Support for the Americans with Disabilities Act Among Nondisabled People

Attitudes About Disability and the ADA

By learning about how attitudes operate, we are better able to understand social interactions, socialization, and prejudice formation (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Attitudes operate on two levels: explicit and implicit (Amodio & Mendoza, 2011; Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Explicit attitudes are conscious attitudes which often result in deliberate and calculated behaviors (Nosek et al., 2007; Phelan et al., 2015). While explicit attitudes have traditionally been measured via self-report (e.g., surveys), there are concerns that they do not capture all attitudes because people may feel pressure to conceal their biases, and/or people may be unaware they hold biased attitudes (Amodio & Mendoza, 2011; Antonak & Livneh, 2000). This social desirability pressure may be especially pertinent for topics where it is not socially desirable to have negative attitudes toward certain groups, such as people with disabilities. As a result, recently, much attention has been drawn toward examining implicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are unconscious attitudes; they typically operate unbeknownst to the prejudiced person and are manifested in behaviors they rationalize as not prejudiced (Amodio & Mendoza, 2011; Greenwald et al., 1998); “‘implicit’ refers to [lack of] awareness of how a bias influences a response, rather than to the experience of bias or to the response itself” (Amodio & Mendoza, 2011, p. 359). Implicit attitudes often reflect associations between attitudes and concepts, and can be the result of cognitive processes, including those related to social norms (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).

As explicit and implicit attitudes operate and manifest differently, people’s explicit and implicit attitudes do not necessarily align. Rather, combinations of explicit and implicit attitudes can fall into four categories: symbolic (high explicit, high implicit), principled conservative (high explicit, low implicit), aversive (low explicit, high implicit), and truly low prejudiced (low explicit, low implicit; Friedman, 2016; Son Hing et al., 2008). While symbolic ableists recognize people with disabilities do face discrimination, and they do have some empathy toward them, they favor individualism and believe people with disabilities produce excessive demands on social systems while also demanding too much special treatment (Friedman, 2019; Friedman & Awsumb, 2019). Principled conservatives are those people who truly value abstract conservative ideas; doing so causes them to dislike policies that stray from tradition (Son Hing et al., 2008). As a result, principle conservatives often discriminate against groups equally (Friedman, 2019; Son Hing et al., 2008). Aversive ableists are those who are more progressive and well-meaning—indicated by their low explicit prejudice—but still participate in biased actions or thought, especially in situations where their prejudice is less overtly evident or they can rationalize it as not prejudiced (Friedman, 2018, 2019). Finally, truly low prejudiced people are low in prejudice.

Most people are aversive ableists (Friedman, 2019). The implicit nature of this bias makes it more difficult to not only measure but also recognize—the extent to which people’s attitudes influence their behaviors may be underestimated. For most people, including policy makers, judicial leaders, and business owners, attitudes toward people with disabilities influence their actions (Campbell, 2009; Schwartz & Armony-Sivan, 2001). Yet, if and how attitudes about disability may affect attitudes toward the ADA and ADA decision is unknown. Stereotypes that people with disabilities are less than capable of participating in all parts of society can shape decisions on how to embrace the ADA. Many individuals in positions of power to implement and enforce the ADA are not people with disabilities; moreover, their beliefs and attitudes regarding disability can affect critical decisions regarding inclusion and people with disabilities’ civil rights. Thus, furthering an understanding of the relationship between disability prejudice and support for the ADA can inform businesses, governments, and public institutions, as well as the disability community. Exploring the attitudes and beliefs of community members can expose how structural barriers are not only created but also reinforced.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore support and opposition to the ADA among nondisabled people. We had the following research questions:

To do so, we examined secondary data from approximately 13,000 participants from all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Method

Data

Data about nondisabled people’s disability prejudice and attitudes toward the ADA were obtained from Project Implicit (Xu et al., 2014), a website where anyone from the general public can test their implicit prejudices, including against people with disabilities. Between 2004 and 2017, approximately 380,000 nondisabled people participated in the disability attitudes test; 75.9% of the sample (n = 288,597) provided information about their support for the ADA. The remaining participants (n = 91,717) were removed from the sample. Of those participants who answered the ADA question, 48.9% (n = 141,048) reported not being familiar enough the ADA to say if they supported it and were removed from the sample as a result.

The remaining sample (n = 147,549) was not remotely evenly distributed across support (most participants supported the ADA). Therefore, because we aimed for a relatively even breakdown of participants who did and did not support the ADA, we conducted a random sample of the remaining participants who supported the ADA using SPSS 23 (5% of applicable respondents) to approximate the n of people who did not support the ADA. Doing so also helped reduce the response bias. As a result, the final sample size was 12,472 participants. In total, 57.8% of the sample (n = 7,205) supported the ADA, whereas 42.2% of participants (n = 5,267) reported not supporting the ADA.

The majority of participants were women (67.4%) and White (66.3%; see Table 1). The mean age of participants was 29.33 years (SD = 12.63). In terms of the highest level of education, 10.9% did not complete high school, 6.5% completed high school, 36.1% had an associate degree or some college, 16.2% had a bachelor’s degree, 11.7% completed some graduate school, and 17.9% had a graduate degree. The majority of participants did not have a family member with a disability (63.2%) or a friend or close acquaintance with disabilities (58.2%). In terms of religiosity, the majority of participants identified as slightly religious (31.7%) or moderately religious (36.0%). Slightly more than half of the participants identified as liberal (56.4%), with fewer (43.6%) identifying as conservative. The mean year of participation was 2011 (SD = 3.35).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographics for the Participants in the ADA Attitudes Study.

Characteristic	n	%
Sex (n = 11,420)
Female	7,698	67.4
Male	3,722	29.8
Education level (n = 11,059)
Less than high school	1,206	10.9
High school	720	6.5
Associate’s degree or some college	3,990	36.1
Bachelor’s degree	1,791	16.2
Some graduate school	1,291	11.7
Graduate degree	1,985	17.9
Race (n = 10,237)
White	6,786	66.3
Black	912	8.9
Latinx	389	3.8
East Asian	289	2.8
South Asian	204	2.0
American Indian/Alaska Native	111	1.1
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	97	0.9
More than one race	484	4.7
Other	381	3.7
Political orientation (n = 7,734)
Strongly conservative	739	9.6
Moderately conservative	1,411	18.2
Slightly conservative	1,222	15.8
Slightly liberal	1,239	16.0
Moderately liberal	2,021	26.1
Strongly liberal	1,102	14.2
Family member/s with disabilities (n = 11,396)
No	7,200	63.2
Yes	4,196	36.8
Friends or close acquaintances with disabilities (n = 11,354)
No	6,610	58.2
Yes	4,744	41.8
Religiosity (n = 7,942)
Not at all religious	1,090	13.7
Slightly religious	2,521	31.7
Moderately religious	2,857	36.0
Strongly religious	1,474	18.6

Note. N = 12,472.

Results

Participants’ explicit prejudice ranged from 1 (strong preference for people with disabilities) to 7 (strong preference for nondisabled people), with a mean score of 4.67 (SD = 1.12), which is a slight preference for nondisabled people (see Figure 1). Participants’ implicit prejudice ranged from −1.78 (strong preference for people with disabilities) to 1.74 (strong preference for nondisabled people), with a mean score of 0.50 (SD = 0.45), which equates to a moderate preference for nondisabled people (see Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Explicit disability prejudice by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) support.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Implicit disability prejudice by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) support.

Other Factors That Affect ADA Attitudes

To explore our second research question, we ran a binary logistic regression model with the following IVs: age; education; sex; race; political orientation; religiosity; family members with disabilities; friends/close acquaintances with disabilities; and year of participation. The DV was participants’ support of the ADA—no (0), yes (1). We also controlled for explicit and implicit disability prejudice. The model was significant, χ²(28) = 776.11, −2LL = 4,418.54, p < .001. The model correctly classified 72.5% of cases and predicted 24.2% of variance.

Univariate statistics revealed significant differences in support for the ADA across the following variables: age; education; political orientation; sex; race; people with friends/close acquaintances with disabilities; and year of participation (see Table 2 for odds ratios). Controlling for all other variables, women were 1.81 times more likely to support ADA than men.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Binary Logistic Regression: Odds to Support the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Variable	OR	95% CI
(Constant)	0.57
Age (years)***	0.99	0.98	0.99
Education level (ref: less than high school)
High school**	1.69	1.11	2.56
Associate’s degree or some college***	2.75	2.03	3.72
Bachelor’s degree***	3.67	2.63	5.11
Some graduate school***	4.64	3.28	6.57
Graduate degree***	4.40	3.14	6.18
Sex: female (ref: male)***	1.81	1.55	2.12
Race (ref: White)
American Indian/Alaska Native**	0.42	0.21	0.83
Black***	0.48	0.37	0.62
East Asian	0.68	0.43	1.07
South Asian**	0.51	0.30	0.85
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander***	0.22	0.10	0.51
Latinx	0.71	0.49	1.04
More than one race***	0.47	0.32	0.67
Other***	0.33	0.21	0.52
Political orientation (ref: strongly conservative)
Moderately conservative***	1.88	1.45	2.44
Slightly conservative***	2.49	1.87	3.31
Slightly liberal***	3.37	2.49	4.56
Moderately liberal***	5.02	3.76	6.71
Strongly liberal***	5.30	3.71	7.58
Religiosity (ref: not at all religious)
Slightly religious	1.10	0.86	1.41
Moderately religious	1.25	0.97	1.60
Strongly religious	1.22	0.92	1.62
Family member/s with disabilities	0.97	0.83	1.13
Friends or close acquaintances with disabilities***	1.28	1.10	1.49
Year of participation***	1.08	1.05	1.10

Note. Model controls for explicit and implicit disability prejudice (not shown). OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence ratio.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

According to our findings, the older the participants were, the less likely they were to support the ADA. For example, controlling for all other variables, a 25-year-old is 1.08 times less likely to support the ADA than an 18-year-old, a 40-year-old is 1.29 times less likely, and a 70-year-old is 1.82 times less likely.

When controlling for all other variables, some people of color were less likely to support the ADA. Compared with White people, Native American people were 2.41 times less likely to support the ADA, Black people were 2.07 times less likely, South Asian people were 1.97 times less likely, Native Hawaiian people were 4.55 times less likely, people from more than one race were 2.15 times less likely, and people from “other” races were 3.00 times less likely.

People with friends or close acquaintances with disabilities were 1.28 times more likely to support the ADA than people without friends or close acquaintances with disabilities. However, there was not a significant difference for people with family members with disabilities.

The more education the participants had, the more likely they were to support the ADA. For example, compared with people who did not complete high school, people with a high school degree were 1.69 times more likely to support the ADA, associate degree or some college were 2.75 times more likely, bachelor’s degree were 3.67 times more likely, some graduate school were 4.64 times more likely, and graduate degree were 4.40 times more likely.

The more liberal the people were, the more likely they were to support the ADA; the reverse was true of conservatives. For example, according to the model, compared with strongly conservatives, moderately conservatives were 1.88 times more likely to support the ADA, slightly conservatives were 2.49 times more likely, slightly liberals were 3.37 times more likely, moderately liberals were 5.02 times more likely, and strongly liberal were 5.30 times more likely.

The later the year of participation, the more likely the people were to support the ADA. For example, controlling for all other variables, compared with people who participated in 2004, people who participated in 2005 are 1.08 times more likely to support the ADA, people in 2010 are 1.56 times more likely, and 2015 are 2.25 times more likely.

Discussion

Preventing discriminatory practices that exclude and marginalize people, and create inequalities and social injustices requires ending the discriminatory attitudes that accompany them (Gould et al., 2015). To uphold the principles and regulations put forth by the ADA, beliefs and attitudes of negative prejudice against people with disabilities must be renounced (Diller, 2000). In fact, negative attitudes and prejudicial behaviors are consistently reported by people with disabilities as one of the leading causes of a lack of accommodations and barriers to participation in the area of employment (Gold et al., 2012; Harpur, 2014), education (Malhotra & Rowe, 2013), transportation (Bezyak et al., 2017; Daruwalla & Darcy, 2005), and health care (Drainoni et al., 2006; Lagu et al., 2014).

Findings from this study revealed that people who oppose the ADA are significantly more prejudiced toward people with disabilities than people who support the ADA. Those opposed to the ADA not only had significantly higher implicit unconscious prejudice, they also self-reported (explicitly) having prejudice more often. These findings may be of critical importance, particularly in a political climate that threatens to shift the ADA from its original anti-discrimination intent. Efforts to lessen the enforceability of accommodations provided by the ADA have been part of recent legislative decision-making (American Civil Liberties Union, 2018; Duckworth, 2018; Langevin, 2018; Nović, 2018), and the American Civil Liberties Union (2018) cautioned the public that these efforts, if successful, would undermine the civil rights of people with disabilities gained by the ADA/Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAAA).

Those that oppose the ADA tend to justify their beliefs by citing the costs associated with businesses accommodating people with disabilities, especially to small business owners, as well as claims that people will file lawsuits to profit (Gold et al., 2012; Johnson, 2003). Not only has research found that typically there are few costs or no costs associated with ADA accommodations (Baker et al., 2018; Berkeley Planning Associates, 1982; Hendricks et al., 2005; Schartz et al., 2006), it has also been disproven that people with disabilities frivolously file ADA lawsuits (Nović, 2018). As neither of these claims prove true, it maybe that the origin of these beliefs is grounded in concepts of ableism, as our findings revealed a significant link between the two.

In fact, people opposed to the ADA were more likely to be symbolic ableists, as opposed to other prejudice styles. Symbolic ableism is a subtle modern form of prejudice that is expressed through symbols, such as opposition to affirmative action or opposition to “identity politics,” and justified and rationalized. Symbolic ableists have high explicit prejudice and implicit prejudice. Although they have recognized there is still discrimination against people with disabilities and have some empathy toward people with disabilities, symbolic ableists score high in individualism, including the idea that if people with disabilities try hard enough, they can succeed (Friedman & Awsumb, 2019). They also are more likely to believe people with disabilities produce excessive demands on the system and demand special favor (Friedman & Awsumb, 2019; Henry & Sears, 2002). According to symbolic racism research, this belief that social minorities are demanding special favors,

Seem[s] to reflect a consistent internal logic: if the civil rights era had ended discrimination, Blacks’ continuing disadvantage had to be due to shortcomings among Blacks themselves; and if that were true, both their demands for special attention and any special gains were illegitimate. Each falls under the umbrella of the “blend” of negative affect against Blacks and conservative values, reflecting the idea that Blacks violate key cherished American values. (Henry & Sears, 2002, p. 256)

Indeed, antisocial welfare attitudes are often justified based on “the appeals to the values of individualism” in the United States (Feldman & Zaller, 1992, p. 272). Symbolic forms of prejudice are rooted in abstract beliefs about socialized values, which people supposedly violate (Henry & Sears, 2002, 2008; Sears et al., 2000); however, despite the tie to conservative values, symbolic prejudice is related to antipathy and bias. In fact, the link between disability prejudice and opposition to the ADA in this study was significant even when political orientation was controlled. Although a small proportion of people who opposed the ADA were not implicitly prejudiced, and may truly oppose it because of abstract values, opposition to the largest civil rights legislation for people with disabilities in the nation is problematic as it threatens to hinder the fundamental rights of people with disabilities.

In terms of differences in support across groups, older adults were less likely to support the ADA than younger people. This may be due to the fact that younger people grew up with the ADA and were more likely to have more people with disabilities integrated into their classrooms. It is also important to note that older adults’ opposition to the ADA goes against their own self-interest as they are more likely to acquire disabilities as they age (Ory et al., 2003; Smeeding et al., 2000). However, ageism may make older adults want to disassociate from people with disabilities and lead to less support as a result. In fact, older participants had more prejudice than younger participants. These findings may also be related to interactions in play as the differences dissipated when the other controls were removed. There may also be differences in this sample compared with the general population. For example, although research indicates people become more conservative as they age (Tilley & Evans, 2014), older adults in our study were more likely to identify as liberal rather than conservative.

Women were more likely to support the ADA than men in this study. This aligns with previous research that has found women tend to feel more favorably toward people with disabilities than men and have more empathy for people with disabilities (Friedman & Awsumb, 2019; Hirschberger et al., 2005). It may be that as a social minority that has had to fight for many civil rights, women are more inclined to support civil rights legislation for other populations. However, it is important to remember that not all women are necessarily in favor of legislation or policies that would benefit other social minorities or themselves, even when it may go against their own self-interests. For example, White women overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election (CNN, 2018), despite his history of sexism (Boyer, 2017; Cohen, 2017); the majority of which were motivated by racism and sexism rather than economic difficulties (Schaffner et al., 2018). As a result of these potentially conflicting motivations, more research is needed to explore why women were more likely to support the ADA than men in our study.

Black, South Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and interracial participants were less likely to support the ADA than White participants. This finding was surprising, given people of color are more likely to have disabilities because of environmental conditions and social disparities (Mendes de Leon et al., 2005; Thorpe et al., 2014); moreover, one might hypothesize that

minority groups that are the object of prejudice and discrimination should be attracted to each other. Because both groups have a history of political, social, and economic discrimination, and because both groups share a relatively recent entry into state legislatures, each group may be sympathetic to issues salient to the other. (Bratton & Haynie, 1999, p. 661)

For example, research has found that Black legislators are more likely to not only introduce bills that support women’s interests than White legislators but also introduce bills about welfare, education, and similar government appropriations (Bratton & Haynie, 1999; Brookman, 2013).

Another theory about social minority group relations is they “might adopt the dominant attitudes of majority groups, including stereotypes of and discrimination against other minorities” (Bratton & Haynie, 1999, p. 661). Yet, participants of color in this study were not significantly more prejudiced against people with disabilities than White participants, so the motivation for opposition to the ADA is likely not internalization of ableism alone. As such, these findings may be related to interactions as participants of color were overall more religious, slightly more conservative, and had less education than White participants in the sample. As people of color in the general population tend to be more liberal than White people (CNN, 2018), which runs counter to this sample, the findings may also be sample specific.

Findings also revealed change over time in terms of support for the ADA. The more recently the person participated in the study, the more likely they were to support the ADA. It may be that the longer the ADA exists, the more favorable views of it and its impacts become. This may be especially true as more and more people grow up and know nothing except for the existence of the ADA, and have more people with disabilities in their schools, communities, and places of employment. However, it should be noted that approximately half of the original sample (48.9%; 141,048 out of 288,597 people) reported that they did not even know enough about the ADA to speak to if they supported it or not. While it may be unsettling to acknowledge that one of the major pieces of civil rights legislation for people with disabilities is little understood, this parallels with the fact that despite being one of the largest minority groups in the United States, people with disability are typically not recognized as a minority group (Drum et al., 2011; Krahn et al., 2015). These findings suggest more education is still needed about the ADA and how it benefits people with disabilities, including by dispelling the common myths.

Moreover, despite the differences in explicit and implicit prejudice across people who supported and opposed the ADA, it should be noted that both groups of people had implicit prejudice scores that fell within the moderate prejudice range. Although problematic, this finding is not uncommon. In fact, Nosek et al.’s (2007) study of 2.5 million people (2000–2006) found that across a wide range of social groups, explicit and implicit prejudice was strongest against disability. Unfortunately, although the ADA aims to reduce disability discrimination, one of its weaknesses is that it does not address systemic barriers, such as implicit prejudice (Batavia & Schriner, 2001; McMahon et al., 2008).

Explaining the basis of civil rights claims of people with disabilities requires an ideological shift that asks the public to reconceptualize the causes of disability from impairment or abnormality to purposeful exclusion, intentional ignorance, or acts of discrimination. Society has little understanding of the social causes of disability and is staunchly grounded in medical, impairment, and individualized models. As a result, negative attitudes against the ADA point to more individualized, case-by-case need for change versus social, institutional, or cultural. Recognizing negative prejudices of disability and that discrimination against people with disabilities is deeply woven into the fabric of our institutions, media, and day-to-day practices is a step toward reflecting on personal beliefs and how our own actions may in fact be discriminatory.

Conclusion

The ADA opened the doors to access and enhanced the civil rights of people with disabilities. However, a lack of accessibility to all segments of society continues throughout the United States and is frequently described by people with disabilities as a leading cause for limited participation (Iezzoni & O’Day, 2006; Jette & Field, 2007; Rimmer & Marques, 2012; Sabella & Bezyak, 2019). Both the ADA and the ADAAA (2008) provided a foundation for reducing inaccessibility to physical and attitudinal environments, social programming, and public institutions. The ADA requires societal and attitudinal embrace from the public and private sectors to achieve the transformative effect of equality, social justice, and inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of everyday participation. Understanding and becoming aware of attitudes and prejudice toward persons with disabilities can be a first step toward dispelling such beliefs and possibly a priori step to achieving the intent and spirit of the ADA.