Responses to Employees with Disabilities: An Analysis of Context, Stereotypes, Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies

Joanne Brown (2010). Responses to Employees with Disabilities: An Analysis of Context, Stereotypes, Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies PhD Thesis, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland.

       
Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
s3663980_phd_finalabstract.pdf Final Thesis Abstract application/pdf 15.54KB 1
s3663980_phd_finalthesis.pdf Final Thesis application/pdf 972.56KB 18
Author Joanne Brown
Thesis Title Responses to Employees with Disabilities: An Analysis of Context, Stereotypes, Emotions and Behavioural Tendencies
School, Centre or Institute School of Psychology
Institution The University of Queensland
Publication date 2010-12
Thesis type PhD Thesis
Supervisor Prof. Jolanda Jetten
Dr. Winnifred Louis
Dr. Barbara Masser
Total pages 216
Total black and white pages 216
Subjects 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
Abstract/Summary This thesis examined responses to employees with disability vying for promotion. Building on Cuddy et al.’s (2007) BIAS Map framework, five studies were conducted to assess (a) the extent responses to people with disability as a general category generalise to subgroups, and (b) the role of contextual factors in shaping stereotypes, emotions, behavioural tendencies and attitudes toward employees with disability. Results revealed that although participants differentiated between the broad physical, communication and psychiatric disability subgroups (Study 1, N = 177), the pattern of emotions and promotion attitudes for these was largely identical to the generic disability category (Study 2, N = 60). Therefore, it was concluded that emotional and attitudinal responses to ‘employees with disability’ are generalisable to subgroups. The emotion of pity (typically associated with people with disability) did not predict attitudes, indicating that emotions toward the target stemmed from stereotypes other than high warmth-low competence (Study 2). It was concluded that stereotypes of people with disabilities may not be fixed, but shaped by the context in which judgements are made. It was also found that perceptions of legitimacy to discriminate (Study 3, N = 57) and anger (Study 5, N = 78) predicted less favourable promotion attitudes, with anger also predicting harm behavioural tendencies (Study 5). Addressing the second research aim, there was evidence that contextual factors influence stereotypes and positioning on the BIAS Map. Specifically, disability type (Study 1) and disability onset controllability (Studies 3, 4 and 5) affected warmth ratings, while competence stereotypes were shaped by co-worker statements of employee competence (Studies 4 and 5). Consistent with predictions, differences in perceived warmth for disability subgroups resulted in less favourable views and treatment of those with psychiatric disabilities than those with communication or physical conditions (Study 1). Likewise, lower warmth perceptions of employees with self-caused disabilities lead to less admiration and fewer intentions to facilitate than those with disabilities caused by external or unspecified sources (Studies 3, 4 and 5). Unexpectedly, emotions and behavioural tendencies were unaffected by stated employee competence (Studies 4 and 5). Collectively, results demonstrated the utility of the BIAS Map to explain and predict nuanced differences in emotions and behavioural tendencies based on target warmth stereotype placement. Successful model applications were made to context-specific judgements and subgroup levels of analysis. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed.
Keyword disability
employees
stereotypes
emotions
discrimination
promotion
BIAS Map
Additional Notes Landscape pages: 36, 48, 61, 71, 115, 116, 140-141, 145, 148, 173. Pages containing figures/ tables: 36, 48, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 89, 91, 92, 110, 111, 115, 116, 138, 139, 140-141, 145, 148, 164, 173.

 
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 30 Jun 2011, 15:58:16 EST by Ms Joanne Brown on behalf of Library - Information Access Service