1. Increased Likeability Evoked in the Context of a Disabling Condition By: Greg Sapp

2. Power and Green (2010) ‒ 10% of the world’s population experiences some form of disability ‒ Number is increasing… › Population › Growth › Ageing › Chronic diseases › Preserve and prolong life Literature Review

3. Litvack, Ritchie, and Shore (2011) ‒ Students, age range 18-23 › No relationship with disabled classmates › Academic helper, casual playmate, or friend ‒ Disability not a significant factor in determining relationships within the classroom setting ‒ 6.7% had no realization of classmate suffering from a disability Literature Review

4. Vilchinsky, Findler, and Werner (2010) ‒ Attachment orientation › Coping with stressful events provides a framework for predicting specific attitudes toward persons with disabilities › Interaction with a disabled person may bring into memory something from the past that could be negative or positive Literature Review

5. Jelfs & Richardson (2010) ‒ Legislative push to promote equal opportunities in academics ‒ Careful monitoring is needed to detect any violation of human rights of people with varying disabilities › Some countries have no legislation protecting disability rights (Guimón, 2010) Literature Review

6. Previous research on perceptions and attitudes suggests that there are perceived feelings of empathy directed at disabled individuals from the perspective of ambulatory people Feelings of empathy are fundamental in fully understanding the likeability of a disabled person within society Rationale and Importance of Research Question

7. Participants will rate a person with a disability as highly likeable compared to an ambulatory person, regardless of the mood presented in each condition Hypothesis

8. Introductory psychology students ‒ 38 women, 22 men ‒ Mage = 19.35 years ‒ Age range: 18-28 years ‒ 34 white, 23 black, 2 Hispanic, 1 classified as other Recruited using the GSU SONA system Participants

9. Reysen Likeability Scale (Reysen, 2005) Informed Consent Form Sign-in sheet Videos: 1 of 4 Materials

10. Video: –Hospitable vs. Rude Behavior –Disabled vs. Nondisabled Person Analysis: –2 × 2 ANOVA Procedure

11. Seating Sign-in sheet Informed Consent Form ‒ Carefully read ‒ Sign and date ‒ Give copy to participant Procedure

12. Reysen Likeability Scale ‒ Demographics Remain seated Collect questionnaires Thank participants Procedure

13. Likeability scores were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) having two levels of mood (hospitable, rude) and two levels of ability (handicapped, ambulatory). Not all effects were statistically significant at the.05 significance level. The main effect of mood yielded an F ratio of F(1, 33) = 66.20, p <.001, indicating that the mean score was significantly greater for hospitable mood (M = 4.56, SD = 0.16) than for rude mood (M = 2.77, SD = 0.15). Results

14. The main effect of ability level yielded an F ratio of F(1, 31) = 1.69, p >.05, indicating that the mean change score was not significantly higher in the handicapped condition (M = 3.81, SD = 0.15) than in the ambulatory condition (M = 3.52, SD = 0.16). The interaction effect was nonsignificant, F(1, 64) = 0.17, p >.05. The results indicate that there was a significant interaction between the mood and likeability scores but not between the condition of the person and likeability score. Results

15. Tables/Figures Video Type vs. Mean Likeability Score

16. The hypothesis of a significant effect of the physical condition of a person on likeability when scored by a viewer was not supported Interaction between mood and physical condition on likeability was supported Mood of the person and not their condition caused higher likeability ratings Conclusion

17. Positive mood produced higher ratings than rude mood Disability had no merit when being scored on a likeability scale compared to an ambulatory person Overall mood played the biggest part in higher likeability scores Conclusion

18. Further research is suggested ‒ Subject pool was limited Recruit more participants ‒ Varying ages ‒ More socioeconomic backgrounds › Exposure to disabled people Plans for Future Research

19. Litvack, Ritchie, and Shore (2011), noted in their study that students, age range 18-23, stated that they have no relationship with classmates with a disability Given the ages of the participants, there may have been inadequate exposure to disabled people as compared to older people Plans for Future Research

20. References Jelfs, A., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2010). Perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying among disabled and nondisabled students in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 593-607. Litvack, M. S., Ritchie, K. C., & Shore, B. M. (2011). High- and average-achieving students’ perceptions of disabilities and of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 77, 474-487. Power, M. J., & Green, A. M. (2010). The Attitudes to Disability Scale (ADS): Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 860-874. Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 201-208. Vilchinsky, N., Findler, L., & Werner, S. (2010). Attitudes toward people with disabilities: The Perspective of Attachment Theory. Rehabilitation Psychology, 55, 298-306.