mother, housing
type, number of computers at home, contact with people with disabilities and participation in
programs. The results are shown in Table 8. In the model summary of attitude changes in social
acceptance, only the program variable had an independent effect on student attitude changes. In
the case of the other three sub-scales, no independent variables could be entered into the
equation. The multiple regression analysis ruled out the possibility of spurious effects of
demographic variables on attitude changes of students. Hence, attitude changes could more
confidently be attributed to the key variable of participation in educational programs.
4. Discussion
4.1. Classroom contacts and attitude change
The quantitative research findings revealed no significant differences in attitude scores
between the classmates and non-classmates of the students with disabilities. The first hypothesis
was not supported. These findings call attention to the complexity and nature of social contacts in
an inclusive educational setting. As Allport (1954) emphasized, a desirable condition for social
contact is a shared goal. This preset condition does not always exist in local educational settings.
Although Hong Kong students might share the common goal of attaining academic achievement,
they have to compete with each other and achieve in a highly individualistic manner. Educational
cultures that have a strong achievement orientation foster a strong sense of rivalry and elitism in
the classroom.
The school in this study did not deploy teaching assistants in mainstream classrooms as there
are too many subjects in the secondary school setting. Curriculum constraints limit the range of
feasible inclusive educational practices that can be implemented. Useful inclusive educational
practices such as collaborative teaching and peer tutoring (Salisbury, Gallucci, Palombaro, &
Peck, 1995; Shapiro, 1999) have not been adopted by the school. Without deliberate and

78

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

thoughtful inclusive practices, it is not surprising that being in physical proximity to students with
special needs did not necessarily bring forth attitude changes among students. Schools in Hong
Kong are largely judged by the results achieved by students in public examinations. While the social
interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1998) may have rightly described the mechanisms
and group environment that are conducive to the social acceptance of students with disabilities, the
prevalent emphasis on academic achievement would affect the chances of successful co-operation
and the outcomes of social contact between students with and without disabilities.
Co-operative groups in the classroom may have little chance of fostering interdependence
when the competence of the group members is not on a par or complementary. As the school in
this study did not lower the academic requirements for students with special needs, students with
disabilities struggled to keep up with the curriculum, and their presence in the mainstream
classroom was often considered a burden. Some students resisted and resented being in the same
project groups as students with disabilities, who were either perceived as free riders or burdens in
meeting the academic requirements of the group.
4.2. Effects of educational programs
At the end of the school year, the students who had participated in educational programs had a
significantly higher positive change in their attitudes toward people with disabilities, as shown in
Table 6. These changes were confined to the social acceptance sub-scale. There were no changes in
the basic core values of human rights and the beliefs about behavioral misconceptions. The second
hypothesis was therefore partially supported. In comparison with classroom activities, group cooperation in educational programs outside the classroom, which involved physical and adventure
based activities, provided social contacts of a different nature. As group members might be on a par
in terms of non-academic competence and potential, the small groups, under thoughtful adult
supervision and guidance, were able to facilitate positive interactions and meaningful co-operation
between students with and without disabilities. Yet it should also be noted that this group cohesion
and morale might also be short lived. The interdependence between the students might not
necessarily be sustainable after the educational program had ended. The effects on attitude change
were limited by the time, duration and specific content of the educational program.
Such short-term educational intervention would need to work against the competitive and
individualistic culture in the mainstream classroom. Mutual goals and interdependence existed
for certain student groups when they shared similar levels of social resources and competence.
For example, an autistic student was able to help other members to win a game during an
overnight camp because of his physical strength and trust toward fellow group members. Yet, the
effects were short lived and the co-operative spirit of the group could not be carried over into the
general classroom.
4.3. Implications for inclusive educational policies and practices
The findings of the study were very much in line with the literature and point out the
challenges of fostering social acceptance in the general classroom. Empirical studies by Evans
et al. (1992), Scheepstra, Nakken, and Pijl (1999) and Yude, Goodman, and McConachie (1998)
indicated that inclusion does not automatically lead to more social contact and friendships
between students with and without special needs. Furthermore, Shapiro (1999) cautioned against
the simplistic view that social contact would necessarily bring about a favorable change in
attitudes toward people with disabilities.

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

79

The present findings indicate that given the right tasks and adult facilitation, co-operative groups
in the non-academic arena can be effective in fostering interactions and possibly favorable attitude
changes toward people with disabilities. Knowledge of disabilities, the development of appropriate
skills, being part of a co-operative group structure, and adult modeling and coaching are all
important ingredients in the fostering of attitude changes throughout the process of prolonged social
contact between students with and without disabilities. Knowledge about the nature of disabled
students special needs was essential for the barriers and misconceptions in initial social encounters
to be overcome. This knowledge could also help students to develop empathy toward, and have
differential expectations of the students with disabilities. In ongoing social interactions, both
students with and without disabilities would have to learn a new set of rules and skills in relating to
each other that would identify commonalities and accommodate differences. It would be desirable
if the co-operation between students would bring about mutual satisfaction and positive outcomes.
Conscious effort would be required to pave the way so that positive and constructive roles would be
assigned to students with disabilities in co-operative groups. As suggested by Goldstein (2002),
teachers can assist students with disabilities to gain entry into student groups by reducing the costs
and increasing the rewards for typical peers. Adult facilitation is essential to enable less socially
capable students to connect with others in co-operative small groups.
Teachers or social workers could make use of the contact situations as a reciprocal learning
process for students with and without disabilities. In the focus group interviews, some students
revealed a willingness to help their disabled classmates, but they were not given opportunities or
provided with the appropriate structures (such as the role of peer helpers or tutors) that would
allow them to relate to the students with disabilities. They were also doubtful about their own
capabilities and worried about possible social rejection from others if they intended to try to show
a little kindness toward the students with disabilities. Adolescents are in an exploration and
experimentation period. They need adult guidance and facilitation in the small group to create a
sense of safety so that they can step out of their own egocentric selves and be willing to empathize
with others. Students also need to be aware of their own limitations and weaknesses before they
can accept people who are different from themselves. Many of the group dynamics and
interpersonal relationships provide a good starting point for self-reflection and understanding, for
students both with and without disabilities. Students can explore the virtues of friendship and
diversity by interacting with and helping those less capable than themselves. It would be helpful
to think of ways to minimize costs and increase social incentives and recognition for students
willing to accommodate peers with disabilities. For example, explicit recognition can be given
for assisting the student with disabilities to take up simple tasks and responsibilities in the group.
Further research is needed to identify strategies and teaching practices that make use of small cooperative groups inside and outside the classroom.
4.4. Limitations of the study
Students attitudes toward people with disabilities were shown to be stable and consistent
within the sample. This finding lends support to the reliability of the instrument as well as the
stability of the attitude constructs. The comparison between the student groups had to be made
conservatively because there were limitations in controlling all the variables and conditions in the
study. In examining the effects of social contact, a gross differentiation between classmates and
non-classmates was taken to be the independent variable. This was far from adequate as an
estimation of the frequency, intensity, and nature of social contacts between students with and
without disabilities. The quantitative findings on the effects of contact were, therefore, not

80

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

definitive and should be interpreted with caution. The operational definition and measurement of
social contact were not rigorously quantified because of the limited opportunities for research
team members to be on site and take frequency counts of different kinds of contacts in and outside
the classroom. The feasibility and co-operation of the schools in accommodating the research
team members in the school settings had to be taken into account in the research design.
Similarly, the construct of educational intervention that targeted attitude change was also
based on a broad classification of program participants and non-participants. Since the overall
number of students participating in these program interventions was rather small, it would not be
statistically sensible to divide this group even further into participants of different program types.
Teachers predetermined the type and number of educational interventions and also the target
group of students to be invited to participate. Hence, the sub-sample of program participants was
non-randomized and did not necessarily correspond in its basic characteristics with the full
sample. Despite having a significant difference in attitude scores between program participants
and non-participants, the positive effects of the programs on attitude changes might be a result of
a social desirability or self-selection factor. Further research will have to be conducted to probe
into the dynamics and strategies of various types of educational intervention in fostering attitude
changes toward people with disabilities.
5. Conclusions
The present study demonstrates that social contacts do make a difference if educational
intervention is carefully structured in a supportive school environment. However, efforts to foster
positive attitude changes has to work against the ethos of social ranking based on competence
which is inherent in the educational culture and structural environment. Students have to compete
with each other and achieve in a highly individualistic manner. Positive rewards and reciprocity
in social contacts hold the key in fostering positive attitudes towards peers with disabilities. The
findings of the study were congruent with the existing literature and could explain how some
social and ecological features could influence students attitudes and actual behavior toward
peers with disabilities. The findings clearly establish the need for good teaching practices that
facilitate mutual benefits and co-operation between students with and without disabilities in
academic tasks within the mainstream classroom.
Appendix A
A.1. Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale
The following are examples of items in the social acceptance (SA) sub-scale
1.
2.
3.
4.

If there is a disabled student in my class, I would talk to them.

It is really not a big deal to tease somebody by calling him/her a disabled.
I dont want a disabled person sitting next to me on the bus.
If I had a disabled brother or sister, I wouldnt tell anyone.
The following are examples of items in the optimism-human rights (HR) sub-scale

1. Disabled children should not be provided with a high school education.

2. Disabled people should be allowed to live where and how they choose.

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

81

3. Disabled workers should receive the same wage as compared with other workers for the same
workload.
4. I do not mind having a service centre for disabled people in my residential neighbourhood.
The following are examples of items in the behavioral misconceptions (BM) sub-scale
1.
2.
3.
4.

Disabled
Disabled
Disabled
Disabled

people
people
people
people

are no different from others in many ways.

can never really be happy.
show a deviant personality type.
are not a burden of their family and the society.

The following are examples of items in the pessimism-hopelessness (PH) sub-scale

1. Disabled individuals can be expected to fit into competitive society.
2. Keeping severely disabled people alive is scientifically unnatural and lies in the face of
survival for the fittest.
3. It is a waste of money to have special facilities/services for disabled people.
4. Severely disabled people cannot really benefit from an education.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Antonak, R. F. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics, and scales.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Archie, V. W., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of mainstreamed and non-mainstreamed children
in physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 319322.
Chan, F., Hua, M.-S., Ju, J. J., & Lam, C. S. (1984). Factorial structure of the Chinese Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled
Persons: A cross-validation study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 7, 317319.
Education and Manpower Bureau (2002). Whole-school approach to integrated education. http://www.emb.gov.hk/
index.aspx?nodeID=185&langno=1. Retrieved on 10th October 2006. Last updated on 10th September 2005.
Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., Berryman, J., & Hollowood, T. M. (1992). Peer interactions and social
acceptance of elementary-age children with sever disabilities in an inclusive school. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 205212.
Goldstein, H. M. L. (2002). Promoting social communication: Children with developmental disabilities from birth to
adolescence. In H. Goldstein, L. A. Kaczmarek, & K. M. English (Eds.), Promoting social communication: Children
with developmental disabilities from birth to adolescence (pp. 525). Baltimore: Paul H.
Hastings, R. P., & Graham, S. (1995). Adolescents perceptions of young people with severe learning difficulties: The
effects of integration schemes and frequency of contact. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 149160.
Hendrickson, J. M., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Hamre-Nietupski, S., & Gable, R. A. (1996). Middle and high school students
perceptions on being friends with peers with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 1928.
Horne, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer and parent reactions. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale, L.
Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and
research on small groups. NY: Plenum Press.
Manetti, M., Schneider, B. H., & Siperstein, G. (2001). Social acceptance of children with mental retardation:
Testing the contact hypothesis with an Italian sample. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25,
279286.
Maras, P., & Brown, R. (1996). Effects of contact on childrens attitudes toward disability: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26, 21132134.
Maras, P., & Brown, R. (2000). Effects of different forms of school contact on childrens attitudes toward disabled and
non-disabled peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 337351.

82

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age childrens attitudes towards persons with physical
or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 243265 (Carfax
Publishing Company).
Pearson, V., Wong, D. K. P., & Hui, H. S. K. (2003). A baseline survey of students attitudes towards people with a
disability. Hong Kong: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Rimmerman, A., Hozmi, B., & Duvdevany, I. (2000). Contact and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities among
students tutoring children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25,
1318.
Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M. M., & Peck, C. A. (1995). Strategies that promote social relations among
elementary students with and without severe disabilities in inclusive schools. Exceptional Children, 62, 125138.
Scheepstra, A. J. M., Nakken, H., & Pijl, S. J. (1999). Contacts with classmates: The social position of pupils with Downs
syndrome in Dutch regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14, 211220.
Shapiro, A. (1999). Everybody belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward classmates with disabilities. NY: Garland
Pub Co.
Siller, J. (1988). The general form of the Disability Factor Scales Series (DFS-G). In R. F. Antonak, & H. Livneh (Eds.),
The measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities. Springfield Il: Charles C Thomas.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 2151.
Verplanken, B., & Meijnders, A. (1994). Emotion and cognition: Attitudes toward persons who are visually impaired.
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88, 504511.
Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Childrens attitudes toward handicapped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 455
464.
Yude, C., Goodman, R., & McConachie, H. (1998). Peer problems of children with hemiplegia in mainstream primary
schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 533541.