Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 307–323 | Cite as

College Students’ Evaluations and Reasoning About Exclusion of Students with Autism and Learning Disability: Context and Goals may Matter More than Contact

  • Kristen Bottema-Beutel
  • So Yoon Kim
  • David B. Miele
Original Paper

Abstract

This study used mixed-effects logistic regression to examine undergraduates’ (N = 142) evaluations and reasoning about scenarios involving disability-based exclusion. Scenarios varied by disability [autism spectrum disorder (ASD) versus learning disability (LD)], the context of exclusion (classroom versus social), and whether or not a grade was at stake. Participants were more likely to determine exclusion was acceptable if the excluded student had an ASD diagnosis, there was a grade at stake, and it occurred in a classroom. Exclusion was less likely to be considered acceptable in the “no grade” compared to the “grade” conditions for LD students, but remained high in both conditions for autistic students. This study also describes contextual variations in participants’ justifications for their evaluations.

Keywords

Moral reasoning Disability Exclusion Autism spectrum disorder Learning disability Social domain theory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Shannon Crowley, Josephine Cuda, Declan Foley, Jessica Barnes, Ashley Antwi, and Alexandra Sullivan for their assistance in conducting this research. We would also like to thank the many participants who agreed to be interviewed.

Author Contributions

KBB participated in the study design, supervised data collection and statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. SYK coordinated recruitment and data collection, conducted participant interviews, and participated in drafting and editing the manuscript. DM participated in the study design and statistical analysis, and edited the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Argyelan Family Foundation Fund administered by the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, and the Buehler Sesquicentennial Fund of Boston College. We would like to thank Shannon Crowley, Josephine Cuda, Declan Foley, Jessica Barnes, Ashley Antwi, and Alexandra Sullivan for their assistance in conducting this research. We would also like to thank the many participants who agreed to be interviewed.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10803_2018_3769_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 KB)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, J. J., & Bracchitta, K. (2015). Attitudes toward individuals with disabilities: The effects of contact with different disability types. Current Psychology, 34(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottema-Beutel, K., & Li, Z. (2015). Adolescent judgments and reasoning about the failure to include peers with social disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(6), 1873–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottema-Beutel, K., Turiel, E., DeWitt, M., & Wolfberg, P. J. (2017). To include or not to include: Evaluations and reasoning about the failure to include peers with autism spectrum disorder in elementary students. Autism, 21(1), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods (5th edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, R. C., & Gillis, J. M. (2011). The impact of labels and behaviors on the stigmatization of adults with Asperger’s disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(6), 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., & Marino, C. A. (2004). Combined descriptive and explanatory information improves peers’ perceptions of autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crystal, D. S., Killen, M., & Ruck, M. (2008). It is who you know that counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race‐based exclusion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, K., & Tu, H. (2009). Relations between classroom context, physical disability and preschool children’s inclusion decisions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra, J. K., Lindenberg, S., & Veenstra, R. (2007). Same-gender and cross-gender peer acceptance and peer rejection and their relation to bullying and helping among preadolescents: Comparing predictions from gender-homophily and goal-framing approaches. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1377–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elias, R., & White, S. W. (2017). Autism goes to college: Understanding the needs of a student population on the rise. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 732–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gasser, L., Malti, T., & Buholzer, A. (2013). Children’s moral judgments and moral emotions following exclusion of children with disabilities: Relations with inclusive education, age, and contact intensity. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gasser, L., Malti, T., & Buholzer, A. (2014). Swiss children’s moral and psychological judgments about inclusion and exclusion of children with disabilities. Child Development, 85(2), 532–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie-Lynch, K., Brooks, P. J., Someki, F., Obeid, R., Shane-Simpson, C., Kapp, S. K., & Smith, D. S. (2015). Changing college students’ conceptions of autism: An online training to increase knowledge and decrease stigma. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(8), 2553–2566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Parent, teacher, peers, and self-reports of the social competence of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(4), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, A. F. (2005). Statistical methods for communication science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
  20. Horn, S. (2003). Adolescents’ reasoning about exclusion from social groups. Developmental Psychology, 39, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Killen, M. (2007). Children’s social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Killen, M., Mulvey, K., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84(3), 772–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Killen, M., Rutland, A., Abrams, D., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2012). Development of intra- and intergroup judgments in the context of moral and social-conventional norms. Child Development, 84(3), 1063–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children’s reasoning about social inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 72, 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leets, L., & Sunwolf (2005). Adolescent rules for social exclusion: When is it fair to exclude someone else? Journal of Moral Education, 34, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, S. J. (2005). The early evolution of Jean Piaget’s clinical method. History of Psychology, 8(4), 362–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the life span. Developmental Review, 29(3), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morningstar, M. E., & Kurth, J. A. (2017). Status of inclusive educational placement for students with extensive and pervasive support needs. Inclusion, 5(2), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. 2011 [A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)]. NCSER 2011–3005. Retrieved from https://nlts2.sri.com/reports/2011_09_02/nlts2_report_2011_09_02_ch2.pdf.
  33. Nowicki, E. A., Brown, J., & Stepien, M. (2014). Children’s thoughts on the social exclusion of peers with intellectual or learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(4), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(3), 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Opper, S. (1977). Piaget’s clinical method. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1, 90–170.Google Scholar
  36. Park, Y., & Killen, M. (2010). When is peer rejection justifiable? Children’s understanding across two cultures. Cognitive Development, 25(3), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richardson, C. B., Hitti, A., Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2014). Social exclusion: The interplay of group goals and individual characteristics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1281–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roberston, S. M., & Ne’eman, A. D. (2008). Autistic acceptance, the college campus, and technology: Growth of neurodiversity in society and academia. Disability Studies Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v28i4.146.Google Scholar
  39. Sasson, N. J., Faso, D. J., Nugent, J., Lovell, S., Kennedy, D. P., & Grossman, R. B. (2017). Neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with those with autism based on thin slice judgments. Scientific Reports, 7, 40700.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sasson, N. J., & Morrison, K. E. (2017). First impressions of adults with autism improve with diagnostic disclosure and increased autism knowledge of peers. Autism, 7, 40700.Google Scholar
  41. Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B, Sterzing, P. R., Wagner, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 129, 1042–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smetana, J. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.Google Scholar
  44. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 7–36). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Turiel, E. (2008). Thought about actions in social domains: Morality, social conventions, and social interactions. Cognitive Development, 23, 136–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, J., & Scior, K. (2013). Tackling stigma associated with intellectual disability among the general public: A study of two indirect contact interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2200–2210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. White, D., Hillier, A., Frye, A., & Makrez, E. (2016). College students’ knowledge and attitudes towards students on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2818-1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education, Special Education, and Curriculum & Instruction, Lynch School of EducationBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology Department, Lynch School of EducationBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations