Measuring and Changing Employers’ Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities Fong Chan, Ph.D. Professor and Director of Training Department of Rehabilitation Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison 2 Learning Objectives • Give an overview of issues related to hiring andretention of people with disabilities in the workplaceincluding brief analysis of workplace discrimination. • Discuss current data including surveys of employersperspectives in the hiring and retention of persons withdisabilities. • Update participants on the latest research andstrategies for increasing opportunities for people withdisabilities. 2 Learning Objectives • Give an overview of issues related to hiring andretention of people with disabilities in the workplaceincluding brief analysis of workplace discrimination. • Discuss current data including surveys of employersperspectives in the hiring and retention of persons withdisabilities. • Update participants on the latest research andstrategies for increasing opportunities for people withdisabilities. Employment of People with Disabilities • A 2007 National Organization on Disability report indicated that only 35% of working-age people with chronic illness and disability are employed comparing to 78% of those without disabilities. • Two-thirds of the unemployed persons with chronic illness and disability indicated that they would like to work but could not find jobs. • Employment rates for people with disabilities has been hovering around 35% in the past two decades, even during the robust economy of the 1990s (Maag & Wittenburg. 2003). • Rehabilitation rates for people with disabilities after receiving state vocational rehabilitation services are about 60% varying by disability types. 3 4 Demand-Side Employment Research Employment and Disability--1997 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wheelchair Cane, Crutches, Walker Difficulty Seeing Difficulty Hearing Difficulty w/ Speech Difficulty Walking Difficulty w/ Stairs Difficulty Lifting Severe Not Severe No Disability 4 Demand-Side Employment Research Employment and Disability--1997 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wheelchair Cane, Crutches, Walker Difficulty Seeing Difficulty Hearing Difficulty w/ Speech Difficulty Walking Difficulty w/ Stairs Difficulty Lifting Severe Not Severe No Disability 5 Top Five EEOC Complaints • Hiring • Firing • Accommodations • Harassment • Terms and Conditions 5 Top Five EEOC Complaints • Hiring • Firing • Accommodations • Harassment • Terms and Conditions 6 Attitudes are hard to change • A research study conducted by Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan to examine racial gaps in the labor market. Their findings were published in the American Economic Review in 2004. 6 Attitudes are hard to change • A research study conducted by Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan to examine racial gaps in the labor market. Their findings were published in the American Economic Review in 2004. Ann Laurie Kristen White Female Name Laurie Kristen White Female Name .96 .96 .96 Perception Tamika Latoya Lakisha Black Female Name 1.00 1.00 .96 Perception White Male Name Todd Jay Brett Perception .93 .93 .92 Black Male Name Jermaine Jamal Kareem Perception 1.00 .97 .97 7 8 Attitudes are hard to change .Very White sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews. .Callbacks are more responsive to resume quality of White names than for African American names. .The racial gap is uniform across occupations and industries and is no different between small or large employers or those listed as “Equal Opportunity Employers.” 8 Attitudes are hard to change .Very White sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews. .Callbacks are more responsive to resume quality of White names than for African American names. .The racial gap is uniform across occupations and industries and is no different between small or large employers or those listed as “Equal Opportunity Employers.” 9 Differential treatment by race is still a prominent feature of the U.S. labor market. 9 Differential treatment by race is still a prominent feature of the U.S. labor market. 10 Attitudes are hard to change A 2005 Department of Labor Study • The DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Employer Assistance Recruiting Network (EARN) conducted a focus group study in 13 major metropolitan areas with 26 groups of private sector executive-level managers and human resources professionals, representing a variety of industries, company sizes and both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations to find out from employers what they consider as the most important issue affecting the hiring climate for people with disabilities (Grizzard, 2005). 10 Attitudes are hard to change A 2005 Department of Labor Study • The DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) Employer Assistance Recruiting Network (EARN) conducted a focus group study in 13 major metropolitan areas with 26 groups of private sector executive-level managers and human resources professionals, representing a variety of industries, company sizes and both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations to find out from employers what they consider as the most important issue affecting the hiring climate for people with disabilities (Grizzard, 2005). 11 Attitudes are hard to change • The most common answer given was that employers need more accurate and practical information to dispel preconceptions and concerns about hiring people with disabilities. • ODEP concluded that before demand-side employment can become truly effective, research into employer perceptions and attitudes toward hiring persons with disabilities is needed to complement current demand-side employment research. 11 Attitudes are hard to change • The most common answer given was that employers need more accurate and practical information to dispel preconceptions and concerns about hiring people with disabilities. • ODEP concluded that before demand-side employment can become truly effective, research into employer perceptions and attitudes toward hiring persons with disabilities is needed to complement current demand-side employment research. 12 Attitudes are hard to measure ODEP 2008 Study • ODEP conducted a large-scale survey with employers in 2008. With regard to hiring people with disabilities, the nature of the work being such that it cannot be effectively performed by a person with a disability is cited as a hiring challenge by 72.6 percent of all companies. Health care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of litigation are more challenging for small and medium companies than for large companies. Attitudes of coworkers or supervisors are the least frequently cited challenges. 12 Attitudes are hard to measure ODEP 2008 Study • ODEP conducted a large-scale survey with employers in 2008. With regard to hiring people with disabilities, the nature of the work being such that it cannot be effectively performed by a person with a disability is cited as a hiring challenge by 72.6 percent of all companies. Health care costs, workers compensation costs and fear of litigation are more challenging for small and medium companies than for large companies. Attitudes of coworkers or supervisors are the least frequently cited challenges. 13 A foucs group study conducted by Strauser and Chan (2008) 13 A foucs group study conducted by Strauser and Chan (2008) 14 Attitudes are hard to measure The Strauser and Chan (2008) study • Strauser and Chan conducted a focus group study with human resources and hiring managers in Chicago and Milwaukee. The focus group participants identified many positive attributes and good reasons for hiring people with disabilities. However, negative attitudes of coworkers or supervisors are cited as one of the major barriers to hiring and retaining people with disabilities by participants in their study. This finding is in sharp contrast to the findings of the ODEP (2008) study that attitudes of co-workers or supervisors are the least frequently cited challenges. 14 Attitudes are hard to measure The Strauser and Chan (2008) study • Strauser and Chan conducted a focus group study with human resources and hiring managers in Chicago and Milwaukee. The focus group participants identified many positive attributes and good reasons for hiring people with disabilities. However, negative attitudes of coworkers or supervisors are cited as one of the major barriers to hiring and retaining people with disabilities by participants in their study. This finding is in sharp contrast to the findings of the ODEP (2008) study that attitudes of co-workers or supervisors are the least frequently cited challenges. 15 Attitudes are hard to measure • Other preperceptions/misperceptions about people withdisabilities in the workplace identified in Strauser and Chan’s study include: • People with disabilities OFTEN REQUIRES extra time to learnnew work tasks. • People with disabilities OFTEN REQUIRES some sort of jobaccommodations (e.g., specialized equipment, facilitymodifications, adjustments to work schedules or job duties) to do their job. • People with disabilities HAVE TROUBLE getting their work doneon time and often needs others to help them finish the job. • Co-workers are NOT very comfortable working with people withdisabilities. • People with disabilities tend to call in sick MORE OFTEN thanother workers due to health or personal problems. • People with disabilities have TROUBLE getting along with otherson the job. 15 Attitudes are hard to measure • Other preperceptions/misperceptions about people withdisabilities in the workplace identified in Strauser and Chan’s study include: • People with disabilities OFTEN REQUIRES extra time to learnnew work tasks. • People with disabilities OFTEN REQUIRES some sort of jobaccommodations (e.g., specialized equipment, facilitymodifications, adjustments to work schedules or job duties) to do their job. • People with disabilities HAVE TROUBLE getting their work doneon time and often needs others to help them finish the job. • Co-workers are NOT very comfortable working with people withdisabilities. • People with disabilities tend to call in sick MORE OFTEN thanother workers due to health or personal problems. • People with disabilities have TROUBLE getting along with otherson the job. 16 What is attitude? 16 What is attitude? 17 ICFICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) 17 ICFICF International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) 18 Body Function & Structure (Impairment) Activities (Limitation) Environmental Factors Personal Factors Participation (Restriction) Physical Environment Social Environment 18 Body Function & Structure (Impairment) Activities (Limitation) Environmental Factors Personal Factors Participation (Restriction) Physical Environment Social Environment 19 Environmental Factors 1.Productsandtechnology1. Products and technology 2.Naturalenvironmentandhuman2. Natural environment and human--mademade changestotheenvironmentchanges to the environment 3.Supportandrelationships3. Support and relationships 4.Attitudes4. Attitudes 5.Services,systemsandpolicies5. Services, systems and policies 19 Environmental Factors 1.Productsandtechnology1. Products and technology 2.Naturalenvironmentandhuman2. Natural environment and human--mademade changestotheenvironmentchanges to the environment 3.Supportandrelationships3. Support and relationships 4.Attitudes4. Attitudes 5.Services,systemsandpolicies5. Services, systems and policies 20 So, what is attitude? • Attitude refers to an individual’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an object (referent). 20 So, what is attitude? • Attitude refers to an individual’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an object (referent). 21 Components of Attitudes • Cognition • Affective • Behavioral 21 Components of Attitudes • Cognition • Affective • Behavioral 22 Cognitive Components • Ideas • Thoughts • Perceptions • Beliefs • Opinions .People are usually asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement about statements suggesting desirable or undesirable qualities of people with disabilities. 22 Cognitive Components • Ideas • Thoughts • Perceptions • Beliefs • Opinions .People are usually asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement about statements suggesting desirable or undesirable qualities of people with disabilities. 23 Affective Components • Feelings • Emotions .Good-Bad .Pro-Con .Positive-Negative 23 Affective Components • Feelings • Emotions .Good-Bad .Pro-Con .Positive-Negative 24 Behavioral Components • Behavioral intention (AKA conative) .The individual’s readiness to behave in a certain way with respect to people with disabilities. • Behavioral element .The instrumental act performed in the presence of people with disabilities. 24 Behavioral Components • Behavioral intention (AKA conative) .The individual’s readiness to behave in a certain way with respect to people with disabilities. • Behavioral element .The instrumental act performed in the presence of people with disabilities. 25 Societal Component • Values and norms are largely dictated by society. • Societal expectations and norms increase or decrease individual opportunities. 25 Societal Component • Values and norms are largely dictated by society. • Societal expectations and norms increase or decrease individual opportunities. 26 Attitudes Components: Summary • Learned through experience • Complex, multi-component structures • Relatively Stable • Have a specific social object as a referent • Vary in their quantity & quality -have different degrees of motivating force & direction • Controlled and Automatic processes • Manifested behaviorally via a predisoposition to act in a certain way when the referent is encountered. 26 Attitudes Components: Summary • Learned through experience • Complex, multi-component structures • Relatively Stable • Have a specific social object as a referent • Vary in their quantity & quality -have different degrees of motivating force & direction • Controlled and Automatic processes • Manifested behaviorally via a predisoposition to act in a certain way when the referent is encountered. 27 Related Concepts • Bias • Stereotype • Prejudice • Discrimination • Stigma 27 Related Concepts • Bias • Stereotype • Prejudice • Discrimination • Stigma 28 Bias • Perspective • Both positive and negative • Ingroups and Outgroups 28 Bias • Perspective • Both positive and negative • Ingroups and Outgroups 29 Ingroup • Ingroups difficult to define: best way to define it is by the group referred to when the term “we” is spoken. • Loyalty to an ingroup • Ingroup members seen as complex and distinct 29 Ingroup • Ingroups difficult to define: best way to define it is by the group referred to when the term “we” is spoken. • Loyalty to an ingroup • Ingroup members seen as complex and distinct 30 Outgroup • Perceived as homogenous (within group similarities) • Differences are minimized • Illusionary correlations • assumption of 2 variables being related • memory of cases conforming to a stereotype • biased processing & selective attention 30 Outgroup • Perceived as homogenous (within group similarities) • Differences are minimized • Illusionary correlations • assumption of 2 variables being related • memory of cases conforming to a stereotype • biased processing & selective attention 31 Stereotype • A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category. Its function is to justify (rationalize) our conduct in relation to that category. (Allport 1954, p. 191). • For experimental purposes, a stereotype has, in effect, been defined statistically as a collection of trait-names upon which a large percentage of people agree as appropriate for describing some class of individuals. (Vinake 1957, p. 229). • Stereotype is defined as “consensus among members of a one group regarding the attributes of another. (Taylor 1981, p. 155). • Widely shared schema about a group or class of people. 31 Stereotype • A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category. Its function is to justify (rationalize) our conduct in relation to that category. (Allport 1954, p. 191). • For experimental purposes, a stereotype has, in effect, been defined statistically as a collection of trait-names upon which a large percentage of people agree as appropriate for describing some class of individuals. (Vinake 1957, p. 229). • Stereotype is defined as “consensus among members of a one group regarding the attributes of another. (Taylor 1981, p. 155). • Widely shared schema about a group or class of people. 32 Stereotype & Power • Powerful use stereotypes • Powerless note inconsistencies in the Powerful’s stereotype • Why do people use stereotypes? • Cognitive shortcuts • Reduce risks 32 Stereotype & Power • Powerful use stereotypes • Powerless note inconsistencies in the Powerful’s stereotype • Why do people use stereotypes? • Cognitive shortcuts • Reduce risks 33 Prejudice • Negative attitude • Focus is on members of specific group 33 Prejudice • Negative attitude • Focus is on members of specific group 34 Discrimination • Detrimental distinction of an active source…exclud[ing] all members of the group in question from certain types of employment, from residential housing, political rights, educational or recreational opportunities, churches, hospitals, or some other social privileges. Segregation is an institutionalized form of discrimination, enforced legally or by common custom. (Allport 1986, pp. 1415). • Negative action(s) toward members of specific group. 34 Discrimination • Detrimental distinction of an active source…exclud[ing] all members of the group in question from certain types of employment, from residential housing, political rights, educational or recreational opportunities, churches, hospitals, or some other social privileges. Segregation is an institutionalized form of discrimination, enforced legally or by common custom. (Allport 1986, pp. 1415). • Negative action(s) toward members of specific group. 35 Stigma • Hierarchy of Stigma of disability • Physical • Cognitive • Intellectual • Mental Least Stigma . Most Stigma 35 Stigma • Hierarchy of Stigma of disability • Physical • Cognitive • Intellectual • Mental Least Stigma . Most Stigma Origins of Negative Attitudes (Livneh, 1982(Livneh, 1982) • Socio-cultural conditions • Childhood influences • Psychodynamic mechanism • Disability as a punishment for a sin • Anxiety provoking unstructured situations • Disability as reminder of death • Prejudice inviting behaviors • Influences of disability related factors 36 37 Socio-cultural condition • Body beautiful • Personal productiveness • Employability/Socioeconomic • Sick role • Status degradation (stigma) fixed to a disability. • Every society has its scapegoat and symbols of evil and intangible dangers. Negative role . stigma .physical, behavioral, and attributional bases. 37 Socio-cultural condition • Body beautiful • Personal productiveness • Employability/Socioeconomic • Sick role • Status degradation (stigma) fixed to a disability. • Every society has its scapegoat and symbols of evil and intangible dangers. Negative role . stigma .physical, behavioral, and attributional bases. 38 Childhood influences • Parental emphasis on the health of a child. • Rearing practices overemphasis on health and normalcy .avoid people who are affected by sickness, illness, and long-term disability; anxiety provoking; association of disability as threat. • Parental desire for wholeness, or normalcy of child • Child’s desire to be accepted • Desire to be like peers 38 Childhood influences • Parental emphasis on the health of a child. • Rearing practices overemphasis on health and normalcy .avoid people who are affected by sickness, illness, and long-term disability; anxiety provoking; association of disability as threat. • Parental desire for wholeness, or normalcy of child • Child’s desire to be accepted • Desire to be like peers 39 Pyschodynamic Mechanism • Requirement for mourning – oughtness of suffering or mourning of misfortune (Dembo, et al, 1956) • Approach/fascination – Avoidance/repulsion conflict • “Spread” or halo phenomenon • Responsibility – etiology • Guilt by association (social ostracism) • Guilt of being able-bodied 39 Pyschodynamic Mechanism • Requirement for mourning – oughtness of suffering or mourning of misfortune (Dembo, et al, 1956) • Approach/fascination – Avoidance/repulsion conflict • “Spread” or halo phenomenon • Responsibility – etiology • Guilt by association (social ostracism) • Guilt of being able-bodied 40 Disability as punishment for sin • PWD as sinful (triad of sin, punishment & disability) • Danger equated with PWD • Disability correlated as sinful • PWD assumed to perceive disability as unjust and want to strike out at world • Non PWD fearing imminent punishment (“I’m next”) • Vicarious self-punishment 40 Disability as punishment for sin • PWD as sinful (triad of sin, punishment & disability) • Danger equated with PWD • Disability correlated as sinful • PWD assumed to perceive disability as unjust and want to strike out at world • Non PWD fearing imminent punishment (“I’m next”) • Vicarious self-punishment 41 Anxiety Provoking Unstructured situations • Not familiar with being with a PWD • Unfamiliar situation breeds anxiety 41 Anxiety Provoking Unstructured situations • Not familiar with being with a PWD • Unfamiliar situation breeds anxiety 42 Disability as a reminder of death • Disability evokes sense of mortality • Disability may elicits a fear of one’s own death and vulnerability 42 Disability as a reminder of death • Disability evokes sense of mortality • Disability may elicits a fear of one’s own death and vulnerability 43 Prejudice inviting behaviors • Prejudice by invitation • PWD is perceived as dependent, seeking secondary gains, acting fearful, insecure or inferior creates and strengthens prejudice. • Prejudice by silence • PWD may demonstrate a lack of interest in changing societal injustices concerning PWD’s. This may maintain or promote a prejudiced view in society toward PWD’s. 43 Prejudice inviting behaviors • Prejudice by invitation • PWD is perceived as dependent, seeking secondary gains, acting fearful, insecure or inferior creates and strengthens prejudice. • Prejudice by silence • PWD may demonstrate a lack of interest in changing societal injustices concerning PWD’s. This may maintain or promote a prejudiced view in society toward PWD’s. 44 Influences of disability related factors • Functionality vs. Organicity • Alcoholism vs. Blindness • Level of severity of disability • Greater the severity the greater the negative attitude • Degree of visibility of disability • Greater cosmetic requirement precipitates greater negative bias. • Contagious vs. non-contagious • Body part affected • Degree of predictability 44 Influences of disability related factors • Functionality vs. Organicity • Alcoholism vs. Blindness • Level of severity of disability • Greater the severity the greater the negative attitude • Degree of visibility of disability • Greater cosmetic requirement precipitates greater negative bias. • Contagious vs. non-contagious • Body part affected • Degree of predictability 45 Demographic Variables • Gender • Age • SES • Educational level 45 Demographic Variables • Gender • Age • SES • Educational level 46 Personality Variables of non-PWD’s • Ethnocentrism • high ethnocentrism correlates to lack of acceptance of PWD • Authoritarianism • positive correlation between acceptance of PWD and low authoritarianism 46 Personality Variables of non-PWD’s • Ethnocentrism • high ethnocentrism correlates to lack of acceptance of PWD • Authoritarianism • positive correlation between acceptance of PWD and low authoritarianism 47 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Aggression • Projection of aggressive/hostile desires on PWD’s leads to thoughts that PWD’s are dangerous • Self-Insight • Moderate correlation between need for introspection and empathy toward PWD’s • Anxiety • High manifest anxiety correlates to rejection of PWD’s. 47 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Aggression • Projection of aggressive/hostile desires on PWD’s leads to thoughts that PWD’s are dangerous • Self-Insight • Moderate correlation between need for introspection and empathy toward PWD’s • Anxiety • High manifest anxiety correlates to rejection of PWD’s. 48 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Self-Concept • Relationship between positive self-concept and acceptance of PWD’s • Ego Strength • akin to self-concept: high ego strength shows greater acceptance of PWD’s • Body & self satisfaction • lack of satisfaction with own body yields to rejection of PWD’s. 48 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Self-Concept • Relationship between positive self-concept and acceptance of PWD’s • Ego Strength • akin to self-concept: high ego strength shows greater acceptance of PWD’s • Body & self satisfaction • lack of satisfaction with own body yields to rejection of PWD’s. 49 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Ambiguity tolerance • ability to tolerate ambiguity has positive correlation with acceptance PWD’s with physical disabilities. • Social desirability • An individual with a need for social approval and acceptance of others would be more likely to be accepting of a PWD with a physical disability. 49 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont.) • Ambiguity tolerance • ability to tolerate ambiguity has positive correlation with acceptance PWD’s with physical disabilities. • Social desirability • An individual with a need for social approval and acceptance of others would be more likely to be accepting of a PWD with a physical disability. 50 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont). • Alienation • non-PWD’s that are alienated tend to be more negative toward PWD’s. • Intelligence level • May be a relationship between non-PWD’s level of intelligence and acceptance of PWD’s. 50 •Personality Variables of non-PWD’s (cont). • Alienation • non-PWD’s that are alienated tend to be more negative toward PWD’s. • Intelligence level • May be a relationship between non-PWD’s level of intelligence and acceptance of PWD’s. 51 Direct Methods • Interviews • Opinion surveys • Rankings • Q-sort methods • Adjective checklists • Paired comparison scales • Semantic Differential scales • Probabilistic Rating scales 51 Direct Methods • Interviews • Opinion surveys • Rankings • Q-sort methods • Adjective checklists • Paired comparison scales • Semantic Differential scales • Probabilistic Rating scales 52 Indirect • Projective technique • Association, construction, completion etc. • Behavioral observations • Disguised measures • Physiological methods • Conjoint Analysis • Error-Choice 52 Indirect • Projective technique • Association, construction, completion etc. • Behavioral observations • Disguised measures • Physiological methods • Conjoint Analysis • Error-Choice Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (Yuker) (Yuker) • ATDP was designed to measure the attitudes of able- bodied individuals toward people with disabilities and the attitudes of people with disabilities toward themselves • Unidimensional • 3 different forms: • Form O -first test -20 items • Forms A & B -30 items each • The ADTP suggests differences or similarities between people with disabilities and the able-bodied population. 53 54 Changing Employers’ Attitudes • Disability-related legislations (e.g., ADAA) • Changing employers’ attitudes • Planned Behavior Theory • Role Models • Impression Management 54 Changing Employers’ Attitudes • Disability-related legislations (e.g., ADAA) • Changing employers’ attitudes • Planned Behavior Theory • Role Models • Impression Management 55 Changing Employers’ Attitudes • Disability-related legislations (e.g., ADAA) • Changing employers’ attitudes • SPR/nAblement Survey • Behavioral Intention Study • Impression Management 55 Changing Employers’ Attitudes • Disability-related legislations (e.g., ADAA) • Changing employers’ attitudes • SPR/nAblement Survey • Behavioral Intention Study • Impression Management 56 The Impact of ADA on Employer Practices 56 The Impact of ADA on Employer Practices 57 Demand-Side Employment Research Employment and Disability--1997 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wheelchair Cane, Crutches, Walker Difficulty Seeing Difficulty Hearing Difficulty w/ Speech Difficulty Walking Difficulty w/ Stairs Difficulty Lifting Severe Not Severe No Disability 57 Demand-Side Employment Research Employment and Disability--1997 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wheelchair Cane, Crutches, Walker Difficulty Seeing Difficulty Hearing Difficulty w/ Speech Difficulty Walking Difficulty w/ Stairs Difficulty Lifting Severe Not Severe No Disability 58 • The employment rate of people with disabilities since the passage of the ADA, even during the economic boom of the go-go 90s. • A recent study by Kaye (2010) indicated that the recent recession has a disproportionate impact on workers with disabilities, with the number of employed workers with disabilities declined at a rate more than three times that of workers without disabilities, and the unemployment rate rose dramatically to levels exceeding that of other workers. • The Theory of Risk Aversion (Easy to hire, difficult to fire). Employment of People with Disabilities 58 • The employment rate of people with disabilities since the passage of the ADA, even during the economic boom of the go-go 90s. • A recent study by Kaye (2010) indicated that the recent recession has a disproportionate impact on workers with disabilities, with the number of employed workers with disabilities declined at a rate more than three times that of workers without disabilities, and the unemployment rate rose dramatically to levels exceeding that of other workers. • The Theory of Risk Aversion (Easy to hire, difficult to fire). Employment of People with Disabilities 59 A Follow-up SPR/nAblement Employer Survey 59 A Follow-up SPR/nAblement Employer Survey Employers in the Midwest Based on the findings of the focus group study, Chan and Strauser (2008) develop an on-line survey and collected information from 138 HR and front-line managers about: • The diversity climates of their company and to what extent disability management is important; • Their knowledge about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and job accommodations; • Their perceptions of people with disabilities as productive workers; • Hiring strategies used to increase employment of people with disabilities; and • Their efforts to hire people with disabilities. 60 Sample Characteristics (138 participants) • Gender: 62% are men • Race/ethnicity: 91% are white • Average age—45 years old • Industry type: • Health-care industries (19%), • Finance (16%), • Information technology (15%), • Manufacturing (14%), • Other services (except public administration) (12%), and • Professional/technical (10%) 62 Company Size • 501 or more employees (64%) • 15-100 employees (16%), • 101 and 500 employees (12%) • less than 15 employees (7%) 62 Company Size • 501 or more employees (64%) • 15-100 employees (16%), • 101 and 500 employees (12%) • less than 15 employees (7%) What did we find from the study? • • • • • • • • Companies support diversity The emphasis of diversity is on gender and race but not disability Hiring people with disabilities is not in the diversity plan No incentive or quotas to hire or retain people with disabilities at the departmental or unit levels Hiring managers are not trained in diversity management related to individuals with disability Resources for recruiting people with chronic illness and disability are limited Disability sensitivity training for line managers is less than adequate Hiring managers indicated that they have no problem hiring and retaining people with disability in their department. 63 • HR and line managers believe that people with disabilityhave workplace socialization skills; are reliable; canperform essential tasks; and meet productivity standards • Hiring people with disability help promote an inclusiveworkplace • Hiring people with disability provide opportunity foremployees to learn to work with people from diverse groups • HR and line managers indicated that they are not asfamiliar with ADA as they should • There are in-house resources to help with employment- related ADA issues • HR and line managers indicated that they are familiar withgovernment resources for ADA and employment technicalassistance • There is no in-house job accommodations experts for consultation 64 • Results indicated that companies are concerned about disability issues in the workplace related to work injuries, alcohol and drug abuse, and mental health issues. This factor received the highest agreement rating in the study (M=3.77, SD=.74). • The managers in this study provided a modest but positive rating of people with disabilities as a productive and reliable worker with appropriate workplace socialization skills (M=3.54, SD=.32). • They assigned a close to neutral rating to their knowledge about the Americans with Disabilities Act and job accommodation (M=3.22, SD=.64); the inclusion of disability in the company’s diversity efforts (M=3.20, SD=.50); and the use of innovative strategies to recruit and retain people with disabilities (M=3.09, SD=.40). 65 66 • Knowledge about the ADA and job accommodations in the workplace is positively related to including disability as part of the company’s diversity efforts (r = .67, p < .01), commitment to hire people with disabilities (r = .64, p < .01), diversity climate of the company (r = .51, p < .01), strong concern about managing disabilities in the company (r = .50, p < .01), perceptions of people with disabilities as productive and reliable workers (r = .28, p < .01), and the use of innovative strategies to recruit and retain people with disabilities (r = .28, p < .01). • Managers who rated themselves as having good knowledge of the ADA also rated themselves as having less negative perceptions about people with disabilities as productive workers in the workplace (r = -.32, p < .01). 66 • Knowledge about the ADA and job accommodations in the workplace is positively related to including disability as part of the company’s diversity efforts (r = .67, p < .01), commitment to hire people with disabilities (r = .64, p < .01), diversity climate of the company (r = .51, p < .01), strong concern about managing disabilities in the company (r = .50, p < .01), perceptions of people with disabilities as productive and reliable workers (r = .28, p < .01), and the use of innovative strategies to recruit and retain people with disabilities (r = .28, p < .01). • Managers who rated themselves as having good knowledge of the ADA also rated themselves as having less negative perceptions about people with disabilities as productive workers in the workplace (r = -.32, p < .01). 67 • Conversely, negative attitudes toward people with disabilities is negatively related to perceptions of people with disabilities as productive workers (r = -.35, p < .01), inclusion of disability in the diversity effort (r = -.34, p < .01), and commitments to hire people with disabilities (r = -.35, p < .01). • Diversity climate of the company is related to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Companies with a strong commitment to diversity have a higher propensity to include disability as part of their diversity efforts (r = .67, p < .01) and a stronger commitment to hire people with disabilities (r = .44, p < .01). Inclusion of disability as diversity efforts of the company is also significantly related to knowledge of ADA and job accommodations (r = .67, p < .01). 67 • Conversely, negative attitudes toward people with disabilities is negatively related to perceptions of people with disabilities as productive workers (r = -.35, p < .01), inclusion of disability in the diversity effort (r = -.34, p < .01), and commitments to hire people with disabilities (r = -.35, p < .01). • Diversity climate of the company is related to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Companies with a strong commitment to diversity have a higher propensity to include disability as part of their diversity efforts (r = .67, p < .01) and a stronger commitment to hire people with disabilities (r = .44, p < .01). Inclusion of disability as diversity efforts of the company is also significantly related to knowledge of ADA and job accommodations (r = .67, p < .01). 68 • A multiple regression was conducted with ADA knowledge, concerns about disability management, negative attitudes, positive perceptions, diversity climates, inclusion of disability in diversity efforts, and hiring strategies were used as independent variables to predict the commitment of the company to hire people with disabilities. • The result was significant with R2 = .58, F(7, 125) = 24.13, p < .001. An examination of the beta coefficients revealed that only knowledge of ADA and job accommodation (beta.= .23, p < .05) and inclusion of disability in diversity efforts (beta = .56, p < .01) are significant in predicting commitment of the company to hire people with disabilities. 68 • A multiple regression was conducted with ADA knowledge, concerns about disability management, negative attitudes, positive perceptions, diversity climates, inclusion of disability in diversity efforts, and hiring strategies were used as independent variables to predict the commitment of the company to hire people with disabilities. • The result was significant with R2 = .58, F(7, 125) = 24.13, p < .001. An examination of the beta coefficients revealed that only knowledge of ADA and job accommodation (beta.= .23, p < .05) and inclusion of disability in diversity efforts (beta = .56, p < .01) are significant in predicting commitment of the company to hire people with disabilities. 69 • One concern is that although ADA knowledge appears to be important and related to hiring people with disabilities, on the average, the respondents indicated that it was about five years ago that they received any ADA related training vs. an average of three years for diversity training. 69 • One concern is that although ADA knowledge appears to be important and related to hiring people with disabilities, on the average, the respondents indicated that it was about five years ago that they received any ADA related training vs. an average of three years for diversity training. 70 • Other strategies to help improve hiring of people with disabilities: • Practicum/Internship • Contract work • Temp • Pre-apprenticeship program • Apprenticeship program • VR 70 • Other strategies to help improve hiring of people with disabilities: • Practicum/Internship • Contract work • Temp • Pre-apprenticeship program • Apprenticeship program • VR 71 Fraser et al. Behavioral Intention Study 71 Fraser et al. Behavioral Intention Study 72 Fraser et al. Planned Behavior Study • N=89 • Seattle Chamber of Commerce Human Resource Interest Group • Washington Business Leadership Network • Seattle Rotary Club 72 Fraser et al. Planned Behavior Study • N=89 • Seattle Chamber of Commerce Human Resource Interest Group • Washington Business Leadership Network • Seattle Rotary Club 73 Planned Behavior Study • Purpose: to examine the association between attitudes, perceived control and subjective norm and intention tointerview people with disabilities. 73 Planned Behavior Study • Purpose: to examine the association between attitudes, perceived control and subjective norm and intention tointerview people with disabilities. 74 Planned Behavior Study Subjective Norm (Normative beliefs) • Approval of the company’s president • Approval of senior management • Approval of human resources • Approval of hiring managers • Approval of supervisors • Support of co-workers 74 Planned Behavior Study Subjective Norm (Normative beliefs) • Approval of the company’s president • Approval of senior management • Approval of human resources • Approval of hiring managers • Approval of supervisors • Support of co-workers 75 Planned Behavior Study Positive Attitudes • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would makeavailable a pool of qualified workers with disabilities. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would increasethe company’s diversity profile. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would establishworking relationship with state vocational rehabilitation agency. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would providetax credits and hiring incentives. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would avoiddisability discrimination lawsuits. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would secureloyal and appreciative employees. 75 Planned Behavior Study Positive Attitudes • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would makeavailable a pool of qualified workers with disabilities. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would increasethe company’s diversity profile. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would establishworking relationship with state vocational rehabilitation agency. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would providetax credits and hiring incentives. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would avoiddisability discrimination lawsuits. • Hiring qualified workers with disabilities would secureloyal and appreciative employees. 76 Planned Behavior Study Control Beliefs • Supportive communications from senior management. • Supportive communications from HR. • Knowing whom to contact in the vocational rehabilitation field. • Consistent contact with VR agencies with a ready pool of qualified applicants and applicant profiles. • Hiring incentives and credits. 76 Planned Behavior Study Control Beliefs • Supportive communications from senior management. • Supportive communications from HR. • Knowing whom to contact in the vocational rehabilitation field. • Consistent contact with VR agencies with a ready pool of qualified applicants and applicant profiles. • Hiring incentives and credits. 77 Planned Behavior Study • R2 = .67 • Attitude (ß= .24, p < .05) • Subjective norm (ß= .48, p < .01) • Perceived control (ß= .22, p < .05) 77 Planned Behavior Study • R2 = .67 • Attitude (ß= .24, p < .05) • Subjective norm (ß= .48, p < .01) • Perceived control (ß= .22, p < .05) 78 Planned Behavior Study • Corporate “gatekeepers” (owners, C-level management, etc.) must be reached to market qualified workers with disabilities. • Corporate position and culture related to hiring people with disabilities can be a facilitator or barrier to hiring outcomes. • Positive attitudes and control beliefs variables need to be consider in marketing and educational efforts. 78 Planned Behavior Study • Corporate “gatekeepers” (owners, C-level management, etc.) must be reached to market qualified workers with disabilities. • Corporate position and culture related to hiring people with disabilities can be a facilitator or barrier to hiring outcomes. • Positive attitudes and control beliefs variables need to be consider in marketing and educational efforts. 79 Chan et al. Impression Management Study 79 Chan et al. Impression Management Study • • • • • • Assertive Impression Management Tactics Self-promotion: to demonstrate the possession of desirable qualities such as competence, competitiveness, successfulness, and resourcefulness. Personal stories: to recount specific past events or actions (e.g., work experiences in a particular instance) to demonstrate the possession of certain applied mental or social skills. Entitlements: to claim responsibility for positive events. Enhancements: to claim that the value of a positive event for which the interviewee was responsible was greater than most people might think. Overcoming obstacles: to describe efforts and strategies used to circumvent problems or barriers impeding progress toward a goal. 80 81 • Opinion conformity: to express beliefs, values, or attitudes consistent with the interviewer and the organization. • Other-enhancement: to make positive statements about (e.g., flatter, praise, and compliment) the interviewer and the organization. • Excuses: to deny responsibility for the negative consequences of an action. • Justification: to accept the effects of his or her behavior but deny the negative implications of such responsibility. 81 • Opinion conformity: to express beliefs, values, or attitudes consistent with the interviewer and the organization. • Other-enhancement: to make positive statements about (e.g., flatter, praise, and compliment) the interviewer and the organization. • Excuses: to deny responsibility for the negative consequences of an action. • Justification: to accept the effects of his or her behavior but deny the negative implications of such responsibility. 82 Randomized Controlled Study Primary Research Question What’s the effect of impression management tactics on job interview outcomes? Null Hypothesis The research hypothesis stated in null form is: 1. In terms of interview outcomes, there is no difference between people with disabilities who are skillful and those who are not skillful in impression management tactics. 82 Randomized Controlled Study Primary Research Question What’s the effect of impression management tactics on job interview outcomes? Null Hypothesis The research hypothesis stated in null form is: 1. In terms of interview outcomes, there is no difference between people with disabilities who are skillful and those who are not skillful in impression management tactics. 83 Design Randomized Controlled Trial 83 Design Randomized Controlled Trial 84 Intervention The participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions. • Condition 1: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant without disability. In the interview, the applicant will demonstrate good applied skills and job knowledge and skills. • Condition 2: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant with disability. In the interview, the applicant will disclose his or her disability without using impression management to address disability, accommodation, and performanceissues. The participant will demonstrate good applied skills and jobknowledge and skills. With the exception of disability disclosure, the 15minute video will be identical to the video in Condition 1. • Condition 3: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant with disability. In the interview, theapplicant will disclose his or her disability using impression management toaddress disability, accommodation, and performance issues. Theparticipant will demonstrate good applied skills and job knowledge and skills. With the exception of disability disclosure and the use of impression management tactics, the 15-minute video will be identical to the video in Condition 1. 84 Intervention The participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions. • Condition 1: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant without disability. In the interview, the applicant will demonstrate good applied skills and job knowledge and skills. • Condition 2: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant with disability. In the interview, the applicant will disclose his or her disability without using impression management to address disability, accommodation, and performanceissues. The participant will demonstrate good applied skills and jobknowledge and skills. With the exception of disability disclosure, the 15minute video will be identical to the video in Condition 1. • Condition 3: Participants will view a 15-minute video depicting theemployment interview of a job applicant with disability. In the interview, theapplicant will disclose his or her disability using impression management toaddress disability, accommodation, and performance issues. Theparticipant will demonstrate good applied skills and job knowledge and skills. With the exception of disability disclosure and the use of impression management tactics, the 15-minute video will be identical to the video in Condition 1. 85 Sampling Plan • From our review of the employment interview literatureand attitudes toward disability and racial bias research, we assume that the intervention will have a moderate effect size. Based on our power analysis—power of .80, alpha of .05, and a medium effect size of d = .50—the sample size needed for each randomized controlled trialwill be about 153 (Murphy & Myors, 2004). 85 Sampling Plan • From our review of the employment interview literatureand attitudes toward disability and racial bias research, we assume that the intervention will have a moderate effect size. Based on our power analysis—power of .80, alpha of .05, and a medium effect size of d = .50—the sample size needed for each randomized controlled trialwill be about 153 (Murphy & Myors, 2004). • Independent variable. The randomized controlled trials will have only one independent variable (impression management) with three levels: (1) job applicant without disability, (2) job applicant with disability but no impression management, and (3) job applicant with disability and impression management. The hierarchical regression analysis will have 13 predictors with 9 main effect predictors (race, gender, disability type, disability disclosure-cover letter, disability disclosure-interview, impression management, social dominance, contact with disability, and empathy) and four interaction effect variables (disclosure-application x disclosure-interview, disability x race, disability x impression management, race x impression management). • Dependent variables. There are three employment-related outcome variables: (1) general evaluation of the jobapplicant, (2) interviewers’ evaluations of suitability, and (3) interviewers’ evaluations of probability for organizational pursuits. 86 Preliminary Results • The data analysis was based on 65 men and 21 women. The mean age of participants was 23.16 years (22.89years for men, 24.05 for women) and none of theparticipants reported to have a disability themselves. • We utilized a one-way ANOVA to test the effect ofimpression management on job interview outcomes. Jobinterview outcomes were evaluated using the 12-item Applicant Qualification Scale (e.g., “What is the likelihood that this applicant will be hired for the job?” “What is the likelihood that this applicant is qualified forthe job?” “What is the likelihood that the applicant will getalong with co-workers and supervisors?”) rated on a 9point Likert scale (1=highly unlikely to 9=highly likely). The Cronbach’s alpha for this 12-item scale was .96 in this study. 87 88 Preliminary Results • The average hirability ratings were 6.01 (SD=1.65) forthe job applicant without disability condition, 6.88(SD=1.58) for the job applicant with disability—no impression management condition, and 7.14 (SD=.97) for the job applicant with disability and impressionmanagement. There was a significant effect ofimpression management, F(2, 83) = 4.99 p < .01, .2 = .11 and observed power=.799. The effect size ofimpression management with eta squared (.2) of .11 is considered medium. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the average hireability rating for the job applicant withdisabilities and impression management condition issignificantly higher than the job applicant withoutdisability condition. 88 Preliminary Results • The average hirability ratings were 6.01 (SD=1.65) forthe job applicant without disability condition, 6.88(SD=1.58) for the job applicant with disability—no impression management condition, and 7.14 (SD=.97) for the job applicant with disability and impressionmanagement. There was a significant effect ofimpression management, F(2, 83) = 4.99 p < .01, .2 = .11 and observed power=.799. The effect size ofimpression management with eta squared (.2) of .11 is considered medium. Post-hoc analysis indicated that the average hireability rating for the job applicant withdisabilities and impression management condition issignificantly higher than the job applicant withoutdisability condition. 89 Preliminary Results • It should be noted that standard deviations for the two “no impression management” groups were appreciablylarger than the impression management condition group, indicating the business management students in the noimpression management conditions were more varied intheir ratings whereas the students in the job applicantwith SCI and impression management condition weresignificantly less varied in their ratings. Importantly, thesignificant effect of impression management on jobinterview outcomes will suggest that IM can be used tooffset any negative perception of employers about thepotential of people with disabilities as productiveworkers. 89 Preliminary Results • It should be noted that standard deviations for the two “no impression management” groups were appreciablylarger than the impression management condition group, indicating the business management students in the noimpression management conditions were more varied intheir ratings whereas the students in the job applicantwith SCI and impression management condition weresignificantly less varied in their ratings. Importantly, thesignificant effect of impression management on jobinterview outcomes will suggest that IM can be used tooffset any negative perception of employers about thepotential of people with disabilities as productiveworkers. 90 Habeck et al. Disability Management Employers Coalition Study 90 Habeck et al. Disability Management Employers Coalition Study