hsssaraa@gmail.

com
hadarics.marton@ppk.elte.hu

ABSZTRAKT

rmekv
-

szer:

mogatott, a

-t
-

Kulcsszavak

DOI: 10.52092/gyosze.2021.2-3.2

1 -
2 jogok, mint a

mindenkin

1 Az intellek

2
 (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2020).

(Boros & Szegi, 2019)

& Nyqvist, 2016)

-t

A 2016- 3, ez
25%- -

3 -

fogalmak.
 Az IKZ-
ne

-
alatt, arra vona

ben az IKZ-

Hivatal, 2012)
(Ptk.)

. Ugyanakkor fontos kiemelni, hogy a

(Boros & Szegi, 2019).

(Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2020)

.

az IKZ-
 Brown, Ouellette-Kuntz, Lysaght &
Burge, 2011; Nowicki, 2006; Fevre, Robinson, Lewis & Jones, 2013)

(McConkey, 2020). -

(Scior, 2011).

jog (Di Marco, Licciardello, Mauceri & La Guidara, 2013)

IKZ- (McConkey, 2020). Az IKZ-

Agran, MacLean
& Andren, 2016; Agran & Hughes, 2013)

-
vagy
McFarland, 2015), jelen

-wing authoritarianism, t

(Altemeyer, 2008.)

(Sibley & Duckitt, 2008)

(Hadarics, 2010, p. 49.).
A
-val rendel
 (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994), valamint a Big 5
(Sibley & Duckitt, 2008).

(Crowson, Brandes & Hurst, 2013; Crowson & DeBacker, 2008; McFarland &
Mathews, 2005).
Duckitt (2001) - -t,

egysz - - (Duckitt, 2006).

-
(Akrami, Ekehammar,

mtsai, 2013; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje & Zakrisson, 2004)

-

-val

(Brandes & Crowson, 2009). Ugyanez az eredm

(Crowson & Brandes, 2010)

(Sam Nariman, Hadarics,

Soufizadeh & Kende, 2020) (Hadarics & Kende, 2017)

ja be, mint az

IKZ-

specifikusan az IKZ-t mut -

-
A
(Mackie, Smith & Ray, 2008)

IKZ-
-tartalom modell (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002)
-, illetve kompetencia
men

(kompetencia). Az IKZ- asan, viszont a

2007). A modellben elfoglalt

-

(Leach, Snider &

Iyer, 2002)
(Nadler, 2002). Ez az IKZ-

(Fiske, 2015).
A modern f
& Toros, 2019; Shapiro, 1994; Stramondo, 2010) (Bercse
&
-
(van der Cingel, 2011).

Ugyanakkor Lantos, Ke

gyanakkor

, valamint
(Sibley & Duckitt, 2008)
 , hogy az IKZ-
kapcsolatban lehet az SDO-

M
Minta

-
- nak -

-e IKZ- -e.

-
(Enyedi, 1996)
et,
 Az IKZ-

(Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2020).

IKZ-

1. 5.

principal axis factoring

(Vargha, 2019).

en

5
 A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin- let alkalmas a

-
ny (0.25 alatti)
(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014)

860; p<.001). A kapott 2 faktor a variancia 65.153%-

-
jogok

.822

szabadon .952

.617

.671

.679

.868

.828

.787

-
 meg, hogy a fenti

t p F df p R2

Teljes modell 11.814 4, 229 <.001 .171

RWA -3.227 .001 -.209
SDO -3.108 .002 -.204
kor -2.532 .012 -.157
nem -2.795 .006 -.176
-1.652 .100 -.110
-0.979 .328 -.062
-1.745 .082 -.112
IKZ- -1.113 .267 -.068

Teljes modell 8.276 3, 230 <.001 .097

RWA 0.194 .846 .013
SDO -3.429 .001 -.218
kor -2.871 .004 -.187
nem -2.049 .004 -.134
-0.962 .337 -.064
-0.232 .817 -.015
-1.100 .273 -.073
IKZ- -1.205 .230 -.076
.

-
ltak: az RWA
( =-.191 =-.157; p=.011), az SDO ( =-.182
( =-.196 =-.128; p=.043).
-ra, F(4, 229)=
=-.185; p=.004), az
SDO ( =-.186 =-.155 lat ( =-.142; p=.030).

Hayes, 2018)

az SDO, illetve az RWA

 -

b=-.0053; SE=.0058;
95% CI [- -.0097; SE=.0097; 95% CI [-.0317, .0067]). A

b=-.0091; SE=.009; 95% CI [-

jogok: b=-.0165; SE=.0146; 95% CI [-.0506, .0052]).

tait.

intje

szervezeteket is

az IKZ-
 ,at

mi

Hoffman, 2019; Gurbai, 2015).

Egyik faktorba se illeszkedett az iskolai in

z egyetlen, amely szinte

A g

-e az adott

az IKZ-

(Hadarics & Kende,

2018) -
mtsai., 1994) a jogaik

l a

(Duckitt, 2001)
biztos,
hogy az IKZ-

kapcsolatosak

-
,
(Fiske, 2015) .

2008), ami j
 -t

-
jogok

(Haidt, Graham & Joseph, 2009) (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014),

vagy az IKZ- (Opotow, 1990). Ezek mind

Agran, M., &

People with Severe Disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 58 62.
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807047006
Agran, M., MacLean,
Among Individuals With Intellectual Disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 285 294.
https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.4.285
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., Claesson, M., & Sonnander, K. (2006). Classical and modern prejudice: Attitudes
toward people with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27(6), 605 617.
yhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2005.07.003
Altemeyer, B. (2008). The authoritarians. Cherry Hill Publishing.
, 27.

i. , 2, 70 75. https://doi.org/10.31287/FT.hu.2019.2.4

Acta Humana, 7(2019/3), 7 24. https://doi.org/10.32566/ah.2019.3.1

Brandes, J. A., & Crowson, H. M. (2009). Predicting dispositions toward inclusion of students with disabilities:
The role of conservative ideology and discomfort with disability. Social Psychology of Education, 12(2),
271 289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9077-8
Brown, H. K., Ouellette-
Towards Peers with Disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(4), 322 332.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00616.x
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2020). Inquiry concerning Hungary under article 6 of the
Optional Protocol to the Convention. http://docstore.ohchr.org /SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=
6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsmg8z0DXeL2x2%2fDmZ9jKJskcOPORsTebSnOJ4Cd0WGYL2T
Rl9Mj9TFm8%2b6vdTpXIiWRi4jazyDcI1TkNMlxua0imYcblMrwFj9gXpUkX%2bH%2bv

Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Kossowska, M. (2008). Age Differences in Conservatism: Evidence
on the Mediating Effects of Personality and Cognitive Style. Journal of Personality, 77, 51 88.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00538.x
Crowson, H. M., & Brandes, J. A. (2010). Predicting Community Opposition to Inclusion in Schools: The
Role of Social Dominance, Contact, Intergroup Anxiety, and Economic Conservatism. The Journal of
Psychology, 144(2), 121 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980903472151
Crowson, H. M., Brandes, J. A., & Hurst, R. J. (2013). Who opposes rights for persons with physical and
intellectual disabilities?: Disability and prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E307 E318.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12046
Crowson, H. M., & DeBacker, T. (2008). Belief, Motivational, and Ideological Correlates of Human Rights
Attitudes. The Journal of social psychology, 148, 293 310. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.3.293-310
Di Marco, G., Licciardello, O., Mauceri, M., & La Guidara, R. M. C. (2013). Attitudes Towards the Sexuality
of Men with Intellectual Disability: The Effect of Social Dominance Orientation. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1194 1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.726
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (p. 41 113). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-6
Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential Effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on
Outgroup Attitudes and Their Mediation by Threat From and Competitiveness to Outgroups.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684 696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284282
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five
personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? European Journal of
Personality, 18(6), 463 482. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.526
Enyedi Zs. (1996). - . 2, 135 155.

, 17(1), 115 135.

https://doi.org/10.17627/ALKPSZICH.2017.1.115
Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D., & Jones, T. (2013). The ill-treatment of employees with disabilities in
British workplaces. Work, Employment and Society, 27(2), 288 307. https://doi.org
/10.1177/0950017012460311
Fiske, S. T. (2015). Intergroup Biases: A Focus on Stereotype Content. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 3,
45 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.01.010
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and
competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878 902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Fog ,
5(2), 22 36. https://doi.org/10.31287/FT.hu.2019.2.2
Gurbai S. (2015).
etem]. http://real-phd.mtak.hu/317/
 - , 12(1 2), 47 71.
Hadarics M., & Kende A. (2017). A closer look at intergroup threat within the dual process model framework:
The mediating role of moral foundations. Psychological Thought, 10(1), 167 177.
https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v10i1.210
Hadarics M., & Kende A. (2018). The Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice within the Dual-Process Model:
The Mediating Role of Moral Foundations. Current Psychology, 37(4), 731 739. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s12144-016-9544-x
Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and Below Left Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral
Foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2 3), 110 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (Szerk.). (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7. ed.,
Pearson new internat. ed). Pearson.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and Infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1),
399 423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach
(Second edition). Guilford Press.

(p. 173
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A.
L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for
intergroup inequality using the new SDO scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003
1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Potential: The Role of Non-
Governmental Organizations in Disability Services: Evaluating and Monitoring Progress. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(5), 510 527. https://doi.org/10.1080
/1034912X.2019.1642454
Katona V., Heis
(p. 97 125).

, 6(45), 3.
Mikrocenzus 2016. -

O https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun
/xftp/idoszak/oktat/oktatas1920/index.html
https://www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/szo
/hu/szo0013.html
Lantos N. A., Kende A., Becker, J. C., & McGarty, C. (2020). Pity for economically disadvantaged groups
motivates donation and ally collective action intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, n/a(n/a).
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2705
. Medicina.
Leach, C. W., Snider, N., &
relative advantage and support for social equality. In Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and
integration (p. 136 163). Cambridge University Press.
Lunardo, R.
Potential (Complex) Effects on Charitable Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 43, 624 625.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup Emotions and Intergroup Relations. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1866 1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x
 , 5(2), 37 69. https://doi.org
/10.31287/FT.hu.2019.2.3
McConkey, R. (2019). Public perceptions of the rights of persons with disability: National surveys in the
Republic of Ireland. Alter, 14(2), 128 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2019.06.003
McFarland, S. (2015). Culture, individual differences, and support for human rights: A general review. Peace
and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(1), 10 27. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000083
McFarland, S., & Mathews, M. (2005). Who Cares About Human Rights? Political Psychology, 26(3), 365 385.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00422.x
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter Group Helping Relations as Power Relations: Maintaining or Challenging Social
Dominance Between Groups Through Helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487 502.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
Nowicki, E. A. (2006). A cross- Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(5), 335 348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00781.x
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1 20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality
variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741
763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Sam Nariman, H., Hadarics, M., Soufizadeh, A. M., & Kende, A. (2020). The mediating role of moral
exclusion between authoritarianism and outgroup discrimination. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 74, 1 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.10.001

Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2164 2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.005
Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement (1st edition). Crown.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248 279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A. K., Sibley, C., &
Not Worth Our Concern: The Interface Between Empathy and Social Dominance Orientation:
Empathy and Social Dominance Orientation. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 313 323.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12008
Stramondo, J. A. (2010). How an Ideology of Pity Is a Social Harm to People with Disabilities. Social Philosophy
Today, 26, 121 134. https://doi.org/socphiltoday20102610
van der Cingel, M. (2011). Compassion in care: A qualitative study of older people with a chronic disease and
nurses. Nursing ethics, 18(5), 672 685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011403556
Vargha A. (2019). -

gon
 IKZ-

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Factors influencing attitudes towards the rights of

people with intellectual disabilities

Background and aims: Our research aimed to study the attitudes towards the rights of people with intellectual disabilities (housing choice,
marriage, employment, inclusive education, having children, adoption, participation in politics), which should be guaranteed according to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The goal was to determine whether there is a correlation between these rights and to
reveal the social-psychological factors behind the disavowal of them.
Method: In the present research, the effect of social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and pity (an
intergroup emotion) were studied.
Results: The correlations between the rights were tested using exploratory factor analysis and 2 factors were retained. The first factor consisted
of the more supported rights which are strictly related to the person with intellectual disability. The second factor consisted of the less supported
rights, which affect a bigger proportion of the general population. In the multiple linear regressions SDO and in some cases RWA were significant
predictors of the disavowal of the rights. Adding pity to the model contradicting results were found, which require further research.
Conclusions: The result of this study can be a valuable starting point to better understand the factors behind the refusal of the social participation
of people with intellectual disabilities. This information can help to improve the effectiveness of training programs aiming to promote inclusion.

Keywords: SDO, RWA, intellectual disability, pity, rights

 gyereket nevelni,
ott dolgozni, ahol szeretne.

Sok n

embereknek.

Az emberek a

fontosak-

hogy szeretik-
 -e,

hogy -

jogainak,

jogainak,
mert nem szereti

Azok az emberek,

Fontos tudni,

Vannak olyan emberek is,