Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities: the role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability

Abstract

Within the published empirical record, a limited number of investigations exist that study the association between socio-political ideologies of preservice teachers and their attitudes toward disability-related matters within schools. To the extent that individual socio-political ideology and discomfort with disability remain mostly unexplored, this state of affairs may unwittingly compromise the capacity of future educators to assist students with special needs. The purpose of our study was to test relationships between preservice teachers' conservative ideologies and discomfort with disability on the one hand and perceived negative attitudes toward students with disabilities and opposition to inclusion on the other. Our correlational findings indicate that preservice educators who report being higher in social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, economic and cultural conservatism, and discomfort with disabilities are more likely to oppose inclusion and to hold negative attitudes toward students with disabilities. Regression analyses revealed that social dominance orientation and discomfort with disability were stronger predictors of negative attitudes toward students with disabilities and opposition to inclusion than cultural conservatism/right-wing authoritarianism. These findings lend support to teacher preparation programs assisting preservice teachers in understanding (a) their attitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities and (b) the impact their dispositions may have on their future effectiveness in supporting these students in their efforts to become productive and independent members of society.

Are All Conservatives Alike? A Study of the Psychological Correlates of Cultural and Economic Conservatism

“…Research by Van Hiel and colleagues (e.g., Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006;Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007) has demonstrated strong empirical associations between the RWA scale and cultural conservatism, suggesting that these measures may be, in large part, measuring the same thing. Economic conservatism does not appear to be synonymous with social dominance orientation, although correlations between these factors tend to be fairly high-with rs in the .40s and lower .50s-in western European (see Cornelis & Van Hiel, 2006;see Van Hiel & Kossowska, 2007;see Van Hiel et al, 2004) and U.S. (see Brandes & Crowson, 2008) samples.…”

Who opposes rights for persons with physical and intellectual disabilities?

“…SDO, on the other hand, is a tendency to view the world in terms of social hierarchies and a preference for one's own social groups to dominate over others (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). As can be expected from these descriptions, researchers studying RWA and SDO have shown them to be related to prejudice and intolerance involving a wide array of social groups, including immigrants and ethnic minorities (Altemeyer, 1998;Roets, Van Hiel, & Cornelis, 2006;Sibley, Robertson, & Wilson, 2006;Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2005), homosexuals (Altemeyer, 1996;Goodman & Moradi, 2008;Sibley et al, 2006;Whitley, 1999), women (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007), feminists (Duckitt, 2006), and even students with disabilities (Brandes & Crowson, 2009). Despite these findings, RWA and SDO scores have also been shown to be differentially predicted by measures of core personality traits (see Duckitt, 2001;Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roets, 2007), worldview beliefs (Duckitt, 2001;Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, & Birum, 2002), and motivational goals (see Cohrs, Moschner, Maes, & Kielmann, 2005;Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002).…”

Comparison of Brunei Preservice Student Teachers’ Attitudes to Inclusive Education and Specific Disabilities: Implications for Teacher Education

“…LeRoy and Simpson (1996) found teachers' positive attitudes increased with more teaching experience. Studies also demonstrated that special and general education teachers who received training in instructional methodologies were able to implement inclusive programs more successfully (Ernst & Rogers, 2009;Hill, 1999;Peterson & Beloin, 1998;York & Vandercook, 1990), as they have more empathy and willingness to accept students with disabilities in the classroom (Brandes & Crowson, 2009;Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007;Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010;Minke et al, 1996).…”