International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

What do I think about inclusive education? It

depends on who is asking. Experimental evidence
for a social desirability bias in attitudes towards
inclusion

Timo Lüke & Michael Grosche

To cite this article: Timo Lüke & Michael Grosche (2018) What do I think about inclusive
education? It depends on who is asking. Experimental evidence for a social desirability bias
in attitudes towards inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22:1, 38-53, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2017.1348548

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1348548

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 28 Jul 2017.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 6622

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2018
VOL. 22, NO. 1, 38–53
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1348548

What do I think about inclusive education? It depends on who

is asking. Experimental evidence for a social desirability bias in
attitudes towards inclusion
Timo Lüke and Michael Grosche
School of Education, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recently, research has focused on attitudes towards inclusive Received 24 October 2016
education, and the majority of studies use questionnaires to Accepted 23 June 2017
measure this vital variable. In two consecutive experiments, we
KEYWORDS
showed that attitudes towards inclusive education are not stable Inclusive education;
but instead are significantly influenced by social context. We attitudes; social desirability;
manipulated information on the organisation conducting a survey attitude measurement;
regarding attitudes of participants towards inclusive education. inclusion; theory of planned
The results show that the attitude of the organisation conducting behavior
the survey – as perceived by the participant – outperforms well-
documented variables (e.g. sex, age, and contact to a person with
disability) in predicting the attitudes of the participant towards
inclusion. This one variable explains as much variance as all other
predictors combined. We argue that social desirability is a
neglected issue in research on attitudes towards inclusive
education. Our findings challenge the validity of numerous studies
on this topic because they show a positive bias in the attitudes of
participants when they were surveyed by a university. Thus, we
outline the first steps to reduce social desirability-induced validity
problems in research on attitudes towards inclusion.

Attitudes towards inclusive education (ATI) are a popular topic in educational research.
The interest in ATI is motivated by the idea, that attitudes can predict later behaviour
(Glasman and Albarracín 2006). Consequently, positive attitudes towards inclusion are
seen as an important condition for inclusive education (Avramidis and Norwich 2002;
Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011). There are numerous scholarly publications every month
(e.g. Hoskin, Boyle, and Anderson 2015; Hu et al. 2016; Subban and Mahlo 2016; Vaz
et al. 2015; Vroey, Struyf, and Petry 2016) that either evaluate new questionnaires, use
those questionnaires to study the efficacy of in-house training, evaluate attitude changes
created through intervention or experience, evaluate models of inclusive education, or
investigate possible predictors of ATI. With few exceptions (e.g. Lüke and Grosche
2017; Kessels, Erbring, and Heiermann 2014), researchers measure ATI using explicit atti-
tude questionnaires.

CONTACT Timo Lüke lueke@uni-wuppertal.de School of Education, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, Wup-
pertal, 42119 Germany
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 39

Predictors of explicit ATI

The most relevant studies were summarised in two extensive literature reviews: Boer, Pijl,
and Minnaert (2011) incorporated the findings of 26 empirical studies on the ATI of
primary school teachers published between 1998 and 2008. Avramidis and Norwich
(2002) reviewed studies published between 1984 and 2000. Both reviews concluded that
teachers have positive ATI.
Both literature reviews also identified predictors of ATI. They found that child-related
variables significantly predict ATI. Most notably, the ‘type of disability’ (e.g. Alghazo and
Naggar Gaad 2004; Forlin 1995) and the age of the children, a variable that resulted in a
more positive ATI when focussing on younger children (e.g. Leyser, Kapperman, and
Keller 1994), significantly predict ATI. In addition, environment-related variables, such
as different types of support, resources, or workplace cultures (e.g. Janney et al. 1995;
Urton, Wilbert, and Hennemann 2014), are related to ATI.
Other studies addressed adult-related variables, which are more relevant to our research.
For many variables, the results from previous research are inconsistent, although trends may
be apparent. Women were often found to have significantly more positive ATI than men (e.g.
Alghazo and Naggar Gaad 2004; Opdal, Wormnaes, and Habayeb 2001). However, other
studies do not support this conclusion (e.g. Eichinger, Rizzo, and Sirotnik 1991; Parasuram
2006). Additionally, younger persons are mainly found to have more positive ATI than older
persons (e.g. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Forlin 1995; Forlin et al. 2009). For edu-
cational professionals, prior experience in teaching inclusive classes and self-efficacy in this
domain were shown to be positively related to ATI (e.g. Hellmich and Görel 2014; Urton,
Wilbert, and Hennemann 2014). For non-professionals, the corresponding variable is prior
contact with a person with a disability, which should therefore be positively correlated
with ATI scores (Avramidis and Norwich 2002). Finally, the review by Avramidis and
Norwich (2002) was the first to show that political attitudes were associated with ATI.

Socially desirable responses in ATI research

While there is a broad body of research regarding ATI predictors, context effects such as
the tendency towards socially desirable responses (Feinberg 1967; Paulhus 2001, 2007) to
questionnaires and the related validity problems are rarely considered. Thus, the current
research completely disregards an important predictor of ATI: social desirability. Socially
desirable responding can be defined as ‘the tendency to give answers that make the respon-
dent look good’ (Paulhus 2007, 22). This tendency can influence responses, both con-
sciously and unconsciously (Bohner and Dickel 2011; Bohner and Schwarz 2001). The
influence of social desirability on questionnaires that measure ATI is important because
inclusive education is considered to be politically correct and is an idea with a clear
social norm (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Lui et al. 2015). Researchers in countries
with high ‘overall sensitivity […] toward minorities and thus toward disabled people’
(here: Germany; Leyser, Kapperman, and Keller 1994, 10) should be the most concerned
about the influence of social desirability on research about ATI.
Recently, Lui et al. (2015) report how perceived social norm influences the ATI of
parents of a child with special educational needs. Their findings suggest that the ATI of
parents of children with special needs is higher if they perceive that stakeholders (teachers,
40 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

principals, politicians, etc.) support inclusive education. The authors studied 586 parents
and found that knowledge and perceived social norm equally and significantly correlate
with parents ATI (β = .34). The design of the study does not allow for a causal interpret-
ation. However, it suggests that the influence of a perceived social norm is a neglected
factor in ATI research, which can cause validity problems for studies in this field.

Objectives of the current study

Based on the ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’ (Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein 2005), we
address the influence of subjective norms: to what extent does believing ‘that specific refer-
ents think I should or should not perform the behavior’ (in our research, giving a socially
desired response on a questionnaire; Bohner and Schwarz 2001, 430) influence my behav-
ioural intentions? To evaluate the extent to which social context of the interviewing situ-
ation influences ATI, we conducted two consecutive online experiments. We created
hypothetical organisations with different attributes, which participants believed were con-
ducting the survey, and controlled for common predictors of ATI to answer two questions:

(1) Does contextual information about an organisation – conducting a survey on inclus-

ive education – influence how participants perceive the ATI of the organisation?
(2) Controlling for other common predictors, does the perceived ATI of the organisation
influence the ATI of the participants?
We hypothesise that: (1) The perception of the survey participants regarding the ATI of
the organisation is influenced by context information about the organisation. (2) The per-
ceived ATI of the organisation explains unique variance in the ATI of the participants.
The attitude attributed to the organisation conducting the survey should alter the
reported ATI of the participants in a way that is consistent with their perceived attitude
of the organisation. We addressed both research questions in our first experiment by manip-
ulating the information about the organisation conducting an online-survey on ATI. In our
second experiment, we sought to replicate the results of the first experiment and changed
one of the experimental conditions, that is, one of the organisations. Both studies show
that the ATI of participants is highly influenced by the perceived ATI of the surveying
organisation, a result that jeopardises the results of contemporary research on ATI.

Study 1
Method
Design & experimental procedure
We used LimeSurvey (2016) to provide a website consisting of (1) a neutral landing page,
(2) an instruction page including the experimental manipulation, (3) a standardised ATI
scale followed by additional questions. The landing page repeated the vague information
about the topic of the questionnaire that was given during recruitment, explained that gift
certificates would be drawn among all participants, and provided contact information.
After giving informed consent (excluding the actual research topic for obvious reasons),
participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups and directed
to the corresponding instruction page.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 41

The instruction page included a definition of ‘inclusive education’ (see Appendix 1),
which was identical for all groups. Further, it provided experimentally manipulated infor-
mation on the organisation conducting the survey (name and logo) and a short text depict-
ing the attitude of the organisation towards inclusive education. We manipulated three
characteristics of the instruction page: (1) the name of the organisation conducting the
survey was provided in the first sentence, (2) the logo of the organisation (repeating its
name) was displayed at the head of the page, and (3) a short paragraph about the ATI
of the organisation. We used arguments that are common in media debates about inclusive
education. The information experimental conditions were as follows:

. Group A was told that the survey was conducted by the ‘University of Potsdam – Insti-
tute of Inclusive Education’ [German: ‘Universität Potsdam – Institut für Inklusionspä-
dagogik’] with no further comment about the ATI of the organisation.
. Group B was told that the survey was conducted by a fictitious organisation named ‘No
Experiments with Our Children’ [German: ‘Keine Experimente mit unseren Kindern’].
The statement referred to the threat of lowering the standards for all children in general
education schools if pupils with special educational needs were placed in general class-
rooms (immanent risk of deteriorating standards in regular schools).
. Group C was told that the survey was conducted by a fictitious organisation named
‘Save the Special Schools’ [German: ‘Rettet die Förderschulen’]. The organisation
stated that the implementation of inclusive education jeopardised a highly developed
support system for children with disabilities (immanent risk of losing optimal
support for students with special educational needs).
. Group D was told that the survey was conducted by a fictitious organisation named
‘Our School for All’ [German: ‘Unsere Schule für Alle’]. The information on its instruc-
tion page emphasised the importance of the social progress initiated by inclusive edu-
cation through an increased appreciation of the virtues of diversity and individuality
(social progress practiced by a school system valuing diversity and individuality of stu-
dents) (Table 1).

Measures
Following the instruction page, we used a standardised attitude scale in German (‘Einstel-
lungen zur Integration’ by Kunz, Luder, and Moretti 2010). The scale is an adaption and
translation of two internationally established scales used to measure of attitudes towards
inclusion: The ‘Parent Attitude Toward Inclusion’ and the ‘Teacher Attitude Toward
Inclusion’ scales (Bryer et al. 2004; Stanley et al. 2003). These scales are the most com-
monly used questionnaires for research on ATI. The instrument aims to evaluate the cog-
nitive attitude component and consists of two subscales: Educational (ATI-EDU, 7 items)
and Social (ATI-SOC, 4 items) outcomes of inclusive education. The EDU items focus on
the impact on learning outcomes and instructional quality (e.g. ‘The more time children
with special educational needs spend in regular classrooms, the more likely is the quality of
their instruction improved.’). The SOC items focus on the impact on the social inclusion of
students with special needs (e.g. ‘If children with special educational needs would spend
more time in regular classrooms, they would make friends among their classmates.’).
Items were rated on a six-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 6 = agree), with higher scores
indicating more positive attitudes. Kunz, Luder, and Moretti (2010) reported an overall
42 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

Table 1. Experimental conditions in studies 1 and 2.

Study 1 Study 2 Name Position statement (Study 1 only)
A A University of Potsdam – Institute of -
Inclusive Education
B ‘No Experiments with Our . threat of lowering standards for all children in
Children’ general education schools
. risk of deteriorating standards
B ‘University of Potsdam’ -
C C ‘Save the Special Schools’ . highly developed support system for children with
special needs is jeopardised
. risk of losing optimal support
D D ‘Our School for All’ . inclusive education leads to societal progress
. value of diversity and individuality as relevant virtues

Note: The position statements (right column) were completely omitted in Study 2. Condition B of Study 1 was replaced in
Study 2 because B and C did not differ in their perceived attitude, and we preferred to evaluate the influence of being
surveyed by a university.

internal consistency of α = .85. In our study, the total internal consistency of the instru-
ment is α = .91, and the internal consistencies of the subscales are αEDU =.90 and αSOC
=.82. The subscales have a correlation coefficient of r = .64 (p < .001).
After participants completed the ATI scale, they answered demographic questions and
provided information on their sex, age, current occupation, highest education attained,
affiliation with an educational profession, and general political attitude on a 10-point
Likert scale using the popular left-right terminology (1 = left – 10 = right). Most impor-
tantly, we asked participants how they perceived the ATI of the organisation that was pre-
sented on their information page. The question ‘Which attitude towards inclusion do you
think has the organisation conducting this survey?’ was rated on a seven-point Likert scale
(1 = absolutely against to 7 = absolutely in favour).

Recruitment & sample

We used multiple recruitment strategies to obtain a more diverse sample, regarding
characteristics such as age or education, than would university student samples. Notices
and leaflets were posted in public places and on the internet. Participants were told
they would have a chance to win one of ten 10€ gift certificates from a popular online mer-
chant and given an ambiguous description of the survey topic (‘the education system’).
The recruitment took place online (e.g. internet forums on leisure activities) and in two
metropolitan areas in Germany (public places, e.g. cafes, train stations). The notices
and leaflets gave no information about the organisation conducting the research
because this was part of the later experimental manipulation.
The survey was available online for eight weeks. The typical time to complete the survey
was Md = 11 minutes. At the end of the survey, participants were asked to guess the
research question. Two participants (<1%) who correctly guessed the experimental
manipulation and/or the research question were excluded from all analyses. Because the
assignment was randomised, approximately one-fourth of the sample was assigned to
each condition (A = 24.7%, B = 26.8%, C = 26.0%, D = 22.5%).
Two hundred and thirty-one persons participated in our first study. They were primar-
ily female (70.1%), and most did not have children (87.4%). More than half of them were
working or studying in the pedagogic field (57.6%), and one-fourth had regular contact
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 43

with a person with a disability (27.7%), for example, family or close friends. Transformed
according to their CASMIN stages (Braun and Müller 1997; König, Lüttinger, and Müller
1988), participants had an average of 7.13 (SD = 1.66) years of higher education. More-
over, the sample included a broad age range (M = 31.98 years, SD = 11.86, Min = 17,
Max = 85). Additionally, their mean overall political attitude, rated using a 10-point
Likert scale (1 = ‘left’ to 10 = ‘right’), was 4.01 (SD = 1.44).

Results
On the 7-item ATI-EDU subscale, participants scored an average of MEDU = 23.68 (SDEDU
= 9.20; MEDU (per Item) = 3.38). On the 4-item ATI-SOC subscale, participants scored an
average of MSOC = 17.52 (SDSOC = 4.48; MSOC (per Item) = 4.38). These scores resulted in
an average overall ATI score of 41.19 (SD = 12.70).
Our first hypothesis was corroborated: Information about the organisation given on the
instruction page influenced the perception of the participant regarding the ATI of the
organisation. The perceived ATI of the organisation differed greatly among experimental
conditions, F(3, 227) = 57.02, p < .001, η² = .43. Post hoc analysis (LSD with Bonferroni-
Correction) revealed no significant differences between conditions A (‘University of
Potsdam – Institute of Inclusive Education’, M = 5.42, SD = 1.21) and D (‘Our School
for All’, M = 5.96, SD = 1.28) or between conditions B (‘No Experiments with Our Chil-
dren’, M = 3.30, SD = 1.85) and C (‘Save the Special Schools’, M = 2.94, SD = 1.57). All
other pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (p < .001); that is, participants
perceived that organisations A and D had a more positive ATI than did organisations B
and C.
To answer our second research question, whether the assumed ATI of the organisation
influenced the ATI of the participants, we calculated two hierarchical linear regression
analyses predicting the ATI-EDU and ATI-SOC scores with participant variables and
the perceived ATI of the organisation as independent variables. Participant variables in
the first step were established predictors of ATI (sex, educational profession, contact
with a person with a disability, political attitude, age, education, and having children).
The perceived ATI of the organisation was included in the second step of the regression
analyses. To make it easy to compare the results of our studies, they are both shown – as
well as conjoined analyses – in the same tables (Tables 2 and 3; Study 1: left column, Study
2: middle column, and merged Study 1 and 2 data: right column).
In study 1, men have less positive attitudes than do women regarding the social inte-
gration of students with special educational needs (βSOC = −.21, p < .01). However, there
is no difference between the sexes regarding the educational outcomes of inclusive edu-
cation. Participants with regular contact with a person with a disability score lower on
both subscales (βEDU = −.15, p < .05; βSOC = −.13, p < .05), and persons in an educational
profession have more positive attitudes regarding the social outcomes of inclusive edu-
cation (βSOC = .17, p < .05). Political attitude is associated with ATI scores on both sub-
scales, with left-leaning persons having more positive attitudes (βEDU = −.25, p < .001;
βSOC = −.15, p < .05). Participant age, education, and whether they had children are not
significant predictors of their ATI-EDU and ATI-SOC. Together, the participant variables
in step 1 explain over 10% of the variance in the ATI-EDU (R²EDU = .10, p < .001) and the
-SOC (-R²SOC = .12, p < .001) scores.
44 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

Table 2. Stepwise regressions predicting the attitudes of participants towards inclusive education
given as scores on the subscale ‘educational outcomes’ (ATI-EDU) with participant variables and
attitude of the organisation.
Study 1 Study 2 Both Studies
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Sex −.03 .00 .17* .16* .06 .07
Educational profession .12 .15* .15 .17* .14** .18***
Contact with a person with a disability −.15* −.14* −.13 −.10 −.14** −.13**
Political attitude −.25*** −.20** −.24** −.22** −.24*** −.20***
Age .04 .05 −.14 −.21* .00 −.00
Education −.09 −.07 −.04 −.05 −.07 −.06
Has children .08 .08 .03 .07 .03 .04
Attitude of the organisation .35*** .36*** .33***
R² .10*** .23*** .15*** .26*** .09*** .20***
ΔR² .13*** .11*** .11***
Note: Sex: female = 0, male = 1. Educational profession, contact, has children: no = 0, yes = 1. Political attitude: Likert scale
with left = 1, right = 10. Education: CASMIN-transformed years of education.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3. Stepwise regressions predicting the attitudes of participants towards inclusive education
given as scores on the subscale ‘social outcomes’ (ATI-SOC) with participant variables and attitude
of the organisation.
Study 1 Study 2 Both Studies
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Sex −.21** −.18** −.09 −.10 −.16** −.15**
Educational profession .17* .20** .08 .10 .13* .16**
Contact with a person with a disability −.13* −.12* −.17* −.15 −.14** −.13**
Political attitude −.15* −.11 −.06 −.03 −.10* −.07
Age .10 .10 −.02 −.08 .06 −.06
Education −.08 −.06 .08 .07 −.01 −.00
Has children −.01 −.02 −.20* −.16 −.11* −.11*
Attitude of the organisation .31*** .34*** .31***
R² .12*** .22*** .12*** .21*** .09*** .18***
ΔR² .10*** .09*** .09***
Note: Sex: female = 0, male = 1. Educational profession, contact, has children: no = 0, yes = 1. Political attitude: Likert scale
with left = 1, right = 10. Education: CASMIN-transformed years of education.
*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

In the second step of the hierarchical linear regression model, we included the ATI of
the organisation as perceived by the participants. In contrast to step 1, the association of
the general political attitude of the participants with both ATI subscales is reduced (βEDU
= −.20, p < .01; βSOC = −.11, n.s.). Disregarding slight differences, the other predictors are
similar to what was found in the first step. For both subscales, the perceived attitude of the
organisation is clearly the strongest predictor of the attitudes of the participants (βEDU
= .35, p < .001; βSOC = .31, p < .001). Both models are remarkably improved by adding
this single variable (ΔR²EDU = .13, p < .001; ΔR²SOC = .10, p < .001), resulting in 23%
explained variance (p < .001) of ATI-EDU scores and 22% explained variance (p < .001)
of ATI-SOC scores.

Discussion
Our first question asked whether contextual information about the organisation influences
how participants perceive the ATI of the organisation. As expected, we found that the ATI
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 45

participants attributed to an organisation differed among the four experimental groups.

Thus, we conclude that our experimental manipulation was successful, and its extent
(η² = .43) exceeded our expectations.
Our second research question was whether the perceived ATI of the organisation
influences the ATI of the participants while controlling for other predictors. If con-
firmed, it would challenge the findings of previous research on ATI. Regression analyses
revealed low-to-medium associations between predictors of ATI that are found in the
literature and the ATI-EDU and -SOC scores. We will abstain from a detailed discussion
on individual predictors in favour of discussing them more broadly. Most importantly,
the variable of social context information (the ATI that participants attributed to the
organisation surveying them) explained more unique variance in the ATI-EDU of par-
ticipants and almost as much variance in their ATI-SOC scores than all other participant
variables added together. Thus, the assumptions of a participant regarding the ATI of the
organisation constitute an important predictor of his/her own answering behaviour.
Hence, the answers of the participants reflect a tendency to favour inclusion (that it is
socially desired) when they perceive that the organisation has positive attitudes
towards inclusion.
However, one could question whether the information about the ATI of the organis-
ations was too strong of an influence because it explicitly indicated their ATI. Therefore,
in our second study, we omitted the position statements to investigate if only the identity
of the organisations would be sufficient to obtain different ratings. In addition, we did not
expect the University condition to have as high of an ATI score compared to the other
conditions. This may be due to the additional information provided by the name ‘Institute
of Inclusive Education’. Therefore, in study 2, we omitted the position statements of the
organisations and added a condition without naming the ‘Institute of Inclusive Education’.

Study 2
Method
Based on the results of our first study, we made small changes to provide more insight
about what information influenced participant attitudes and replicated our findings
using an independent sample of participants.

Experimental procedure
Overall recruitment, measures, experimental procedure, and analyses of study 2 were the
same as in study 1, except for two changes: (1) We omitted the short position statements of
the organisations, including only the name and logo of each organisation for the exper-
imental manipulation. This should reduce the impact of the manipulation, as the
overall provided information appeared less suggestive. (2) We changed one of the four
experimental conditions. Because in study 1 organisations B and C were perceived as
having equally negative ATI, condition B (‘No Experiments with Our Children’) was
replaced by a new condition (‘University of Potsdam’). This allowed us to estimate the
influence of a specific department’s denomination as ‘Institute for Inclusive Education’
– compared to group A – and to investigate whether simply being a research organisation
induced socially desirable answers.
46 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

Recruitment & sample

We used the same recruitment strategy and materials (posts, notices, and leaflets) as in
study 1. Participants had the chance to win one of the ten 10€ gift certificates. The
survey was available online for a period of eight weeks. The time needed to complete
the survey was Md = 12 minutes. No participant guessed the experimental manipulation
or research questions; thus, none were excluded from the analyses. A sample of N = 159
participants was randomly assigned to the four experimental groups (A = 24.5%, B =
25.2%, C = 25.2%, D = 25.2%).
As with the first study, most participants were female (62.9%), did not have children
(85.5%) and were working or studying in the pedagogic field (65.4%). One-fourth of
them (25.2%) had regular contact with a person with a disability (a family member or
friend). Converted from the CASMIN scale, they attended higher education for an
average of 6.99 years (SD = 1.73). Their average age was 30.01 years (SD = 9.69), and
their mean overall political attitude was 4.08 (SD = 1.47).
Fisher’s Exact Tests and Welch’s Two Sample T-Tests indicated no significant differ-
ences between the two samples for any characteristic.

Measures
We used the same instruments and variables as in study 1.

Results
The participants of study 2 scored an average of MEDU = 20.96 (SDEDU = 8.77; MEDU (per
Item) = 2.99) on the ATI-EDU subscale and MSOC = 16.24 (SDSOC = 4.65; MSOC (per Item) =
4.06) on the ATI-SOC subscale. Their average overall ATI score was 37.20 (SD = 11.97).
To address our first research question, we analysed whether the information on the
instruction page – this time, merely its name and logo without any position statements
– influenced the perception of the participants regarding the ATI of the organisation.
As in study 1, the participants in study 2 perceived each organisation in the four con-
ditions differently (F(3, 155) = 32.90, p < .001, η² = .39). Post hoc analysis (LSD with Bonfer-
roni-Correction) revealed no significant differences among three conditions: A
(‘University of Potsdam – Institute of Inclusive Education’, M = 5.56, SD = 1.37), B (‘Uni-
versity of Potsdam’, M = 5.00, SD = 1.30), and D (‘Our School for All’, M = 5.62, SD =
1.33). Only participants in condition C (‘Save the Special Schools’) rated the ATI of the
organisation as significantly more negative (M = 2.92, SD = 1.56) than did participants
in the other conditions (all p < .001).
We replicated the hierarchical regression analyses of study 1 using the new sample
(Tables 2 and 3, middle column). In the first step, participants whose political attitudes
leaned to the left (βEDU = −.24, p < .01), and men have more positive attitudes towards
the educational outcomes of inclusive education (βEDU = .17, p < .05), while there are no
differences regarding the social inclusion subscale. Participants with regular contact
with a person with a disability (βSOC = −.17, p < .05), and participants with children
(βSOC = −.20, p < .05) scored lower on the ATI-SOC subscale, but their ATI-EDU scores
do not differ. In addition, participant age, education, and profession were not relevant pre-
dictors for either score. Similar to study 1, the participant variables explain more than 10%
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 47

of the variance in ATI-EDU (R²EDU = .15, p < .001) and -SOC (R²SOC = .12, p < .001)
scores.
As in the first study, the second step included the perceived ATI of the organisation. In
addition to sex and political attitude, the professions and ages of the participants are sig-
nificant predictors of ATI-EDU scores: persons in an educational profession (βEDU = .17,
p < .05) and younger participants (βEDU = −.21, p < .05) scored higher. These four predic-
tors are not associated with ATI-SOC scores. Regular contact with a person with a disabil-
ity and having children were not associated with ATI-SOC.
Most importantly, for both subscales, the perceived ATI of the organisation is the stron-
gest predictor of the attitudes of the participants (βEDU = .36, p < .001; βSOC = .34, p < .001).
Both models are clearly improved, and the explained variance is doubled (ΔR²EDU = .15, p
< .001; ΔR²SOC = .12, p < .001), resulting in 26% explained variance (p < .001) in ATI-EDU
scores and 21% explained variance (p < .001) in ATI-SOC scores.

Discussion
Our second study replicated the findings from study 1. Furthermore, we investigated
whether less suggestive information about the organisations would result in similar differ-
ences in the perceived ATI of the organisations.
In the second study, although participants were only given the name and logo of the
organisation, the differences between groups regarding the perceived ATI of these organ-
isations was almost as high as in study 1 (η² = .39). We can conclude that a statement, as
was provided in our first study, is not needed to evoke inferences. The result of our
manipulation was almost the same without the statements as it was with the statements.
Furthermore, when the research was conducted by a university (conditions A and B), the
attitudes of the participants increased even without the specific department nomination
‘Institute of Inclusive Education’. This shows that research at universities could result in
findings that are strongly biased towards a positive ATI.
Again, the established ATI predictors have a low-to-medium influence on the ATI of
the participants. The rating of the perceived ATI strongly outperforms the established pre-
dictors and accounts for more variance in the ATI of the participants than all other pre-
dictors combined.

Conjoined analysis
As discussed above, the characteristics of the two samples did not differ. To achieve greater
statistical power and obtain more reliable results, we merged the data sets of the two
studies and repeated the regression analysis using the overall sample of N = 390 (right
columns of Tables 2 and 3). In these models, working or studying in an educational pro-
fession was associated with higher ATI scores on both subscales (βEDU = .18, p < .001; βSOC
= .16, p < .01). Participants with regular contact with a person with a disability had a lower
score on both subscales (βEDU = −.13, p < .01; βSOC = −.13, p < .01). The overall political
attitude is associated with participant scores on the subscale ATI-EDU (βEDU = −.20, p
< .001) – more conservative participants score lower – but not with ATI-SOC scores. In
contrast, participants with children (βSOC = −.11, p < .05) and men (βSOC = −.15, p < .01)
have lower ATI-SOC scores but show no difference among other participants in their
48 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

ATI regarding educational outcomes. Participant age and education predicted neither
ATI-EDU nor -SOC.
For both outcome variables, the perceived attitude of the organisation is the strongest
predictor (βEDU = .33, p < .001; βSOC = .31, p < .01). The proposed model for the EDU
subscale explains 20% of the variance of ATI-EDU scores (R²EDU = .20, p < .001;
ΔR²EDU = .11, p < .001) and 18% of the variance of ATI-SOC scores (R²EDU = .18, p
< .001; ΔR²EDU = .09, p < .001).

General discussion
In two experiments with independent samples, we showed that social context information
(the perceived ATI of the surveying organisation) as a single variable explained more var-
iance in the attitudes of the participants than all established participant variables com-
bined. There were several studies in the literature regarding personal variables (e.g.
educational profession, age, gender) and their association with ATI, but none – to our
knowledge – on social desirability, which is a powerful but completely neglected influential
factor. The perception that universities are ‘pro inclusive education’ challenges the validity
and interpretations of numerous studies on ATI.
As stated above, we gathered data on variables that were found in previous research to
predict the ATI of a person. However, findings on the strength and even direction of these
predictors are not always consistent. Therefore, some of our results are in agreement with
previous research:
Consistent with previous research, we found that persons in an educational profession
(e.g. teachers) were more likely to have more positive attitudes on both subscales than did
other participants. This may be because they are more likely to see positive examples of
inclusive education. It may also be caused by a stronger social norm for educational pro-
fessionals to argue in favour of inclusive education.
Regular contact with at least one person with a disability is a predictor for both attitude
subscales; the attitudes of persons with regular contact were more negative. This could be
explained by negative experiences of this known person with the education system. A
more likely explanation is that persons with regular contact feel more encouraged to
form and communicate a critical opinion because they have relevant (at least passive)
experience. Therefore, they may be less affected by social desirability.
The association of overall political attitudes and reported ATI-EDU is consistent with
the assumption that persons with left-leaning political views had higher ATI scores,
which resulted in the highest absolute values in the first step for both studies.
However, the associations decrease after including the ATI of the organisations. They
slightly decline for the ATI-EDU models and result in non-significant associations
within the ATI-SOC models. Therefore, political position is associated with positive
beliefs about educational outcomes, while the belief that those students with special edu-
cational needs would be socially included in regular classrooms may be influenced by
social desirability.
Although age was often a predictor of reported ATI in previous studies, we found no
association between age and reported ATI. We propose that the associations found in pre-
vious studies may be caused by narrow age ranges (e.g. mere teacher student samples),
while the broad age range of our sample (Range = 68 years) did not result in a correlation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 49

Previous research was inconsistent regarding the ATI differences between men and
women. Our data provide an interesting theory to explain this inconsistency: while we
found no difference between men and women on the ATI-EDU subscale (men even
had attitudes that are more positive in the study 2 sample), men were less positive
regarding the social inclusion of students with special educational needs (lower
ATI-SOC scores). Male participants may assume that classmates compete with each
other and therefore believe that there is a lower chance that students with special
educational needs will be socially included. This may explain the inconsistent findings
of earlier research because some scales prioritise learning outcomes, while others focus
on social outcomes.
This explanation may also apply to our findings regarding the influence of being a
parent. We found that parents were more critical of social inclusion (lower ATI-SOC),
while their ATI-EDU scores did not differ from other participants. Parents may be
more aware that teachers, schools, and children may behave competitively and therefore
have doubts about the social inclusion of students with special educational needs, even
though they believe in better educational outcomes.

Limitations and desiderata

Although the experimental design of our studies allows us to examine causality between
the variables, one could still question the direction of the associations: Does the infor-
mation about the organisation influence the attitude of a person? Alternatively, does
their attitude influence his or her perception of the organisation? The profound differences
between the four groups (that were randomly assigned) support our rejection of the
second explanation and our interpretation of the results as proof of the effect of social
desirability on the reported ATI of participants.
Furthermore, the recruitment strategy may create a self-selection bias, as we have
no knowledge about potential participants and response rates. The information pro-
vided in the notices and social media posts were very ambiguous: They only gave
two pieces of information (topic and incentive). Therefore, the sample may be slightly
biased in favour of persons interested in the education system and in winning gift
certificates. We would argue that this is a smaller threat to our experimental validity
than the use of a purely (teacher) student sample, which is common in studies on
ATI.
We were able to replicate the primary results using two samples. Importantly, such
replications are uncommon in special education research and related fields (e.g. Cook
2014). This encourages us to expand on the conclusions of our studies and encourage
independent replications by other researchers. A within-subject design that investigates
the influence of social context information is likely to better estimate the impact of
social desirability but would be difficult to implement.
In our study, the only attitude measure used was a questionnaire focussing on the cog-
nitive attitude component. Future research should consider using a wider range of attitude
measures as dependent variables. This would require an improvement to the methods used
to measure ATI. Two promising approaches are to use implicit attitude measures in
general and explicit measures of affective attitude.
50 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

Conclusion
Even considering the limitations, we were able to confirm the concerns regarding the val-
idity of standard measures of ATI that arose from methodological review of previous
research and the results of Lui et al. (2015). The tendency towards socially desirable
answers is a serious threat to attitude research. Especially given the fact, that the university
(with or without the labelling ‘Insitute for Inclusive Education’), as a research organis-
ation, was perceived to be an advocate for inclusive education. The attitude of the survey-
ing organisations had a huge impact on the reported attitudes of participants, which
cannot be ignored in future research.
All researchers measuring ATI in their studies should recognise that they – as research-
ers belonging to a university – are perceived as advocates of inclusive education. In future
research, we should address this problem by evaluating the influence of social context and
social desirability. We would suggest the following:

. to not only discuss that socially desired responses may limit the validity of a study
. but also control for the perceived ATI of the interviewer/researcher/university or add
social desirability scales to explicit questionnaires
. and try to provide only neutral information about the ATI of the researchers (to avoid a
perceived positive attitude).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Timo Lüke is a research associate, and PhD candidate in educational research at the School of Edu-
cation, University of Wuppertal. He studied Rehabilitation Sciences and Special Education. His
research focuses on different methods of measuring attitudes towards inclusive education, new
approaches of assessment and intervention in inclusive education.
Michael Grosche is a professor in Special Learning Needs at the School of Education, University of
Wuppertal. His research focuses on different definitions and concepts of inclusive education as well
as assessment and intervention in inclusive education.

ORCID
Timo Lüke http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2603-7341
Michael Grosche http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-9184

References
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. 2005. “The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior.” In The Handbook
of Attitudes, edited by Dolores Albarracin, Blair T. Johnson, and Mark P. Zanna, 173–221.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 51

Alghazo, Emad M., and Eman E. Naggar Gaad. 2004. “General Education Teachers in the United
Arab Emirates and Their Acceptance of the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities.” British
Journal of Special Education 31 (2): 94–99. doi:10.1111/j.0952-3383.2004.00335.x.
Avramidis, Elias, Phil Bayliss, and Robert Burden. 2000. “A Survey into Mainstream Teachers’
Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary
School in one Local Education Authority.” Educational Psychology 20 (2): 191–211. doi:10.
1080/713663717.
Avramidis, Elias, and Brahm Norwich. 2002. “Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Integration/Inclusion:
A Review of the Literature.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 17 (2): 129–147. doi:10.
1080/08856250210129056.
Boer, Anke de, Sip J. Pijl, and Alexander E. M. G. Minnaert. 2011. “Regular Primary Schoolteachers’
Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 15 (3): 331–353.
Bohner, Gerd, and Nina Dickel. 2011. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of
Psychology 62: 391–417.
Bohner, Gerd, and Norbert Schwarz. 2001. “Attitudes, Persuasion, and Behavior.” In Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes, edited by Abraham Tesser and
Norbert Schwarz, 413–435. Handbooks of social psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Braun, Michael, and Walter Müller. 1997. “Measurement of Education in Comparative Research.”
Comparative Social Research 16: 163–202.
Bryer, Fiona, Peter Grimbeek, Wendi Beamish, and Anthony Stanley. 2004. “How to use the
Parental Attitudes to Inclusion Scale as a Teacher Tool to Improve Parent-Teacher
Communication.” Issues in Educational Research 14 (2): 105–120. http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/
bryer.html.
Cook, Bryan G. 2014. “A Call for Examining Replication and Bias in Special Education Research.”
Remedial and Special Education 35 (4): 233–246. doi:10.1177/0741932514528995.
Eichinger, Joanne, Terry Rizzo, and Barbara Sirotnik. 1991. “Changing Attitudes Toward People
with Disabilities.” Teacher Education and Special Education 14 (2): 121–126.
Feinberg, Lawrence B. 1967. “Social Desirability and Attitudes Toward the Disabled.” The Personnel
and Guidance Journal 46 (4): 375–381. doi:10.1002/j.2164-4918.1967.tb03199.x.
Forlin, Chris. 1995. “Educators’ Beliefs About Inclusive Practices in Western Australia.” British
Journal of Special Education 22 (4): 179–185.
Forlin, Chris, Tim Loreman, Umesh Sharma, and Chris Earle. 2009. “Demographic Differences in
Changing pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Sentiments and Concerns About Inclusive
Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (2): 195–209. doi:10.1080/
13603110701365356.
Glasman, Laura R., and Dolores Albarracín. 2006. “Forming Attitudes that Predict Future Behavior:
A Meta-Analysis of the Attitude-Behavior Relation.” Psychological Bulletin 132 (5): 778–822.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778.
Hellmich, Frank, and Gamze Görel. 2014. “Erklärungsfaktoren für Einstellungen von Lehrerinnen
und Lehrern zum inklusiven Unterricht in der Grundschule.” Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 4
(3): 227–240. doi:10.1007/s35834-014-0102-z.
Hoskin, Jake, Christopher Boyle, and Joanna Anderson. 2015. “Inclusive Education in Pre-schools:
Predictors of Pre-service Teacher Attitudes in Australia.” Teachers and Teaching 21 (8): 974–989.
doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1005867.
Hu, Bi Y., Hui P. Wu, Xue Y. Su, and Sherron K. Roberts. 2016. “An Examination of Chinese
Preservice and Inservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Perspectives on the Importance and
Feasibility of the Implementation of key Characteristics of Quality Inclusion.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (2): 1–18. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1193563.
Janney, R. E., M. E. Snell, M. K. Beers, and M. Raynes. 1995. “Integrating Students with Moderate
and Severe Disabilities into General Education Classes.” Exceptional Children 61 (5): 425–439.
Kessels, Ursula, Saskia Erbring, and Liesel Heiermann. 2014. “Implizite Einstellungen von
Lehramtsstudierenden zur Inklusion.” Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 61 (3): 189–
202. doi:10.2378/peu2014.art15d.
52 T. LÜKE AND M. GROSCHE

König, Wolfgang, Paul Lüttinger, and Walter Müller. 1988. A Comparative Analysis of the
Development and Structure of Educational Systems: Methodological Foundations and the
Construction of a Comparative Educational Scale. Mannheim: Universität Mannheim.
Kunz, André, Reto Luder, and Marta Moretti. 2010. “Die Messung von Einstellungen zur
Integration (EZI).” Empirische Sonderpädagogik 3 (3): 83–94.
Leyser, Yona, G. Kapperman, and R. Keller. 1994. “Teacher Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming: A
Cross-Cultural Study in Six Nations.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 9 (1): 1–15.
LimeSurvey: An Open Source Survey Tool. 2016. Hamburg: LimeSurvey Project Team. Accessed 12
September 2016. http://www.limesurvey.org/.
Lui, Ming, Kuen-Fung Sin, Lan Yang, Chris Forlin, and Fuk-Chuen Ho. 2015. “Knowledge and
Perceived Social Norm Predict Parents” Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (10): 1052–1067. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1037866.
Lüke, Timo, and Michael Grosche. 2017. “Implicitly Measuring Attitudes Towards Inclusive
Education: A New Attitude Test Based on Single-Target Implicit Associations.” European
Journal of Special Needs Education 3 (3): 1–10. doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1334432.
Opdal, Liv R., Siri Wormnaes, and Ali Habayeb. 2001. “Teachers’ Opinions About Inclusion a Pilot
Study in a Palestinian Context.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
48 (2): 143–162.
Parasuram, Kala. 2006. “Variables That Affect Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Disability and Inclusive
Education in Mumbai, India.” Disability & Society 21 (3): 231–242. doi:10.1080/09687590600
617352.
Paulhus, Delroy L. 2001. “Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct.” In The
Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement, edited by Henry I. Braun,
Douglas N. Jackson, David E. Wiley and Samuel Messick, 49–69. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Paulhus, Delroy L. 2007. “Measurement and Control of Response Bias.” In Measures of Personality
and Social Psychological Attitudes, edited by John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver and Lawrence S.
Wrightsman, 17–59. Measures of social psychological attitudes 1. San Diego: Academic Press.
Stanley, Anthony, Peter Grimbeek, Fiona Bryer, Wendi Beamish, et al. 2003. “Comparing Parents’
Versus Teachers’ Attitudes to Inclusion: When PATI Meets TATI.” In Researching Change,
edited by Brendan Bartlett, Fiona Bryer, and Dick Roebuck, 62–69. Reimagining Practice 3.
Brisbane: Griffith University.
Subban, Pearl, and Dikeledi Mahlo. 2016. “’My Attitude, my Responsibility’ Investigating the
Attitudes and Intentions of Pre-service Teachers Toward Inclusive Education Between
Teacher Preparation Cohorts in Melbourne and Pretoria.” International Journal of Inclusive
Education 21 (4): 1–21. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1197322.
Urton, Karolina, Jürgen Wilbert, and Thomas Hennemann. 2014. “Attitudes Towards Inclusion
and Self-Efficacy of Principals and Teachers.” Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal
12 (2): 151–168.
Vaz, Sharmila, Nathan Wilson, Marita Falkmer, Angela Sim, Melissa Scott, Reinie Cordier, and
Torbjorn Falkmer. 2015. “Factors Associated with Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities.” PLoS One 10 (8): 1–12. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0137002.
Vroey, Annet de, Elke Struyf, and Katja Petry. 2016. “Secondary Schools Included: A Literature
Review.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (2): 109–135. doi:10.1080/13603116.
2015.1075609.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Definition of ‘Inclusive Education’ given on the instruction page

‘We are interested in what people think about inclusion within the school system. Our question-
naire addresses students with diverse educational needs (e.g. difficult learning prerequisites,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 53

disability, etc.), who are frequently taught in special schools. In an inclusive school system, these
children would attend regular schools (primary schools, secondary schools etc.).
In an inclusive school system, all children attend a school in their immediate neighbourhood.
That would also apply if they have special educational needs or a disability. The school should
focus on all pupils and individually support every child.
If a child has specific learning problems, he/she is given additional support in the area that is
posing a difficulty. To this end, special education and general pedagogy work together to
support children. Therefore, a transition to a special school is no longer needed.’