Page 269 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

COLELLA AND STONE
236
from an emotional perspective may lead, as we propose, to more effective
means for overcoming disability discrimination.
According to Lazarus and Lazarus (1994), emotions are defined as
"Complex reactions that engage both our minds and bodies. These re­
actions include a subjective mental state such as feelings of anger, anxiety,
and profound changes in the body such as an increase in heart rate or blood
pressure" (p. 3). It has long been argued that some disabilities evoke prim­
itive affective responses in others. For example, Goffman's (1963) seminal
work on stigmas argued that abominations of the body, especially facial de­
formities and amputations, elicit feelings of disgust or revulsion in others.
Furthermore, other authors (Jones et al., 1984) maintained that emotional
reactions to disabilities are determined by cognitive appraisal and cultural
norms. For example, stigmas based on what could be considered by some
as blemishes of character (Goffman, 1963), such as obesity or drug addic­
tions, are often determined by the extant norms in the culture. In particular,
in modern American culture obesity is considered a stigma because it is
attributed to a lack of willpower or a character flaw (Pingatore, Bernard,
Tindale, & Spring, 1994), and individuals who are obese receive lower
wages and are assigned to less challenging jobs than those who are not
overweight (Roehling, 1999). The primary reason for this is that willpower
and self-control are highly valued in modern society; however, in Renais­
sance times a high level of body fat was considered a sign of beauty because
it was a symbol of wealth and status. Thus, cultural norms and values may,
in part, dictate how individuals should emotionally react to varying dis­
abilities.
Despite the intriguing arguments just noted, little empirical research
has focused directly on emotional reactions to disabilities (cf. Colella, 1996;
Jones et al., 1984; Stone & Colella, 1996). One reason for this is that there has
been considerable controversy in psychology about whether emotions are
automatic or require cognitive appraisal. Some theorists argue that emo­
tional reactions are automatic and innate, (Zajonc, 1980), and aversion to
anomalies is a response that ensures survival of the fittest of the species.
It follows that if emotions are innate, they will be highly resilient and dif­
ficult to change. However, other theorists (Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman,
1980) contend that emotions require cognitions in the form of appraisals.
For example, Lazarus and his colleagues (1980) argue that there are two
forms of appraisal, primary and secondary. In particular, primary appraisal
poses the question "What are the implications of the stimulus (e.g., disabil­
ity) for the person's well-being?" For instance, a person may react more
negatively to working with a person with AIDS than one with paraplegia
because AIDS is perceived as contagious whereas paraplegia is not (Vest,
Vest, Perry, & O'Brien, 1995). Furthermore, secondary appraisal addresses