The Effect of Perceived Inclusion on Middle School Students' Attitudes and Actions toward a Peer with Autism

Background: Research studying the effectiveness of inclusive educational practices has generated mixed results. Some studies have reported that students with disabilities who are educated alongside typically developing peers benefit from positive social networks (e.g., Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997). Other research, however, indicates that children with disabilities in mainstreamed educational environments may experience negative socio-emotional and health outcomes such as lower physical self-confidence, fewer close friendships, and lower rankings in classroom social status than typically developing peers (Armstrong, Rosenbaum, & King, 1992). Such inconsistent results may be due to the attitudes and actions of typically developing peers toward children with autism. Children with autism who are fully integrated, both physically and socially, with peers in general education classes may be perceived more positively by same-age peers than children with autism who are either socially rejected by typically developing peers or physically segregated from typically developing peers.

Objectives: To evaluate how different degrees of inclusion influence middle school students’ attitudes and actions toward a fictional target peer with autism.

Methods: Middle school-age students viewed one of three personal websites said to have been created by Charlie, a same-age peer with autism. The websites varied in the extent to which Charlie appeared to be included in activities with typically developing peers (e.g., lunch, school dance). In the Fully Included Condition, Charlie was depicted as both physically and socially included in activities with peers without disabilities. In the Partially Included Condition, Charlie was presented alongside peers without disabilities, but he appeared to be socially rejected and ostracized by his typically developing peers. In the Excluded Condition, Charlie was socially included by a peer group of children with orthopedic impairments. Participants’ attitudes toward Charlie were measured using a modified version of the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes toward Children with Handicaps Scale (CATCH). Participants were also asked to predict their peers’ attitudes toward Charlie.  In addition to these attitudinal measures, participants were asked to divide a monetary reward between themselves and Charlie. Parent attitudes toward children with autism were measured a modified version of the Parental Attitudes toward Children with Handicaps Scale (PATCH).

Results: Preliminary results indicate that participants in the Fully Included Condition expressed more positive attitudes toward Charlie than participants in either the Partially Included or Excluded conditions. Furthermore, children in the Fully Included Condition distributed a larger portion of the reward to Charlie than participants in the other two conditions. Consistent with previous work, children in all three conditions reported more favorable personal attitudes toward Charlie than attitudes attributed to their peers.

Conclusions: Preliminary results support the hypothesis that both physical and social inclusion influence participants’ attitudes and actions toward a fictional target peer with autism. These results indicate that some physically inclusive environments may not necessarily promote the social well-being of students with autism. Educators and policymakers may increase the effectiveness of inclusionary practices by working to promote greater social acceptance of children with autism by typically developing peers.