Improving Interability Attitudes: Examining Positive and Negative Communication Processes

1 Intergroup Contact Theory

Intergroup contact theory explains that frequent and positive engagement in intergroup contact can reduce bias between in- and outgroups and improve intergroup relations (Pettigrew 1998). Intergroup contact theory is a guiding theoretical framework of intergroup communication (Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew et al. 2011). Support for intergroup contact theory has been found in many intergroup contexts demarcated by age, religion, ethnicity, culture, disability, or gender (e.g., Byrd and Zhang 2019; Zhang et al. 2018). Research in the interability context has shown that contact or communication with participants’ specific outgroup contact who has a disability can reduce prejudice directly and indirectly through the enactment of social support, development of relational solidarity, and reduction of intergroup anxiety (Byrd and Zhang 2019; Byrd, Zhang, and Gist-Mackey 2019). These studies have examined various forms of contact or communicative manifestations of contact, such as communication frequency, quality, self-disclosure, and communication accommodation, in understanding bias reduction and the improvement of intergroup relations in the interability context.

Research from an intergroup contact approach explains several ways in which communication, especially with a specific outgroup member, such as a family member or close friend, can reduce prejudice. Several mechanisms have been examined explaining why contact works, such as gaining knowledge about the outgroup, reducing anxiety, and generating affective ties, which then lead to behavior modifications and changes (Pettigrew 1998; Pettigrew and Tropp 2008). The current study includes behavioral intergroup attitudes, which we conceptualize as future “behavioral intentions toward members of a group,” as the outcome variable (Esses and Dovidio 2002, 1204). Behavioral intergroup attitudes have been examined as a positive outcome of intergroup communication (e.g., Harwood et al. 2005; Imamura, Zhang, and Harwood 2011; Ristić, Zhang, and Liu 2019). People without disabilities’ intergroup attitudes in the interability context are essential since prior research shows that behavioral attitude change or willingness to engage with the outgroup is typically the precursor or the first step to long-lasting affective or cognitive change (Pettigrew 1998; Tropp and Pettigrew 2005). Thus, behavioral intergroup attitudes are included as the major outcome variable.

Intergroup contact researchers have argued that for attitude change to be successful, the encounter must qualify as intergroup, meaning that group membership must be salient (Fox and Giles 1996; Hewstone and Brown 1986). Therefore, participants were asked about their experiences communicating with people with visible, physical disabilities in general. As such, group salience or the awareness and visibility of physical disabilities is more likely to constitute the interaction as intergroup. The following sections outline the present study’s predicting and explanatory variables.

2 Methods

3 Results

We utilized Model 6 of PROCESS with 5,000 bootstrap iterations (Hayes 2022) to conduct regression-based analyses testing direct and indirect effects. When conducting an analysis, one of the communication variables (i.e., perceived accommodation or perceived nonaccommodation) functioned as the independent variable (X), intergroup anxiety and empathy functioned simultaneously as explanatory variables (M1 and M2), and intergroup attitudes functioned as the outcome variable (Y). When one focal independent variable (e.g., communication accommodation) was analyzed, the other predictor variable (e.g., communication nonaccommodation) was entered as a covariate.

Prior to hypothesis testing, correlation analyses were conducted among all major variables, and included participants’ age, sex (0 = female, 1 = male), ethnicity (0 = white; 1 = non-white), and communication frequency to investigate the potential influence of demographic characteristics and general interability communication experiences on our major variables. Correlation testing showed that there was a significant negative association between participants’ age and nonaccommodative communication (b = −0.20, p < 0.001), as well as intergroup anxiety (b = −0.23, p < 0.001). There was a significant positive association between participant’s sex and both nonaccommodative communication (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and intergroup anxiety (b = 0.20, p < 0.001), but there was a negative association with empathy (b = −0.13, p < 0.001) and intergroup attitudes (b = −0.16, p < 0.001). Communication frequency was positively associated with accommodative communication (b = 0.43, p < 0.001), intergroup empathy (b = 0.16, p < 0.001), and intergroup attitudes (b = 0.28, p < 0.001). There were no significant correlation findings related to ethnicity. Therefore, participants’ age, sex, and communication frequency functioned as control variables in the analysis of our hypotheses. See Table 2 for correlations of the major measures.

Supporting H1, perceived communication accommodation positively predicted intergroup attitudes. H2 was not supported since communication nonaccommodation did not have a direct association with intergroup attitudes. Supporting H3a, perceived accommodative communication positively influenced intergroup attitudes through intergroup anxiety and empathy in that perceived communication accommodation negatively predicted anxiety, which was then negatively associated with intergroup attitudes. However, communication accommodation positively predicted empathy, which then positively predicted intergroup attitudes. Finally, supporting H3b, perceived communication nonaccommodation negatively influenced intergroup attitudes through each of the two explanatory variables (see Table 3 and Figure 1). Communication nonaccommodation positively predicted intergroup anxiety, thus negatively predicting positive behavioral intergroup attitudes. On the other hand, perceived nonaccommodative communication negatively predicted empathy, which was then positively associated with positive behavioral intergroup attitudes.

Figure 1:

Direct and indirect effects of communication variables on intergroup attitudes through empathy and anxiety. Note. **p < 0.001; **p < 0.01. Only significant paths reported.

4 Discussion

By integrating intergroup contact theory (Brown and Hewstone 2005) and communication accommodation theory (Giles 2016), this study investigated the role of interability communication, intergroup anxiety, and empathy in improving positive intergroup attitudes. Supporting our predictions, communication accommodation functioned as a positive type of intergroup contact influencing intergroup attitudes directly and indirectly through both intergroup anxiety and empathy. Communication nonaccommodation, however, did not have a significant direct effect on intergroup attitudes, but decreased positive intergroup attitudes by increasing intergroup anxiety and decreasing empathy. Our findings show the value in integrating intergroup contact theory and communication accommodation theory in the interability context and have several major theoretical and practical implications.

Most intergroup contact research demonstrates the importance of frequent, positive contact in reducing intergroup bias (Pettigrew and Tropp 2008; Pettigrew et al. 2011). As a result, we lack information about the specific communicative dynamics that constitute frequent and positive contact. Harwood et al. (2013) and Tropp, Ulug, and Uysal (2021) specifically emphasized the importance of examining communication content, including positive and negative communication content in understanding intergroup relations. As communication scholars, we too believe it is important to focus on specific communication processes (beyond general frequent and positive contact) to understand how positive communication facilitates bias reduction. Hence, in the current study, we measured both positive and negative manifestations of intergroup communication. Our measures of communication accommodation and nonaccommodation are theoretically informed by communication accommodation theory; however, future studies should continue to test the validity of these measures. For example, there may be subtypes of accommodative (e.g., identity support) and nonaccommodative (e.g., face threatening communication) communication in interability interactions that play an important role in intergroup relations.

By including specific types of communication content as our independent variables, this study furthers intergroup theorizing by establishing communication accommodation toward others as a positive way of communicating that provides beneficial insights into interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations. Here, communication accommodation improved intergroup attitudes directly and indirectly by reducing anxiety and increasing empathy. Specifically, when people without disabilities are supportive, attentive, and disclosing in their communication to people with visible physical disabilities, there are positive outcomes. By including communication accommodation theory in this intergroup contact study, our findings provide helpful insights into specific communication moves that are particularly beneficial in the interability context. Echoing Trzeciak and Mazzarelli (2022), we emphasize the power of accommodation toward others for improving wellbeing, resilience, and professional success.

However, the opposite pattern was found for communication nonaccommodation. When people without disabilities felt that people with visible physical disabilities viewed them as judgmental and prejudicial, it had negative outcomes. Research shows that “individuals fear that prejudiced behavior on their part will lead to social censure or, worse, rejection” (Trawalter et al. 2012, para. 2). Essentially, concern that you are being viewed as prejudicial, or to a lesser degree judgmental, is a stressful process with real consequences. Our findings illustrate that these concerns regarding being viewed as judgmental or prejudiced in interability interactions elevate intergroup anxiety, lower empathy, and reduce positive intergroup attitudes. The inclusion of this specific form of nonaccommodation is a theoretical contribution allowed by integrating communication accommodation and intergroup contact theories. A majority of intergroup contact research focuses on the role of positive contact in reducing intergroup prejudice. However, research has demonstrated the importance of including negative communication processes in intergroup contact research because negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact reduces prejudice (Barlow et al. 2012). While this is an initial exploration into this specific form of communication nonaccommodation in this context, future work is necessary. It is reasonable to assume most people aim to communicate in non-prejudicial ways, and future work should explore the motivations behind communicating or willingness to communicate in non-prejudicial ways. For instance, research from a communication accommodation framework should explore motives and attributions and whether majority group members’ attempts to communicate non-prejudicially are motivated by their desire to avoid being negatively evaluated or are in line with their egalitarian views.

Essentially, communication nonaccommodation operated as a type of negative contact. When interpreting these findings, we should be mindful that this is the majority group’s perspective of a minority group’s communication behaviors. People without disabilities’ perceptions of received nonaccommodation could reflect not knowing how to engage with people with disabilities, since further exploration into communication frequency indicates that the mean is below the midpoint of the scale (t(734) = −3.45, p < 0.001, 95 %CI = −0.20, −0.06). Essentially, our participants reported that they are not frequently interacting or communicating with people with disabilities. However, the associations between communication nonaccommodation and intergroup emotions (i.e., anxiety and empathy) illustrate the negative social and behavioral consequences of this type of communication nonaccommodation in the interability context. Altogether, this highlights the importance of competent communication from both parties and appropriate intergroup dialogue in developing relationships and mutual understanding and improving intergroup relations. It is important to remember that research from an intergroup contact perspective is motivated to improve interactions between in- and outgroups and thus reduce biases (Tropp and Pettigrew 2005). As a result, most contact research puts the responsibility on majority group members, people without disabilities in this case, to improve communication and enhance intergroup relations (e.g., Pettigrew and Tropp 2008). However, this means that the perspective of minority group members has largely been overlooked (cf. Barlow et al. 2013; Byrd and Zhang 2023). Our findings demonstrate that both groups (people with and without disabilities) must work together to engage in positive, competent communication that can increase empathy, reduce intergroup anxiety, and improve intergroup relations in the disability context. Future research should aim for a “holistic view of intergroup contact” (Barlow et al. 2013, 4) to investigate majority and minority individuals’ communication and attitudes in efforts to improve intergroup relations.

In accordance with intergroup contact theorizing, our findings confirm the importance of lowering anxiety to improve intergroup relations and establish empathy as an important positive mechanism in this context. Echoing previous intergroup contact research, results revealed that reducing intergroup anxiety is essential to improving intergroup relations. This study provides both hope and challenges for interability communication. First, positive communication (i.e., communication accommodation) has the ability to reduce intergroup anxiety – this is good news for interability communication. However, the negative manifestation of communication (i.e., communication nonaccommodation) was a powerful predictor of anxiety, and the positive association between the two variables is concerning. In the interability context, members from the majority group must focus their energy on engaging in positive, inclusive communication behaviors so that anxiety can be reduced, and intergroup relations can be improved.

Finally, intergroup empathy functioned as a positive explanatory mechanism in improving intergroup relations. We found that communication (i.e., accommodative communication) resulted in increased intergroup empathy and intergroup empathy increased participants’ behavioral intergroup attitudes. Essentially, when people without disabilities engage in positive interability communication, they develop empathetic concern for people with disabilities in general. Developing empathy for an outgroup (i.e., people with disabilities) then promotes cooperation and enhances intergroup relations. Altogether, by including intergroup empathy as an explanatory mechanism, the current study illustrates that developing empathetic concern for outgroup members has positive benefits and provides evidence that intergroup empathy mediates attitude change in the interability context. There are two specific aspects related to the design of the study that are essential to keep in mind when discussing findings related to intergroup empathy. First, empathy is measured affectively or emotionally as feelings of sympathy and concern for people with disabilities (e.g., Davis 1983; Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing 2011). Future research should also explore cognitive manifestations of empathy, such as perspective-taking, to further understand the role of this multi-dimensional construct in interability communication. Second, this study is from the perspective of people without disabilities. People with disabilities are oftentimes stereotyped as “pitiful” (e.g., Ryan et al. 2005). Therefore, people without disabilities considering themselves to be empathetic may be viewed as overaccommodative or inappropriate by people with disabilities. Future interability communication research should consider the perspective of people with disabilities when exploring intergroup empathy.

To summarize, this study contributes to the theoretical intersection of communication accommodation and intergroup contact theories in several ways. First, previous interability contact research has investigated the contact-attitude association when considering people without disabilities’ communication with one specific outgroup member. This study contributes to the literature by exploring perceptions of communication with the outgroup overall or in general. Second, by incorporating specific positive and negative manifestations of interability contact, we have gained a more thorough understanding of what actually happens during contact that reduces (or increases) intergroup prejudice. Third, our findings demonstrate the critical importance of intergroup empathy in improving intergroup attitudes. Altogether, this emphasizes the importance of integrating communication accommodation theory and intergroup contact theory (see Zhang, Li, and Harwood 2021).

These theoretical advancements also shed light on important practical implications for interability communication. Researchers, practitioners, and individuals should focus their attention on ways to incorporate positive communication and intergroup emotions, including communication accommodation and empathy, into people without disabilities’ communication repertoire. Additionally, more work needs to be done to understand what communication is perceived as accommodative to people with disabilities (see Byrd and Zhang 2023) to better understand communication content from both perspectives. Just as importantly, we need to do our best to avoid negative interability communication situations as they increase intergroup anxiety and reduce positive intergroup attitudes.

5 Limitations and Future Directions

It is necessary to address limitations that highlight important future research directions. First, since this is a cross-sectional study, our findings represent one side of the story in interability communication. Specifically, similar to most intergroup contact literature, this study explored the majority group perspective (i.e., people without disabilities) since people with disabilities are a stigmatized group and reducing interability prejudice is a priority. However, research shows that minority group members (e.g., people with disabilities) experience high levels of distrust and are more negative about the nature of intergroup relations (e.g., Gaertner and Dovidio 2000). Thus, future studies guided by intergroup contact theory and CAT should focus on the perspective of people with disabilities to gain a more thorough understanding of intergroup contact, (non)accommodation, and prejudice reduction. In addition, a causal relationship between interability communication and prejudice reduction cannot be established since this is a cross-sectional study. Future experimental and longitudinal studies should be conducted to explore this causal relationship. For instance, we emphasize the importance of examining specific interactive dynamics (including accommodation vs. nonaccommodation) during a particular contact episode, which is better suited to an experimental approach.

Appropriate steps were taken to reduce social desirability bias, but we may not exclude social desirability completely given the sensitive nature of some of the items used to measure the major constructs (e.g., “I would feel awkward” communicating with PWVPD). To reduce social desirability and improve ecological validity, we measured nonaccommodation in terms of people with visible physical disabilities viewing participants as judgmental or prejudiced in interability interactions rather than having participants report how often they were judgmental or prejudiced in their communication behaviors. Future projects should explore this construct from other perspectives.

The current study included American participants recruited from CloudResearch Prime Panels, which has been established as a way to collect high quality data (Chandler et al. 2019). Our sample was large, representative in terms of gender, and had more diverse participants than other interability contact studies (Byrd, Zhang, and Gist-Mackey 2019; Byrd and Zhang 2019) in terms of age. However, our participants are primarily White, which must be considered when generalizing the findings of this study. Future research should aim to recruit representative samples and include participants from non-Western countries to better understand the ways in which communication processes can reduce intergroup anxiety, improve empathy, and improve intergroup attitudes. In line with this goal, we highlight the necessity of future research from a transcultural perspective. A cross-cultural study investigating specific communication processes and intergroup emotions that can reduce prejudice would be beneficial theoretically and practically. A transcultural approach would give us a broader understanding of how these processes operate in different cultural contexts and increase our ability to interpret and generalize findings.

6 Conclusions

The United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024a) recognizes unsatisfying, inappropriate communication behaviors, as well as negative attitudes toward disability as major barriers experienced by people with disabilities. Therefore, communication work is well positioned to improve these outcomes for people with disabilities and future work should continue to prioritize investigation of positive interability communication processes and prejudice reduction. In this study, we have contributed to the theoretical intersection of intergroup contact and communication accommodation scholarship by examining specific positive and negative communication experiences as forms of intergroup contact in understanding how specific communication processes reduce (or exacerbate) interability bias.