Disability in Cyberspace - Using Social Media for Social Change

5/12/2018 Disability in Cyberspace - Using Social Media for Social Change - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disability-in-cyberspace-using-social-media-for-social-change 1/13

1

In recent years there has been a growing focus on the how people with disabilities are

represented in the media and how these representations can affect the attitudes and

behaviour towards this group.

These studies have focussed primarily on representations in film and on television, and have

largely neglected the burgeoning realm of cyberspace and its rapidly expanding pocket of

social media. Given that around 80% of the Australian population are internet users

(Internet World Stats, 2009) and that social media channels such as Facebook and YouTube

rank as the country’s most visited sites (Hitwise, 2009), it seems timely to start examining

how people with disabilities are portrayed in social media, as well as determining the

potential for social media to be used as a tool for disability advocacy.

As such, this study sought to determine the effectiveness of social media – specifically

YouTube and Facebook – as tools for awareness-raising and attitudinal change towards

people with disabilities. To this end, the following research questions were formulated:

Is social media effective in raising awareness of issues and/or abilities of people with

disabilities?

Is social media effective in changing attitudes towards people with disabilities?

What kinds of representations effect positive attitudinal change?

What kinds of representations are likely to be distributed on a large scale?

Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis argues that the facilitation of positive interactions

between conflicting majority and minority groups (that meet a particular set of criteria)

reduces prejudice. By extension, it could be argued that it could go even so far as to

promote inclusion.

Disability in Cyberspace:

Using Social Media for Social Change

Literature Review

Introduction



2

Although Allport’s theory specifically refers to face-to-face interpersonal contact, other

scholars have branched out beyond his core work to determine if the same results can be

attained though parasocial interactions (e.g. via mass media). For example in 1956, Horton

and Wohl sought to examine parasocial interaction as they claimed that “one of the most

striking characteristics of the new mass media – radio, television and the movies – is that

they give the illusion of a face-to-face relationship with the performer” (p. 215). More

recently, Schiappa, Gregg & Hewes (2005) applied their Parasocial Contact Hypothesis and

found that parasocial contact via television shows about homosexual and transvestite men

reduced prejudice towards this group.

Although the term parasocial contact isn’t referred to verbatim in disability in film literature,

disability scholars essentially subscribe to the notion that this parasocial contact has the

ability to decrease prejudice (and subsequently, enhance inclusion). For example, Safran

(2001) and others (Norden, 1994; Cumberland and Negrine, 1992) believe that media such

as film and television may have a “substantial impact on public attitudes towards people

with disabilities” (p. 233) and that “media portrayals reflect, define, or perpetuate ways of

thinking about disabled persons” (Susman, 1994, p. 18).

These assertions are backed up by a number of studies that have determined that film and

television may influence viewer attitudes towards people with disabilities. For example, a

1989 study by Wahl and Yonatan Lefkowits found that the screening of a film involving a

mentally ill killer resulted in its viewers developing negative attitudes towards people with

mental illness. Similarly, but on a more positive note, a study by Hall and Minnes (1999)

showed that documentaries and dramas provoked both attitudinal and behavioural change

towards a person with Down Syndrome.

Some argue that this occurs because:

entertainment media, especially visual media, present more than

information. They draw the viewer into the portrayal and involve

them emotionally with dramatic acting, music, and cinematography.

If such presentations are successful, they involve the audience

emotionally as well as intellectually (Wahl & Yonatan Lefkowits,

1989, p. 525).



3

Others believe that it is because onscreen representations provide an opportunity for

“sanctioned staring” (Donaldson, 1981, cited in Ralph, 1989), thus reducing the avoidance of

people with disabilities due to “novel stimuli” becoming “less novel”(Langer, 1976, cited in

Ralph, 1989).

In addition to this parasocial contact, it is also important to consider how people with

disabilities are portrayed. For example, the earlier reference to the negative depiction of the

mentally ill serial killer demonstrated how a negative and stereotypical portrayal can

contribute to the development of negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. Many

disability scholars instead argue for realistic portrayals of people with disabilities (Harnett,

2000; Barnes, 1992). Whilst other declare that “unless images are clearly made positive,

people will see them as confirming their negative preconceptions – whether that is intended

or not – and because negative images are so powerful and deep, it takes deliberate thought

and action to combat them” (Shearer, 1984, p. 5).

So given the overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of

parasocial contact to change attitudes, reduce prejudice and enhance inclusion through the

traditional forms of media such as television and film, it seems obvious to begin to examine

whether the same results can be achieved in the brave new world of social media.

Participants

There were 95 participants (58 females, 37 males) who voluntarily clicked on a link to a web

survey either via Facebook link sharing or Facebook advertising. Ages ranged from under 18

through to 55+, with the bulk of respondents (47%) falling into the 25-34 age bracket.

The majority of respondents were heavy internet users (15+ hours per week) whose primary

purpose for internet usage was socialising (47%), with Facebook being their social media of

choice (12.8% of respondents spent 15+ hours or more per week on Facebook).

Instrument Design and Procedure

Given that the study was examining social media, it seemed apt to utilise a web survey

distributed via a social networking website (See Appendix A for copy).

Methodology



4

Participants were required to complete an initial survey about internet usage and pre-

existing knowledge, attitudes and interactions with people with Autism, Cerebral Palsy and

Down Syndrome. They were then required to watch a short clip on one of these areas and

complete a post-clip survey to gauge their response to the clip as well as any change in

knowledge, attitudes and willingness to interact.

A small pilot study was initially conducted (4 respondents) and adjustments were made to

question wording and some technical difficulties with the display of the clips were

remedied.

Participants were required to answer 31 questions, the majority of which were Likert items.

There were also a few open-ended questions included to glean qualitative data.

The survey was kept open for one week, during which time the survey’s link was circulated

via Facebook linking and Facebook advertising. At the close of the survey, 95 respondents

had completed the survey, 20 had partially completed it and 144 had abandoned it (that is,

opened the link but did not begin).

Stimuli

Three YouTube clips were used in this study. The disabilities of Autism, Cerebral Palsy and

Down Syndrome were chosen due to (a) availability of appropriate clips online and (b) their

relatively high profile in the community.

Clip One – Autism (Length – 1 minute 20 seconds)

This clip was created by an autism advocacy group in the United Kingdom. The clip shifts

from one point of view to another, taking the viewer in and out of the mind of a person with

autism who has just witnessed an accident. In doing so, the clip highlights difference and

seeks to promote acceptance. At the end of the clip, a small snippet of information is given

about autism, and the advocacy group’s details are displayed.

Clip Two – Cerebral Palsy (Length – 2 minutes 1 second)

This clip features Swedish band, “Boys on Wheels”, which includes three musicians with

Cerebral Palsy who produce satirical music about their disability. The group performs a

medley of hard rock cover songs with altered lyrics highlighting both difference andsimilarity between themselves and able-bodied people. The clip was chosen due to its



5

Autism

Cerebral Palsy

Down Syndrome

20%

18%

21%

61%

48%

59%

19%

33%

20%

Figure 2: Increase in Awareness

Significantly Slightly Not at All

25%

47%

28%

0%

13%

23%

57%

7%

15%

39%

45%

1%

HighMediumLowNone

Figure 1: Pre-Clip Knowledge

Autism Cerebral Palsy Down Syndrome

humour value as (a) “humour tends to attract attention to the message [and] creates a

more favourable attitude toward the source of the message” (Sparks, 2006, p. 163).

Clip Three – Down Syndrome (Length – 3 minutes 44 seconds)

This clip was created by the National Down Syndrome Society (U.S.A) and presents an array

of people with Down Syndrome speaking to the camera about their abilities and dreams.

The clip utilises persuasive techniques (emotive music, social role valorisation) to emphasise

sameness and acceptance. Information about the advocacy group is displayed at the end.

Post-clip response questions were uniform for all clips and data were collated to determine

the following:

Ability of the clip to raise awareness.

Viewer’s response to the representation.

The impact on the viewer’s willingness to interact with the person in the clip.

Likelihood of clip circulation.

Ability of the Clip to Raise Awareness

Prior to viewing the clips, respondents were asked to self-report on their current level of

knowledge about each of the three disabilities (see Figure 1). Most respondents felt that

they had a low level of knowledge about Cerebral Palsy and Down Syndrome (“I have read

or heard a little bit about it”) whilst the majority of respondents felt they had a medium

level of knowledge about Autism (“I know of someone with the disability or have seen/read

Results and Discussion



6

a number of sources about it.”).

Following the clip, respondents were asked if the clip had increased their level of awareness

of abilities and/or issues faced by people with each disability. The overwhelming majority

reported that the clips either slightly or significantly increased their awareness. The least

effective clip was the Cerebral Palsy clip, with over a third reporting that it did not increase

their awareness at all.

Although this provides evidence that social media has the ability to inform and increase

awareness, this aspect would have been more accurately measured through the use of a

post-clip scale that mirrored the pre-clip knowledge scale.

Viewer’s Response to the Representation

In order to gauge response to the clips, respondents were asked to identify their initial

emotional reactions from a pre-determined list with an option for “other”. They were also

asked how they felt that the person with disability was portrayed in the clip on a scale from

very positively to very negatively. Additionally, viewer response could be gauged via the

qualitative data attained through the open-ended questions.

Emotional Response

Respondents were able to choose multiple

items to describe their emotional response to

the clip, with many opting to utilise the

“other” option. The top three responses for

each clip are displayed in Figure 3. These

results will be discussed in further in the

“Commentary” section.

Portrayal

Respondents were asked if they felt the clip

portrayed the person with a disability on a

scale from very positively to very negatively,

with an “other” option included. Following data collection, the “other” options were

examined and slotted into the appropriate categories, as well as forming a new category of

“Neutral/Realistically”.

Figure 3: Emotional Response to Clips –

Top Three Responses

Autism

Pity 69%

Informed 49%

Guilty 8%

Cerebral Palsy

Amused – laughing with them 58%

Inspired 27%

Sympathetic 18%

Down Syndrome

Inspired 71%

Informed 49%

Pity 35%



7

Autism

Cerebral Palsy

Down Syndrome

AutismCerebral

Palsy

Down

Syndrome

Very positively 9% 26% 63%

Positively 33% 45% 33%

Neutral/Realistically 25% 3% 0%

Negatively 26% 21% 4%

Very negatively 6% 5% 0%

Figure 4: Portrayal of Person with

a Disability

Interestingly, the Autism clip generated an

extensive list of “other” responses compared

to the other two clips. Results

overwhelmingly showed that the Down

Syndrome clip portrayed people with

disabilities “very positively”, and very few

respondents felt that it was a negative

portrayal. The use of humour in the Cerebral

Palsy clip seemed to validate the idea of

Sparks (2006) in that it is able to generate a

more favourable attitude towards the

source, with 71% of respondents feeling itwas a positive portrayal. However, there was

still a significant group who found the clip quite negative and confronting, as evidenced in

the qualitative data (see “Commentary” section).

The Autism clip perhaps generated the most interesting responses with a fairly even spread

from positive to negative. This was similarly reflected in the qualitative data (see

“Commentary” section).

Commentary

The qualitative data (See Appendix B) provided an interesting filter through which to view

the response and portrayal data. Both the Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy clip

generated comments that could easily be categorised as positive or negative reactions, with

a few neutral or balanced comments. However, the commentary about the Autism clip was

far more complex and balanced, and indicated that it challenged the mindset of the viewer

and that they had engaged in critical viewing of the clip. Additionally, the Autism clip

generated more qualitative data than the other clips (answering the question was option)

and comment length was markedly longer than those generated by the other two clips.

Some indicative examples of the commentary about the Autism clip are below:

“ I know of people who have Autism and had an understanding of how they

would react to situations, especially out of their routine and strange

environments. I actually feel like finding out more about it so that I can

understand it more.”



8

“While it portrays the man's actions negatively it highlights how confusing it

might be for someone trying to understand them. It's a bit disturbing from

both angles. But ultimately I think it illustrates the point well.”

These comments sit in contrast with the polarising effects of the Down Syndrome and

Cerebral Palsy clips. For example, on Cerebral Palsy:

“I didn't think the clip was that successful. I wondered what the filming must

have felt like for those singing karaoke. Did they understand the meaning of

what the ad was attempting to portray? I wondered if they were 'put up to it',

in a negative sense.”

“It’s good to see this band having some fun and still pointing out some of the

issues faced by people in wheelchairs (lack of lifts etc)”

Similar contrasts were found in the commentary about the Down Syndrome clip:

“I really can't stand these sorts of clips - hope stories with lots of smiles set tocorny music.”

“I think all the people in the clip were likeable and seemed so motivated to do

great things with their lives. It made me warm to them.”

Interestingly, one comment on the Down Syndrome clip highlighted the ability of social

media to circulate these kinds of clips and raise awareness:

“Definitely the best clip of the 3. It showed such a range of people of different races and

ages and inspired with what they have achieved. I was drawn to this survey because

recently someone forwarded me a clip with a video about Down Syndrome that was one

of the most moving things i have seen. If you are interested, it's at:

http://www.nfb.ca/film/john_and_michael/”

Willingness to Interact

Prior to viewing the clip, respondents were asked to indicate how comfortable they would

feel working and socialising with people with each of the focus disabilities. The pre-clip

measure included the category “It would depend on the person”. This category was

removed in the post-clip survey so that respondents would be forced into making a

judgement based on the person/s portrayed in the clip.

Pre- and post-clip data were compiled and the difference (indicating change) was mapped in

Figures 5 and 6.



9

Very

comforta

ble

Comfort

able

Slightly

uncomfo

rtable

Very

uncomfo

rtable

Autism 1% 7% 28% 1%

Cerebral Palsy 0% 15% 22% 2%

Down Syndrome 17% 20% 5% -1%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% C

h a n g e

Figure 6: Change in Comfort Level -

Socialising

Very

comfort

able

Comfort

able

Slightly

uncomf

ortable

Very

uncomf

ortable

Autism -5% 16% 15% 3%

Cerebral Palsy -5% 22% 18% 3%

Down Syndrome 17% 10% 4% 0%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% C

h a n g e

Figure 5 : Change in Comfort Level -

Working

19%

56%

22%

3%

24%

52%

20%

3%

39%

47%

13%

1%

Very

comfortable

Comfortable Slightly

uncomfortable

Very

uncomfortable

Figure 7: Post-Clip Interaction Levels -

Working


The Down Syndrome clip was the most

successful in increasing comfort levels and,

subsequently, willingness to interact, with a

17% shift in people feeling “very comfortable”

working and socialising with people with

Down Syndrome.

Conversely (and despite other data indicating

that the clip promoted positive reactions and

presented a positive portrayal) the Cerebral

Palsy clip made people less comfortable with

the thought of interacting with people with

Cerebral Palsy. The clips had an even greater

negative impact on willingness to interact

with people with Autism.

Despite this, the raw post-clip data shows that

a significant number of respondents would

feel comfortable or very comfortable working

or socialising with people with each of the

disabilities.

It’s also interesting to note that despite respondents being most knowledgeable about

Autism, it is the disability which generates the greatest discomfort in terms of interaction.

17%

48%

33%

2%

22%

48%

28%

2%

33%

55%

11%

1%

Very

comfortable

Comfortable Slightly

uncomfortable

Very

uncomfortable

Figure 8: Post-clip Interaction Levels -

Socialising




1

0

47%50%

43%37%

33%

41%

16% 17% 16%


Figure 9: Likelihood of Circulation

Not Likely Possible Highly Likely

Likelihood of Clip Circulation

Whilst the data thus far has indicated that these clips can promote awareness and shift

attitudes towards people with disabilities, it may well be a moot point if people are not

exposed to the clips. With 20 hours of video being uploaded on YouTube every minute

(YouTube, 2009) and with a YouTube search on the term “disability” returning 32,300

videos (a mere drop in the ocean of the millions of clips housed there), it’s a fairly large feat

to have the voice of disability heard above the noise of the social media throng.

To this end, respondents were asked how

likely it would be that they would send each of

the clips to friends, family or colleagues.

Results (as indicated in Figure 9) indicate that

around half of the respondents would not be

likely to share any of the clips with colleagues

on the Internet.

This study sought to determine the effectiveness of social media in raising awareness and

changing attitudes towards people with disabilities.

It resoundingly found that the use of video clips can raise awareness about issues and/or

abilities of people with disabilities. The scope of the study did not warrant delving into the

hows and whys of this increased awareness, but further research could be conducted to

determine which elements of the videos were most effective in achieving this.

The study also revealed some interesting findings relating to the impact of social media

representations on a person’s attitudes and willingness to interact with a person with a

disability. For example, a clip which sought to highlight acceptance of difference (Autism

clip) invoked a significantly more negative response than a clip which sought to highlight

similarity (Down Syndrome).

Conclusion



1

1

In terms of representation, the portrayal that was deemed to be most realistic (Autism) did

not increase willingness to interact, however it did generate the most discussion.

Meanwhile, a more idealised representation was deemed “very positive” increased

willingness to interact and invoked the more positive reactions. Finally, whilst a realistic yet

humorous approach was viewed as a positive portrayal of people with Cerebral Palsy, it did

not significantly increase willingness to interact. This may be useful for disability advocates

looking to structure a social media campaign.

Finally, the impact of the chosen clips would largely be void beyond the realm of this survey,

given the unlikely prospect of people redistributing the clips. However, further research

could be conducted to identify elements that allow clips to attain popularity in the social

media and seeing how these could be married up with effective representations of disability

to further increase awareness and dismantle attitudinal barriers towards people with

disabilities.



1

2

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Cumberland, G. & Negrine, R. (1992). Images of disability on television. New York:

Routledge.

Hall, H., & Minnes, P. (1999). Attitudes towards persons with Down Syndrome: The impact

of television. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(1), 61-76.

Hitwise. (2009). Top websites and search engine analysis. Retrieved November 30, 2009,

from http://www.hitwise.com/au/datacentre/main/dashboard-1706.html

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction.

Psychiatry, 19, 215 –229.

Internet World Stats. (2009). Internet usage and population statistics for Oceania. Retrieved

November 30, 2009 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats6.htm#oceania

Norden, M. F. (1994). The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Ralph, S. (1989). Using videotape in the modification of attitudes towards people with

disabilities. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 2(4), 327-336.

Safran, S. P. (2001). Movie images of disability and war: Framing history and political

ideology. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 223-232.

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis.

Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92-115.

References

http://www.hitwise.com/au/datacentre/main/dashboard-1706.html



http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats6.htm#oceania






1

3

Shearer, A. (1984). Think Positive! Advice on Presenting People with Mental Handicap,

International League of Societies for Persons with Mental Handicap, Brussels.

Susman, J. (1994). Disability, stigma and deviance. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 15-22.

Wahl, O. F., & Yonatan Lefkowits, J. (1989). Impact of television film on attitudes towards

mental illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17 (4), 521-528.

YouTube. (2009). YouTube fact sheet. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from

http://www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet




Documents

Disability in Cyberspace - Using Social Media for Social Change