Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 117–120 | Cite as

Nonverbal cues employed in discriminating between disabled persons and actors

  • David L. Wiesenthal
  • Leonard H. Theodor
  • Donna E. Hurford
Notes In Brief

Abstract

Undergraduate subjects were seen to accurately discriminate between simulating actors and genuinely disabled males confined to wheelchairs. Judgments were based on skill in manipulating the wheelchair, poorer muscular development of the disabled, and on appearance of clothing. Implications for research on the disabled employing actors was discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Disable Person Muscular Development Undergraduate Subject Disable Male 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belgrave, F. Z. & Mills, J. Effect upon desire for social interaction with a physically disabled person of mentioning the disability in different contexts.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1981,11, 44–57.Google Scholar
  2. Commer, R. J. & Piliavin, J. A. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction.Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 1972,23, 33–39.Google Scholar
  3. Farina, A., Sherman, M. & Allen, J. G. Role of physical abnormalities in interpersonal perception and behavior.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968,73, 590–593.Google Scholar
  4. Katz, I.Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. Kleck, R. Physical stigma and nonverbal cues emitted in face-to-face interaction.Human Relations, 1968,21, 19–28.Google Scholar
  6. Kleck, R. Physical stigma and task oriented interactions.Human Relations, 1969,22, 53–60.Google Scholar
  7. Kleck, R., Ono, H. & Hastorf, A. H. The effects of physical deviance upon face-to-face interaction.Human Relations, 1966,19, 425–436.Google Scholar
  8. Langer, E. J., Fiske, S., Taylor, S. E., & Chanowitz, B. Stigma, staring, and discomfort: a novelstimulus hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976,12, 451–463.Google Scholar
  9. Levitt, L. & Kornhaber, R. C. Stigma and compliance: A re-examination.Journal of Social Psychology, 1977,103, 13–18.Google Scholar
  10. Pomazal, R. J. & Clore, G. L.Helping on the highway: The effects of dependency and sex.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973,3, 150–164.Google Scholar
  11. Snyder, M. L., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A. & Mentzer, S. J. Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional amgibuity analysis. analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37, 2297–2306.Google Scholar
  12. Worthington, M. E. Personal space as a function of the stigma effect.Environment and Behavior, 1974,6, 289–294.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Wiesenthal
    • 1
  • Leonard H. Theodor
  • Donna E. Hurford
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityDownsviewCanada

Personalised recommendations