In a sample of 125 college students, statistically significant relationships were found between three causal attributions of disabilities and the rehabilitation approach chosen. Attributions to fate, or predestination, correlated with choosing to get the person to accept the disability as one's lot in life; attributions to natural or medical causes correlated with choosing medical or retraining services; and attributions to societally imposed barriers correlated with choosing the removal of those barriers, rather than trying to change the individual with the disability. A fourth predicted relationship between attribution to personal responsibility and the denial of public funds for rehabilitation was not supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albrecht, G.L., Walker, V.G., & Levy, J.A. (1982). Social distance from the stigmatized: A test of two theories. Social Science and Medicine, 16, 1319-1327.
2.
Arokiasamy, C. M. V, Rubin, S.E., & Roessler, R.T. (1995). Sociological aspects of disability. In S.E. Rubin & R.T. Roessler (Eds.), Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (4th ed., pp. 123-155). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
3.
Batchelder, W.H., & Romney, A.K. (1988). Test theory without an answer key. Psychometrika, 53, 71-92.
Bordieri, J.E., & Drehmer, D.E. (1987). Attribution of responsibility and predicted social acceptance of disabled workers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 30, 218-226.
6.
Bordieri, J.E., & Kilbury, R. (1991). Self-blame attributions for disability and perceived rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin , 34, 320-331.
7.
Bordieri, J.E., Sotolongo, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Physical attractiveness and attributions for disability . Rehabilitation Psychology, 28, 207-215.
8.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
Gordon, E.D., Minnes, P.M., & Holden, R.R. (1990). The structure of attitudes towards persons with a disability, when specific disability and context are considered. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 79-90.
10.
Hahn, H. (1985). Disability policy and the problem of discrimination . American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 293-318.
11.
Harasymiw, S.J., Home, M.D., & Lewis, S.C. (1978). Age, sex, and education as factors in acceptance of disability groups. Rehabilitation Psychology, 25, 201-208.
12.
Hershenson, D.B. (1983). A viconian interpretation of psychological counseling . Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 3-9.
13.
Hershenson, D.B. (1992). Conceptions of disability: Implications for rehabilitation . Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 35, 154-160.
14.
Shurka, E., & Katz, S. (1976). Evaluations of persons with a disability: The influence of disability context and personal responsibility for the disability . Rehabilitation Psychology, 25, 65-71.
15.
Shurka, E., Siller, J., & Dvonch, P. (1982). Coping and personal responsibility as factors in the perception of disabled persons by the non-disabled. Rehabilitation Psychology, 27, 225-233.
16.
Strohmer, D.C., Grand, S.A., & Purcell, M.J. (1984). Attitudes toward persons with a disability: An examination of demographic factors, social context, and specific disability . Rehabilitation Psychology, 29, 131-145.
17.
Thorn, K.R., Hershenson, D.B. & Romney, A.K. (1994). Causal attribution factors in conceptions of disability . Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 37, 315-327.
18.
Tringo, J.L. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. The Journal of Special Education, 4, 295-306.
19.
Wolfensberger, W. (1976). A brief overview of the principle of normalization . In S. A. Grand (Ed.), Severe disability and rehabilitation counseling training (pp. 90-123). Albany, NY: National Council on Rehabilitation Education.
