Effects of Handicap Severity, Responsibility, and Race on Impressions of Substance‐Abusing Mothers and Their Children

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine how individuals’ impressions of a handicapped child and the child's mother would be affected by (a) the mother's apparent degree of responsibility for the child's handicap (operationalized as engaging or not engaging in alcohol abuse while pregnant), (b) severity of the child's handicap, and (c) race of the mother (black vs. white). Impressions were defined as respondents'(a) decisions regarding funding for special education services for the child, (b) emotional reactions toward the mother and the child, (c) perceptions of traits possessed by the mother, and (d) evaluations of the fairness of payment strategies for special education resources for the child. A vignette approach was used in which each respondent read one of eight possible descriptions of mother and child. Results indicated that although mothers were evaluated more negatively when they engaged in alcohol abuse than when they did not, these critical impressions did not “spill over” to negatively color appraisals of the child. Mothers who were black and who had a severely handicapped child were evaluated more negatively than were white mothers in the same situation, although the reverse occurred when the child's handicap was described as being only moderate. Implications are discussed.

Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges.

“…Finally, most of the experiments are not designed to test basic theoretical issues (for some exceptions, see K. L. Dion & Dion, 1987;Ellard & Bates, 1990;Hafer, 2000aHafer, , 2000bHafer, , 2002cKaruza & Carey, 1984;Schmitt, 1991) but are instead attempts to apply the existing knowledge of just-world theory to different types of targets. The most frequent goal in this vein has been to apply previous research on responses to victims to help understand reactions to different victim groups (e.g., Hergovich, Ratky, & Stollreiter, 2003;Kerr, Bull, MacCoun, & Rathborn, 1985;Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981;Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1990;Murphy-Berman, Sullivan, & Berman, 1993;Murray & Stahly, 1987;Schuller et al, 1994;Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, Blaauw, & Patel, 2003;Sherman, Smith, & Cooper, 1982Triplet, 1992;Triplet & Sugarman, 1987;Villemur & Hyde, 1983;Whatley & Riggio, 1993).…”

“…L. Dion & Dion, 1987; Ellard & Bates, 1990; Hafer, 2000a, 2000b, 2002c; Karuza & Carey, 1984; Schmitt, 1991) but are instead attempts to apply the existing knowledge of just-world theory to different types of targets. The most frequent goal in this vein has been to apply previous research on responses to victims to help understand reactions to different victim groups (e.g., Gruman & Sloan, 1983; Hergovich, Ratky, & Stollreiter, 2003; Kerr, Bull, MacCoun, & Rathborn, 1985; Luginbuhl & Mullin, 1981; Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1990; Murphy-Berman, Sullivan, & Berman, 1993; Murray & Stahly, 1987; Schuller et al, 1994; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, Blaauw, & Patel, 2003; Sherman, Smith, & Cooper, 1982–1983; Triplet, 1992; Triplet & Sugarman, 1987; Villemur & Hyde, 1983; Whatley & Riggio, 1993).…”

“…One problem with the literature reviewed here is that it is relatively unsystematic. First, some of the studies containing hypotheses on the basis of just-world processes were not intended to focus on applying, extending, or modifying this particular theory; rather, just-world theory and research was used to arrive at a subset of hypotheses, whereas other theories or areas of research formed the basis of other hypotheses (e.g., Covati, Foley, & Coffman, 2001; Hergovich et al, 2003; Kray & Lind, 2002; McGraw & Foley, 2000; Murphy-Berman et al, 1993; Pargament & Hahn, 1986; Schuller et al, 1994; Shaffer et al, 1986; Sheridan et al, 2003; Simmons & Mitch, 1985; Skarlicki, Ellard, & Kelln, 1998; Stephan & Holahan, 1982; Triplet, 1992; Triplet & Sugarman, 1987; Villemur & Hyde, 1983). This use of just-world theory and research is not problematic in and of itself; indeed, the frequent application of just-world theory to social issues, especially reactions to victims, shows its intuitive appeal in this domain.…”

Effect of Personal Injustice on Attributions for the Success of Others

“…One way to do this is to blame the victim by making internal attributions for the suffering, which maintains one's belief in justice. The justice-motive theory has been tested with various targets such as the unemployed (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), victims of poverty (Pancer, 1988), the handicapped (Murphy-Berman, Sullivan, & Berman, 1993), AIDS patients (Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1990;Triplet & Sugarman, 1987), rape victims (GilmartinZena, 1983;Karuza & Carey, 1984), cancer patients (Braman & Lambert, 2001), and numerous others (for reviews, see Hafer & Begue, 2005;Lerner, 1980;Lerner & Miller, 1978). One of the consistent findings in the justice-motive research is that the justice motive leads to more internal attributions for the misfortunes of others but a greater tendency to help or compensate victims when given a chance.…”