Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 511–520
Employer Attitudes Towards the Work Inclusion of People With Disability Laura Nota, Sara Santilli, Maria C. Ginevra and Salvatore Soresi Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Accepted for publication 16 October 2013
Background This study examines the importance of work in life of people with disability and then focuses on employer attitudes towards these people. In the light of Stone and Colella’s model, the study examines the employer attitudes and the role of variables such as type of disability, employer experience in the hiring of persons with disabilities, the description of hypothetical hirees with disabilities, the ways in which employers evaluate work performance and social acceptability, and the work tasks that they consider appropriate for workers with disability.
Method Eighty employers were randomly assigned to standard condition (candidates with disability were presented by referring to the disability they presented) or positive condition (candidates were presented with reference to their strengths). Results It was found that the type of disability and its presentation influence employer attitudes. In addition, realistic and conventional tasks were considered appropriate for hirees with disabilities. Conclusions Implications were discussed. Keywords: disability, employer attitudes, work inclusion
Introduction The workplace inclusion of people with disabilities has become a pressing issue in our ostensibly ‘modern’ society; in particular, in Europe, the employment rate for people with disability is only 11.3%, and 10.3% of disabled unemployed individuals are currently seeking work (European Commission 2008). In Italy, up to 66% of people with disability remain excluded from the work market: only 3.5% are employed and 0.9% are seeking work. Among individuals with disability actually employed, those with physical disability have the highest employment rate (16.3%), as compared to the other types of disability. In general, the situation, moreover, is apparently worsening, due to the rather new phenomenon of constant job market uncertainty, caused by globalization and by continual and rapid technological advances (Wehmeyer et al. 2011). The current economic crisis businesses are undergoing is associated with fewer investments in human capital, reducing hiring opportunities thereby, especially for people considered unable to continually meet high productivity standards (Stensrud 2007). Specifically in the Italian context, data © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
on the impact of the economic crisis reveal a severe drop in the number of disabled workers hired, with a 2-year hiring reduction of 34% (National Institute of Statistics 2011). Yet work is a crucial issue in the lives of people with disability to the construction of personal identity, life needs satisfaction and finding meaning in one’s life, and it also provides important opportunities for applying knowledge acquired and personal talents (Szymanski & Hershenson 2005). Moreover, competitive employment contexts allow people with disability to work alongside non-disabled individuals and to reap the same benefits, such as standard wages and contracts as these other workers, in similar jobs for the same business (Verdugo et al. 2006). Despite various national and state policies promoting supported employment, the placement of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities in competitive context is quite low (39%) (Wehman 2011). Stigma still plays an important role in this phenomenon, as people with disability are avoided by others, subjected to prejudice, and are frequently viewed as being less desirable employees than individuals with no disability (Colella et al. 1998). 10.1111/jar.12081
512 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
In this respect, Stone & Colella (1996) developed a model to describe and account for the issue of workplace discrimination, by listing factors influencing the ways in which disabled individuals are treated in organizations, which both (i) disabled workers’ (applicant/employee) attributes and (ii) observer (coworker/employer) characteristics. In the light of this approach, this study therefore focused on surveying employer attitudes and on examining the role of some variables that could characterize them.
Attitudes towards employees with disability: the characteristics of persons with disability Type of disability Stone and Colella’s model (1996) suggests that the most critical factor characterizing employer work attitudes is a type of disability, positing that the degree of progressiveness, chronicity and/or visibility of a given disability is directly related to the probability of the person with this disability being classified as undesirable by observers, which then elicits negative emotional reactions in them. For example, McMahon et al. (2008) observed people with intellectual disability filed more hiring discrimination allegations than people with sensory disability, especially in consideration of the fact that they could require long training times and intensive on-the-job support. Another intervening variable in this regard is the perception of potential for disruptiveness or dangerousness, for example, of the extent to which a given individual with disability will likely comply with norms or rules, perform poorly, create unease in coworkers, and/or cause tension or uncertainty in social interaction. Bell & Klein (2001) observed that hypothetical hirees with physical disability obtained more positive evaluations than those with mental illness and neurological disability did. Similarly, Russinovaa et al. (2011) found that employers tend to use more negative words (e.g. dangerous, unpredictable) when they describe individuals with mental illnesses than candidates presenting physical disability and were more concerned about their work and social performance.
Type of presentation (focus on disability versus focus on strengths) Ren et al. (2008) observed that the ways in which a person with disability was described to employers were
associated with different attitudes of the human resource professionals surveyed. The meta-analysis results yielded showed that when people with disability (e.g. physical disability, mental disability, or unspecified disability) were presented via descriptions of their work experience in previous jobs or work activities, attitudes about their hiring and performance potential were more positive than in the condition not presenting this type of information. Taken together, these findings suggest that potential employers receiving information on applicants’ strengths, such as skills acquired and positive behaviour shown to be useful in the workplace, tend to show more positive attitudes towards these candidates.
Attitudes towards employees with disability: employer characteristics Attitudes towards work performance and social acceptability The foremost aspect of concern for employers is that of business productivity, which leads them to observe closely employee performance. Moreover, the current high degree of competition and continued technological advances on the global scale have raised the business expectations, which in turn are associated with ever higher-performance standards (Shinkle 2012). In this respect, Louvet et al. (2009) showed that people tend to evaluate workers with disability as being less competent professionally than people without disability. These more negative evaluations can reduce the likelihood of hiring people with disability (Henkens et al. 2008). They are rated more positively, however, in terms of being likable and socially accepted, than for work performance. It is therefore reasonable to expect that employer attitudes about the work performance of people with disability are more negative than those concerning their potential for social acceptability and quality of social interaction in the workplace.
Type of previous experience Hernandez et al. (2008) observed that employers with previous experience with disabled individuals tend to react more positively to them and to hire them more frequently than employers with little or no contact. Moreover, McManus et al. (2010) maintain that, in addition to the degree of contact and knowledge about disability, quality of interaction is another key element to consider in attitude research. In fact, they observed © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
that greater quality of contact was associated with more positive attitudes and stated that these findings add support to previous results, suggesting that positive experiences lead to less intergroup anxiety and hostility. Some researchers, however, were unable to replicate these findings. For example, Popovich et al. (2003) did not observe positive attitudes in employers who had previous experiences with the work inclusion of people with disability.
Type of work considered appropriate for disabled individuals Observers use job prototypes and stereotypes about specific disabilities to examine the degree of matching between a person’s abilities and the perceived job requirement. For example, Louvet (2007) observed that employment discrimination was more frequent for jobs involving a high degree of interpersonal contact and, in particular, towards individuals with highly visible disabilities (e.g. wheelchair need) due to fear of eliciting discomfort and social avoidance in potential customers. Moreover, Gouvier et al. (2003) conversely examined the interaction between job complexity (lower/higher intellectual requirement) and type of disability (physical disability/intellectual disability/mental illness), finding that applicants with chronic mental illness were significantly less likely to be hired than other applicants, even for a low-complexity task (e.g. janitor). A job’s cognitive complexity is the variable employers take into consideration when examining the possibility of including persons with disability in their workplace. According to Holland’s (1997) RIASEC classification, Gottfredson (1986) highlighted that investigative occupations tend to be characterized by a high degree of complexity; social, artistic and enterprising occupations, by an average degree of complexity; and realistic and conventional occupations, by a low degree of complexity. Specifically, realistic occupations are viewed as being less complex than conventional ones, as the latter also involve the use of calculations and quantifications.
513
We believe that studies similar to the one presented herein can play a key social role: although employers surveyed in field settings tend to show more negative attitudes towards individuals with disability than observed in laboratory settings (Ren et al. 2008), the data yielded thereby can be very enlightening for social health workers, researchers and/or career counsellors interested in studying and promoting work inclusion processes. Hence, we proposed descriptions of hypothetical candidates with disability who were seeking a job. Specifically, we referred to young adults with intellectual (Down syndrome; intellectual disability) or sensory (hearing; SD) disability, or presenting problems with aggressiveness and angry outbursts (psychological problems; PP). This latter is the category of workers with the fewest job inclusion opportunities in Italy, also due to the current economic crisis (National Institute of Statistics 2011). We therefore hypothesized that, in function of the disabled person’s described characteristics, the employers would show more positive attitudes towards people with less severe disability and in particular towards individuals with SD and in particular: (a) as regard ‘type of disability’, more positive attitude for both job performance and social acceptability, and more negative attitudes towards the applicant presenting PP, at least in terms of social acceptability. (b) as regards ‘type of presentation’, a more positive attitude in the presence of descriptions highlighting the applicants’ strengths. With respect to the employer characteristics, it was expected that they would show: (c) a more negative attitude towards the applicants’ potential work performance than towards their social acceptability; (d) a more positive attitude by employers with previous experience hiring people with disability. (e) It was also expected that, for type of work considered appropriate for disabled individuals, the employers would indicate realistic and conventional jobs as being more suitable.
Research goals and hypotheses In the light of the above-described findings, we opted to survey a group of employers who might actually find themselves in the position of having to hire individuals with disability or who have already hired. They were involved in the industrial sector, which still employs the greatest number of employees in Italy (National Institute of Statistics 2011) and in Europe (European Union 2011). © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Method Participants We recruited 80 Italian employers, company’s owners, working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry businesses (50–250 employees and annual sales less than 50 million Euros): 54 men and 26 women, aged 26–77 years (mean age = 43.05; SD = 10.9). Forty employers
514 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
had previous experience in hiring people with disability in their companies, and 40 did not have this type of experience. With respect to educational level, eight employers (10%) had received a middle school diploma; 49 (61.25%) had obtained a high school diploma and 23 (28.75%) a university degree.
Instrument The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire, ‘Work for people with disability’ (see Table 1), which examines employers’ attitudes towards people with disability. The instrument was developed through a pilot study by Santilli (2010) and based on the work of (i) Louvet et al. (2009), who underscored the need to examine social judgment aspects towards people with disability in work contexts presenting both performance and social acceptability aspects, and (ii) Gouvier et al. (2003), who used brief descriptions about hypothetical
Table 1 Items of ‘Work for people with disability’ Questionnaire Work for people with disability Question: Which job function or work task he/she could take in your company? Work performance subtest 1. Do you believe that the probability that he/she finishes a task alone is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely) 2. Do you believe that the probability that he/she performs his/her tasks properly is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely) 3. Do you believe that his/her work performance will be (1 = very poor; 7 = very good) 4. Do you believe that his/her capacity to consider details is (1 = very poor; 7 = very good) 5. Do you believe his/her need to receive assistance and supervision from co-workers is (reversed score; 1 = very low; 7 = very high) 6. Do you believe that he/she is perceived to be a ‘resource’ in the workplace (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 7. Do you believe that his/her tendency to make mistakes is (reversed score; 1 = very low; 7 = very high) Social acceptability subtest 8. Do you believe that others will avoid him/her (reversed score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 9. Do you believe that his/her co-workers will care about him/her (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 10. Do you believe that his/her presence in the workplace diminishes opportunities for his/her co-workers to do their jobs well (reversed score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
candidates’ disabilities, including a few notes on the candidates’ educational and training pathways. The questionnaire presented descriptions of three hypothetical candidates with disability, the first characterized by a SD; the second by intellectual disability; and the third with PP. The employers were first asked to indicate what job positions and tasks each candidate would be capable of carrying out in their companies. Ten 7-point scale items followed, to examine the employers’ attitudes towards workers with disability. The principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis conducted by Santilli (2010) on the 10 items suggested a two-factor solution. The first factor (38.5% of the variance), Work Performance, was composed of seven items and concerned attitudes about work performance (a = 0.88). The second factor (17.7% of the variance), Social Acceptability, comprised three items and reflected attitudes towards the candidate’s potential for being socially accepted (a = 0.78). The two average scores of the Work Performance and Social Acceptability subtests were used to verify our hypotheses a, b, c and d, as attitude indicators for each disability (the higher the value, the more positive the attitude). To verify hypothesis e, we examined the job task descriptions employers indicated as being possible for the hypothetical workers with disability, (classified into one of Holland’s six categories, 1997) for each candidate.
Experimental design This study is an analogue research design that uses written description of potential hiree with disability, to assess the employer attitudes towards people with disability. Because of the simulated nature, analogue research is characterized by high level of internal validity, allows to control every aspect of the stimuli presented to employers and ensure that the only difference between the stimulus provided to two groups (standard presentation condition and positive presentation condition) lies in the independent variables being investigated (Gouvier et al. 2003). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: one in which candidates with disability were presented by referring to the disability and the difficulty they presented (standard presentation condition: focus on disability) and one in which the candidates were presented with reference also to their positive aspects (positive presentation condition: focus on strengths). Among the 40 employers with experience hiring people with disability in their businesses, 20 were randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’ © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
515
l’Inserimento Lavorativo) for two provinces in northeastern Italy. In a preliminary step, the employers, whose list of names was provided by these services, were contacted by phone and were informed as to the purpose of the study; they were given details on participation in the study (including its voluntary and anonymous nature) and about the researchers. They were asked whether they had experience of employment of workers with disabilities. Of those who accepted to participate, approximately 98% of the employers completed and sent the questionnaire back. Employers opting to participate were sent the questionnaire via email. To reduce social desirability bias, it was specified that there were no right or wrong answers and that the researchers were exclusively interested in surveying the employers’ ideas.
condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition. Twenty of the 40 employers without experience were randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’ condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition. As regards, in the ‘standard presentation’ condition, for example, for SD, participants received the following description: ‘Carolina is a young woman with a severe hearing disability; in addition to not hearing, she usually emits only some sounds, which are difficult to understand. She has trouble reading and understanding texts requiring logical reasoning processes. She attended a vocational school and obtained a high school diploma. Her teachers described her as a person with listening comprehension and verbal expression problems, but they also stated she tends to be calm and self-controlled. She has moreover participated in-service business training. Only the participants in the ‘positive presentation’ condition received, for example, the following additional information in the instructions: ‘Carolina has participated in business internships, and her business tutors have described her as a dedicated young woman, who carried out her tasks when receiving clear written instructions’. Both male and female candidates were described for each disability, and gender was randomly assigned to the two conditions, with the same percentage.
Results Preliminary analyses Table 2 shows the correlations obtained, Skewness values, the standard error for Skewness, Kurtosis values and the standard error for Kurtosis. Significant correlations were observed between Work performance and Social acceptability in all three conditions. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, conducted to determine whether the results were analysable via parametric analyses and to verify whether the participants’ scores reflected a normal distribution, resulted that all our values were higher than the critical value (P ≤ 0.05), and we therefore considered the parametric statistics to be appropriate for analysing the data. Lastly, to determine
Procedure The company’s owner who participated in the study was identified by contacting local business associations and the work inclusion services (SIL - Servizio per Table 2 Correlations between variables Subtests and type of disability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Work performance SD Social acceptability SD Work performance intellectual disability Social acceptability intellectual disability Work performance PP Social acceptability PP Skewness Standard error of skewness Kurtosis Standard error of kurtosis
*P = 0.05. **P = 0.01. SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
1
2
3
4
5
6
–
0.48** –
0.54** 0.31** –
0.40** 0.64** 0.49** –
0.33** 0.22* 0.37** 0.20* –
0.01 0.26 0.75 0.52
0.67 0.26 0.24 0.52
0.19 0.26 0.53 0.52
0.63 0.26 0.13 0.53
0.02 0.27 0.44 0.54
0.21* 0.34** 0.14 0.36** 0.33** – 0.41 0.27 0.49 0.54
516 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
disability 9 Performance area, F1,72 = 98.651, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.578. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc t tests revealed that the worker with PP was rated less positively than SD and intellectual disability candidates in terms of social acceptability. (b) Type of presentation. A main effect for the candidates’ type of presentation (‘standard’ versus ‘positive’) was significant, F1,72 = 6.616, P = 0.012, g2 partial = 0.084. Specifically, regardless of the type of disability, the employers showed more positive attitudes in the ‘positive presentation’ condition. A significant interaction was also yielded for Type of disability 9 Type of presentation 9 Performance area, F1,72 = 5.845, P = 0.012, g2 partial = 0.075. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc t tests revealed that in the ‘positive presentation’ condition, participants rated the candidate with PP more positively in social acceptability than they did in the ‘standard presentation’ condition; they also rated the candidate with SD more positively in work performance than they did in the ‘standard presentation’ condition. As regards candidate with intellectual disability, employers showed more positive attitudes both in work performance and social acceptability in the ‘positive presentation’ condition. (c) More focus on work performance. A main effect for work performance (within-variable) was yielded F1,72 = 93.454, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.565. The employers rated all candidates (intellectual disability, SD and PP) more positively in terms of social acceptability than in work performance. (d) Type of employer experience. A main effect for previous employer experience with disabled workers
whether there were any significant across-group differences in relation to both the participants’ and job candidates’ gender and the gender of the workers described in the survey. No significant employer gender differences in attitudes towards workers (Lambda di Wilks = 0.899, F6,67 = 1.259, P = n.s.) or candidate gender differences (Lambda di Wilks = 0.865, F6,67 = 1.742, P = n.s) resulted.
Hypotheses a, b, c, d A 3 9 2 9 2 9 2 mixed design multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with respect to employers’ attitude towards workers with disabilities. Type of disability (SD, intellectual disability and PP) and performance area (work performance, social acceptability) were treated as within-participant variables. Presentation condition (standard versus positive) and previous employer experience hiring workers presenting disability (experience versus no experience) were treated as between-participant variables. (a) Type of disability. The MANOVA (see Table 3) showed a main effect for the type of disability observed F1,72 = 44.952, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.38. A post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P showed that the participants, regardless of performance area (work performance versus social acceptability), rated the candidates with intellectual disability and SD more positively than candidate with PP. No differences emerged between candidates with SD and intellectual disability. Moreover, a significant interaction was also yielded for Type of Table 3 Means and standard deviations
Positive presentation condition
Previous experience
No previous experience
Total
Subtests and type of disability
M
SD
M
SD
M
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
4.38 5.82 3.77 5.91 4.06 4.11
1.29 1.15 1.06 0.82 1.27 1.19
3.89 4.98 3.58 5.40 4.27 3.75
1.03 1.30 0.92 0.96 1.26 1.83
4.12 5.39 3.67 5.65 4.17 3.92
Work performance SD Social Acceptability SD Work performance intellectual disability Social Acceptability intellectual disability Work performance PP Social Acceptability PP
Standard presentation condition
Total
Previous experience
No previous experience
Total
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1.17 1.28 0.98 0.92 1.25 1.55
3.48 5.20 3.37 5.45 3.36 2.80
1.05 1.38 1.27 1.14 1.15 0.67
3.39 5.63 3.21 5.23 3.78 3.33
1.33 1.16 1.37 1.06 1.13 1.56
3.43 5.43 3.29 5.33 3.59 3.09
1.19 1.27 1.31 1.09 1.14 1.25
3.79 5.41 3.48 5.50 3.89 3.52
1.23 1.27 1.16 1.01 1.22 1.46
SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
was not observed, F1,72 = 0.328, P = n.s. Significant interactions were not yielded. (e) Type of work activity considered appropriate. The job tasks the employers mentioned as being most appropriate for disabled individuals in their company contexts were first coded according to the Holland Codes (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) (Holland 1997). We then applied the two-way log linear model to categories mentioned by at least 10% of the participants. Specifically, Realistic and Conventional tasks were more frequently cited than the other categories, in all of the three disability conditions. Table 4 shows the Holland categories identified, the frequencies and percentages with which the employers mentioned each category, and an example of participant answers for each category. The following two variables were examined: (a) type of disability: SD, intellectual disability, PP; and (b) Holland category. The log linear analysis indicated only a statistically significant main effect for Holland category, k = 0.033, z = 0.971, P = 0.001. The Realistic category was more frequently mentioned than the Conventional one for candidates with intellectual disability, SD and PP.
Conclusions The present study was based on Stone & Colella’s (1996) research and aimed to contribute to a better understanding of which variables characterize the way potential employers actually think (and who, in any event, facilitate access to the world of work for people with impairments). Firstly, it was found that considering the type of disability as an essential element influencing attitudes enabled us to
517
show that our participants’ attitudes were more negative towards people with PP, than they were for candidates with intellectual disability and SD, especially in terms of social acceptability. Although providing support for the idea that type of disability is a significant factor characterizing employer attitudes (Stone & Colella 1996; Colella et al. 1998), our results highlight how psychological problems represent the condition most frequently associated with a negative view (Russinovaa et al. 2011). With respect to first hypothesis, we underscore that people with SD were not evaluated most positively overall and that indeed, no differences emerged for intellectual disability and SD. This finding could be due to the fact that, of the three disabilities presented, PP are generally less known and understood than hearing impairment (SD) and Down syndrome (intellectual disability) are, and that this lack of knowledge in an observer can elicit more negative views. In fact, the literature reports data supporting the idea that greater knowledge of the problems that people with disability experience can obviate stereotypes and a higher degree of personal interaction (Dixon et al. 2003). Other research findings support the idea that Down syndrome is one of the most well-known intellectual disability among the general population (Bittles et al. 2006). With respect to the variable of type of presentation, providing descriptions of some of the candidates’ strengths and appropriate conduct in previous work experiences allowed us to show that, as expected, this extra information was associated with more positive employer attitudes, as compared to the results in the condition describing their disability only. This result is in line with Stensrud (2007), who observed that receiving descriptions of what potential hirees actually know how to do help them better understand how to place them, diminishing the risks involved in this type of decision thereby.
Table 4 Frequencies and percentage of use of Holland categories and example of answers
Candidates with SD (n = 80)
Candidates with intellectual disability (n = 80)
Candidates with PP (n = 80)
Holland categories
F
%
Example of answer
F
%
Example of answer
F
%
Example of answer
Realistic Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional No answer
45 0 1 0 0 19 15
56.3 0 1.3 0 0 23.8 18.8%
Packager
33 0 0 0 2 19 26
41.3 0 0 0 2.5 23.8 32.5
Simple assembly worker
29 0 0 0 1 14 36
36.3 0 0 0 1.3 17.5 45
Post-assembly baler
Graphic designer
Archivist
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Sales Receptionist
Accountant
518 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
In this respect, it was found that all types of disability (intellectual disability, PP and SD) benefited from the presentation focusing on positive aspects. As regards intellectual disability, in particular, and the other disability considered (PP and SD), this finding is crucial (also in line with World Health Organization recommendations ICF; World Health Organization 2001), because it allows to underscore what people with disability can actually do. This approach can facilitate their levels participation, the inclusion into their communities and their quality of life (Nota et al. 2006; Schalock & Verdugo 2008; Soresi et al. 2011). Concerning the variable of employer characteristics, the type of dimension evaluated was, as expected, associated with different results: overall, the employers rated the social acceptability levels of people with disability more positively than they did their work performance. This finding is in line with Louvet et al.’s (2009) results showing that people tend to more positively rate disabled individuals in terms of their social ‘worth’ and use this tendency in some compensatory way for conversely rating performance negatively. Moreover, our comparison of attitudes towards performance versus social acceptability also obtained the strongest effect size: a possible explanation, which also reflects Luthans & Youssef’s (2007) findings, is that the employers focused more on the candidates’ performance levels. This phenomenon, which is also increasingly impacting people with disability, especially with intellectual disability, given the world of work’s current characteristics, can also even more negatively influence people with disability who cannot easily step up their performance levels, either quantitatively or qualitatively (Henkens et al. 2008). Previous employer experience hiring disabled workers conversely showed no relation with their attitudes. In fact, no significant differences were observed between employers with or with no previous hiring experience of this type. Considering that the experience was not associated with more positive or negative attitudes, it is most probably the quality of these contacts that characterize the relevance of this dimension, as also suggested by McManus et al. (2010). In fact, our participants were managing mid-size business in the Italian context. In these situations, employers interact with intermediaries and not always directly with workers, as conversely occurs with smaller companies (McMahon et al. 2008). This scenario can therefore limit occasions for employers to more closely examine, and have direct awareness of, the consequences of hiring a disabled worker.
Lastly, in reference to the work tasks employers considered to be appropriate for hirees with disability in their companies, as expected, Realistic and Conventional tasks (mostly the former) were most frequently mentioned. Although our study involved industrial sector employers, where realistic tasks are frequently encountered (Holland 1997), it is likely, in agreement with Gottfredson (1986), that these tasks are perceived as being less complex and therefore more easily carried out by people with disability. As regards in particular people with intellectual disability, we can conclude that, although their hiring is perceived by employers less negatively than other situations such as PP, benefits from the presentation that focuses on their positive aspects include more helpful attitudes in employers in both work performance and social acceptability. Moreover, as for other types of disability, employers mentioned jobs with a low degree of complexity (Realistic activities) as most appropriate for people with intellectual disability, and this can reduce their job opportunities.
Practical suggestions for career counsellors and social health workers interested in work inclusion processes The data yielded in the present study confirm that career counsellors and social health workers interested in work exclusion cannot afford to disregard potential employer attitudes (frequently considered the best predictors of behavioural intentions) and that they must have a full grasp of this phenomenon, so as to recognize situations presenting greater impenetrability to workers with disability. To increase the likelihood of breaking through (and hopefully, breaking down) these barriers, well thought-out job applicant presentations should be prepared for potential employers. In particular, during the early phases of work inclusion, it is important that practitioners clearly describe to employers what applicants with disability know how to do, the experiences they have acquired in other training and work contexts, tasks that can perform, etc. It is indeed possible to elicit good impressions and more positive potential employer attitudes. Practitioners must, of course, avoid using diagnostic labels and should mostly provide descriptions of actions and activities that can be put to good workplace use, as also suggested by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization 2001). Moreover, as Horner-Jhonson (2002) underscored, knowledge of potential employer attitudes can help shed light on salient aspects to be emphasized in © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
sensitization campaigns targeting employers. Efforts should be made to develop these campaigns, in a general endeavour to facilitate work inclusion processes. An overall rethinking of stereotypes and negative attitudes towards the work performance potential of individuals with disability should be fostered. To promote a positive image, campaigns in aid of people with intellectual disability should present the skills these individuals have acquired in training and work contexts, their career achievements and their ability to support co-workers. Our findings can also be used to work with people with disability, especially those with intellectual disability, within a preventive perspective to help them list their skills and strengths. Career counsellors and social health workers could teach them how to analyse their work and training experiences, identify the actions carried out, career achievements, skills acquired and how to record them for example in appropriate notebooks, diaries, etc. These actions could be useful to the career development and self-presentation of people with intellectual disability in training and work contexts. Moreover, they can be taught to manage job interviews, highlighting their strengths, to mention skills and experience they have acquired in training and work contexts, and to discuss these in terms of work skills as well as social skills, and to list work tasks they might have covered, which pertain to various professional fields (Realistic, Conventional, but also to the Social, Artistic, Enterprising and Investigative). Highlighting to employers the skills and strengths of people with disability, stimulating novel ideas on possible actions that the employers themselves could carry out in the workplace, and, at the same time, enhancing the skills of individuals with disability so they become aware of what they are able to do, are all actions that can increase the likelihood of work inclusion for people with disability. This is in line with Burges et al. (2007), which have also shown that workers with intellectual disability have better levels of workplace inclusion when employers, co-workers and people with intellectual disability were trained through job training programmes.
Limitations and future directions The present study is limited in a number of ways. First, the present study is an analogue design that utilizes paper stimuli rather than actual individuals with disability. Second, we involved only company’s owners © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
519
working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry businesses, of two provinces in north-eastern Italy. This may affect the generalization of results to other forms of more structured company. Future studies could involve participants of more structured company, other Italian regions and other business. Thirdly, we examined three types of disability only and only one hypothetical candidate for each type of disability. Future research should examine different disabilities, for example, how employers view multiple disability, severe intellectual disability or complex psychiatric conditions. Furthermore, more male than female employers were involved. This gender gap actually reflects, however, the current Italian work context. Lastly, it could be useful to compare employers who, in these times of socioeconomic change, are experiencing the current crisis differently and the impact of these differences on their attitudes.
Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Laura Nota, Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy (e-mail: [email protected]).
References Bell B. S. & Klein K. J. (2001) Effect of disability, gender and job level on rating of job applicant. Rehabilitation Psychology 46, 229–246. Bittles A. H., Bower C., Hussain R. & Glasson E. J. (2006) The four ages of Down syndrome. European Journal of Public Health 17, 221–225. Burges P., Ouellette-Kuntz H. & Lysaght R. (2007) Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26, 29–37. Colella A., De Nisi A. S. & Varma A. (1998) The impact of ratee’s disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: the role of disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 102–111. Dixon K. A., Kruse D. & Van Horn C. E. (2003) Restricted Access: A Survey of Employers About People With Disabilities and Lowering Barriers to Work. The State University of New Jersey, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers, Washington, DC. European Commission (2008) Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2008). Employment in Europe 2008. European Union (2011) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2011. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
520 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Gottfredson L. S. (1986) Occupational aptitude patterns map: development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements. Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, 254–291. Gouvier W. D., Sytsma-Jordan S. & Mayville S. (2003) Patterns of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: the role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabilitation Psycholog 48, 175–181. Henkens K., Remery C. & Schippers J. (2008) Shortages in an ageing labour market: an analysis of employers’ behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19, 1314–1329. Hernandez B., McDonald K., Divilbiss M., Horin E., Velcoff J. & Donoso O. (2008) Reflections from employers on the disabled workforce: focus groups with healthcare, hospitality and retail administrators. Employ Respons Rights Journal 20, 157–164. Holland J. L. (1997) Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd edn. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa. Horner-Johnson A. (2002) Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 63 (6–B). Louvet E. (2007) Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology 52, 297–303. Louvet E., Rohmer O. & Dubois N. (2009) Social Judgment of people with a disability in the workplace: how to make a good impression on Employers. Swiss Journal of psychology 68, 153–159. Luthans F. & Youssef C. M. (2007) Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management 33, 321–349. McMahon B. T., Roessler R., Rumrill P. D. Jr, Hurley J. E., West S. L., Chan F. & Carlson L. (2008) Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of charging parties. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 18, 122–132. McManus J. L., Feyes K. I. & Saucier D. A. (2010) Contact and knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28, 579–590. National Institute of Statistics (2011) Italian Statistical Yearbook: The Country’s Situation in 2010. ISTAT, Roma. Nota L., Soresi S. & Perry J. (2006) Quality of life in adults with an intellectual disability: the Evaluation of Quality of Life Instrument. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50, 371–385. Popovich P. M., Scherbaum C. A., Scherbaum K. L. & Polinko N. (2003) The assessment of attitudes toward individual with
disabilities in the workplace. The Journal of Psychology 137, 163–177. Ren L. R., Paetzold R. L. & Colella A. (2008) A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management Review 18, 191–203. Russinovaa Z., Griffinb S., Blocha P., Wewiorskic N. & Rosoklijad I. (2011) Workplace prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 25, 227–241. Santilli S. (2010) Il lavoro per le persone con disabilita [Work for people with disability]. Unpublished manuscripts. Department of Psychology, University of Padua, Padua. Schalock R. L. & Verdugo M. A. (2008) Quality of life: from concept to application in the field of intellectual disabilities. Evaluation & Program Planning 31, 181–190. Shinkle G. A. (2012) Organizational Aspirations, Reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management 38, 415–455. Soresi S., Nota L. & Wehmeyer M. (2011) Community involvement in promoting inclusion, participation, and selfdetermination. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15, 15–28. Stensrud R. (2007) Integrating the Disabled into the Work Force: developing relationships with employers means considering the competitive business environment and the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50, 226–237. Stone L. D. & Colella A. (1996) A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review 21, 352–401. Szymanski E. M. & Hershenson D. B. (2005) An ecological approach to vocational behavior and career development of people with disability. In: Rehabilitation Counseling (eds R. M. Parker, E. M. Szymanski & J. B. Patterson) pp. 225–280. ProEd, Austin, TX. Verdugo M. A., Jordan de Urries F. B., Jenaro C., Caballo C. & Crespo M. (2006) Quality of Life of Workers with an Intellectual Disability in Supported Employment. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 19, 309–316. Wehman P. H. (2011) Employment for persons with disabilities: where are we now and where do we need to go? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 35, 145–151. Wehmeyer M. L., Palmer S. B., Davies D. K. & Stock S. (2011) The Role of Technology Use by a Person with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities as a Family Support. Rivista di studi familiari 2, 90–99. World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. ICF. WHO, Geneva.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 511–520
Employer Attitudes Towards the Work Inclusion of People With Disability Laura Nota, Sara Santilli, Maria C. Ginevra and Salvatore Soresi Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Accepted for publication 16 October 2013
Background This study examines the importance of work in life of people with disability and then focuses on employer attitudes towards these people. In the light of Stone and Colella’s model, the study examines the employer attitudes and the role of variables such as type of disability, employer experience in the hiring of persons with disabilities, the description of hypothetical hirees with disabilities, the ways in which employers evaluate work performance and social acceptability, and the work tasks that they consider appropriate for workers with disability.
Method Eighty employers were randomly assigned to standard condition (candidates with disability were presented by referring to the disability they presented) or positive condition (candidates were presented with reference to their strengths). Results It was found that the type of disability and its presentation influence employer attitudes. In addition, realistic and conventional tasks were considered appropriate for hirees with disabilities. Conclusions Implications were discussed. Keywords: disability, employer attitudes, work inclusion
Introduction The workplace inclusion of people with disabilities has become a pressing issue in our ostensibly ‘modern’ society; in particular, in Europe, the employment rate for people with disability is only 11.3%, and 10.3% of disabled unemployed individuals are currently seeking work (European Commission 2008). In Italy, up to 66% of people with disability remain excluded from the work market: only 3.5% are employed and 0.9% are seeking work. Among individuals with disability actually employed, those with physical disability have the highest employment rate (16.3%), as compared to the other types of disability. In general, the situation, moreover, is apparently worsening, due to the rather new phenomenon of constant job market uncertainty, caused by globalization and by continual and rapid technological advances (Wehmeyer et al. 2011). The current economic crisis businesses are undergoing is associated with fewer investments in human capital, reducing hiring opportunities thereby, especially for people considered unable to continually meet high productivity standards (Stensrud 2007). Specifically in the Italian context, data © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
on the impact of the economic crisis reveal a severe drop in the number of disabled workers hired, with a 2-year hiring reduction of 34% (National Institute of Statistics 2011). Yet work is a crucial issue in the lives of people with disability to the construction of personal identity, life needs satisfaction and finding meaning in one’s life, and it also provides important opportunities for applying knowledge acquired and personal talents (Szymanski & Hershenson 2005). Moreover, competitive employment contexts allow people with disability to work alongside non-disabled individuals and to reap the same benefits, such as standard wages and contracts as these other workers, in similar jobs for the same business (Verdugo et al. 2006). Despite various national and state policies promoting supported employment, the placement of adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities in competitive context is quite low (39%) (Wehman 2011). Stigma still plays an important role in this phenomenon, as people with disability are avoided by others, subjected to prejudice, and are frequently viewed as being less desirable employees than individuals with no disability (Colella et al. 1998). 10.1111/jar.12081
512 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
In this respect, Stone & Colella (1996) developed a model to describe and account for the issue of workplace discrimination, by listing factors influencing the ways in which disabled individuals are treated in organizations, which both (i) disabled workers’ (applicant/employee) attributes and (ii) observer (coworker/employer) characteristics. In the light of this approach, this study therefore focused on surveying employer attitudes and on examining the role of some variables that could characterize them.
Attitudes towards employees with disability: the characteristics of persons with disability Type of disability Stone and Colella’s model (1996) suggests that the most critical factor characterizing employer work attitudes is a type of disability, positing that the degree of progressiveness, chronicity and/or visibility of a given disability is directly related to the probability of the person with this disability being classified as undesirable by observers, which then elicits negative emotional reactions in them. For example, McMahon et al. (2008) observed people with intellectual disability filed more hiring discrimination allegations than people with sensory disability, especially in consideration of the fact that they could require long training times and intensive on-the-job support. Another intervening variable in this regard is the perception of potential for disruptiveness or dangerousness, for example, of the extent to which a given individual with disability will likely comply with norms or rules, perform poorly, create unease in coworkers, and/or cause tension or uncertainty in social interaction. Bell & Klein (2001) observed that hypothetical hirees with physical disability obtained more positive evaluations than those with mental illness and neurological disability did. Similarly, Russinovaa et al. (2011) found that employers tend to use more negative words (e.g. dangerous, unpredictable) when they describe individuals with mental illnesses than candidates presenting physical disability and were more concerned about their work and social performance.
Type of presentation (focus on disability versus focus on strengths) Ren et al. (2008) observed that the ways in which a person with disability was described to employers were
associated with different attitudes of the human resource professionals surveyed. The meta-analysis results yielded showed that when people with disability (e.g. physical disability, mental disability, or unspecified disability) were presented via descriptions of their work experience in previous jobs or work activities, attitudes about their hiring and performance potential were more positive than in the condition not presenting this type of information. Taken together, these findings suggest that potential employers receiving information on applicants’ strengths, such as skills acquired and positive behaviour shown to be useful in the workplace, tend to show more positive attitudes towards these candidates.
Attitudes towards employees with disability: employer characteristics Attitudes towards work performance and social acceptability The foremost aspect of concern for employers is that of business productivity, which leads them to observe closely employee performance. Moreover, the current high degree of competition and continued technological advances on the global scale have raised the business expectations, which in turn are associated with ever higher-performance standards (Shinkle 2012). In this respect, Louvet et al. (2009) showed that people tend to evaluate workers with disability as being less competent professionally than people without disability. These more negative evaluations can reduce the likelihood of hiring people with disability (Henkens et al. 2008). They are rated more positively, however, in terms of being likable and socially accepted, than for work performance. It is therefore reasonable to expect that employer attitudes about the work performance of people with disability are more negative than those concerning their potential for social acceptability and quality of social interaction in the workplace.
Type of previous experience Hernandez et al. (2008) observed that employers with previous experience with disabled individuals tend to react more positively to them and to hire them more frequently than employers with little or no contact. Moreover, McManus et al. (2010) maintain that, in addition to the degree of contact and knowledge about disability, quality of interaction is another key element to consider in attitude research. In fact, they observed © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
that greater quality of contact was associated with more positive attitudes and stated that these findings add support to previous results, suggesting that positive experiences lead to less intergroup anxiety and hostility. Some researchers, however, were unable to replicate these findings. For example, Popovich et al. (2003) did not observe positive attitudes in employers who had previous experiences with the work inclusion of people with disability.
Type of work considered appropriate for disabled individuals Observers use job prototypes and stereotypes about specific disabilities to examine the degree of matching between a person’s abilities and the perceived job requirement. For example, Louvet (2007) observed that employment discrimination was more frequent for jobs involving a high degree of interpersonal contact and, in particular, towards individuals with highly visible disabilities (e.g. wheelchair need) due to fear of eliciting discomfort and social avoidance in potential customers. Moreover, Gouvier et al. (2003) conversely examined the interaction between job complexity (lower/higher intellectual requirement) and type of disability (physical disability/intellectual disability/mental illness), finding that applicants with chronic mental illness were significantly less likely to be hired than other applicants, even for a low-complexity task (e.g. janitor). A job’s cognitive complexity is the variable employers take into consideration when examining the possibility of including persons with disability in their workplace. According to Holland’s (1997) RIASEC classification, Gottfredson (1986) highlighted that investigative occupations tend to be characterized by a high degree of complexity; social, artistic and enterprising occupations, by an average degree of complexity; and realistic and conventional occupations, by a low degree of complexity. Specifically, realistic occupations are viewed as being less complex than conventional ones, as the latter also involve the use of calculations and quantifications.
513
We believe that studies similar to the one presented herein can play a key social role: although employers surveyed in field settings tend to show more negative attitudes towards individuals with disability than observed in laboratory settings (Ren et al. 2008), the data yielded thereby can be very enlightening for social health workers, researchers and/or career counsellors interested in studying and promoting work inclusion processes. Hence, we proposed descriptions of hypothetical candidates with disability who were seeking a job. Specifically, we referred to young adults with intellectual (Down syndrome; intellectual disability) or sensory (hearing; SD) disability, or presenting problems with aggressiveness and angry outbursts (psychological problems; PP). This latter is the category of workers with the fewest job inclusion opportunities in Italy, also due to the current economic crisis (National Institute of Statistics 2011). We therefore hypothesized that, in function of the disabled person’s described characteristics, the employers would show more positive attitudes towards people with less severe disability and in particular towards individuals with SD and in particular: (a) as regard ‘type of disability’, more positive attitude for both job performance and social acceptability, and more negative attitudes towards the applicant presenting PP, at least in terms of social acceptability. (b) as regards ‘type of presentation’, a more positive attitude in the presence of descriptions highlighting the applicants’ strengths. With respect to the employer characteristics, it was expected that they would show: (c) a more negative attitude towards the applicants’ potential work performance than towards their social acceptability; (d) a more positive attitude by employers with previous experience hiring people with disability. (e) It was also expected that, for type of work considered appropriate for disabled individuals, the employers would indicate realistic and conventional jobs as being more suitable.
Research goals and hypotheses In the light of the above-described findings, we opted to survey a group of employers who might actually find themselves in the position of having to hire individuals with disability or who have already hired. They were involved in the industrial sector, which still employs the greatest number of employees in Italy (National Institute of Statistics 2011) and in Europe (European Union 2011). © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Method Participants We recruited 80 Italian employers, company’s owners, working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry businesses (50–250 employees and annual sales less than 50 million Euros): 54 men and 26 women, aged 26–77 years (mean age = 43.05; SD = 10.9). Forty employers
514 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
had previous experience in hiring people with disability in their companies, and 40 did not have this type of experience. With respect to educational level, eight employers (10%) had received a middle school diploma; 49 (61.25%) had obtained a high school diploma and 23 (28.75%) a university degree.
Instrument The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire, ‘Work for people with disability’ (see Table 1), which examines employers’ attitudes towards people with disability. The instrument was developed through a pilot study by Santilli (2010) and based on the work of (i) Louvet et al. (2009), who underscored the need to examine social judgment aspects towards people with disability in work contexts presenting both performance and social acceptability aspects, and (ii) Gouvier et al. (2003), who used brief descriptions about hypothetical
Table 1 Items of ‘Work for people with disability’ Questionnaire Work for people with disability Question: Which job function or work task he/she could take in your company? Work performance subtest 1. Do you believe that the probability that he/she finishes a task alone is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely) 2. Do you believe that the probability that he/she performs his/her tasks properly is (1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely) 3. Do you believe that his/her work performance will be (1 = very poor; 7 = very good) 4. Do you believe that his/her capacity to consider details is (1 = very poor; 7 = very good) 5. Do you believe his/her need to receive assistance and supervision from co-workers is (reversed score; 1 = very low; 7 = very high) 6. Do you believe that he/she is perceived to be a ‘resource’ in the workplace (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 7. Do you believe that his/her tendency to make mistakes is (reversed score; 1 = very low; 7 = very high) Social acceptability subtest 8. Do you believe that others will avoid him/her (reversed score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 9. Do you believe that his/her co-workers will care about him/her (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) 10. Do you believe that his/her presence in the workplace diminishes opportunities for his/her co-workers to do their jobs well (reversed score; 1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
candidates’ disabilities, including a few notes on the candidates’ educational and training pathways. The questionnaire presented descriptions of three hypothetical candidates with disability, the first characterized by a SD; the second by intellectual disability; and the third with PP. The employers were first asked to indicate what job positions and tasks each candidate would be capable of carrying out in their companies. Ten 7-point scale items followed, to examine the employers’ attitudes towards workers with disability. The principal axis factoring (PAF) analysis conducted by Santilli (2010) on the 10 items suggested a two-factor solution. The first factor (38.5% of the variance), Work Performance, was composed of seven items and concerned attitudes about work performance (a = 0.88). The second factor (17.7% of the variance), Social Acceptability, comprised three items and reflected attitudes towards the candidate’s potential for being socially accepted (a = 0.78). The two average scores of the Work Performance and Social Acceptability subtests were used to verify our hypotheses a, b, c and d, as attitude indicators for each disability (the higher the value, the more positive the attitude). To verify hypothesis e, we examined the job task descriptions employers indicated as being possible for the hypothetical workers with disability, (classified into one of Holland’s six categories, 1997) for each candidate.
Experimental design This study is an analogue research design that uses written description of potential hiree with disability, to assess the employer attitudes towards people with disability. Because of the simulated nature, analogue research is characterized by high level of internal validity, allows to control every aspect of the stimuli presented to employers and ensure that the only difference between the stimulus provided to two groups (standard presentation condition and positive presentation condition) lies in the independent variables being investigated (Gouvier et al. 2003). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: one in which candidates with disability were presented by referring to the disability and the difficulty they presented (standard presentation condition: focus on disability) and one in which the candidates were presented with reference also to their positive aspects (positive presentation condition: focus on strengths). Among the 40 employers with experience hiring people with disability in their businesses, 20 were randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’ © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
515
l’Inserimento Lavorativo) for two provinces in northeastern Italy. In a preliminary step, the employers, whose list of names was provided by these services, were contacted by phone and were informed as to the purpose of the study; they were given details on participation in the study (including its voluntary and anonymous nature) and about the researchers. They were asked whether they had experience of employment of workers with disabilities. Of those who accepted to participate, approximately 98% of the employers completed and sent the questionnaire back. Employers opting to participate were sent the questionnaire via email. To reduce social desirability bias, it was specified that there were no right or wrong answers and that the researchers were exclusively interested in surveying the employers’ ideas.
condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition. Twenty of the 40 employers without experience were randomly assigned to the ‘standard presentation’ condition and 20 to the ‘positive presentation’ condition. As regards, in the ‘standard presentation’ condition, for example, for SD, participants received the following description: ‘Carolina is a young woman with a severe hearing disability; in addition to not hearing, she usually emits only some sounds, which are difficult to understand. She has trouble reading and understanding texts requiring logical reasoning processes. She attended a vocational school and obtained a high school diploma. Her teachers described her as a person with listening comprehension and verbal expression problems, but they also stated she tends to be calm and self-controlled. She has moreover participated in-service business training. Only the participants in the ‘positive presentation’ condition received, for example, the following additional information in the instructions: ‘Carolina has participated in business internships, and her business tutors have described her as a dedicated young woman, who carried out her tasks when receiving clear written instructions’. Both male and female candidates were described for each disability, and gender was randomly assigned to the two conditions, with the same percentage.
Results Preliminary analyses Table 2 shows the correlations obtained, Skewness values, the standard error for Skewness, Kurtosis values and the standard error for Kurtosis. Significant correlations were observed between Work performance and Social acceptability in all three conditions. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, conducted to determine whether the results were analysable via parametric analyses and to verify whether the participants’ scores reflected a normal distribution, resulted that all our values were higher than the critical value (P ≤ 0.05), and we therefore considered the parametric statistics to be appropriate for analysing the data. Lastly, to determine
Procedure The company’s owner who participated in the study was identified by contacting local business associations and the work inclusion services (SIL - Servizio per Table 2 Correlations between variables Subtests and type of disability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Work performance SD Social acceptability SD Work performance intellectual disability Social acceptability intellectual disability Work performance PP Social acceptability PP Skewness Standard error of skewness Kurtosis Standard error of kurtosis
*P = 0.05. **P = 0.01. SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
1
2
3
4
5
6
–
0.48** –
0.54** 0.31** –
0.40** 0.64** 0.49** –
0.33** 0.22* 0.37** 0.20* –
0.01 0.26 0.75 0.52
0.67 0.26 0.24 0.52
0.19 0.26 0.53 0.52
0.63 0.26 0.13 0.53
0.02 0.27 0.44 0.54
0.21* 0.34** 0.14 0.36** 0.33** – 0.41 0.27 0.49 0.54
516 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
disability 9 Performance area, F1,72 = 98.651, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.578. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc t tests revealed that the worker with PP was rated less positively than SD and intellectual disability candidates in terms of social acceptability. (b) Type of presentation. A main effect for the candidates’ type of presentation (‘standard’ versus ‘positive’) was significant, F1,72 = 6.616, P = 0.012, g2 partial = 0.084. Specifically, regardless of the type of disability, the employers showed more positive attitudes in the ‘positive presentation’ condition. A significant interaction was also yielded for Type of disability 9 Type of presentation 9 Performance area, F1,72 = 5.845, P = 0.012, g2 partial = 0.075. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc t tests revealed that in the ‘positive presentation’ condition, participants rated the candidate with PP more positively in social acceptability than they did in the ‘standard presentation’ condition; they also rated the candidate with SD more positively in work performance than they did in the ‘standard presentation’ condition. As regards candidate with intellectual disability, employers showed more positive attitudes both in work performance and social acceptability in the ‘positive presentation’ condition. (c) More focus on work performance. A main effect for work performance (within-variable) was yielded F1,72 = 93.454, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.565. The employers rated all candidates (intellectual disability, SD and PP) more positively in terms of social acceptability than in work performance. (d) Type of employer experience. A main effect for previous employer experience with disabled workers
whether there were any significant across-group differences in relation to both the participants’ and job candidates’ gender and the gender of the workers described in the survey. No significant employer gender differences in attitudes towards workers (Lambda di Wilks = 0.899, F6,67 = 1.259, P = n.s.) or candidate gender differences (Lambda di Wilks = 0.865, F6,67 = 1.742, P = n.s) resulted.
Hypotheses a, b, c, d A 3 9 2 9 2 9 2 mixed design multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with respect to employers’ attitude towards workers with disabilities. Type of disability (SD, intellectual disability and PP) and performance area (work performance, social acceptability) were treated as within-participant variables. Presentation condition (standard versus positive) and previous employer experience hiring workers presenting disability (experience versus no experience) were treated as between-participant variables. (a) Type of disability. The MANOVA (see Table 3) showed a main effect for the type of disability observed F1,72 = 44.952, P = 0.001, g2 partial = 0.38. A post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P showed that the participants, regardless of performance area (work performance versus social acceptability), rated the candidates with intellectual disability and SD more positively than candidate with PP. No differences emerged between candidates with SD and intellectual disability. Moreover, a significant interaction was also yielded for Type of Table 3 Means and standard deviations
Positive presentation condition
Previous experience
No previous experience
Total
Subtests and type of disability
M
SD
M
SD
M
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
4.38 5.82 3.77 5.91 4.06 4.11
1.29 1.15 1.06 0.82 1.27 1.19
3.89 4.98 3.58 5.40 4.27 3.75
1.03 1.30 0.92 0.96 1.26 1.83
4.12 5.39 3.67 5.65 4.17 3.92
Work performance SD Social Acceptability SD Work performance intellectual disability Social Acceptability intellectual disability Work performance PP Social Acceptability PP
Standard presentation condition
Total
Previous experience
No previous experience
Total
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
1.17 1.28 0.98 0.92 1.25 1.55
3.48 5.20 3.37 5.45 3.36 2.80
1.05 1.38 1.27 1.14 1.15 0.67
3.39 5.63 3.21 5.23 3.78 3.33
1.33 1.16 1.37 1.06 1.13 1.56
3.43 5.43 3.29 5.33 3.59 3.09
1.19 1.27 1.31 1.09 1.14 1.25
3.79 5.41 3.48 5.50 3.89 3.52
1.23 1.27 1.16 1.01 1.22 1.46
SD, sensory disability; PP, psychological problems. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
was not observed, F1,72 = 0.328, P = n.s. Significant interactions were not yielded. (e) Type of work activity considered appropriate. The job tasks the employers mentioned as being most appropriate for disabled individuals in their company contexts were first coded according to the Holland Codes (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) (Holland 1997). We then applied the two-way log linear model to categories mentioned by at least 10% of the participants. Specifically, Realistic and Conventional tasks were more frequently cited than the other categories, in all of the three disability conditions. Table 4 shows the Holland categories identified, the frequencies and percentages with which the employers mentioned each category, and an example of participant answers for each category. The following two variables were examined: (a) type of disability: SD, intellectual disability, PP; and (b) Holland category. The log linear analysis indicated only a statistically significant main effect for Holland category, k = 0.033, z = 0.971, P = 0.001. The Realistic category was more frequently mentioned than the Conventional one for candidates with intellectual disability, SD and PP.
Conclusions The present study was based on Stone & Colella’s (1996) research and aimed to contribute to a better understanding of which variables characterize the way potential employers actually think (and who, in any event, facilitate access to the world of work for people with impairments). Firstly, it was found that considering the type of disability as an essential element influencing attitudes enabled us to
517
show that our participants’ attitudes were more negative towards people with PP, than they were for candidates with intellectual disability and SD, especially in terms of social acceptability. Although providing support for the idea that type of disability is a significant factor characterizing employer attitudes (Stone & Colella 1996; Colella et al. 1998), our results highlight how psychological problems represent the condition most frequently associated with a negative view (Russinovaa et al. 2011). With respect to first hypothesis, we underscore that people with SD were not evaluated most positively overall and that indeed, no differences emerged for intellectual disability and SD. This finding could be due to the fact that, of the three disabilities presented, PP are generally less known and understood than hearing impairment (SD) and Down syndrome (intellectual disability) are, and that this lack of knowledge in an observer can elicit more negative views. In fact, the literature reports data supporting the idea that greater knowledge of the problems that people with disability experience can obviate stereotypes and a higher degree of personal interaction (Dixon et al. 2003). Other research findings support the idea that Down syndrome is one of the most well-known intellectual disability among the general population (Bittles et al. 2006). With respect to the variable of type of presentation, providing descriptions of some of the candidates’ strengths and appropriate conduct in previous work experiences allowed us to show that, as expected, this extra information was associated with more positive employer attitudes, as compared to the results in the condition describing their disability only. This result is in line with Stensrud (2007), who observed that receiving descriptions of what potential hirees actually know how to do help them better understand how to place them, diminishing the risks involved in this type of decision thereby.
Table 4 Frequencies and percentage of use of Holland categories and example of answers
Candidates with SD (n = 80)
Candidates with intellectual disability (n = 80)
Candidates with PP (n = 80)
Holland categories
F
%
Example of answer
F
%
Example of answer
F
%
Example of answer
Realistic Investigative Artistic Social Enterprising Conventional No answer
45 0 1 0 0 19 15
56.3 0 1.3 0 0 23.8 18.8%
Packager
33 0 0 0 2 19 26
41.3 0 0 0 2.5 23.8 32.5
Simple assembly worker
29 0 0 0 1 14 36
36.3 0 0 0 1.3 17.5 45
Post-assembly baler
Graphic designer
Archivist
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Sales Receptionist
Accountant
518 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
In this respect, it was found that all types of disability (intellectual disability, PP and SD) benefited from the presentation focusing on positive aspects. As regards intellectual disability, in particular, and the other disability considered (PP and SD), this finding is crucial (also in line with World Health Organization recommendations ICF; World Health Organization 2001), because it allows to underscore what people with disability can actually do. This approach can facilitate their levels participation, the inclusion into their communities and their quality of life (Nota et al. 2006; Schalock & Verdugo 2008; Soresi et al. 2011). Concerning the variable of employer characteristics, the type of dimension evaluated was, as expected, associated with different results: overall, the employers rated the social acceptability levels of people with disability more positively than they did their work performance. This finding is in line with Louvet et al.’s (2009) results showing that people tend to more positively rate disabled individuals in terms of their social ‘worth’ and use this tendency in some compensatory way for conversely rating performance negatively. Moreover, our comparison of attitudes towards performance versus social acceptability also obtained the strongest effect size: a possible explanation, which also reflects Luthans & Youssef’s (2007) findings, is that the employers focused more on the candidates’ performance levels. This phenomenon, which is also increasingly impacting people with disability, especially with intellectual disability, given the world of work’s current characteristics, can also even more negatively influence people with disability who cannot easily step up their performance levels, either quantitatively or qualitatively (Henkens et al. 2008). Previous employer experience hiring disabled workers conversely showed no relation with their attitudes. In fact, no significant differences were observed between employers with or with no previous hiring experience of this type. Considering that the experience was not associated with more positive or negative attitudes, it is most probably the quality of these contacts that characterize the relevance of this dimension, as also suggested by McManus et al. (2010). In fact, our participants were managing mid-size business in the Italian context. In these situations, employers interact with intermediaries and not always directly with workers, as conversely occurs with smaller companies (McMahon et al. 2008). This scenario can therefore limit occasions for employers to more closely examine, and have direct awareness of, the consequences of hiring a disabled worker.
Lastly, in reference to the work tasks employers considered to be appropriate for hirees with disability in their companies, as expected, Realistic and Conventional tasks (mostly the former) were most frequently mentioned. Although our study involved industrial sector employers, where realistic tasks are frequently encountered (Holland 1997), it is likely, in agreement with Gottfredson (1986), that these tasks are perceived as being less complex and therefore more easily carried out by people with disability. As regards in particular people with intellectual disability, we can conclude that, although their hiring is perceived by employers less negatively than other situations such as PP, benefits from the presentation that focuses on their positive aspects include more helpful attitudes in employers in both work performance and social acceptability. Moreover, as for other types of disability, employers mentioned jobs with a low degree of complexity (Realistic activities) as most appropriate for people with intellectual disability, and this can reduce their job opportunities.
Practical suggestions for career counsellors and social health workers interested in work inclusion processes The data yielded in the present study confirm that career counsellors and social health workers interested in work exclusion cannot afford to disregard potential employer attitudes (frequently considered the best predictors of behavioural intentions) and that they must have a full grasp of this phenomenon, so as to recognize situations presenting greater impenetrability to workers with disability. To increase the likelihood of breaking through (and hopefully, breaking down) these barriers, well thought-out job applicant presentations should be prepared for potential employers. In particular, during the early phases of work inclusion, it is important that practitioners clearly describe to employers what applicants with disability know how to do, the experiences they have acquired in other training and work contexts, tasks that can perform, etc. It is indeed possible to elicit good impressions and more positive potential employer attitudes. Practitioners must, of course, avoid using diagnostic labels and should mostly provide descriptions of actions and activities that can be put to good workplace use, as also suggested by the World Health Organization (World Health Organization 2001). Moreover, as Horner-Jhonson (2002) underscored, knowledge of potential employer attitudes can help shed light on salient aspects to be emphasized in © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
sensitization campaigns targeting employers. Efforts should be made to develop these campaigns, in a general endeavour to facilitate work inclusion processes. An overall rethinking of stereotypes and negative attitudes towards the work performance potential of individuals with disability should be fostered. To promote a positive image, campaigns in aid of people with intellectual disability should present the skills these individuals have acquired in training and work contexts, their career achievements and their ability to support co-workers. Our findings can also be used to work with people with disability, especially those with intellectual disability, within a preventive perspective to help them list their skills and strengths. Career counsellors and social health workers could teach them how to analyse their work and training experiences, identify the actions carried out, career achievements, skills acquired and how to record them for example in appropriate notebooks, diaries, etc. These actions could be useful to the career development and self-presentation of people with intellectual disability in training and work contexts. Moreover, they can be taught to manage job interviews, highlighting their strengths, to mention skills and experience they have acquired in training and work contexts, and to discuss these in terms of work skills as well as social skills, and to list work tasks they might have covered, which pertain to various professional fields (Realistic, Conventional, but also to the Social, Artistic, Enterprising and Investigative). Highlighting to employers the skills and strengths of people with disability, stimulating novel ideas on possible actions that the employers themselves could carry out in the workplace, and, at the same time, enhancing the skills of individuals with disability so they become aware of what they are able to do, are all actions that can increase the likelihood of work inclusion for people with disability. This is in line with Burges et al. (2007), which have also shown that workers with intellectual disability have better levels of workplace inclusion when employers, co-workers and people with intellectual disability were trained through job training programmes.
Limitations and future directions The present study is limited in a number of ways. First, the present study is an analogue design that utilizes paper stimuli rather than actual individuals with disability. Second, we involved only company’s owners © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
519
working in mid-size Italian metalworking industry businesses, of two provinces in north-eastern Italy. This may affect the generalization of results to other forms of more structured company. Future studies could involve participants of more structured company, other Italian regions and other business. Thirdly, we examined three types of disability only and only one hypothetical candidate for each type of disability. Future research should examine different disabilities, for example, how employers view multiple disability, severe intellectual disability or complex psychiatric conditions. Furthermore, more male than female employers were involved. This gender gap actually reflects, however, the current Italian work context. Lastly, it could be useful to compare employers who, in these times of socioeconomic change, are experiencing the current crisis differently and the impact of these differences on their attitudes.
Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Laura Nota, Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padua, 35131 Padua, Italy (e-mail: [email protected]).
References Bell B. S. & Klein K. J. (2001) Effect of disability, gender and job level on rating of job applicant. Rehabilitation Psychology 46, 229–246. Bittles A. H., Bower C., Hussain R. & Glasson E. J. (2006) The four ages of Down syndrome. European Journal of Public Health 17, 221–225. Burges P., Ouellette-Kuntz H. & Lysaght R. (2007) Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26, 29–37. Colella A., De Nisi A. S. & Varma A. (1998) The impact of ratee’s disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: the role of disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 102–111. Dixon K. A., Kruse D. & Van Horn C. E. (2003) Restricted Access: A Survey of Employers About People With Disabilities and Lowering Barriers to Work. The State University of New Jersey, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers, Washington, DC. European Commission (2008) Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2008). Employment in Europe 2008. European Union (2011) Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2011. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
520 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Gottfredson L. S. (1986) Occupational aptitude patterns map: development and implications for a theory of job aptitude requirements. Journal of Vocational Behavior 29, 254–291. Gouvier W. D., Sytsma-Jordan S. & Mayville S. (2003) Patterns of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: the role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabilitation Psycholog 48, 175–181. Henkens K., Remery C. & Schippers J. (2008) Shortages in an ageing labour market: an analysis of employers’ behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19, 1314–1329. Hernandez B., McDonald K., Divilbiss M., Horin E., Velcoff J. & Donoso O. (2008) Reflections from employers on the disabled workforce: focus groups with healthcare, hospitality and retail administrators. Employ Respons Rights Journal 20, 157–164. Holland J. L. (1997) Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd edn. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa. Horner-Johnson A. (2002) Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 63 (6–B). Louvet E. (2007) Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology 52, 297–303. Louvet E., Rohmer O. & Dubois N. (2009) Social Judgment of people with a disability in the workplace: how to make a good impression on Employers. Swiss Journal of psychology 68, 153–159. Luthans F. & Youssef C. M. (2007) Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management 33, 321–349. McMahon B. T., Roessler R., Rumrill P. D. Jr, Hurley J. E., West S. L., Chan F. & Carlson L. (2008) Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of charging parties. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 18, 122–132. McManus J. L., Feyes K. I. & Saucier D. A. (2010) Contact and knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28, 579–590. National Institute of Statistics (2011) Italian Statistical Yearbook: The Country’s Situation in 2010. ISTAT, Roma. Nota L., Soresi S. & Perry J. (2006) Quality of life in adults with an intellectual disability: the Evaluation of Quality of Life Instrument. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50, 371–385. Popovich P. M., Scherbaum C. A., Scherbaum K. L. & Polinko N. (2003) The assessment of attitudes toward individual with
disabilities in the workplace. The Journal of Psychology 137, 163–177. Ren L. R., Paetzold R. L. & Colella A. (2008) A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management Review 18, 191–203. Russinovaa Z., Griffinb S., Blocha P., Wewiorskic N. & Rosoklijad I. (2011) Workplace prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with mental illnesses. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 25, 227–241. Santilli S. (2010) Il lavoro per le persone con disabilita [Work for people with disability]. Unpublished manuscripts. Department of Psychology, University of Padua, Padua. Schalock R. L. & Verdugo M. A. (2008) Quality of life: from concept to application in the field of intellectual disabilities. Evaluation & Program Planning 31, 181–190. Shinkle G. A. (2012) Organizational Aspirations, Reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management 38, 415–455. Soresi S., Nota L. & Wehmeyer M. (2011) Community involvement in promoting inclusion, participation, and selfdetermination. International Journal of Inclusive Education 15, 15–28. Stensrud R. (2007) Integrating the Disabled into the Work Force: developing relationships with employers means considering the competitive business environment and the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 50, 226–237. Stone L. D. & Colella A. (1996) A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review 21, 352–401. Szymanski E. M. & Hershenson D. B. (2005) An ecological approach to vocational behavior and career development of people with disability. In: Rehabilitation Counseling (eds R. M. Parker, E. M. Szymanski & J. B. Patterson) pp. 225–280. ProEd, Austin, TX. Verdugo M. A., Jordan de Urries F. B., Jenaro C., Caballo C. & Crespo M. (2006) Quality of Life of Workers with an Intellectual Disability in Supported Employment. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 19, 309–316. Wehman P. H. (2011) Employment for persons with disabilities: where are we now and where do we need to go? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 35, 145–151. Wehmeyer M. L., Palmer S. B., Davies D. K. & Stock S. (2011) The Role of Technology Use by a Person with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities as a Family Support. Rivista di studi familiari 2, 90–99. World Health Organization (2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. ICF. WHO, Geneva.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 511–520
