Social-identity and self-efficacy concern for disability labels

Abstract

IntroductionEducational policy in the UK has moved towards inclusion (Lindsay, 2003), resulting in debate over the use of disability labels (Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). Labelling influences social–identity (Olney & Brockelman, 2003), this paper suggests ocial–identity influences self–efficacy and, therefore, academic performance (Zimmerman, 1996, 2001).AimsTo investigate if past performance of in–group members will influence students’ self–efficacy beliefs.MethodA convenience sample of 30 undergraduates was recruited, half of whom were dyslexic. Participants were split equally into three conditions and informed of either high–dyslexic or high nondyslexic performance or were kept naive of past performance. Scores for efficacy beliefs were taken and analysed for differences between conditions.ResultsFor dyslexic participants both the high–dyslexic and high non–dyslexic performance conditions resulted in significantly differing self–efficacy scores when compared to dyslexic participants in the control group. Scores also significantly differed for non–dyslexic participants in the high–dyslexic performance compared to non–dyslexic controls, for one self–efficacy scale, however, no significant differences were found between non–dyslexic’s in the control condition and those in the high non–dyslexic performance condition.ConclusionsWhile, dyslexic students showed predicted differences in efficacy scores relative to in–group member’s performance. For non–dyslexic students, a significant d fference was only found for those in the high–dyslexic performance condition. Therefore, results suggest that dyslexic students’ self–efficacy was influenced by social identity. For non–dyslexics this was not the case. The small number of participant’s percondition and the impact of stereotyping are suggested as mitigating predicted significant differences in selfefficacy scores for non–dyslexics. The effect of past dyslexic performance on dyslexic self–efficacy scores is described in relation to disability labels. Due to alternative theoretical explications for data trends found, and methodological limitations the study’s principal conclusion is the need to expand on findings demonstrated.