ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES REGARDING DISABILITY TYPES VIEWED FROM THREE PERSPECTIVES.

This study examines various attitudes and preferences regarding human disabilities types and categories as seen from three different viewpoints. We examine the social distance literature researching attitudes of the general public about a list of disabilities. We compare and contrast this with similar research of attitudes about disabilities collected from health care professions rather than the general public. Finally, we compare both of these views with the actual claims filed in recent years under that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A few conclusions can be drawn from the comparison. First, observable mental disabilities are least favored in terms of social distance preferences, rated as least prestigious, and are subject of few claims. Second, unobserved conditions such as diabetes and heart conditions are most favored, most prestigious, and a subject of more claims. Third, there is remarkable stability of attitudes over time toward different disabilities. Finally, we observe that the diversity of disabilities makes the very large group of individuals with disabilities hard to group into a single class politically or sociologically. This study examines various attitudes and preferences regarding human disabilities types and categories as seen from three different viewpoints. We examine the social distance literature researching attitudes about disabilities of the general public. We compare and contrast this with similar research of opinions about disabilities collected from health care professions. Finally, we compare both of these views with the actual claims under that Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Earlier, we and others, examined attitudes from the viewpoint of Tringo's (1970) Disability Social Distance Scale which yielded a distribution of preferences across of list of specified disabilities (Hatfield & Turner, 2001). Studies found that the categorization by the general public of a list of disabilities was relatively stable across over 30 years (Thomas, 2000). A recent article by Grue et al. (2015) refers to such earlier work, such as Tringo's and Hatfield's perhaps, as creating a "vulgar hierarchy..." with those diseases at the top seen to be "more a disease" than those at the bottom. Grue's recent research collected the attitudes of health care professionals about diseases and disabilities. Rather than collecting the attitudes of people in the general population, Grue's study elicits attitudes from those who have more informed views about diseases and disabilities included in his questionnaire. These informed respondents were asked to rank 38 diseases and disabilities individually on a scale from 1 to 9 based upon whether the conditions is "seen by professionals in the disability field" as "low prestige" or "high prestige" respectively. This methodology of using the positive term "prestige" is interesting since much of the traditional literature in the area of disability is more likely to use terms with negative connotations like "stigma" and "discrimination (against)". Data from the Institute on Employment and Disability at Cornell University provides insight into an understanding of disability types and the attitudes around them by examining the bases or types cited in ADA charges during recent periods (von Schrader & Erickson, 2017). The most recent data is 2012-2014. Comparisons across the three viewpoints - general public, healthcare professionals, and ADA (and ADA Amendments Act of 2008 - ADAAA) charges, show that "mental retardation" is near the bottom of all three rankings while diabetes is found near the top across the rankings. While it is clear that disability type or category is important, discrimination potential toward or against a person with a disability is complex. Our prior research found an interaction between disability type and situational expectations. For instance, when screening for a job where the person would be in public view, a person with a viewable disability would be discriminated against in terms of obtaining a hiring recommendation. However, where the job was not be in the public view, a viewable disability worked in favor of obtaining a positive hiring recommendation when judged against someone not presenting such a disability (Hui & Hatfield, 1992). Recently there has been a great deal of discussion about discrimination, lawful or not, toward or away from certain groups. Categorization as to race, religion, sexual preference, national origin, and legal status have been news and political talking points in recent months. However, there has been little national discussion about discrimination against persons with disabilities although it is arguably one of the largest "protected classes" under the laws in the U.S. Some estimated, around the passage of the ADA in 1990, that one in seven Americans are disabled under the broad terms of the act (and as restored in the ADAAA). One problem in gaining a better understanding attitudes about persons with disabilities is their different categorization. "Persons with disabilities" are sometimes seen as another uniform "protected class." In some ways, race, gender, and age can be seen as binary in categorization: you are a member of a minority (non-white) race or not, male or female, old or not, etc. However, research has found that people view disability types very differently. All three comparisons in this paper demonstrate such perceived differences. This has meant that it is more complicated to have a political movement to gain any additional understanding or exposure. One author has said that disability is an authentic identify obscured by an inauthentic but more socially acceptable identity (non-disabled) - a phrased also used by the LGBT movement. An article discussing this asks for more thought and research because "the relationship between disability and specific types of illness and impairments, nor the way in which people identify with or identify other as member of one or the other category is sufficiently understood" (Grue, 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]