Intelectual Disability Nas Stigma PDF

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AND STIGMA
Stepping Out from the Margins
Edited by
KATRINA SCIOR & SHIRLI WERNER
Intellectual Disability and Stigma
Katrina Scior • Shirli Werner
Editors
Intellectual Disability
and Stigma
Stepping Out from the Margins
Editors
Katrina Scior Shirli Werner
Department of Psychology Paul Baerwald School of Social Work
University College London and Social Welfare
London, United Kingdom Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, Israel
ISBN 978-1-137-52498-0 ISBN 978-1-137-52499-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950063
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
Foreword
The stigma of intellectual disabilities is as troubling for people with these

disabilities as the impairments that accompany them. Disabilities are
socially constructed, representing the interface between dysfunctions that
result from disease and obstacles in the community that combined pre-
vent people from attaining personally meaningful life goals. Consider the
irony: people who learn to master challenges and are ready for work or
independent living only to have their community say “no” to their aspira-
tions. Stigma, particularly public beliefs that people with intellectual dis-
abilities can’t…, is among the greatest of obstacles to self-determination.
Stigma teaches that people with intellectual disabilities can’t work com-
petitive jobs, so why should employers hire them. They can’t develop
mature and intimate relationships so should not be allowed to date,
marry, or have children. The benefits of rehabilitation and independent
living programs grind to a halt when confronted by community preju-
dice promoting can’ts. Just as advocates and experts in rehabilitation have
developed innovative ways for people to overcome their dysfunctions to
meet personal goals, so they need to develop effective strategies to tear
down community barriers to these goals.
Scior and Werner have assembled a masterful team of scientists and
advocates to summarize the state of research on the stigma of intel-
lectual disabilities. Parts I and II begin by focusing on what I call the
basics, understanding conceptual foundations of stigma and its egregious
v
vi Foreword
impact. They ground their discussion in research methods to make sure

prescriptions are based on evidence. Part III segues into the practical.
What are effective strategies for erasing the stigma? Focusing on the
practical reflects the advocates’ imperative in stigma research. The ulti-
mate value of investigations on stigma is their utility in tearing down
stigma and replacing it with affirming attitudes (such as hope and self-
determination) and affirming behaviors (reasonable accommodations
and community supports).
What role does research have in stigma change? After all, neither
Mahatma Gandhi in India nor Martin Luther King Jr in the USA had
social scientists at their right hand when envisioning and actualizing their
journey towards social justice. The social inequities wrought by stigma
stir the progressive emotions of many. As a result, advocates plunge head-
long into efforts to change stigma. Plunging evokes purpose and energy
which is needed to sustain the righteous goals of these efforts. But plung-
ing also reminds us of risk, of what happens when someone dives into the
deep end to find it is only three feet deep. Research humbly has the role
of guide to the optimism of progressives.
The interaction between impairments and disabling environments peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities face significantly hamper their ability to
participate in anti-stigma efforts, especially when compared to the articu-
late leadership of people pressing for civil rights around the globe. As a
result, one might ask, “How can a person with an intellectual disability,
who may have trouble understanding or communicating about stigma,
have an effective role in stigma change?” This question is NOT meant to
promote research that identifies who can and who cannot participate in
this kind of effort. Such research in itself is stigmatizing, presupposing
that some people lack what’s necessary to pursue social justice for them
and their group. Rather, this question reflects the advocate’s imperative.
What reasonable accommodations are necessary so the person with an
intellectual disability can fully participate in anti-stigma efforts?
Who therefore drives that anti-stigma agenda? There are many stake-
holders: people with disabilities, their family members, service provid-
ers, and other progressive members of one’s community. A theme of the
chapters in Scior and Werner suggests who should be leading this charge:
people with disabilities themselves. As a white male living in the USA,
Foreword vii
I absolutely endorse African American rights agendas. However, I need

to take the back seat in these efforts. Only African Americans themselves
fully know the injustice and must be empowered to correct it. Hence,
research on the stigma of intellectual disabilities must be community-
based and participatory (CBP). According to principles of CBP research,
the most impactful research relies on partnership between the commu-
nity affected by the phenomenon of concern and experts in methods
and analyses. CBP research is especially important for disenfranchised
groups—people of color, those with low income, and individuals with
intellectual disabilities—who are traditionally left out of the kind of
research-based, social decision-making that leads to education, health,
and social policy. CBP research changes the scope of research relation-
ships. People with lived experience participating in CBP research are full
partners in the research enterprise and not relegated to being subjects of
study. The same should be the case for research in the intellectual dis-
ability field.
Patrick W. Corrigan
Contents
Part I Theory and Concepts 1
1 Toward Understanding Intellectual Disability Stigma:

Introduction 3
Katrina Scior
2 Measurement Methods to Assess Intellectual

Disability Stigma 15
Shirli Werner
Part II The Consequences of Intellectual Disability Stigma 29
3 How Stigma Affects the Lives of People with Intellectual

Disabilities: An Overview 31
Nicole Ditchman, Kristin Kosyluk, Eun-Jeong Lee,
and Nev Jones
4 How Stigma Affects Us: The Voice of Self-advocates 49

Dana Roth, Dorit Barak, and Heli Peretz
ix
x Contents
5 Rarely Seen, Seldom Heard: People with Intellectual

Disabilities in the Mass Media 61
Rebecca Renwick
6 Stigmatic Representation of Intellectual Disability

and Termination of Parental Custody Rights 77
Hanna Björg Sigurjónsdóttir and James G. Rice
7 Self-stigma in People with Intellectual Disabilities 91

Rory Sheehan and Afia Ali
8 Intellectual Disability, Stigma, and Hate Crimes 111

Mark Sherry and Anna Neller
Part III Tackling Intellectual Disability Stigma 127
9 Interventions Aimed at Tackling Intellectual Disability

Stigma: What Works and What Still Needs to Be Done 129
Shirli Werner and Katrina Scior
10 Relationships Matter: Addressing Stigma Among Children

and Youth with Intellectual Disabilities and Their Peers 149
Erik W. Carter, Elizabeth E. Biggs, and Carly L. Blustein
11 Empowering People with Intellectual Disabilities to

Challenge Stigma 165
Sian Anderson and Christine Bigby
12 Tackling Stigma in Developing Countries: The Key Role

of Families 179
Roy McConkey, Callista Kahonde, and Judith McKenzie
Contents xi
13 The Law as a Source of Stigma or Empowerment:

Legal Capacity and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities 195
Janos Fiala-Butora and Michael Ashley Stein
14 Intellectual Disability, Group Identification, and

Self-Evaluation 209
Jason Crabtree, William Mandy, and Hannah Mustard
Epilogue 221
Katrina Scior and Shirli Werner
Index 225
About the Editors
Katrina Scior is a senior lecturer in Clinical Psychology at University College

London, UK, and a chartered clinical psychologist. She has published widely on
lay people’s attitudes and stigma concerning intellectual disability and is con-
cerned with identifying effective interventions to tackle such stigma in diverse
cultural and economic contexts. In the past she has worked with young people
and adults with intellectual disabilities in community services and the UK
National Health Service, where she witnessed first-hand the negative effects
ostracism and discrimination can have on people with intellectual disabilities,
their families, and paid carers.
Shirli Werner is a senior lecturer at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work
and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Previous to her aca-
demic career, Shirli worked as a social worker in the field of intellectual disabil-
ity. Her field experience has provided her with contact and knowledge of this
population and the difficulties which they encounter in various aspects of every-
day life. Shirli has published widely on intellectual disability stigma, focusing on
theoretical considerations and measurement issues related to the conceptualiza-
tion of stigma in this field. Further, her research has focused on issues of public
stigma, stigma held by service providers, and the impact of stigma on family
members.
xiii
Notes on Contributors
Afia Ali is a senior clinical lecturer at University College London, UK, and
honorary consultant psychiatrist working with adults with intellectual disabili-
ties in North London. Her research interests include the experience of stigma
and health inequalities in people with intellectual disabilities.
Sian Anderson is a research fellow in the Living with Disability Research
Centre and sessional lecturer in the discipline of Social Work at LaTrobe
University in Melbourne, Australia. She recently completed a PhD at LaTrobe
which examined the impact of engagement in self-advocacy groups on the social
identity of adults with intellectual disabilities.
Dorit Barak is the academic coordinator of the network of self-advocacy
groups in Israel led by the organizations Beit Issie Shapiro and Elwyn. Her cur-
rent research interests include empowerment and self-advocacy of people with
disabilities and grassroots organizations for social change. She is active
in the establishment, planning, design, and capacity building of a social
movement of people with disabilities in Israel.
Christine Bigby is Professor of Social Work and Director of the Living with
Disability Research Centre at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Her
research has focused on the effectiveness of social programs and policies that
aim to support the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in
adulthood and later life. She has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals
xv
xvi Notes on Contributors
and is the founding editor of the Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities.
Elizabeth E. Biggs is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special
Education at Vanderbilt University, USA. Her interests include promoting
meaningful inclusion for students with severe disabilities in school and com-
munity settings. She is particularly interested in social and communication
interventions for students with limited or no verbal speech.
Carly L. Blustein is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Special
Education at Vanderbilt University, USA. She is interested in understanding
how young people with severe disabilities navigate the school-to-work transition
and prepare for postsecondary outcomes.
Erik W. Carter is a professor in the Department of Special Education at
Vanderbilt University, USA, and a Vanderbilt Kennedy Center Investigator. His
research focuses on evidence-based strategies for supporting inclusion
and valued roles in school, work, and community settings for children
and adults with severe disabilities.
Patrick W. Corrigan is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the Illinois
Institute of Technology, USA, and principal investigator of the US National
Consortium on Stigma and Empowerment. His work focuses on under-
standing ways to replace the stigma of mental illness with affirming atti-
tudes and behaviors.
Jason W. Crabtree is lead clinical psychologist in a community team for adults
with intellectual disabilities in inner London, UK. His work and research inter-
ests include interventions for individuals with complex and challenging
behavior, diagnosis and interventions for individuals with autism spec-
trum conditions, and stigma, self-identity, and self-evaluation in indi-
viduals with intellectual disabilities.
Nicole Ditchman is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at
Illinois Institute of Technology, USA. She is a certified rehabilitation counselor
and licensed clinical professional counselor. Her professional and research
work have aimed to advance our understanding of quality of life and suc-
cessful outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Her research focuses
on factors affecting community integration, sense of community, and social reci-
procity for people with disabilities.
Notes on Contributors xvii
János Fiala-Butora is a doctor of juridical science candidate at Harvard Law

School, USA, and director of the Central European Program of the Harvard
Law School Project on Disability. He has represented several persons with dis-
abilities in strategic litigation before international tribunals and has been
involved in law reform activities on behalf of persons with disabilities in several
Central European countries.
Nev Jones is a postdoctoral fellow and a mental health services researcher at
Stanford University, USA. Her work focuses on the sociocultural determinants
of psychiatric disability and recovery, the subjective experience of psychosis, and
the relationship between mental health challenges and identity development.
Callista Kahonde is a doctoral candidate in disability studies at the University
of Cape Town, South Africa. Her research focuses on the responses of families to
young adults with intellectual disabilities’ sexuality. She grew up and trained as
a physiotherapist in Zimbabwe. Since 2008 she has been working and studying
in South Africa. She is a passionate disability activist and researcher, with special
interests in family support, advocacy, and development programs for persons
with intellectual disabilities.
Kristin Kosyluk is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at El Paso,
USA. She is a certified rehabilitation counselor and rehabilitation counseling
educator. Her research focuses on addressing environmental barriers, such as
stigma, to the full inclusion of individuals with disabilities in their communities.
Prior to entering academia, she spent eight years providing services to individu-
als with disabilities.
Eun-Jeong Lee is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at
Illinois Institute of Technology, USA. She is a certified rehabilitation counselor.
Her work aims to enhance the educational and career advancement
opportunities of people with disabilities from ethnic minority back-
grounds. Her research focuses on the cognitive vulnerability model of
depression for people with disabilities, positive psychology and wellness,
cultural and psychosocial aspects of disability, and caregivers’ adjustment.
William Mandy is a senior lecturer in Clinical Psychology at University College
London, UK. His research focuses on improving ways to identify and help
people who have social communication difficulties, including autism spectrum
conditions.
xviii Notes on Contributors
Roy McConkey is Emeritus Professor of Developmental Disabilities at the

University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and visiting professor at Trinity College
Dublin and the University of Cape Town, South Africa. His research interests
include family support, early childhood intervention, community-based
services, and social inclusion. He has acted as consultant to various UN
and international NGOs. He is coeditor of Disability and Human Rights:
A Global Perspective published by Palgrave in 2015.
Judith McKenzie is a postdoctoral research fellow in the disability studies pro-
gramme, University of Cape Town, South Africa. She has conducted research
into the education and living arrangements of people with intellectual disabili-
ties in South Africa. She has an ongoing interest in inclusive education as a
vehicle for social inclusion and participation. Her current research focuses on
how to enable families to support the learning, participation, and rights of their
family members with disabilities.
Hannah L. Mustard is a clinical psychologist in an HIV and sexual health
service in London, UK. Her research interests include the experience of indi-
viduals who belong to stigmatized groups and how to reduce the negative impact
stigma can have on self-esteem.
Anna Neller is a graduate assistant at the University of Toledo, USA. She is
cochair of the Student Forum Advisory Board of the American Sociological
Association. Her research focuses on the social construction of identi-
ties regarding people with restricted growth, disability and social barriers,
the connections between maternal blame and disability, how impairment
affects people with restricted growth, and bioethics.
Heli (Rachel) Peretz is a program evaluator in the Research and Evaluation
Department of Beit Issie Shapiro, Israel. She has over 15 years of experience in
research and evaluation of social services, especially services focusing on the
improvement of the quality of life of people with disabilities and their families.
Rebecca Renwick is a professor in the Department of Occupational Science
and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Canada. She trained in occu-
pational therapy and physical therapy at the University of Toronto before earn-
ing a PhD in psychology from the University of Lancaster, UK. Her research
focuses on people with disability in society: social relationships, media represen-
tations, civic engagement, and quality of life.
Notes on Contributors xix
James G. Rice is an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of

Iceland and has been a member of the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of Iceland since 2008. His research focuses on disability and power.
He recently contributed to the volume Disability Research Today (2015) edited
by Tom Shakespeare.
Dana Roth is the founder and director of the Research and Evaluation
Department at Beit Issie Shapiro, Israel’s leading organization furthering rights,
opportunities, and services for people with disabilities. She has a particular
interest in developing and applying inclusive participatory and collabora-
tive approaches in all research and evaluation procedures in the disability
field. Her current research focuses on technology, self-advocacy, attitudes,
and stigma towards individuals with disability.
Hanna Björg Sigurjónsdóttir is an associate professor and Chair of Disability
Studies at the University of Iceland. Much of her research has focused on fami-
lies headed by parents with intellectual disabilities and their children. One of her
major themes of interest over the years has been the representations of disability
in art, literature, and popular culture.
Rory Sheehan is an academic clinical fellow in the Division of Psychiatry at
University College London, UK. His research work spans a range of contempo-
rary issues in intellectual disability. He is also a clinician working with people with
intellectual disabilities and mental health problems in north London.
Mark Sherry is Professor of Sociology at the University of Toledo, USA. His
book Disability Hate Crime: Does Anyone Really Hate Disabled People? was pub-
lished in 2010. He is editor of the Ashgate Interdisciplinary Disability Studies
Series and is currently the chair of the Disability Section of the American
Sociological Association. His current work is on disability hate crimes, human
trafficking of people with disabilities, and developing a social model of
impairment.
Michael Ashley Stein is Cofounder and Executive Director of the Harvard
Law School Project on Disability, a visiting professor at Harvard, and extraordi-
nary professor at the University of Pretoria Faculty of Law. An internationally
acclaimed expert on disability law and policy, he participated in the drafting of
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, works with dis-
abled persons organizations around the world, consults with governments on
their disability laws and policies, advises UN bodies, and has brought landmark
litigation and written extensively on disability rights.
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Fig. 7.1 The three-stage process of self-stigma 99
Fig. 9.1 Multilevel model of stigma change interventions 131
Fig. 12.1 Family influences on society and the person
with an intellectual disability 182
Tables
Table 7.1 Summary of studies on stigma in people with intellectual
disabilities (ID) 93
xxi
Part I
Theory and Concepts
1
Toward Understanding Intellectual
Disability Stigma: Introduction
Katrina Scior
The recent World Report on Disability (World Health Organization and

World Bank 2011) concluded that 15 %, more than a billion people,
around the world experience some form of disability. Eighty percent
of these live in developing countries. Wherever they live, people with
disabilities generally have poorer health, lower educational attainment,
fewer economic opportunities, and higher rates of poverty than people
without disabilities. A very prominent but often invisible form of disabil-
ity is intellectual disability, which affects around 2 % of the population.
Intellectual disability, like disability in general, is more common in devel-
oping countries due to poorer health and maternity care, and increased
risk of exposure to diseases, toxins, and severe malnutrition. Persons with
intellectual disabilities experience the same sources of disadvantage and
inequities as people with other types of disabilities, but often face the
K. Scior ()
Division of Psychology & Language Sciences,
University College, London, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 3

K. Scior, S. Werner (eds.), Intellectual Disability and Stigma,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_1
4 K. Scior
additional disadvantage of having their needs inadequately understood

and met and having limited recourse to assert their rights.
Historically, the category of ‘intellectual disability’ as a discrete entity
was created and defined through a medical model that used labels such
as ‘feebleminded’, ‘mental defective’, ‘subnormal’, and ‘retarded’. Such
terms became generic insults, as well as insults specifically aimed at this
population. The characterization of people with intellectual disabilities as
less worthy, subhuman, found its most extreme advocates in the Eugenics
movement, resulting in the forceful sterilization of tens of thousands of
persons with intellectual disabilities and later under the Nazi regime
experimentation on them and their extermination (Grenon and Merrick
2014; Wolfensberger 1981). While we may think such sentiments belong
to some other ‘dark’ era, of note the American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, one of the world’s foremost scientific
organizations focused on intellectual disability, only abandoned use of
the term ‘mental retardation’ as recently as 2006, having referred to itself
until this time as the American Association on Mental Retardation. The
word ‘retard’ and other highly pejorative terms are still commonly used
in many parts of the world (Scior et al. 2015).
The very concept of intellectual disability presumes that it is possible
to draw a clear demarcating line between intellectual ability and disabil-
ity. This notion is rooted in Western classificatory systems but is of little
relevance in many other parts of the world, not least as such a label would
result in few if any additional resources being provided outside of the
family. Having noted this qualification, in this book we have adopted the
most prominent current definition of intellectual disability as (1) signifi-
cant impairment of intellectual (cognitive) functioning, indicated by a
full-scale IQ below 70; (2) alongside significant impairment of adaptive
(social) functioning that affects how a person copes with everyday tasks;
(3) both of which must have their onset during childhood (before age
18) (American Psychiatric Association 2013; World Health Organization
1994). Rather than concern ourselves with impairment (a problem in
body function or structure), though, in this book we very much focus on
intellectual disability (the interaction between features of a person’s body
and features of the society in which they live), as it is at the point of inter-
action between individual and society that the oppressive consequences
1 Toward Understanding Intellectual Disability Stigma 5
of disability stigma are experienced. Importantly though, as several of the

authors in Part II of this book note, a frequent failure to recognize impair-
ment and make adjustments to accommodate the needs of persons with
intellectual disabilities is in itself disabling and closely related to stigma.
What Is Intellectual Disability Stigma?

Intellectual disability elicits mixed reactions. While many respond to vis-
ible disability with compassion, sympathy, and a desire to help, intellectual
disability also elicits many negative responses including pity, anxiety, avoid-
ance, hostility, and even hatred and disgust. Such negative responses arise
from stigma, a term that originates in ancient Greek and was reintroduced
into common parlance by Goffman (1963), who defined stigma as the
process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity. A prominent
current conceptualization defines stigma as the co-occurrence of labeling,
stereotyping (negative evaluation of a label), and prejudice (endorsement
of negative stereotypes), which lead to status loss and discrimination for the
stigmatized individual or group (Link and Phelan 2001). Widely endorsed
negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities are that they
are invariably severely academically and socially impaired (McCaughey and
Strohmer 2005), lack the potential to change (Jahoda and Markova 2004),
and are childlike (Gilmore et al. 2003).
Importantly, for stigmatization to occur, power must be exercised; that
is, members of the stigmatized group are disempowered by having their
access to rights, resources, and opportunities determined by those invested
with more power in the social hierarchy—a condition that is clearly met
for this population. The attention paid to power in social processes that
continue the subjugation of people with intellectual disabilities is one
of the key reasons why we have adopted the term ‘stigma’, in prefer-
ence over the term ‘attitude’, which dominates research and discussion in
the intellectual disability field. Furthermore, contemporary psychologi-
cal theorizing on attitudes draws attention to three aspects of attitudes:
a cognitive component (how we think about X), an emotional compo-
nent (how we feel about X), and a behavioral component (how we act
toward X). However, in common parlance the term ‘attitude’ continues
6 K. Scior
to be mostly used to refer to the cognitive component alone and less so

to emotions and actions or behaviors, which after all are most likely to
negatively affect people with intellectual disabilities. In contrast, stigma
more clearly draws our attention to negative outcomes such as devalua-
tion and discrimination.
Why Is Intellectual Disability Stigmatized?

While in many parts of the world attitudes to people with intellectual
disabilities have undoubtedly improved over time, evidence suggests that
their position near the bottom of the social hierarchy remains largely
unchanged. Studies consistently find that the general public rate social
interactions with people with intellectual disabilities as much less desir-
able than contact with people with physical or sensory disabilities (but
contact with individuals with severe mental health problems is viewed
as at least equally undesirable). To answer the question why intellectual
disability is stigmatized we need to look to social psychology. Although
generally thought of in negative terms, social psychologists stress that
stigma meets some important human needs. It allows people to reduce
potentially overwhelming complexity and to feel better about themselves
or their groups—functions that have evolved from a need for humans
to live in effective groups to assure their survival (Major and O’Brien
2005; Neuberg et al. 2000). As a flipside, it also allows them to justify
their preferential status in society. Stigma has been theorized both as a
social construction, as in the labeling theories referred to above, and in
evolutionary terms. The fact that intellectual disability appears to be stig-
matized across cultures yet stereotype contents and the extent of discrimi-
nation associated with intellectual disability vary across historical, social,
and cultural contexts suggests that both types of theories should be borne
in mind to advance our understanding of intellectual disability stigma.
Evolutionary theorists have proposed that disability has been stigmatized
as it prevents individuals from contributing (equally) to the group’s effec-
tive functioning, efforts, and resources (Neuberg et al. 2000). As societies
evolve and the most valued tasks shift from physical to cognitive, people
with physical disabilities are able to contribute in alternative, valued ways;
consequently, physical disability becomes less stigmatized. However, as

long as intellectual disability is viewed as impeding someone’s contribution
to society, it will continue to be stigmatized. While Neuberg et al. (2000)
view non-reciprocity as central to disability stigma and to avoidance, the
most common response to people with disabilities, another evolutionary
psychological perspective views disease avoidance as central to disability
stigma (Park et al. 2003). The latter should be particularly relevant in situa-
tions where misconceptions exist that disability is infectious, or in cultures
where consanguineous marriage and parenthood are prominent, carrying
with them a markedly increased risk of disability resulting from genetic
abnormalities. Other selected conceptual explanations for negative reac-
tions to disability advanced by social psychologists are detailed in Box 1.1
(for a review see Heatherton et al. 2000). To date researchers have tested
few of these theories in relation to intellectual disability stigma.
Box 1.1 Social-Psychological Theories of Stigma

Attributional Approaches: Blaming the Victim (Ryan 1971); Belief in
a just world (Lerner 1980; Furnham and Procter, 1989); Attributions
of Control and Responsibility (Weiner 1985)
Demand Evaluations: Interactional uncertainty; Required Effort;
Resource Evaluations (Blascovich et al. 2000)
Attitudinal ambivalence (Conner and Armitage 2008; Thompson
et al. 1995)
The Impact of Intellectual Disability Stigma

Stigma exerts its potential profound negative effects on persons with intel-
lectual disabilities and those close to them in several ways. It can lead to
their exclusion from community life, being denied opportunities and equal
rights, and being avoided in social situations (Jahoda and Markova 2004).
Stigma has also been linked to psychological distress (Dagnan and Waring
2004), decreased self-esteem (Paterson et al. 2012), and increased vulner-
ability to mental health problems (Mak et al. 2007). These and other con-
sequences of stigma are considered in detail in Part II of this book.
8 K. Scior
Stigma not only affects the person but may extend to include his or her
whole family as well. Families may be affected in three ways: (1) through
negative attitudes others may hold about the families of someone with
intellectual disability, what has been termed ‘courtesy stigma’ (Ali et al.
2012; Birenbaum 1992); (2) through their fear that others view them
negatively as parents or family members of someone with an intellectual
disability, referred to as ‘anticipated stigma’ (Weiss 2008); and (3) by
internalizing others’ negative attitudes toward them, referred to as ‘affiliate
stigma’ (Mak and Cheung 2008). To date, only limited research has been
conducted on these three aspects and the relationships between them.
Stigma and Identity
One question which crops up repeatedly in discussions of stigma, par-
ticularly its potential internalization and the need to organize in self-
advocacy groups to take collective action against stigma, is whether the
individuals concerned in fact view themselves as having an intellectual
disability. Some have proposed that in order to develop a positive sense
of self, coming to accept one’s intellectual disability and learning to
manage the stigmatized identity are crucial (Szivos and Griffiths 1990).
Others, in contrast, have argued that the label of intellectual disability is
so toxic that individuals given this label have very good reason to reject
it (Gillman et al. 2000). Yet others have questioned the whole notion of
accepting or rejecting this label and have pointed to the fluid, context-
dependent nature of identity (Rapley 2004). A young woman, for exam-
ple, who is of short stature and has Down syndrome, when surrounded
by tall people may view her stature as a prominent and possibly defining
feature. When on a girls’ night out though, being short or tall is likely to
be of much less relevance than being female, someone who shares others’
interest in Karaoke, or perhaps a wearer of trainers of a certain popular
brand. Even in relation to the label of intellectual disability, answers to
the question whether or not someone ascribes this label to themselves are
much less clear cut than often suggested. To illustrate, the young woman
may identify with the label of intellectual disability in some regards, such
as annoyance at everyone taking a much closer interest in her relationship
with her boyfriend than they do for her younger sister, while she may
reject the label when invited to attend segregated activities. Perhaps then
an even fleeting alignment with others similarly labeled, without neces-
sarily assuming an ‘intellectual disabled identity’, is all that is called for as
basis for collective action.
While touching on identity politics, we accept that in drawing atten-
tion to intellectual disability stigma in this book, we inevitably imply the
existence of an essential entity—a group unified by its distinctive features,
rather than focusing on the myriad distinctions between the millions of
children and adults around the world labeled as having intellectual dis-
abilities. As such, we recognize that we are guilty of what Gergen (1999)
termed an essentialist presumption implicit in much identity politics.
This Book
Our aim in producing this edited text is to generate debate around a topic
that has received limited attention but has a major impact on people
with intellectual disabilities, their families, and society at large. We have
arranged the book in three parts that we hope make sense to the reader.
Consideration of broader theoretical issues in Part I is followed with in-
depth analysis of the consequences of intellectual disability stigma in Part
II. In Part III, perhaps the most important part, how to tackle intellectual
disability stigma is addressed.
Looking to the future, in relation to long-term illness it has been sug-
gested that we are perhaps witnessing the end of stigma (Green 2009).
Recent testimonies we gathered from around the globe suggest, sadly,
that this is far from the reality where intellectual disability is concerned
(Scior et al. 2015). While huge progress has been made toward the inclu-
sion and protection of the fundamental rights of persons with intellectual
disabilities, they are still mostly far from being accepted as equal citizens.
In highly industrialized Western countries we are witnessing an inter-
esting paradox—in the midst of frantic activity and the idolization of
autonomy and independence, more and more people are embracing the
slow movement. Where for a long time one’s value in the (Western) world
has been measured in part by one’s capacity for autonomy, and to perform
10 K. Scior
under pressure and at maximum speed, increasingly this notion is being

questioned and a desire to address time poverty and to create more con-
nections appears to sweep across industrialized nations. As increasing
numbers of people are seeking a greater sense of connectedness with their
communities and downshifting, or dreaming of doing so, is the time
perhaps right to question not only whether prejudice and discrimination
directed at people with intellectual disabilities are morally and legally
wrong but also whether a section of society that requires us to slow down
and to pay closer attention to one another’s humanness can perhaps teach
us all some valuable lessons and skills. This is not to say for a moment
that they cannot contribute to society in many other ways that are at
present frequently closed to them, but that in addition perhaps they can
help us relearn some human values and skills that are at risk of being lost.
Key Learning Points

• Terminology and policy relating to intellectual disability may have
improved, but interactions between the public and people with intel-
lectual disabilities are still rare and viewed as undesirable by many.
• The concept of stigma, with its emphasis on power in the process of
devaluing people with intellectual disabilities has advantages over the
concept of attitudes which dominates the intellectual disability
literature.
• Social psychologists have advanced numerous theories that can explain
why intellectual disability is stigmatized but these have not been tested
in relation to intellectual disability.
• Stigma results in many negative outcomes for people with intellectual
disabilities and their families and carers.
Accessible Summary
• People with intellectual disabilities around the world often face bad
attitudes and actions.
• This often makes life more difficult for them and their families.
• Researchers have produced different ideas why attitudes to disability

are negative.
• These ideas can help us understand stigma and how to challenge it.
References
Ali, A., Hassiotis, A., Strydom, A., & King, M. (2012). Self stigma in people
with intellectual disabilities and courtesy stigma in family carers: A system-
atic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 2122–2140.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.013.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-5).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Association.
Birenbaum, A. (1992). Courtesy stigma revisited. Mental Retardation, 30,
265–268.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Lickel, B. (2000). Stigma, threat
and social interactions. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G.
Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 307–331). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2008). Attitudinal ambivalence. In W. D.
Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–286).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dagnan, D., & Waring, M. (2004). Linking stigma to psychological distress:
Testing a social cognitive model of the experience of people with intellectual
disabilities. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 11, 247–254. doi:10.1002/
cpp.413.
Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique
of the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28,
365–384. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00880.
Gergen, K. (1999). Social construction and the transformation of identity politics.
Retrieved from https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/docu-
ments/kenneth-gergen/Social%20Construction_and_the_Transformation.pdf
Gillman, M., Heyman, B., & Swain, J. (2000). What’s in a name? The implica-
tions of diagnosis for people with learning difficulties and their family carers.
Disability and Society, 15, 389–409. doi:10.1080/713661959.
Gilmore, L. A., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expecta-
tions, personality stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education:
12 K. Scior
Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education, 50, 65–76. doi:10.1080/103491203
2000053340.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London:
Prentice-Hall.
Green, G. (2009). The end of stigma? Changes in the social experience of long-term
illness. London: Routledge.
Grenon, I., & Merrick, J. (2014). Intellectual and developmental disabilities:
Eugenics. Frontiers of Public Health, 2, 201. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00201.
Heatherton, T. F., Kleck, R. E., Hebl, M. R., & Hull, J. G. (2000). The social
psychology of stigma. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jahoda, A., & Markova, I. (2004). Coping with social stigma: People with intellec-
tual disabilities moving from institutions and family home. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 48, 719–729. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00561.x.
Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 363–385. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review
of Psychology, 56, 393–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137.
Mak, W. W., Poon, C. Y., Pun, L. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2007). Meta-analysis of
stigma and mental health. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 245–261.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.015.
Mak, W. W., & Cheung, R. Y. (2008). Affiliate stigma among caregivers of peo-
ple with intellectual disability or mental illness. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 532–545. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00426.x.
McCaughey, T. J., & Strohmer, D. C. (2005). Prototypes as an indirect measure
of attitudes toward disability groups. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48,
89–99. doi:10.1177/00343552050480020301.
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, S. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward
a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, &
J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31–61). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003). Evolved disease-avoidance pro-
cesses and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoid-
ance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27,
65–87.
Paterson, L., McKenzie, K., & Lindsay, B. (2012). Stigma, social comparison
and self-esteem in adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25, 166–176. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
3148.2011.00651.x.
Rapley, M. (2004). The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Scior, K., Hamid, A., Hastings, R., Werner, S., Belton, C., Laniyan, A., et al.
(2015). Intellectual disabilities: Raising awareness and combating stigma—A
global review. London: University College London.
Szivos, S. E., & Griffiths, E. (1990). Group processes involved in coming to
terms with a mentally retarded identity. Mental Retardation, 6, 333–341.
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indif-
ferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.),
Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emo-
tion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1_6.
Weiss, M. G. (2008). Stigma and the social burden of neglected tropical dis-
eases. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2(5), e237. doi:10.1371/journal.
pntd.0000237.
Wolfensberger, W. (1981). The extermination of handicapped people in World
War II Germany. Mental Retardation, 19, 1–7.
World Health Organization (1994). International classification of diseases (10th
ed., ICD-10). Geneva: WHO.
World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World report on disability.
Geneva: WHO.
2
Measurement Methods to Assess
Intellectual Disability Stigma
Shirli Werner
Adequate measurement tools are needed to allow researchers to examine

the extent and severity of stigma. Specific tools for intellectual disability
stigma are needed because stigma may differ across disabilities. However,
measurement of stigma in the intellectual disability field has not received
the same level of attention and rigorous investigation as in other areas.
First, the theoretical and methodological challenges facing this field are
discussed, followed by a brief summary of several leading instruments.
This chapter focuses on both stigma and attitude scales that aim to mea-
sure the perceptions held by adults and children regarding individuals
S. Werner ()
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_2
16 S. Werner
Theoretical and Methodological Challenges

of Existing Scales
Measurement of the intellectual disability stigma construct is based on its
theoretical conceptualization. Although attitudes and stigma are frequently
used interchangeably, attitudes (consisting of cognitive, affective, and
behavioral components) do not capture the entirety of the stigma construct
(the chain from stereotypes through prejudice to discrimination). While
up-to-date measures should focus on the stigma construct, most available
scales in this field have various theoretical limitations because they focus
on examining attitudes rather than stigma. These scales do not include the
components of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Furthermore,
most studies fail to measure multidimensional theoretical underpinnings
because they do not examine all three dimensions of stigma or attitudes, or
study them only as separate dimensions lacking the conceptual interrela-
tionships that a theory underlying the process of stigma provides.
Several methodological limitations should be noted in relation to
existing scales. Only a few report conducting wide literature reviews as
a basis for their development, whereas others are based on previously
existing scales. Thus, it remains unclear how their items were derived.
Several scales are outdated; thus, some of the items have limited rele-
vance. Most scales’ psychometric properties have not been evaluated and
they have been developed and used primarily in Western countries. Some
scales have only been used by the research group that developed them.
Finally, most scales measure explicit attitudes (those that are consciously
accessible and controllable) via self-report questionnaires based on direct
questioning methods. These methods are subject to the effects of social
desirability, where the human inclination to present oneself in the best
possible light can distort the information provided (Fisher 1993). A full
review of these issues is provided in Werner et al. (2012).
Summary of Leading Scales

The scales presented below include those that are more widely used and
more recently developed.
2 Measurement Methods 17
The Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory—Revised (MRAI).

This scale was developed by Antonak and Harth (1994) by adapting a
scale of attitudes toward racial minority groups (Woodmansee and Cook
1967). The scale includes 29 items scored on a 4-point Likert scale which
relate to different contexts in which stigma might occur (school, employ-
ment, and living arrangements).
The MRAI consists of four subscales with confirmed construct valid-
ity: (1) Social distance assesses the willingness to live near or be ‘asocial’ to
people with intellectual disabilities; (2) Integration-segregation evaluates
views toward including those with intellectual disabilities in the class-
room; (3) Private rights measures the belief in having rights to express
one’s views on intellectual disability inclusion; and (4) Subtle deroga-
tory beliefs assesses perceptions of individuals with intellectual disabili-
ties. Intercorrelations between the scale scores provide evidence for the
specificity of the four scales. Further, internal reliability was found to be
adequate (α = 0.91 for the overall scale and α = 0.76 to α = 0.86 for the
subscales) (Antonak and Harth 1994).
Recently, a question has been raised regarding the items’ content,
suggesting further examination of their face validity (Sam et al. 2016).
Specifically, several items seem overly hypothetical. For example, to
answer ‘I would allow my child to accept an invitation to a birthday party
given for a child with an intellectual disability’, participants who do not
have children first need to imagine what it might be like to have a child
and how they would feel in the described situation. Further, the item
‘School officials should not place children with intellectual disabilities
and children without intellectual disabilities in the same classes’ could
be outdated in many countries in which integration within schools is a
mandatory policy.
Nevertheless, the MRAI has been one of the most widely employed atti-
tude measures in the intellectual disability field to date. The scale has been
utilized with many different populations including students, volunteers,
and clinicians and has been employed worldwide, including studies con-
ducted in Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Kuwait, and the USA.
Community Living Attitudes Scale (CLAS-ID). This scale was
developed by Henry et al. (1996) to assess attitudes toward the social
inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. Since social inclusion
18 S. Werner
is closely linked to attitudes and stigma, this scale has been frequently
utilized to measure attitudes. Items were developed in consultation with
self-advocates and users of intellectual disability services.
The CLAS-ID includes 40 items (17 in the short version) scored for
degree of agreement on a 6-point Likert scale. It consists of four subscales:
(1) Empowerment—the view that persons with intellectual disabilities
should be able to make their opinions known in decisions and policies
that affect their lives; (2) Exclusion—the desire to segregate persons with
intellectual disabilities from community life; (3) Sheltering—the extent
to which one believes that individuals with intellectual disabilities need
to have others supervise them in their daily lives or protect them from
the dangers of community life; and (4) Similarity—the extent to which
one perceives persons with intellectual disabilities to be basically like
themselves and others regarding life goals and basic human rights. All
subscales show acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.75 to α = 0.86) and
acceptable test-retest reliability (α = 0.70 to α = 0.75), indicating that
they measure relatively stable attitudes (Henry et al. 1996).
The CLAS-ID has been widely used across populations, including pro-
fessionals working with individuals with intellectual disabilities, college,
university, and medical students, and the general public. It has been used
in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, the
UK, and the USA.
Attitudes toward Intellectual Disability Questionnaire (ATTID).
This scale, developed by Morin et al. (2013), adopts a multidimensional
perspective by measuring the cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimen-
sions of attitudes. The scale was developed based on previously validated
instruments, items inspired by the Montreal Declaration on Intellectual
Disability (Pan-American Health Organization and World Health
Organization 2004), and literature in the field. This scale takes into con-
sideration that attitudes may differ according to level of intellectual dis-
ability by using two vignettes that illustrate different levels of intellectual
disability.
The ATTID consists of 67 items rated for their degree of agreement
on a 5-point Likert scale. It consists of five subscales: two cognitive, two
affective, and one behavioral. Specifically, Knowledge of the capacity and
rights of persons with intellectual disabilities and Knowledge of the causes
of intellectual disability. Discomfort refers to situations that can create

discomfort or fear. Sensitivity and compassion refer to the affect of sadness
and pity and Interaction refers to everyday interactions and social distance
from an individual with an intellectual disability. The overall Cronbach
reliability of the scale was α = 0.92 and subscale reliabilities ranged
between α = 0.59 and α = 0.89.
The ATTID and its norms were developed using a large representa-
tive random sample of Quebec’s general adult population (Morin et al.
2015). It was also used with elementary school teachers in Canada. To
the best of my knowledge, no other studies have been published using
this scale. However, the ATTID scale is new and several studies utilizing
this scale are underway.
The ID Stigma Scale. This scale was developed by Werner (2015a)
based on the theoretical conceptualizations of social psychology models
of mental illness stigma and on the previously validated Multidimensional
Attitudes Scale (Findler et al. 2007). The scale includes 35 items measur-
ing cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions when meeting a man
with an intellectual disability described in a vignette.
The scale consists of three dimensions: stereotypes, prejudice, and
behavioral aspects, each comprising several factors. Stereotypes include
positive cognitions of Acceptance and negative cognitions of Low ability
and Dangerousness. Prejudice consists of both Negative affect and Calm
affect. Finally, behavioral aspects include discrimination (Withdrawal and
Social distance), as well as positive behaviors of Helping. Internal reliabili-
ties of subscales were found to range from acceptable to good (α = 0.60
to α = 0.89).
To overcome the effects of social desirability, researchers have advo-
cated the use of indirect questioning, by asking respondents to report
what they believe other people think about sensitive issues (Snijders
and Matzat 2007), thus projecting their own attitudes using the façade
of ‘another person’. Accordingly, the ID Stigma Scale has been adapted
to an indirect version (Werner 2015b) using the same vignette and
items described above. However, participants are asked to report on the
reactions that they believe another person would have in the same situ-
ation. Subscale reliabilities of the indirect version range from α = 0.66
to α = 0.91.
20 S. Werner
The ID Stigma Scale has only been used, thus far, by the original
author. However, the scale is new and many studies worldwide have used
the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale (Findler et al. 2007) on which it
is based.
Single-Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT). An additional
method to overcome the limitations of explicit attitude measures is to use
measures that assess implicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are automati-
cally activated without effort or intention (Prestwich et al. 2008), provid-
ing a more accurate reflection of attitudes (Wilson and Scior 2015). The
Implicit Association Test (IAT, Greenwald et al. 1998) is a computer-
based task that measures the relative strength of the association between
pairs of concepts/images and words. Participants are asked to categorize
the presented image/word into two groups, each related to a target con-
cept (e.g., White vs. Asian) and to an attribute concept (e.g., pleasant vs.
unpleasant) (Lane et al. 2007). The IAT has been found to be a valid and
reliable measure of implicit attitudes and is fairly robust against social
desirability (Cunningham et al. 2001).
In contrast to the traditional IAT, the ST-IAT (Karpinski and Steinman
2006) allows measurement of attitudes toward only one attitude object.
A ST-IAT version designed to measure implicit attitudes toward individ-
uals with intellectual disabilities has recently been developed by Wilson
and Scior (2015). In the ST-IAT, participants categorize two sets of attri-
bute category words (five ‘pleasant’ words: happiness, laughter, joyful,
rainbow, and sunshine and five ‘unpleasant’ words: sickness, hatred, dis-
ease, terrible, and poison) and five words representing the target category
of ‘intellectual disability’ (dependent, mental handicap, slow learner,
impaired, and special needs) using two keyboard keys. In the different
blocks, the attribute category words are paired with either pleasant or
negative attribute words.
Participants’ implicit attitudes are reflected in the difference in response
time to the different pairings. If participants are quicker in categorizing
words when ‘intellectual disability’ and ‘pleasant’ are paired, this indicates
positive implicit attitudes. Conversely, if they are quicker to categorize
words when ‘intellectual disability’ and ‘unpleasant’ are paired, this indi-
cates negative implicit attitudes. The authors found no significant associa-
tions between implicit and explicit attitudes (Wilson and Scior 2015).
It is important to note that debates have arisen regarding the psycho-

metric properties of the ST-IAT versus the traditional IAT (Greenwald
et al. 1998). Whereas some argue that the traditional IAT is more psy-
chometrically sound than the ST-IAT (Greenwald, personal communica-
tion), others argue that the choice of a counter category against which the
target object of interest is contrasted may sometimes be highly subjective
(Karpinski 2004). In these instances, the ST-IAT has the advantage of
reliably and efficiently capturing the evaluation of a single target category
without a nonrelative evaluation (Bluemke and Friese 2008).
Social Distance Scales. Social distance relates to the willingness of
an individual to have social contact with a member of another group in
situations having varying degrees of intimacy (Bogardus 1959). Many
researchers have used some form of social distance scale to measure exter-
nal stigma, although these scales are not specific to intellectual disability.
For example, Scior and Furnham (2011), as part of their Intellectual
Disability Literacy Scale, adapted four statements representing varying
degrees of intimacy taken from a previously validated scale (Link et al.
1999). Participants rate their level of agreement with each statement on
a scale from 1 to 7. Lately, the scale has been used with the addition of a
fifth item referring to social distance toward a potential work colleague
with an intellectual disability (Connolly et al. 2013). Another frequently
used social distance measure is the social distance subscale of the MRAI
(Harth 1974), which contains eight items that have been used in isola-
tion in some studies.
Scales for Children. Studying children's stigmatic attitudes toward
individuals with intellectual disabilities is highly important because these
frequently influence the acceptance and inclusion of children with dis-
abilities within the classroom and in society. Most scales used among
children have similar limitations to those described within the first
section of this chapter. Most scales do not focus on all three attitude
components and most research conducted with children has focused on
disability groups other than intellectual disability. Furthermore, most
studies have been based on attitude scales developed to measure attitudes
toward disability in general.
Notwithstanding these limitations, two scales are considered the most
comprehensive in this field, measuring all three attitude components
22 S. Werner
(see Vignes et al. 2008 for a comprehensive review). First, the Acceptance

Scale (Voeltz 1980) was developed for a 9- to 12-year-old target popula-
tion. This scale consists of 21 items scored on a 3-point rating scale. It
has high internal consistency (α = 0.77) and test-retest reliability (coeffi-
cient = 0.68). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the three factorial
structure model of this scale was not repeated in other research (Bossaert
and Petry 2013).
Second, the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes toward Children with
Handicaps Scale (CATCH, Rosenbaum et al. 1986) was developed for
use with a 9- to 13-year-old target population, although it has been used
with youths up to age 16. This scale consists of 36 items rated on a 5-point
scale, with 12 items for each of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral
attitude components. The scale has high internal consistency (α = 0.89)
and good test-retest reliability (coefficient = 0.70).
Although the CATCH has been recommended as one of the more
complete scales and has been used in research in many countries, some
questions have arisen regarding its suitability. First, the factorial validity of
the scale remains unclear: some researchers have found a two-dimensional
structure (Rosenbaum et al. 1986) and others a unidimensional structure
(Bossaert and Petry 2013). Recently, Bossaert and Petry (2013) suggested
a better fit by using a shortened unidimensional scale that includes 7
items (5 affective and 2 behavioral). Within this version, none of the
cognitive items were found to be sufficiently related to the overall attitude
measure. Second, when used to learn about attitudes toward individuals
with intellectual disabilities, it is presumed that children completing the
scale know what an intellectual disability is. This may well not be the case,
more so for younger children. Third, careful consideration is needed for
items that may be at risk of actually promoting prejudice; for example,
‘I would try to stay away from a handicapped child.’
Conclusions and Recommendations
The field of intellectual disability stigma measurement is still in its
infancy. Most available scales have some shortcomings and limitations,
both in terms of theory and methodology. Nevertheless, the few leading
scales presented can serve as a beginning point for continued develop-

ment of scales in this field.
Several recommendations can be made for future development of
scales in this field. First, I encourage additional qualitative research with
various intellectual disability stakeholder groups, including the lay pub-
lic, professionals, and policy makers, as well as individuals with intel-
lectual disabilities and their families. Each of these groups most likely
holds differing perspectives; therefore, including all would help elicit all
stereotypes specific to intellectual disability. Second, there is a clear gap
between the theoretical level of attitudes and stigma and its measurement.
Hence, scales should be improved in order to measure stigma multidi-
mensionally, thus allowing for a more holistic and comprehensive picture
of stigma in this field. Third, all scales must undergo a strict examina-
tion of their psychometric characteristics among random samples in both
Western and non-Western countries. Fourth, all items on scales for both
children and adults should be closely examined to determine whether
they are up to date, that none is at risk of perpetuating stigma, and that
all are appropriate for the population for which they are intended, not
least in relation to age and culture. Fifth, researchers should examine the
option of integrating the use of quantitative scales along with observing
behavior to obtain a more complete picture. Finally, more research is
needed in non-Western countries in order to examine how existing scales
are used in other cultural contexts.
Key Learning Points

• Adequate measurement tools to measure stigma toward individuals
with intellectual disabilities are a mandatory first step in order to be
able to examine the extent and severity of stigma and to offer appropri-
ate stigma change interventions.
• Available scales to measure stigma and attitudes toward individuals
with intellectual disabilities have many inherent theoretical and meth-
odological limitations.
• Several of the leading scales presented in this chapter can be used as a
starting point from which to continue scale development in this area.
24 S. Werner
• Scale development should focus on bridging the gap between the theo-
retical and the methodological levels by developing multidimensional
scales intended to measure the stigma construct, rather than by simply
measuring attitudes.
Accessible Summary
• It is important to accurately measure stigma before the professional
staff can offer a program to change it.
• The available measurement tools have some problems and
limitations.
• In this chapter, I describe some measurement scales that have fewer
problems.
• New scales need to measure stigma by examining all of its various
aspects.
References
Antonak, R. F., & Harth, R. (1994). Psychometric analysis and revision of the
mental retardation attitude inventory. Mental Retardation, 32, 272–280.
Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Single-Target
IAT (ST-IAT): Assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 977–997. doi:10.1002/ejsp.487.
Bogardus, E. S. (1959). Social distance. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California Press.
Bossaert, G., & Petry, K. (2013). Factorial validity of the Chedoke-McMaster
Attitudes towards Children with Handicaps Scale (CATCH). Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1336–1345. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.007.
Connolly, T., Williams, J., & Scior, K. (2013). The effects of symptom recognition
and diagnostic labels on public beliefs, emotional reactions and stigma associ-
ated with intellectual disability. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 13, 211–223. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.3.211.
Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude
measure: Consistency, stability and convergent validity. Psychological Science,
12, 163–170. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00328.
Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The Multidimensional

Attitudes Scale toward persons with disabilities (MAS): Construction and
validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 166–176. doi:10.1177/00
343552070500030401.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect question-
ing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315. doi:10.1086/209351.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1646–1480.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.
Harth, R. (1974). Attitudes toward minority groups as a construct in assessing
attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 6, 142–147.
Henry, D. B., Keys, C. B., Jopp, D., & Balcazar, F. (1996). The community liv-
ing attitudes scales, mental retardation form: Development and psychometric
properties. Mental Retardation, 34, 149–158.
Karpinski, A. (2004). Measuring self-esteem using the implicit association test:
The role of the other. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 22–34.
doi:10.1177/0146167203258835.
Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit associa-
tion test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9, 16–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16.
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007).
Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV. What we know (so
far). In B. Wittenbrink & N. S. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes:
Procedures and controversies (pp. 59–102). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A.
(1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness
and social distance. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1328–1333.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1328.
Morin, D., Crocker, A. G., Beaulieu-Bergeron, R., & Caron, J. (2013).
Validation of the attitudes toward intellectual disability: ATTID question-
naire. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 268–278.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01559.x.
Morin, D., Rivard, M., Boursier, C. P., Crocker, A. G., & Caron, J. (2015).
Norms of the attitudes toward intellectual disability questionnaire. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 59, 462–467. doi:10.1111/jir.12146.
26 S. Werner
Pan-American Health Organization & World Health Organization (2004).

Montreal Declaration on Intellectual Disability. Retrieved from www.jaid.org.
jm/membersdocs/declaration_eng.pdf
Prestwich, A., Kenworthy, J., Wilson, M., & Kwan-tat, N. (2008). Differential
relations between two types of contact and implicit and explicit racial atti-
tudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 575–588. doi:10.1348/014466
607X267470.
Rosenbaum, P., Armstrong, R., & King, S. (1986). Children’s attitudes toward
disabled peers: A self-report measure. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11,
517–530. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/11.4.517.
Sam, K. L., Li, C., & Lo, S. K. (2016). Validation of the Mental Retardation
Attitude Inventory-Revised (MRAI-R): A multidimensional rasch analysis.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6, 519–524. doi:10.7763/
IJSSH.2016.V6.703.
Scior, K., & Furnham, A. (2011). Development and validation of the intellec-
tual disability literacy scale for assessment of knowledge, beliefs and attitudes
to intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32,
1530–1541. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.044.
Snijders, C. C. P., & Matzat, U. (2007). Reducing social desirability bias through
indirect questioning in scenarios: When does it work in online surveys?
Proceedings of the General Online Research, GOR07, March 26–28, 2007,
Leipzig.
Vignes, C., Coley, N., Grandjean, H., Godeau, E., & Arnaud, C. (2008).
Measuring children’s attitudes towards peers with disabilities: A review of
instruments. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 50, 182–189.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.02032.x.
Voeltz, L. (1980). Children’s attitudes toward handicapped peers. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 455–464.
Werner, S. (2015a). Stigma in the area of intellectual disabilities: Examining a con-
ceptual model of public stigma. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 120, 460–475. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-120.5.460.
Werner, S. (2015b). Public stigma in intellectual disability: Do direct versus
indirect questioning make a difference? Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 59, 958–969. doi:10.1111/jir.12207.
Werner, S., Corrigan, P., Ditchman, N., & Sokol, K. (2012). Stigma and intel-
lectual disability: A review of measures and future directions. Research in
Wilson, M. C., & Scior, K. (2015). Implicit attitudes towards individuals with
intellectual disabilities: Their relationship with explicit attitudes, social distance,
emotions and contact (pp. 1–19). September: Plos One. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.013790.
Woodmansee, J. J., & Cook, S. W. (1967). Dimensions of verbal racial atti-
tudes: Their identification and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 848–860. doi:10.1037/h0025078.
Part II
The Consequences of Intellectual
Disability Stigma
3
How Stigma Affects the Lives of People
with Intellectual Disabilities:
An Overview
Nicole Ditchman, Kristin Kosyluk, Eun-Jeong Lee,
and Nev Jones
Worldwide, children and adults with intellectual disabilities face social

exclusion, marginalization, and abuse as a result of stigma. The societal
treatment of people with intellectual disabilities reflects a tension between
fear and concern for their protection. Fear, evident in its most extreme form
in eugenic practices, and paternalism have resulted in limited choices and
restricted rights for people with intellectual disabilities. Acknowledgment
of the rights and concerns of people with intellectual disabilities has led
to laws and policies protecting their right to community inclusion. Also,
the change in terminology from ‘mental retardation’ and other pejorative
terms to ‘intellectual disability’ in many countries highlights a growing
awareness of intellectual disability stigma. However, stigmatizing attitudes
among the general public persist throughout the world.
N. Ditchman () • K. Kosyluk • E.-J. Lee

Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA
N. Jones
Felton Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_3
32 N. Ditchman et al.
This chapter provides an overview of the effects of stigma in perpet-

uating social inequalities and violating the basic rights of people with
intellectual disabilities in the following areas: poverty, safety, education,
employment, community integration and participation, health, intimate
relationships and reproductive rights, and self-determination. We do
not consider self-stigma here among stigma’s effects as this is covered in
Chap. 7 of this book. The chapter closes with considerations for future
research in this area.
Poverty
Of an estimated 150 to 200 million people with intellectual disabilities
worldwide, 26 million live on less than $1 a day (Inclusion International
2006). The cycle of poverty and disability is caused and maintained in part
by stigma, denial of opportunities for economic and social development,
and reduced political engagement. Exclusion of people with intellectual
disabilities from the workforce, and the financial and social impact of
parents caring for children with intellectual disabilities in social systems
that do not provide adequate, and oftentimes any, support perpetuate
poverty (Emerson 2007). In developing countries, the stigma associated
with the birth of a child with a disability can lead fathers to abandon the
family, leaving mothers with the sole responsibility for care. Thus, the
largest unreimbursed cost associated with intellectual disabilities is that
of caregiving by family members (Inclusion International 2006).
Safety
Poverty and isolation in and of themselves increase risks to safety, and
people with disabilities are at greater risk of harassment, violence, and
abuse compared to individuals without disabilities. Individuals with
intellectual disabilities often experience abuse, ranging from physical
injury, sexual assault, emotional trauma, financial abuse, medication
mismanagement, and/or refusal to provide necessary personal assistance
by others in the community. Although some countries have created or
3 How Stigma Affects the Lives of People 33
expanded existing hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by an

actual or perceived disability, harassment, bullying, and violence are
still regular experiences for many people with intellectual disabilities
(Disability Rights Commission 2004).
Research suggests that children and adults with intellectual disabili-
ties are far more likely to be sexually abused compared to those without
disabilities (Johnson and Sigler 2000). When people with intellectual
disabilities are dehumanized and thought to be unable to understand
what is happening to them, service providers may not see anything
wrong with behaviors or treatments they would see as impermissible
with other groups. Historically, individuals with intellectual disabilities
have not been considered reliable reporters of abuse, and most strate-
gies to address these issues have been aimed at training service provid-
ers to recognize abuse and intervene to protect victims, as opposed to
assisting people with intellectual disabilities to develop and utilize their
own capacities to self-advocate and call attention to violence and abuse
(Powers and Oschwald 2004). This situation is starting to change in
some places as people with intellectual disabilities are directly involved
in raising awareness about stigma and hate crimes. For example, the
state of Maryland, USA, has initiatives in place that include people
with intellectual disabilities directly in the training of police officers.
(Note. The discussion on disability hate crime is expanded in Chap. 8.)
Finally, people with intellectual disabilities are also more likely to be
designated as criminal suspects or offenders. This overrepresentation may
be related to communication barriers, limited training of police officers,
the potential suggestibility of individuals with intellectual disabilities,
and/or inappropriate interrogation procedures. In addition, suspects or
defendants may hide or deemphasize their own disabilities due to stigma.
In the USA, persons with intellectual disabilities were regularly executed
until the Supreme Court in 2002 declared such executions to be in viola-
tions of the US Constitution (Appelbaum 2009). Over the past decade, a
series of reinvestigations of death row convictions of prisoners with intel-
lectual disabilities have concluded that those convicted were wrongfully
imprisoned and not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted,
leading to their exoneration (Mai-Duc 2014).
Education
Stigma and structural discrimination have led children to be routinely
excluded from education or educated in segregated, and often lower-quality,
facilities. Globally, many children and youth with intellectual disabilities are
not in school due to barriers such as stigma, limited access to transporta-
tion, and prohibitive school fees (Inclusion International 2006; UNESCO
2015). Over 98 % of children with disabilities in developing countries do
not receive any formal education (United Nations 2007). Further, nega-
tive attitudes and lowered expectations by community members, teach-
ers, and peers can lead parents to remove children from school (Inclusion
International 2006). Even in countries where policies and laws mandate
inclusive education, implementation is often lacking. This is particularly
concerning given that studies show that children with intellectual disabili-
ties who are included in regular education are more likely to finish school,
work, and become active community members (Bach and Burke 2002).
Findings from the US National Longitudinal Transition Survey-2
(NLTS2), a large-scale study examining postsecondary outcomes for young
adults 1 month to 8 years post school, reveal that less than one-third of young
adults with intellectual disabilities were engaged in any kind of postsecondary
education post high school—the lowest among all the disability groups stud-
ied (Newman et al. 2011). These trends persist in spite of students and fami-
lies wanting access to higher education (Mock and Love 2012). Moreover,
attempts to fully participate in postsecondary education have been met with
resistance. For example, in the case of Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University
Board of Trustees (2009), a student with an intellectual disability attending a
special program at Oakland University requested to live in campus housing.
After his request was denied by the university, he sued and the university was
ordered to allow him to move into on-campus housing.
Employment
Stigma has also resulted in the denial of work for people with intellec-
tual disabilities who continue to face very high rates of unemployment
and underemployment, despite the desire of many for employment in an
open, competitive labor market. In the USA, estimates suggest that only
around 15 % of people with intellectual disabilities are working in paid,
community-based jobs (Anderson et al. 2011). In England, an even lower
proportion, 7 % of people with intellectual disabilities of working age are
in any form of employment (Hatton et al. 2014). Societal beliefs that the
majority of adults with intellectual disabilities are unemployable (Shaw
et al. 2004) or should only work in special workshops (Siperstein et al.
2003) foster this continued segregation. This is concerning given that
research findings suggest that sheltered work is associated with poorer
job satisfaction and well-being compared to competitive and supported
employment for people with intellectual disabilities (Anderson et al.
2011; Jahoda et al. 2008).
Furthermore, recent class action lawsuits in the USA (e.g., Lane v.
Brown) have challenged sheltered workshops that pay subminimum
wages and operate as segregated environments as a civil rights viola-
tion. On the other hand, there is also some evidence of more positive
public views toward the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities
in employment (Burge et al. 2007). The authors suggested that struc-
tural stigma in the form of inadequate employment training programs
for people with intellectual disabilities represents a greater barrier than
public attitudes. Meanwhile, in the competitive workplace, research
demonstrates that employers appear to prefer people with physical or
sensory disabilities over individuals with intellectual disabilities (Kersh
2011). Discrimination in the workplace occurs as well, with over one-
fourth of the claims filed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination at least in part on the basis
of disability—although it is unclear how many of these cases involve
individuals with intellectual disabilities (EEOC 2014).
Community Integration and Participation

Individuals with intellectual disabilities have lower levels of community
participation, fewer social relationships, and less engagement in lei-
sure activities than those without disabilities (Verdonschot et al. 2009).
Although community living alone does not solve the problem of inclusion,
some research has shown that those who physically live in the commu-
nity, particularly in smaller and more integrated group homes, experience
increased levels of community integration, especially when compared to
those living in large institutions (Kozma et al. 2009). However, mov-
ing persons with intellectual disabilities from institutional settings into
the community without addressing underlying societal and structural
barriers cannot ensure meaningful inclusion; it often results in physical
presence alone while potentially exposing those concerned to negative
community attitudes (Cummins and Lau 2003). Findings from a nation-
ally representative study in the USA of transition outcomes (NLTS2)
indicate that almost half of all young adults with intellectual disabilities
report no participation in organized community activities in the previous
year, and over one-third were not registered to vote, which was statisti-
cally lower than voter registration rates for most other disability groups
(Newman et al. 2011).
Failure to adequately address barriers to full participation in commu-
nity and civic life should be recognized as a reflection of multiple inter-
secting areas of structural stigma. For example, transportation is a major
barrier to community involvement and participation in leisure activi-
ties, as it is often unavailable or residential facilities are located far from
convenient public transportation hubs (Buttimer and Tierney 2005).
Furthermore, it is rare to find public information presented in a cogni-
tively accessible format, which poses a significant barrier to full inclusion
in social and civic life (Yalon-Chamovitz 2009). In addition, nowadays
a major digital divide separates many people with intellectual disabilities
from the rest of the population (McCarron et al. 2011). Inaccessible web-
sites, apps, and software, coupled with financial barriers affecting access
to Internet and technology, likely play a large role in limiting participa-
tion in social media and networking opportunities.
Health
Individuals with intellectual disabilities die at a younger age and experi-
ence poorer health than people without disabilities, mostly for reasons
that are avoidable and unjust (Emerson and Hatton 2014). A recent
study examined matched US data to compare health status, health risks,

and preventative health care for over 20,000 people with intellectual dis-
abilities (Havercamp and Scott 2015). The findings suggest that people
with intellectual disabilities are more likely to experience health risks
compared to people without disabilities in a number of areas, including
obesity and physical inactivity.
While some of these health disparities are related to biological aspects
of disability (e.g., Down syndrome is associated with higher risk for a
number of health conditions), oftentimes negative provider attitudes
and failure of institutional policies to adequately address health preven-
tion and health concerns of people with intellectual disabilities are to
blame. People with intellectual disabilities are less likely to receive routine
screenings and are over four times more likely to have poor overall health
than the general population (Havercamp and Scott 2015). A review of
UK and international literature paints a similar picture of inequalities in
both access to and outcomes of health care and cites social determinants
of health, such as discrimination, as contributors (Emerson and Baines
2010). In developing countries, there remains a paucity of information
regarding the health status and needs of people with intellectual disabili-
ties, even though inequalities are likely to be even more pronounced than
those in developed countries (Evenhuis et al. 2000).
While many factors, including environmental conditions, health pro-
motion, and medical care, contribute to these health inequalities, stigma
clearly plays a major role. One of the better documented components
of such stigma concerns the negative attitudes often held by health care
providers toward people with intellectual disabilities (Lewis and Stenfert
Kroese 2010; Ryan and Scior 2014). At the level of public stigma on
the part of health care providers, disparities in patterns of utilization of
preventative health services, such as prostate, cervical, and breast cancer
screening, may be attributed to physicians’ attitudes toward sexuality
among individuals with intellectual disabilities and beliefs about life
expectancy and quality of life (Burge et al. 2008). Overall, the literature
suggests more negative attitudes than would be expected from ‘caring’
professionals, and training related to this patient group is often lack-
ing or perpetuating negative attitudes (Lewis and Stenfert Kroese 2010;
Ryan and Scior 2014). The need to provide better mental health care for
those with intellectual disabilities and the negative attitudes that char-
acterize such care are also well established (Rose et al. 2012; Werner and
Stawski 2012).
At a more structural level, negative attitudes affect health care by
reducing the number of medical professionals willing and/or able to
provide high-quality care to this patient group. Among other things,
improved training can help prevent diagnostic overshadowing, that is,
the attribution of health concerns or unusual behavior to the intellectual
disability diagnosis. Other barriers that at least in part reflect structural
stigma include scarcity of services, physical barriers to access, and fail-
ure to accommodate the needs of individuals with intellectual disabilities
with regard to literacy and communication (Emerson and Baines 2010).
Further, although there has been considerable effort dedicated to health
promotion interventions for individuals without disabilities, this has not
been the case for individuals with intellectual disabilities (Havercamp
and Scott 2015). Instead, they have generally poor knowledge of aspects
of health such as substance use, exercise, and healthy eating (Jobling
and Cuskelly 2006). As in other domains reviewed here, differences in
effort paid to health promotion between those with and without intel-
lectual disabilities can be related to more invisible aspects of stigma. That
is, stigma can be actualized in policy decisions that simply fail to fully
include or equally consider persons with intellectual disabilities.
Intimate Relationships and Reproductive

Rights
Persistent beliefs that individuals with intellectual disabilities are child-
like and asexual have had a negative impact on their opportunities for
intimate relationships, procreation, and promotion of sexual health and
safety (Scotti et al. 1996). They also limit access to reproductive health
information, and youth and adults with intellectual disabilities are more
likely to be excluded from sex education programs than their peers without
disabilities (World Health Organization and World Bank 2011). Further,
individuals with intellectual disabilities often lack private, safe places
to engage in individual or partnered sexual activity (Di Giulio 2003).
Beliefs about the innocent and asexual nature of individuals with intellec-
tual disabilities have also put them at risk of sexual exploitation. In some
countries, a mix of a complete disregard for the humanity of persons with
intellectual disabilities and beliefs in their asexual nature can place girls
and women in particular at grave risk; for example, a belief that raping
a girl with a disability because she is presumed to be a virgin will cure
HIV/AIDS has been cited as a major challenge in some countries, such
as Zimbabwe (Inclusion International 2006).
Individuals with intellectual disabilities becoming parents is often
negatively viewed by health professionals, community members, and
families (Aunos and Feldman 2002). Several legal cases in the USA have
been brought against states that have removed children from their homes
for the sole reason of the parents having an intellectual disability. These
cases highlight concerns that child protection staff may lack the necessary
training to perform their duties without discriminating on the basis of
intellectual disability, as well as the need for meaningful assistance to sup-
port families with raising children. These issues are considered in greater
depth in Chap. 6 of this book.
Self-determination
A far reaching and common belief about people with intellectual disabili-
ties is that they lack the ability to make informed choices. This has led to
the limitation of choice and autonomy in decision-making. Paternalistic
attitudes and the infantilization of adults with intellectual disabilities
stop them from being allowed to take risks in their lives and have experi-
ences others take for granted. Reinforcing unwanted dependency on oth-
ers can increase social vulnerability and limit opportunities to engage in
self-determined behaviors and choices. Of note, youths with intellectual
disabilities who report higher perceived self-determination also report
better outcomes and higher quality of life (Wehmeyer and Palmer 2003).
The literature identifies attitudes of service professionals and their
assumptions that people with intellectual disabilities are unable to con-
sent to treatment or to make decisions on their own as a major bar-
rier to self-determination and decision-making (Davison et al. 2015).
Such views can be motivated by benevolence and a desire to protect, as

well as perceptions of ineptitude. Diminished expectations can be dam-
aging to individuals with intellectual disabilities, and lead to subsequent
discrimination through not offering them choices and opportunities for
decision-making. Other barriers include insufficient time and resources
to support self-determination, inadequate staff training, conflict between
staff, families, and/or service users in relation to decision-making, and a
service culture that is not supportive of the adoption of supported deci-
sion-making (Davison et al. 2015).
Future Directions
It is clear that people with intellectual disabilities face many inequalities
related to key life areas. Continued research efforts are needed to more
fully understand the impact of stigma across domains. This is not a sim-
ple task given the complexities inherent in the stigma process and the vast
heterogeneity of cultures and countries in which people with intellectual
disabilities live. We close with several suggestions for future research and
continued considerations in this area.
First, documenting the full scope and reach of stigma across differ-
ent settings is needed. Although stigma affects the lives of people with
intellectual disabilities regardless of country or socioeconomic level, it is
clear that individuals in lower income countries face some of the most
difficult living conditions in the world and yet little research is conducted
in these countries. Systemic discrimination and the absence of judicial
protection perpetuate poor living conditions and violations of human
rights. Additionally, reliable mechanisms for monitoring the well-being
of people with intellectual disabilities across the globe are necessary to
inform effective policy making (Fujiura et al. 2010). The role of cultural
contexts in addressing stigma must be taken into consideration as well.
For example, culture shapes how self-determination is understood, and
more family-oriented cultures may not necessarily support independent
decision-making by individuals, including those without disabilities (Lee
et al. 2015). A challenge to continued research in this area will be rec-
ognizing and accounting for the vast differences in policies, practices,
definitions of concepts such as disability or participation, and beliefs

regarding intellectual disability across the globe.
Second, more research is needed to tease out the precise mechanisms
and role of stigma in the context of well-documented educational,
employment, and health inequalities facing people with intellectual dis-
abilities. Such research must include attention to stigma as it plays out
across multiple levels (self, familial, structural, and public) and conceptu-
alization at all these levels in order to adequately inform intervention. For
example, understanding the extent to which health outcomes are affected
by provider attitudes over structural barriers (lack of provider training or
inadequate resources) or self-stigma (decreased help seeking) can guide
more efficient and focused approaches aimed at reducing inequalities.
As our discussion of community integration demonstrates, tackling one
piece of the stigma process (physical segregation) without simultaneously
addressing others (societal rejection) can actually harm individuals with
intellectual disabilities.
Third, as more research looks into stigma and its impact on the lives of
people with intellectual disabilities, tough questions that have often been
ignored in the stigma literature will need to be more adequately addressed.
For instance, the balance between protecting the rights and safety of these
individuals while not limiting their rights to self-expression and decision-
making is complicated and not always clear. Generally, it can be easy
to identify stigma based on fear or dehumanization, but often policies
created with a benevolent intent also restrict the rights and ultimately
quality of life of the individuals concerned. Segregated settings in many
cases were set up to protect individuals with intellectual disabilities, yet
they violate their human rights and limit the ability of the community
to benefit from their contributions. Given that people with intellectual
disabilities are at risk of exploitation and abuse, how do we adequately
provide the resources and protection to minimize such risks while not
unintentionally infantilizing them?
Similarly we need to wrestle with the question of the extent to which
societies can express respect for people with disabilities—and value their
contributions to social life while continuing with disability prevention
efforts. This important issue often goes ignored in the stigma literature
and is particularly relevant for people with intellectual disabilities, given
that prenatal screening can lead to decisions as to whether to terminate

pregnancies. These prevention efforts may well run counter to initiatives
to revalue and fully include people with intellectual disabilities. At the
same time, as key disability theorists have emphasized, it is always impor-
tant to walk the line between devaluation and romanticization and resist
the impulse to downplay negative aspects of disability, including physical
pain and disability-linked physical health problems (Siebers 2013).
Finally, future research needs to do more to include people with intel-
lectual disabilities as active participants in the research process. With ade-
quate support, participatory research with these individuals is very much
possible (Jurkowski 2008). However, the research world itself may be the
last frontier of unrecognized stigma as it plays out in the often implicit
assumption that those with intellectual disabilities cannot meaningfully
participate (McDonald and Keys 2008). Through continued recognition
of the impact of stigma and related research efforts, it is our hope that the
disparities reviewed and questions posed in this chapter can be addressed
and that improved quality of life and well-being for individuals with
intellectual disabilities across the globe will be realized.
Key Learning Points

• Intellectual disability stigma affects a number of life domains associated
with well-being and quality of life, including poverty, safety, education,
employment, community integration and participation, health, inti-
mate relationships and reproductive rights, and self-determination.
• Throughout the world, the vast majority of individuals with intellec-
tual disabilities live in poverty and face human rights violations. The
cycle of poverty and disability is influenced in part by stigma and insti-
tutional barriers to education, employment, and civic participation.
• A long history of segregation continues to shape the lives of those with
intellectual disabilities even in the wake of deinstitutionalization.
• A major barrier to self-determination and decision-making by people
with intellectual disabilities concerns attitudes of service providers and
their assumptions that these individuals are not able to make informed
choices.
Accessible Summary
• Negative attitudes can lead to poverty, health problems, threats to
safety, and limited access to education, employment, and community
life.
• People with intellectual disabilities are not usually given the support
necessary to fully participate in the community.
• Many assume that people with intellectual disabilities cannot make
their own decisions. This can lead to low expectations and lack of
opportunities to make their own choices.
• People with intellectual disabilities should be included in research on
stigma.
References
Anderson, L. L., Larson, S. A., & Wuorio, A. (2011). 2010 FINDS National
Survey technical report part 1: Family caregiver survey. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, Research and Training Center on Community Living.
Appelbaum, P. S. (2009). Law & psychiatry: Mental retardation and the death
penalty: After Atkins. Psychiatric Services, 60, 1295–1297. doi:10.1176/
ps.32.1.14.
Aunos, M., & Feldman, M. (2002). Attitudes towards sexuality, sterilization and
parenting rights of persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research
in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 285. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2002.00135.x.
Bach, M., & Burke, M. A. (2002). Toward an inclusive approach to monitoring
investments and outcomes in child development and learning. North York,
Canada: Roeher Institute.
Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Isaacs, B., & Lunsky, Y. (2008). Medical stu-
dents’ views on training in intellectual disabilities. Canadian Family Physician,
54, 568–569.
Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., & Lysaght, R. (2007). Public views on employ-
ment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 26, 29–37.
Buttimer, J., & Tierney, E. (2005). Patterns of leisure participation among ado-
lescents with a mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities,
9, 25–42. doi:10.1177/1744629505049728.
Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. L. (2003). Community integration or community

exposure? A review and discussion in relations to people with an intellectual
disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16, 145–157.
doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2003.00157.
Davison, G., Kelly, B., Macdonald, G., Rizzo, M., Lombard, L., Abogunrin, O.,
et al. (2015). Supported decision making: A review of the international litera-
ture. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 38, 61–67. doi:10.1016/j.
ijlp.2015.01.008.
Di Giulio, G. (2003). Sexuality and people living with physical or developmen-
tal disabilities: A review of key issues. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 12, 53–68.
Disability Rights Commission (2004). Hate crime against disabled people in Scotland:
A survey report. In Stratford-upon-Avon. UK: Disability Rights Commission.
Emerson, E. (2007). Poverty and people with intellectual disabilities. Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 107–113.
doi:10.1002/mrdd.20144
Emerson, E., & Baines, S. (2010). Health inequalities and people with learning
disabilities in the UK: 2010. Durham, UK: Improving Health and Lives
Learning Disabilities Observatory.
Emerson, E., & Hatton, C. (2014). Health inequalities and people with intellec-
tual disabilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Evenhuis, H., Henderson, C. M., Beange, H., Lennox, N., & Chicoine, B.
(2000). Healthy ageing adults with intellectual disabilities: Physical health issues.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Fujiura, G. T., Rutkowski-Kmitta, V., & Owen, R. (2010). Make measurable
what is not so: National monitoring of the status of persons with intellectual
disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35, 244–258.
doi:10.3109/13668250.2010.519330.
Hatton, C., Emerson, E., Glover, G., Robertson, J., Baines, S., & Christie, A.
(2014). People with learning disabilities in England 2013. Durham, UK:
Public Health England.
Havercamp, S. M., & Scott, H. M. (2015). National health surveillance of
adults with disabilities, adults with intellectual and developmental disabili-
ties, and adults with no disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 8, 165–172.
doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.11.002.
Inclusion International. (2006). Hear our voices: A global report. People with intel-
lectual disability and their families speak out on poverty and exclusion. Retrieved
from http://inclusion-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07
Jahoda, A., Kemp, J., Riddell, S., & Banks, P. (2008). Feelings about work: A
review of the socio-emotional impact of supported employment on people
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 21, 1–18.
Jobling, A., & Cuskelly, M. (2006). Young people with Down syndrome: A
preliminary investigation of health knowledge and associated behaviours.
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 31, 210–218.
doi:10.1080/13668250600999186.
Johnson, I., & Sigler, R. (2000). Forced sexual intercourse among intimates.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 95–108.
Jurkowski, J. M. (2008). Photovoice as participatory action research tool for
engaging people with intellectual disabilities in research and program devel-
opment. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 1–11.
doi:10.1352/0047-6765.
Kersh, J. (2011). Attitudes about people with intellectual disabilities: Current
status and new directions. International Review of Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 41, 199–231. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386495-6.00006-0.
Kozma, A., Mansell, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. (2009). Outcomes in different resi-
dential settings for people with intellectual disability: A systematic review.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114,
193–222. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-114.3.193.
Lee, E.-J., Lam, C., & Ditchman, N. (2015). Self-determination and cultural
considerations: An Asian perspective. In P. W. Corrigan (Ed.), Person-centered
care for mental illness: The evolution of adherence and self-determination
(pp. 211–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lewis, S., & Stenfert Kroese, B. (2010). An investigation of nursing staff atti-
tudes and emotional reactions towards patients with intellectual disability in
a general hospital setting. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,
23, 355–365. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00542.x.
Mai-Duc, C. (2014). 2 N.C. men wrongly convicted of murder freed after
decades in prison. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-
nn-death-row-inmates-released-mccollum-brown-20140903-story.html
McCarron, M., Swinburne, J., Burke, E., McGlinchey, E., Mulryan, N.,
Andrews, V., et al. (2011). Growing older with an intellectual disability in
Ireland 2011: First results from the intellectual disability supplement of the Irish
longitudinal study on ageing. Dublin, Ireland: School of Nursing & Midwifery,
Trinity College Dublin.
McDonald, K. E., & Keys, C. B. (2008). How the powerful decide: Access to
research participation by those at the margins. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 42, 79–93. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9192-x.
Mock, M., & Love, K. (2012). One state’s initiative to increase access to higher
education for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice
in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 289–297. doi:10.1111/jppi.12006.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D.,
et al. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up
to 8 Years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Powers, L. E., & Oschwald, M. (2004). Violence and abuse against people with
disabilities: Experiences, barriers and prevention strategies. Portland, OR:
Oregon Institute on Disability and Development.
Rose, N., Rose, J., & Kent, S. (2012). Staff training in intellectual disability
services: A review of the literature and implications for mental health services
provided to individuals with intellectual disability. International Journal of
Developmental Disabilities, 58, 24–39.
Ryan, T. A., & Scior, K. (2014). Medical students’ attitudes towards people with
intellectual disabilities: A literature review. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 35, 2316–2328.
Scotti, J. R., Slack, B. S., Bowman, R. A., & Morris, T. L. (1996). College stu-
dent attitudes concerning the sexuality of persons with mental retardation:
Development of the perceptions of sexuality scale. Sexuality and Disability,
14, 249–263. doi:10.1007/BF02590098.
Shaw, L., MacKinnon, J., McWilliam, C., & Sumsion, T. (2004). Consumer
participation in the employment rehabilitation process: Contextual factors
and implications for practice. Work, 23, 181–192.
Siebers, T. (2013). Disability and the theory of complex embodiment—For
identity politics in a new register. In L. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies
Reader (pp. 278–297). New York, NY: Routledge.
Siperstein, G. N., Norins, J., Corbin, S., & Shriver, T. (2003). Multinational
study of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Washington,
DC: Special Olympics, Inc..
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2014). Charge statistics FY
1997 through FY 2014. Retrieved from eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/
charges.cfm
UNESCO (2015). Fixing the broken promise of education for all: Findings from
the global initiative on out-of-school children. Montreal, Canada: UNESCO
Institute for Statistics.
United Nations (2007). From exclusion to equality: Realizing the rights of persons
with disabilities. Handbook for parliamentarians on the convention on the rights
of persons with disabilities and its optional protocol. Geneva, Switzerland:
United Nations. Retrieved from www.un.org/disabilities/documents/toolac-
tion/ipuhb.pdf
Verdonschot, M. M., de Witte, L. P., Reichrath, E., Buntinx, W. H., & Curfs,
L. M. (2009). Impact of environmental factors on community participation of
persons with an intellectual disability: A systematic review. Journal of Intellectual
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with
cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-
determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38,
131–144.
Werner, S., & Stawski, M. (2012). Mental health: Knowledge, attitudes and
training of professionals on dual diagnosis of intellectual disability and psy-
chiatric disorder. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 291–304.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01429.x.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Yalon-Chamovitz, S. (2009). Invisible access needs of people with intellectual
disabilities: A conceptual model of practice. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 47, 395–400. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.5.395.
Legislation
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees, No. 08-14922

(E.D. Mich Feb 05, 2009).
Lane v. Brown (formerly Lane v. Kitzhaber), No. 12-CV-00138 (D. Or. 2012).
4
How Stigma Affects Us: The Voice
of Self-advocates
Dana Roth, Dorit Barak, and Heli Peretz
Self-stigma or internalized stigma is shaped profoundly by how one

believes one is seen by others (Lucksted and Drapalski 2015). Self-stigma
occurs when individuals recognize negative attitudes that surround them
and endorse these, believing and accepting that they apply to them
(Corrigan and Watson 2002). Some have suggested that many people with
intellectual disabilities do not identify with the label of “intellectual dis-
ability” ascribed to them (Cunningham et al. 2000; Davies 1998; Davies
and Jenkins 1997) and have little awareness of their stigmatized status
(Beart et al. 2005; Finlay and Lyons 1998). However, others suggest that
people with intellectual disabilities do indeed understand that stigma and
oppression are related to the label ascribed to them and therefore try to
reject that label in the hope of avoiding the associated stigma (Jahoda and
D. Roth ( ) • H. Peretz
Beit Issie Shapiro, Ra’anana, Israel
D. Barak
Beit Issie Shapiro and Elwyn, Ra’anana, Israel

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_4
50 D. Roth et al.
Markova 2004). Distancing themselves from others who ascribe the label
of intellectual disability has negative implications in terms of sense of
belonging and social isolation (Ali et al. 2012; Cunningham and Glenn
2004; Spassiani and Friedman 2014).
A systematic review on self-stigma among people with intellectual dis-
abilities concluded that research should focus on the process by which
stigma associated with the intellectual disability label is internalized and
on the social and psychological factors associated with stigma (Ali et al.
2012). Accordingly, the study presented in this chapter sets out to inves-
tigate stigma and self-stigma as experienced by people with intellectual
disabilities, to examine their actions in “dealing” with stigma, and the
impact of participating in a self-advocacy group (SAG) on these percep-
tions of stigma and self-stigma.
Consulting Research Committee

Adopting a partial participatory research approach, our study recognized
that people with intellectual disabilities are the experts on their lives
while the researchers are the “technicians” in charge of planning, collect-
ing, and analyzing the data and writing up the results. A partial participa-
tory research approach was employed by forming a consulting research
committee comprised of three individuals with intellectual disabilities,
two professionals who are involved with SAGs, and the three researchers.
The primary role of this committee was to oversee the research design
and process. The tasks of data analysis and reporting of results were com-
pleted by the researchers without intellectual disabilities.
One key issue which was evident in the committee’s discussions was
that although people with intellectual disabilities themselves frequently
use the terms “stigma”, “negative attitudes”, or “prejudice”, these terms
appeared to be unclear to the committee members and caused some
confusion. Thus, it was necessary to provide an in-depth explanation in
order to make sure that everyone understood these terms before progress-
ing. Further, the discussions elicited many emotions such as frustration,
anger, and sadness to the point of one member with an intellectual dis-
ability weeping.
The consultants with intellectual disabilities described experiencing

ridicule, bullying, exploitation, and violence, which they attributed to
being “disabled”. Ahmed (all names used are pseudonyms), a 30-year-old
man from the Bedouin Muslim Community in Southern Israel, described
his feelings in relation to how others view him: “I feel ashamed to speak
in front of people because I’m afraid they will laugh at me. I feel that they
are talking behind my back.” Uri, a young Jewish man from Jerusalem,
added, “Sometimes I am laughed at, near my home they say to me ‘you
are retarded’ and all sort of things. Today that I am already an adult, I
understand. They think I am stupid, that I don’t understand.”
The consulting committee recognized that stigma was a very intense,
difficult, shameful, and painful subject. Two committee members
expressed concern that raising this topic “out of the blue” with other
individuals with intellectual disabilities may cause them much distress.
As one member said: “It’s difficult, difficult to talk about it, difficult to
think about.” In order to avoid causing distress, it was decided only to
recruit participants that had either raised the issue of stigma previously
and/or were experienced in addressing painful issues. Further, in order to
be able to provide ongoing support to participants, in the case that such
a need would arise, it was decided to recruit the participants via SAGs.
Focus Group Study

A semi-structured interview guide was developed taking into consider-
ation the issues raised by the consulting research committee. The follow-
ing questions were included: Why are people afraid of us and reluctant to
interact with us? Why do people think we are stupid? Why can’t people
accept us as we are? Why can’t people believe in us? Are we really dis-
abled? Why do people feel pity toward us? Why do people think we need
charity? Why do our families and others tell us we cannot do things?
These questions stemmed from committee members feeling violated by
people around them and not understanding why they were treated so
poorly. Additional questions were raised spontaneously during the focus
group discussions, some by the participants themselves. For example,
“How do you ‘really’ feel? What are you ‘really’ worth?”; “How do stigma
52 D. Roth et al.
and bad attitudes affect you?”; “How did self-advocacy change you?” The
questions which included the word “really” were asked by individuals
with intellectual disabilities and may imply that they perceived that some
of the responses provided were perhaps not genuine.
Two groups took part in this study. First, a national Israeli SAG, made up
of self-advocate leaders (or “guides” in Israeli SAG language) of seven dif-
ferent SAGs across Israel who have been meeting monthly for several years.
The group included 12 guides and 5 “enablers” (SAG cofacilitators without
intellectual disabilities). Second, a less well-established Tel-Aviv-based SAG
that meets fortnightly took part. This group included one guide, nine self-
advocates, and one enabler. In both groups there were a similar proportion
of men and women, who ranged in age from 20 to 60 years. The majority
of participants were Israeli Jews of different levels of religiosity and three
Israeli Arab participants. One two-hour meeting was held with each group.
The SAG members were familiar with the researchers, having met them on
several previous occasions and felt comfortable in their presence.
The group discussion was opened by the researchers and one of the
consulting committee members who outlined the purpose of the meeting.
The meetings were audio recorded and transcribed. Further, field notes
were taken by one of the researchers. Of note, rarely did focus group
participants respond to questions or initiate responses spontaneously—
most had to be directly asked and encouraged to participate. Further,
participants who had difficulty expressing themselves were provided with
support and adaptations necessary to help them participate, for example,
rephrasing questions, waiting for a response, and asking questions which
can be answered by yes/no responses.
The study was approved by Beit Issie Shapiro’s Ethics Committee. All
participants provided written consent from their parent or legal guard-
ians as (is still) required by law.
Results
The following five themes represent concerns and responses to stigma
raised most frequently by participants in both groups.
Emotional impact of stigma. Participants talked about being afraid
of stigma, feeling ridicule, anger, shame, rejection, and pain related to
others’ reactions toward them. They described how their life experiences
of negative societal attitudes had “taught” them to expect to be ridiculed
and that people talked about them behind their backs. The statements
that follow exemplify this: “they make a circus [make fun] of me”; “I feel
exploited, they laugh at me”; “they think bad things of me”; “they laughed
at me and said, this one is retarded”; “someone says to you that you are
limited, it hurts, it pinched my heart”; “they think we are retarded.” These
statements clearly provide evidence of the negativity and pain these indi-
viduals experience, but it is unclear whether these stigmatic experiences
were accepted and internalized by them. Some participants appeared not
to internalize stigma but rather perceived it as unjust. They “swallowed”
the insult, but did not accept it.
Not understanding why stigma occurs and is directed toward us.
Many participants indicated that they did not understand why they
were being treated negatively: “I don’t know why they laugh at me …
we should be treated like everybody else…”; “I left my last job, they
said I was too slow, but I worked as fast as possible exactly like the other
worker.” Another participant said: “I do all the work there is to do, I work
harder than all the other workers, but they don’t let me be the coordina-
tor of the children in the kindergarten, despite the fact that I do things
none of the other caregivers do.” Some of the other participants said: “I
am regular like everyone else”; “they think we are retarded and not nor-
mal”; “she said that I am a person with special needs, so I thought, what,
I am retarded? So I asked her, and she said no.” These findings can be
explained in different ways. Firstly, it is possible that participants do not
internalize the stigma associated with intellectual disability. Thus, they
did not understand why they were being ridiculed, seen as unable to do
what “normal” people do, or treated differently from those around them.
This was reflected in answers to the question “why do you think you are
treated like that”, a question many participants were unable to answer.
Instead, they elaborated on how they were treated and not why they were
treated negatively. A second possible explanation is that no one had truly
explained to them what it means to have an intellectual disability and its
potential impact on them and their lives. It is possible that saying out
loud “I have an intellectual disability” is too difficult, as society considers
this term as derogatory. Yet, when listening closely to the participants,
54 D. Roth et al.
it was clear that there was a strong dissonance between their expressed
denial of being different and their unspoken sense of being different and
somehow deficient. This can be seen in statements made by participants
when asked more directly: “we are different in our brain level”; “we can-
not function alone”; “I work slower.”
Confusion in self-concept and identity. Participants referred to
themselves as having many titles and definitions: “special needs”, “handi-
capped”, “retarded”, and “intellectually disabled”. When asked how they
would like their disability to be referred to, they suggested, “limited, this
means that our brain is limited”; “intellectually disabled, this sounds
nicer than limited or disabled”; “special needs because this will cause less
people to laugh at me”; “mild retardation, so they understand that we
have limitations in everything”; “a regular person, a person that does not
have a problem”.
Most of the participants felt very uncomfortable, especially in the
national SAG, to address the issue of their identity related to being a
person with an intellectual disability. They appeared more comfortable
focusing on additional physical or sensory impairments that affected
some of them. For example, in one of the groups there was a lively
discussion about one of the participant’s visual impairment, which
the group was clearly more comfortable to discuss than intellectual
disability.
Ignoring as a default response to stigma. Most participants described
attempting to deal with the insults they faced by trying, in their words,
“to ignore” them or avoid contact with people who had insulted them.
Nevertheless, it seems that their attempts were not always fruitful. The
behavioral response of ignoring carried with it an emotional cost. When
asked how they responded to situations in which they were exposed to
stigma, they said they were silent, looked down, and did not confront
the offending person. Many shared situations in which they had cho-
sen not to confront others: “They laughed at me, said I was limited,
retarded, that I am a retarded one, ‘that one, she has no brain’. I did
not respond, I did not react, and I felt very bad.” “If they laugh at me,
I ignore it”; “if we will respond to them, they will burst at us”; “they
will not listen to me … ignore … ignore …” “They told me ‘you are
from the retarded organization, you are limited’. I don’t answer, I don’t
respond.” (Researcher asked: “How did you feel?”) “I feel sad. I cannot
say anything.”
Participants appeared hesitant to confront the people who hurt them
because they feared they might encounter an even more negative reac-
tion. By ignoring the situation they felt safer at the price of reinforcing
negative reactions. Ignoring was a skill they were taught by their envi-
ronment and those caring for them, who frequently gave them advice
such as “ignore it, it is not true”. While potentially well meaning, such
advice encourages the person neither to stand up for themselves, nor to
deal with their intellectual disability, and instead could be seen as being
complicit in failing to challenge stigma.
The opportunity provided by self-advocacy. Participating in SAGs
clearly provided participants with an alternative, an opportunity to be less
fearful, talk, explain, and stand up for their rights, not ignore. The SAGs
had an optimistic atmosphere where learning about self-advocacy provided
a new and different way of being in the community. They were not focused
on erasing or ignoring the disability but rather on increasing group mem-
bers’ understanding that having a disability and being different from others
does not justify disrespect or hostility. Taking part in the SAG strengthened
their sense of personal control: “I am responsible for myself ”; “I am aware
of my difficulties, but I am equal”; “I can explain what is difficult for me,
but I still deserve fair treatment.” Other statements illustrating this theme
included: “I will talk to people so that they can listen to how people like us
feel”; “SAG does good for me … gives me hope, I can stand on my own
… if I see that things are not right I can say something”; “I can say in a
nice polite way that they should treat us nicely and equally”; “I feel that I
am doing something for myself and not for someone else”; “the group gives
me the power, I am not afraid to tell people to treat me with a little more
respect. Many times I was scared because I was treated like a child and
today I am not afraid to say it”; “to know how to approach normal people
… I also have the right to things.” Other participants provided additional
examples of how membership of a SAG helped them stand up for them-
selves: “If people in the community do not treat you nicely, argue with
them and stand on your own in all cases, because people change their opin-
ions.” Or as another SAG member said: “You must stand on your own, if
you do not stand on your own, you will not get what you want.”
56 D. Roth et al.
Members of the consulting committee also reported similar experi-

ences related to being members of SAGs: “In the SAG I learned things
and skills I succeeded in and it made me change how I think of myself.”
“Before the SAG I felt bad, I felt out of place, and then I changed. I did
not think I had abilities, just suffer and go on.” “I never heard of self-
advocacy, I learned a lot, it changed my life. It gives me strength, it gives
me power, and I have changed.” “Our life has changed for the better.”
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings of this study are consistent with previous studies in indicat-
ing that some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not identify
with having an intellectual disability and prefer to refer to themselves
as having other forms of disability. Further, individuals with intellectual
disabilities who participated in this study described various difficulties
that they faced due to holding a stigmatized status and being treated
badly by others (Ali et al. 2012; Cunningham et al. 2000; Davies 1998;
Davies and Jenkins 1997; Jahoda and Markova 2004). Accordingly, some
individuals with intellectual disabilities feel frustrated about the label of
“retardation” or “intellectual disability” ascribed to them (Dagnan and
Waring 2004). They may respond by distancing themselves from other
individuals with intellectual disabilities and ignoring and avoiding situa-
tions which may elicit stigmatic responses toward them, such as negative
remarks and insults (Gibbons 1985; Jahoda and Markova 2004).
Self-stigma of individuals with intellectual disabilities is a very
complex construct to measure. One question which remained unan-
swered in the current study is in what ways does self-stigma differ
from public stigma? Is self-stigma a product of public stigma, that is,
do all or most individuals who are prone to public stigma internalize
this? On the one hand, the participants’ descriptions of their behavior
reflects that many internalized a sense of themselves as “inferior to
others”, along with a strong fear of society, and a tendency to avoid
contact with those that impose stigma. On the other hand, partici-
pants had great difficulties saying “I have an intellectual disability.”
It seems that many participants had a sense that they “do not deserve
such treatment”, but did not understand why they are treated poorly
or what to do about it.
The group discussions made it clear that ignoring, a strategy frequently
chosen by participants, ultimately served to reinforce stigma. In contrast,
self-advocacy provided a collective sense of strength and injustice. In lis-
tening to their voices, ideas, and experiences, it is clear that there is a
need to support more self-advocacy, convince others of its importance
and benefits, and support the development of different formats of self-
advocacy, as regular discussion-based groups may not suit everyone. It is
necessary to convince families, service providers, and policy makers of the
importance and the necessity of self-advocacy and to encourage diverse
forms of self-advocacy from a younger age as a possible method to miti-
gate the negative impact of stigma. Effort should be directed to examine
how to promote the self-esteem of individuals with intellectual disabili-
ties and provide them with skills to help them cope with their realities,
alongside informing and educating communities at large to reduce and
eliminate stigmatic beliefs.
Key Learning Points

• This chapter presents a study designed to hear the voices and investi-
gate how people with intellectual disabilities experience stigma and
self-stigma.
• The study was conducted using elements of the participatory research
approach recognizing that people with intellectual disabilities are the
experts on their lives.
• The participants were well aware of their stigmatized status within
society, but did not understand why stigma is directed toward them.
They preferred to ignore situations which raise stigma. Further, self-
advocacy was described as an alternative approach to dealing with
stigma.
• Efforts should be directed to examine how to promote individuals’
self-esteem and provide them with skills to help them cope with their
realities, and to inform and educate communities to reduce and elimi-
nate stigmatic beliefs.
58 D. Roth et al.
Accessible Summary
• We asked people with intellectual disabilities what other people with-
out disabilities think about them.
• People with intellectual disabilities felt that others laugh at them. This
made them feel bad about themselves. They didn’t understand why
others treat them this way. Many preferred to ignore situations in
which people made fun of them or hurt them.
• Taking part in SAGs, they learned to speak for themselves and say
what they want and feel. In these groups they are able to learn how to
talk back and not let others treat them badly.
• People with intellectual disabilities should learn how to speak up for
themselves and feel more confident. It is also very important to teach
people without disabilities that people with intellectual disabilities are
people just like them.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the participants for taking part in

this study and for teaching us so much about their lives. We clearly felt the dif-
ficulties, pain, and discomfort they experience in most walks of life and the great
challenges they face in talking about these. They have taught us the importance
of self-advocacy to empower them and enable them to develop skills to make
changes in their lives.
References
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.013.
Beart, S., Hardy, G., & Buchan, L. (2005). How people with intellectual disabilities
view their social identity: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 18, 47–56. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00218.
Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental
illness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 35–53. doi:10.1093/
clipsy.9.1.35.
Cunningham, C. C., Glenn, S., & Fitzpatrick, H. (2000). Parents telling their
offspring about Down syndrome and disability. Journal of Applied Research in
Cunningham, C., & Glenn, S. (2004). Self-awareness in young adults with
Down syndrome: Awareness of Down syndrome and disability. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 335–361. doi:10.1080
/1034912042000295017.
Testing a social–cognitive model of the experience of people with intellectual
disabilities. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11, 247–254. doi:10.1002/
cpp.413.
Davies, C. A. (1998). Constructing other selves: Competence and the category
of learning difficulties. In R. Jenkins (Ed.), Questions of competence: Culture,
classification and intellectual disability (pp. 102–124). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Davies, C. A., & Jenkins, R. (1997). ‘She has different fits to me’: How people
with learning difficulties see themselves. Disability and Society, 12, 95–110.
doi:10.1080/09687599727498.
Finlay, M., & Lyons, E. (1998). Social identity and people with learning diffi-
culties: Implications for self-advocacy groups. Disability and Society, 13,
37–51. doi:10.1080/09687599826902.
Gibbons, F. X. (1985). Stigma perception: Social comparison among mentally
retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 98–106.
Lucksted, A., & Drapalski, A. L. (2015). Self-stigma regarding mental illness:
Definition, impact, and relationship to societal stigma. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 38, 99–102. doi:10.1037/prj0000152.
Spassiani, N. A., & Friedman, C. (2014). Stigma: Barriers to culture and iden-
tity for people with intellectual disability. Inclusion, 2, 329–341.
doi:10.1352/2326-6988-2.4.329.
5
Rarely Seen, Seldom Heard: People
with Intellectual Disabilities in the Mass
Media
Rebecca Renwick
People with intellectual disabilities are remarkably underrepresented in the

mass media such as newspapers, television, and film (Devotta et al. 2013;
Saito and Ishiyama 2005). Thus, their images are rarely seen and their own
voices seldom heard by the general public. Historically and currently, media
representations of people with intellectual disabilities have frequently com-
municated stigmatizing messages based on negative stereotypes (Renwick
et al. 2014; Special Olympics 2005). In combination, infrequent representa-
tion and stigmatizing messages communicated to vast audiences have con-
siderable potential to detrimentally affect people with intellectual disabilities.
This chapter explores the nature of representations of people with intel-
lectual disabilities in mass media. It considers how these representations
are disseminated and their potential for influencing the thinking, feelings,
and behavior of vast audiences. It focuses on representations in newspapers,
R. Renwick ( )
Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_5
62 R. Renwick
television, and film, which have the potential to reflect the voices of people
with intellectual disabilities, but rarely do. It discusses the limited literature
about people with intellectual disabilities in mass media to consider how
these media have contributed to reproducing and counteracting stigma.
Because this literature is sparse, relevant literature on other disabilities, such
as physical and developmental disabilities, including autism, is included
to help illuminate the context of media representations. The chapter con-
cludes with a discussion of major gaps in the literature, future directions,
and implications.
Nature of Media Representations and Stigma

Media representations refer to how particular people and groups are por-
trayed in media, as embodied in images, words/texts, language used, and
tone. A particular perspective or set of assumptions, values, beliefs, and
understandings, often grounded in dominant societal views, about those
depicted typically frames such portrayals. In turn, these socially con-
structed representations, with their associated meanings and messages,
are communicated to broad audiences (Hodgkinson 2011).
Dyer (1993) provides a complex definition of representations by
distinguishing four meanings. These are highly relevant to media por-
trayals of people with disabilities (Hartnett 2000). The first meaning is
re-presenting reality in the sense of conveying mediated portrayals of the
‘real world’ by mass media. A second is portrayal of individual persons as
typical of groups in society or stereotypes rather than as individuals. The
third is that media representations serve to speak for others rather than
having those individuals speak for themselves. The fourth meaning refers
to what the images and messages communicated represent for audience
members.
Mass media representations are particularly powerful because they
can evoke strong emotions and associations in audiences (Hodgkinson
2011). Although mass media, such as newspapers, television, and film,
are often visual in nature, the representations they communicate are
multimodal in that they also evoke other senses, such as hearing and
touch, as well as thoughts, emotions, and mental imagery (Mitchell 2005).
5 People with Intellectual Disabilities in the Mass Media 63
Their multimodal nature affords extraordinary potential to disseminate

powerful messages which reverberate across cultures and over time to
exert far-reaching, long-lasting influence on vast audiences (Mitchell and
Snyder 2001). For example, many mainstream films and television pro-
grams and some well-known newspapers have transnational circulation.
Popular television programs may run for several seasons and then con-
tinue as reruns, including outside their countries of origin. Films shown
in theaters may continue to be disseminated through DVD formats and/
or on Internet media sites accessible to international audiences.
Mass media are pervasive and have vast audiences, and thus are highly
effective in communicating intentional and unintentional messages
embodied in the socially constructed representations they disseminate. In
the absence of direct contact, such media messages are often the primary
sources of individuals’ experiences with people with intellectual disabili-
ties (Farnall and Smith 1999). Some of these representations include stig-
matizing messages about people with disabilities (Renwick et al. 2014;
Special Olympics 2005). Unfortunately, audiences often presume that
such representations have elements of truth about them that may out-
weigh personal experiences (Garland-Thomson 2009).
What Constitutes Acceptable Representation?

Most analyses of media representations of intellectual and other disabilities
point to the preponderance of unacceptable and potentially damaging ste-
reotypes (Devotta et al. 2013; Lopez Levers 2001; Special Olympics 2005).
However, mass media can also potentially communicate much more accept-
able, enlightened portrayals (Lopez Levers 2001; Zhang and Haller 2013). It
has been suggested that ‘acceptable’ representations of people with intellec-
tual disabilities, or of people with disability in general, should portray, rather
than conceal, experiences of people with disabilities that are related to their
oppression by and struggles with disabling environments they encounter in
society (Mitchell and Snyder 2001). Portrayals should depict these individu-
als as neither better nor worse than they are in real life. Media should por-
tray individuals with disability frequently, realistically, and fairly, showing
a range of functions, emotional expressions, and relationships with others
64 R. Renwick
(Hartnett 2000; Special Olympics 2005). More acceptable representations

should also depict disability as one aspect of the person rather than as the
major characteristic or focus of portrayals. Presenting people with disabili-
ties from their own perspectives has been identified as an optimal approach
(Special Olympics 2005; Zhang and Haller 2013).
Process of Mass Media Communication

Hall’s (1980) seminal Encoding/Decoding theory illuminates the process
or circuit through which mass media communication occurs. It begins
with encoding (creation) of verbal and nonverbal messages which are
embodied in representations. These messages are typically based on dom-
inant values, beliefs, and discourses in society and created by members
of dominant, hegemonic societal groups that may have restricted views
of disability (Zhang and Haller 2013). These messages are then circu-
lated through mass media to receivers (audiences) who attempt to decode
(interpret and understand) them. After audiences interpret the messages,
they may reproduce them, that is, think, talk, and act on the basis of the
messages such that they are fed back into the ongoing societal discourse.
Messages that influence audiences and are reproduced may or may
not be the ones that were originally encoded by those creating them.
Audiences may also interpret these messages in ways that negotiate, resist,
or oppose the original meaning of the messages communicated (Hall
1980). However, the messages received are often interpreted in ways
that are the same as or similar to the original meaning because audiences
already agree with their content or do not know much about what is
being communicated, for example, due to lack of exposure and personal
experience with people with intellectual disabilities.
People with Intellectual Disabilities

in the Mass Media
Research literature about people with intellectual disabilities in the mass
media is sparse and appears in publications across diverse fields (commu-
nication, cultural studies, disability studies, media studies, psychology,
occupational science, semiotics, and sociology). The following sections

highlight some key findings across this literature, drawing upon recent
research about portrayals within newspapers, television, and main-
stream, Hollywood-style films. Only English-language publications since
2000 are considered. Hollywood-style films have fictional content and
are rooted in North American culture. They are widely shown in pub-
lic movie theaters and typically available in other formats (e.g., DVD),
making them accessible to diverse viewers (Renwick et al. 2014). Except
when they provide contextual information, studies that did not separate
their findings by medium or distinguish findings for intellectual disabili-
ties from other types of disabilities are excluded.
Newspapers
Recent research on newspaper representations of intellectual disability
is scarce. One study of UK print media representations of people with
developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, compared
articles published between 1983 and 2001 in The Guardian, a national
newspaper (Wilkinson and McGill 2009). The number of articles more
than doubled over that period, yet they continued to overrepresent chil-
dren with autism. In 2001, articles were mainly about children with
autism and Down syndrome while articles about adults typically referred
to developmental disabilities generally rather than any specific condi-
tion. Articles from 1983 rarely distinguished specific types of develop-
mental disabilities for any age group. In 2001, coverage reflected greater
use of people first language, but continued to link developmental dis-
abilities with other devalued groups, such as people with mental illness.
Increasing differentiation among people with developmental disabilities,
with greater attention to disabilities such as autism and Down syndrome
and much less to individuals with more severe and complex needs, also
featured.
A study of all major Taiwanese newspapers published in 2008 exam-
ined representations of people with intellectual disabilities (Chen et al.
2012). Most of the 355 articles identified appeared in local (77 %) rather
than nationally circulated papers. Three key themes were identified in
depictions of intellectual disabilities through the use of content analysis.
66 R. Renwick
The first theme, dispirited images (45 % of articles), was consistent with
social deviance models of disability (e.g., as victims of exploitation, lack-
ing skills, and experiencing suffering or loss due to their disability). The
second theme, needy images (33 % of articles), was congruent with a char-
ity model of disability (e.g., emphasizing the need for professional sup-
ports, services, and interventions). The final theme, affirmative images
(23 % of articles), was associated with a civil rights model of disability.
These articles focused on ‘normalcy’ describing people with intellectual
disabilities as doing things or having abilities characteristic of the general
public or featured people with intellectual disabilities with supportive,
caring families. The researchers concluded that, collectively, these news-
paper portrayals emphasized the deficiency of people with intellectual
disabilities and thus may support their social exclusion.
Another study examined and compared portrayals of individuals
with intellectual disabilities in several mass media, including articles in
newspapers published in four major American cities between 1995 and
2004 (Special Olympics 2005). Findings indicated that these individu-
als were presented as less competent (in reading, doing math, acting in
a socially appropriate manner) in print than in television programs or
films. Further, articles most frequently presented people with intellectual
disabilities engaged in a narrow range of common activities related to
sports, work, or school.
Television
Research on television portrayals of people with intellectual disabilities
is rare. One study examined footage of first-time domestic coverage on
British television of national Special Olympics games in 2009 (Carter
and Williams 2012). It revealed ‘relentless positivity’ in the language and
tone of the broadcasts, using exaggerated descriptors such as ‘amazing’,
‘fantastic’, ‘inspiring’, and ‘incredible’. Positivity in the tone was evident
in scenes featuring athletes and others smiling and waving very enthusi-
astically and in portraying social aspects of the games rather than their
status as a competitive athletics event. Athletes were routinely and repeat-
edly referred to as ‘them’ and represented as different, with emphasis on
their disabilities. Coverage included information about the nature of

these disabilities and how the athletes were ‘challenging existing barriers’.
The focus on disability issues for individuals and human interest stories
dominated the coverage, leaving larger, more important questions about
political and social agendas linking sport and disability unaddressed. For
instance, the issue of integration of sports for people with and without
disabilities was not examined (Carter and Williams 2012).
A study on portrayals of people with disabilities, including intellectual
disabilities, in prime-time television dramas in Japan (1993–2002) by
Saito and Ishiyama (2005) found that their number increased over time
but there was marked underrepresentation of individuals with all dis-
abilities in all years. However, persons with intellectual disabilities were
depicted second most often compared with other disabilities perhaps,
the researchers suggested, because they are easier to portray on television.
Children and young adults with intellectual disabilities were depicted
disproportionately more compared to actual population statistics while
adults over the age of 30 were not portrayed. These representations
conveyed some basic misinformation suggesting that they can culti-
vate distorted perceptions, especially since many of the prime-time dra-
mas featuring characters with intellectual disabilities were among those
viewed most often.
Film
There is no research on films focused only on people with intellectual
disabilities. Two studies examined Hollywood-style films presenting fic-
tional portrayals of people with either developmental or intellectual dis-
abilities. These films were released between 1968 and 2009, distributed
widely to commercial movie theaters, and remain available on DVD or
online.
Renwick et al. (2014) qualitatively analyzed portrayals of engagement
in everyday and meaningful activities by adults with developmental dis-
abilities in eight films (1999–2009). These films depicted mainly leisure
(e.g., socializing, watching movies) and productive (e.g., volunteer or
paid work, taking educational courses) activities which were typically
68 R. Renwick
safe and pleasurable, but not very challenging. Characters had restricted
choices for participation in activities they found meaningful. Activities
usually done by adults were performed in simplified ways and/or in a
manner more characteristic of children and/or the activities were usually
performed by children. These films conveyed many powerful, negative
messages about what constitutes acceptable activities and social roles for
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and how they usu-
ally perform them. Nevertheless, closer examination revealed some other
more complex portrayals, such as struggles with personal problems (alco-
holism, job loss, death of a loved one) and ongoing challenges of dealing
with a stigmatizing society. However, these were revealed only with care-
ful, repeated viewing. Therefore, they would likely be missed by viewers
watching the films for entertainment.
In an examination of nine films (1968–1997), Devlieger et al. (2000)
found stereotypic portrayals of developmental disabilities, such as some-
thing to be hidden and a tragedy or burden. However, a few films included
more complex representations, for instance, a person with an intellectual
disability who was initially dependent on others but forged more reciprocal
relationships with them and eventually learned to live independently. The
study also found that few films featured voices of persons with intellectual
disabilities as narrators, so that they are more often spoken for or about.
Discussion
Several recurring themes were identified across the literature examined.
One is that these media consistently underrepresent people with intellec-
tual disabilities. Another is their simplistic portrayals in all three media
with frequently repeated stereotypes depicting childlike innocents who
lack capabilities and are vulnerable, needy, passive, a burden to others,
dangerous, and problematic. In addition, disability is the major focus
such that individuality, complexity, nuance, and multiple social roles
are not captured by these portrayals. Finally, negative and stigmatizing
mass media messages are repeatedly emphasized, typically outnumbering
and outweighing more acceptable ones. In general, such portrayals rein-
force and cultivate stigmatizing beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives held
by audience members, with potentially damaging implications for the

identities and treatment of people with intellectual disabilities themselves.
The research examined offers important insights concerning people
with intellectual disabilities in the mass media. One concern is what is
typically included and what is excluded in mass media portrayals. This
literature identifies what is most frequently included, for example, ste-
reotyping, devaluation, stigmatization, and misinformation about peo-
ple with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It also underscores
Dyer’s (1993) first and second meanings of representation, mediated pre-
sentations of reality and typified portrayals, respectively. However, sev-
eral authors emphasized that what is not or rarely communicated equally
influences audiences’ beliefs and attitudes. For example, Carter and
Williams (2012) pointed out that first-time television coverage of Special
Olympics Games showcased the human interest angle and athletes’ dis-
abilities while neglecting overarching political and social issues concern-
ing whether sports and sports events should be integrated or segregated.
Renwick et al. (2014) noted that concerns people with developmental
disabilities may grapple with (e.g., addiction, loss of employment) are
portrayed infrequently and backgrounded in films.
Another issue is that the voices of people with intellectual disabilities
themselves are seldom heard in mass media. Thus, what is portrayed is
completely controlled by journalists, editors, experts, and others. This is
not the preferred standard of journalistic reportage when individuals with
intellectual disabilities may be readily available for interviews. Such find-
ings are related to Dyer’s (1993) third meaning of representation, being
spoken for and about, rather than being allowed to speak for oneself.
It is essential to understand effects of specific media representations on
the emotions, assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors of audience members
with respect to people with intellectual disabilities, especially in terms
of targeting changes in negative perceptions and behaviors. These issues,
related to Dyer’s (1993) fourth meaning of representation concerning
what messages communicated by media mean for audience members,
remain to be investigated.
Several significant gaps in knowledge exist in the literature. Very little
is known about the strength of short- and long-term effects of differ-
ent kinds of portrayals of intellectual disabilities on beliefs, attitudes,
70 R. Renwick
behaviors, and interpretations of audience members without disabilities.

There is also no published research concerning effects on and responses to
such portrayals on the part of people with intellectual disabilities them-
selves. Both studies with preexperimental and longitudinal designs may
be effective in providing insights into such issues. Interventional studies
could help illuminate what kinds of representations, frequency of expo-
sure to more acceptable representations, and other factors, alone or in
combination, can effectively shift attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Using
media for stigma change interventions is touched on in Chap. 9.
Two critical areas requiring further illumination are what topics and
issues media portrayals of people with intellectual disabilities are silent
about and the absence of first person perspectives or voices of people
with intellectual disabilities themselves. These are challenging areas to
study because the focus is on missing information. However, this kind
of research is likely to be very valuable in providing insights about how
to construct more acceptable, nuanced, inclusive media portrayals of
people with intellectual disabilities that can positively influence beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors of audiences and reduce stigma.
Studies of media representations by participatory research groups
involving people with and without intellectual disabilities as coresearch-
ers have not been reported in the literature. However, a media review
coauthored by participatory research group members focused on findings
from an in-depth analysis of one recent Hollywood-style film (Defendor)
(Fudge Schormans et al. 2013). Currently, their larger participatory
research study of multiple Hollywood-style films is still in progress. More
participatory studies of media representations in films, television pro-
grams, and newspapers are needed to understand their effects and how to
construct more inclusive representations from the perspective of people
Implications for Practice
Service professionals are exposed to the same media representations of
intellectual disabilities as others in society and may also be influenced
by them. Government policies regulating service delivery, practices, and
procedures of organizations where professionals work and train may

implicitly embody some of these stereotypical beliefs and assumptions
about intellectual disability. People with intellectual disabilities whom
they serve are also likely to encounter negative effects of such stereo-
typical beliefs and associated behaviors from people they interact with
in everyday life. Therefore, attention to education of professionals using
media as a learning vehicle could be a useful strategy for counteracting
some of these stereotypical, stigmatizing assumptions and behaviors.
Facilitated discussions after viewing of selected films could also stimu-
late new insights into the complexity of individuals with intellectual dis-
abilities and their lives, such as their individual capabilities and struggles
(Conn and Bhugra 2015). Involvement of self-advocates and advocates
in such discussions could considerably enrich the learning process.
Implications for Advocacy
Advocacy strategies are needed to counteract stigmatizing representations
and change the nature and quality of media portrayals. These could take
the form of accessible and novel knowledge translation strategies and for-
mats that could support self-advocates’ efforts, such as short films and
trailers that might be shown as a free community service on television,
feature articles for mainstream and community newspapers, and free
advocacy ads in community newspapers.
Education aimed at children may be especially valuable in counteract-
ing and changing perceptions about people with intellectual disabilities.
Educational vehicles such as short films for classroom viewing or short
videos on YouTube featuring, and co-created by, people with intellectual
disabilities could be used to stimulate discussion among younger stu-
dents. A continuing emphasis on education implemented by advocates
and self-advocates for older students in elementary and high schools
could reinforce and promote media literacy (Englandkennedy 2008),
stigma reduction, and acceptance of people with intellectual disabilities.
Given the power and pervasiveness of mass media and the representa-
tions they disseminate to broad audiences, changing the content of media
portrayals will require considerable persistence and targeted strategizing.
72 R. Renwick
Advocacy could take several forms, for instance, direct efforts to inform
and educate newspaper editors and journalists (Jones and Harwood 2009),
television executives and producers, and film makers (Hartnett 2000). Such
advocacy should focus on potential harm done by stigmatizing portray-
als that reproduce and perpetuate stereotypes, what constitute acceptable
portrayals, and strategies for constructing more and better representations.
Other strategies include employing more actors with intellectual disabili-
ties to play such characters, and featuring characters with intellectual dis-
abilities as narrators, instead of being spoken for and about. Creating more
television programs and films focused on individuals with intellectual dis-
abilities and having these individuals visible in many more programs and
films in supporting roles and in the background could help normalize their
natural presence in media and society. Newspapers could also feature more
interviews that include these individuals themselves (with appropriate sup-
ports) such that their voices are reflected more often. All three mass media
could benefit considerably from ongoing consultation with and feedback
from self-advocates with intellectual disabilities, advocates, and their sup-
porting organizations concerning construction and communication of
more acceptable, nuanced, and inclusive representations.
The Long-Term Path to Change

Suggestions and recommendations for progressive changes to mass media
representations are easily stated. Implementation is likely to be challenging
and to require considerable time and persistence and multiple, innovative
strategies by self-advocates and advocates working together at several levels
(e.g., with individuals, schools, community organizations, and the media).
Research has only begun to illuminate a path forward regarding what needs
to change, how to change the fact that people with intellectual disabilities are
rarely seen and seldom heard in the media, and how to construct portray-
als that reduce, not reproduce, stigma. Researchers must continue to study
mass media representations, especially their influence on audiences, includ-
ing people with intellectual disabilities and professionals as audience mem-
bers, and how this influence might be changed for the better. Strong research
partnerships with self-advocates, advocates, and professionals collaborating
to design and conduct studies grounded in real-world experiences will con-

tribute significant new knowledge from multiple perspectives.
Key Learning Points

• People with intellectual disabilities are underrepresented in newspa-
pers, television, and film.
• Stigmatizing stereotypes predominate in mass media portrayals while
the complexity and individuality of people with intellectual disabilities
are rarely represented.
• In the absence of other information sources, audiences can be influ-
enced by such stigmatizing stereotypes.
• The voices of self-advocates must be central to more positive media
portrayals.
Accessible Summary
• Stories that newspapers, television, and movies tell about people with
intellectual disabilities often look mostly at the disability.
• These stories often give wrong information about what people with
intellectual disabilities and their lives are really like.
• Stories about people with intellectual disabilities are getting a bit bet-
ter but need to get much better.
• These stories can change what other people think and feel about peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities, and how people with intellectual dis-
abilities feel and think about themselves.
• We can work together to change the bad effects that newspapers, tele-
vision, and movies have on people with intellectual disabilities.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to be part of a participatory research group

that collaborates to study the stories that films tell about people with intellectual
and developmental disabilities and present our findings in traditional and more
accessible formats. I appreciate Matthew Devine’s assistance with identifying
diverse literature about mass media and disability.
74 R. Renwick
References
Carter, N., & Williams, J. (2012). ‘A genuinely emotional week’: Learning dis-
ability, sport, and television—Notes on the Special Olympics GB National
Summer Games 2009. Media, Culture and Society, 34, 211–227.
doi:10.1177/0163443711430759.
Chen, C. H., Hsu, K. L., Shu, B. C., & Fertzer, S. (2012). The image of people
with intellectual disability in Taiwan newspapers. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 17, 35–41. doi:10.3109/13668250.2011.650159.
Conn, R., & Bhugra, D. (2015). The portrayal of autism in Hollywood films.
International Journal of Culture and Mental Health, 5, 54–62. doi:10.1080/1
7542863.2011.553369.
Devlieger, P. J., Baz, T., & Drazen, C. (2000). Mental retardation in American
film: A semiotic analysis. Semiotica, 129, 1–28. doi:10.1515/semi.
2000.129.1-4.1.
Devotta, K., Wilton, R., & Yiannakoulias, N. (2013). Representations of dis-
ability in the Canadian news media: A decade of change? Disability and
Rehabilitation, 35, 1859–1868. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.760658.
Dyer, R. (1993). The matter of images: Essays on representation. London, UK:
Routledge.
Englandkennedy, E. (2008). Media representations of attention deficit disorder:
Portrayals of cultural skepticism in popular media. Journal of Popular Culture,
41, 91–117. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2008.00494.x.
Farnall, O., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Reactions to people with disabilities: Personal
contact versus viewing of specific media portrayals. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 76, 659–672. doi:10.1177/107769909907600404.
Fudge Schormans, A., Renwick, R., Barker, D., Chasi, E., Smith, B., McWilliam,
L., et al. (2013). Why can’t we be superheroes? Researchers’ with and without
intellectual and developmental disabilities thoughts on Defendor. Media
Review. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 19, 109–112.
Garland-Thomson, R. (2009). Staring: How we look. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, &
P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London, UK:
Hutchinson & Co..
Hartnett, A. (2000). Escaping the ‘evil avenger’ and ‘the supercrip’: Images of
disability in popular television. The Irish Communication Review, 8, 21–29.
Hodgkinson, P. (2011). Media, culture, and society: An introduction. London,

UK: Sage.
Jones, C., & Harwood, V. (2009). Representations of autism in Australian print
media. Disability and Society, 24, 5–18. doi:10.1080/09687590802535345.
Lopez Levers, L. (2001). Representations of psychiatric disabilities in fifty years
of Hollywood film: An ethnographic content analysis. Theory and Science,
2(2).
Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). There are no visual media. Journal of Visual Culture, 4,
257–266. doi:10.1177/1470412905054673.
Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. L. (2001). Representation and its discontents. The
uneasy home of disability in literature and film. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D.
Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 195–238).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Renwick, R., Fudge Schormans, A., & Shore, D. (2014). Hollywood takes on
intellectual/developmental disability: Cinematic representations of
occupational participation. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research:
Occupation, Participation, and Health, 34, 20–31.
doi:10.3928/15394492-20131118-01.
Saito, S., & Ishiyama, R. (2005). The invisible minority: Under-representation
of people with disabilities in prime-time TV dramas in Japan. Disability and
Society, 20, 437–451. doi:10.1080/09687590500086591.
Special Olympics (2005). Changing attitudes, changing the world: Media portray-
als of people with intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from www.specialolympics.
org/uploadedFiles/LandingPage/WhatWeDo/Research_Studies_
Desciption_Pages/Policy_paper_media_portrayal.pdf
Wilkinson, P., & McGill, P. (2009). Representation of people with intellectual
disabilities in a British newspaper in 1983 and 2001. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 22, 65–76.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00453.x.
Zhang, L., & Haller, B. (2013). Consuming images: How mass media impact
the identity of people with disabilities. Communication Quarterly, 61,
319–334. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.776988.
6
Stigmatic Representation of Intellectual
Disability and Termination of Parental
Custody Rights
Hanna Björg Sigurjónsdóttir and James G. Rice
One objective of safeguarding, or ‘child protection’ as it is still referred

to in many countries, is to aid and support parents to create a healthy
environment within which to raise their children. However, in the case
of parents with intellectual disabilities, the long-standing stereotypes,
prejudice, and stigma associated with this label appear to influence the
implementation and outcome of child protection work, creating a ‘ripple
effect’ from the referral to the evaluation process (National Council on
Disability 2012). The child custody removal cases we examine in this
chapter in the Icelandic context, in addition to consulting the interna-
tional literature, suggest that such cases proceed from an assumption that
parents with intellectual disabilities are ‘unfit’ and that support measures
will not work. Discriminatory practices can be detected throughout the
process, and the various assessments used to evaluate parenting ability
and custody adopt a narrow, restrictive, and almost obsessive view on the
impairment-related ‘flaws’ of the individuals concerned, which come to
H.B. Sigurjónsdóttir () • J.G. Rice

Center for Disability Studies, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_6
78 H.B. Sigurjónsdóttir and J.G. Rice
play a more significant role in these cases at the expense of assessing the
family’s social and economic environment in order to determine their
support needs. We conclude that intellectual disability stigma is very
much alive and evident in contemporary child protection work.
Governing Sexuality
It has been argued that in the early twentieth-century European and
American contexts, the tactics of governing the sexuality of people with
intellectual disabilities, as well as the poor and in some cases immigrants
and racial minorities, were rooted in the trans-Atlantic eugenic project
of preventing the so-called undesirable members of the population from
reproducing (Davis 2010; Mitchell and Snyder 2003; Stubblefield 2007).
Mitchell and Snyder (2003) argued that the Nazi German regime during
the Second World War only represented the most extreme application of
existing eugenic ideologies. These ideas originated during an earlier cross-
Atlantic collaboration between doctors, scholars, practitioners, policy
makers, and eugenic societies and organizations which sought to prevent
the birth of persons with traits perceived negatively (e.g., physical, intel-
lectual, and sensory impairments, along with mental health problems)
and encourage the birth of people with traits perceived positively and as
beneficial to society.
Nazi German physicians and policy makers were influenced by the
existing practices of sterilization and institutional segregation of people
with disabilities that were already in place in Western Europe, the Nordic
countries, and the USA and Canada (Mitchell and Snyder 2003). While
these societies did not engage in murder as the solution to the ‘problem’
of populations deemed deficient, as did the Nazis, their responses, such
as institutionalization (with the sexes firmly segregated) and involuntary
sterilization, were nevertheless still very harsh. All these practices shared
a common scientific and cultural language predicated on stigmatic views
of people with disabilities, and people with intellectual disabilities in par-
ticular (Diekema 2003; Stefánsdóttir 2014).
While practices which seek to govern the sexuality and reproductive
capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities continue in various
6 Intellectual Disability and Parental Custody Rights 79
forms in the present (World Health Organization 2014), it has been

argued that the intent of current practices has shifted away to an extent
from the concerns of the older eugenic ideologies. Using Iceland as an
example of these ideologies in the Nordic context, Karlsdóttir (1998)
argued that one focus of the eugenic project was the general ‘improve-
ment’ of mankind and another the protection of society from the per-
ceived social and economic threats from the so-called problematic
populations. However, there were also concerns articulated about the
welfare of individuals having to provide care for children when they were
perceived by the authorities as incapable to perform the parenting role
(Karlsdóttir 1998). Continuing these ‘humanistic’ concerns about the
welfare of individuals and some of the consequences of their sexuality,
contemporary concern is predominantly articulated as that of protecting
children and adults seen as vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation
(Series 2015). However, we contend that the desire to control, limit, and
sometimes negate the reproductive capabilities of people labeled as hav-
ing intellectual disabilities is still motivated by long-standing paternalis-
tic concerns.
Research in Iceland (Karlsdóttir 1998; Stefánsdóttir 2014; Stefánsdóttir
and Traustadóttir 2015) demonstrates that the governance of the repro-
ductive capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities (primarily
but not exclusively women) followed a similar pattern as Northern and
North-Western Europe in general, with widespread use of sterilization
that started to tail off in the 1970s and 1980s with the broadening accep-
tance of the principles of normalization. The practice of coerced steriliza-
tion as a condition for making the transition from institution to group
homes (Stefánsdóttir 2014; Stefánsdóttir and Traustadóttir 2015; World
Health Organization 2014) certainly reflects old eugenic fears about the
reproductive capabilities of people with intellectual disabilities. However,
the process of deinstitutionalization leading to community-based living
arrangements has had the concomitant effect of leading to more people
with intellectual disabilities becoming parents (McConnell and Llewellyn
2002; Park et al. 2006). Increasingly, these parents are coming to the
attention of authorities that are concerned with the welfare of children.
Research has demonstrated that one key assumption in child protection
and custody proceedings is that parental intellectual disability itself is
prima facie evidence of risk of harm to the child and in some states is
legitimized by law. Another is that parents with intellectual disabilities
are unfit parents a priori regardless of whatever interventions are under-
taken (Llewellyn et al. 2010). The conditions under which custody is
removed from parents with intellectual disabilities are illustrated in this
chapter with evidence from the Icelandic context.
From Sterilization to Human Rights

Legal regulations concerning sterilization in Iceland generally followed
the other Nordic countries. For example, a law enacted during the 1930s
(nr. 16/1938) allowed for sterilization of both men and women deemed
to be (or potentially at risk of being) an ‘imbecile’ (Is. fáviti), ‘permanently
mentally ill’ (Is. varanlega geðveikur), as well as those who the medical
authorities deemed at significant risk to bear children with a ‘serious mal-
formation’ (Is. alvarlegur vanskapnaður), a mental or physical ‘dangerous
disease’ (Is. hættulegur sjúkdómur), or ‘idiocy’ (Is. fávitaháttur). There were
also apparent class biases interwoven with the Icelandic eugenic project
as this law also allowed for sterilization or abortion due to a perceived
‘disposition toward crime’ (Is. hneigð til glæpa) and inability to support
oneself or one’s dependents. This law remained in force in Iceland until
1975. However, the legislation concerning abortion and sterilization,
which replaced this and which remains in force (nr. 25/1975), still allows
for sterilization under the authority of an appointed legal guardian, of
those over the age of 25 on the basis of mental illness, ‘significant mental
deficiency’ (Is. mikils greindarskorts), or ‘other mental disturbances’ (Is.
annarra geðtruflana), where the individual is believed to be unable to
appreciate the consequences of his or her actions.
The changes in Icelandic legislation detailed above coincided with a
general international shift away from formal eugenic policy to that of
human rights. However, such attitudinal changes were slow to develop
as they had to contend with deeply entrenched views. One early example
of this shift, explicitly focused on intellectual disability, was the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971).
In many ways this declaration followed the principles of normalization
with all of the expected caveats; for example, persons with intellectual
disabilities were to live with their own families under circumstances ‘as
close as possible to those of normal life’. The declaration appeared to refer
to the family in a guardianship role and no mention was made of the
right (or expectation) of persons with intellectual disabilities to poten-
tially form their own families and raise children. As such it was consistent
with the notion that people with intellectual disabilities are simultane-
ously asexual and hypersexual, childlike, and in need of constant care and
supervision, but never care providers or parents in their own right, which
is long-standing, persistent, and exists in different national-cultural con-
texts over significant periods of time (Priestley 2003; Simpson 2011;
Stefánsdóttir and Traustadóttir 2015).
A major piece of legislation concerning people with intellectual dis-
abilities in Iceland was the ‘Law on Assistance to the Retarded’ (nr.
47/1979). In some ways this law reflected the ideology of normalization
as seen in the 1971 UN declaration referred to above. The first article
of this law sought to ensure for the ‘mentally retarded’ (Is. þroskaheftir)
equality with other citizens and to create conditions so they could live
as normal a life as possible in the community. While this may seem pro-
gressive for the time, the rest of the text of the law discussed services
that were to be provided in a variety of institutional settings and the
home environment was generally envisioned to be small group homes
(Is. sambýli), an improvement over large institutions but hardly a nor-
mative living arrangement compared with the general public, and one
that often affords little privacy. The idea that people with intellectual
disabilities might form intimate relationships, let alone become parents,
and that such choices might be reflected in their living arrangements did
not appear to be a consideration.
A key piece of modern legislation concerning people with disabili-
ties in Iceland is the 1992 Act on the Affairs of Disabled People (nr.
59/1992, revised in 2010). Within this Act, people with intellectual dis-
abilities are included along with people with other types of disabilities.
The language is less ambivalent (‘create conditions in which they are able
to live a normal life’), and the Act includes a focus on human rights.
However, the Act is silent on issues of sexuality or parenthood, and chil-
dren are referred to in terms of the rights of children with disabilities,
not as children of parents with disabilities. This stands in contrast with

the latest international human rights convention concerning people
with disabilities, the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which clearly envisions people with
disabilities as parents. Article 23.1 of the CRPD states that parties to
the Convention (Iceland signed in 2007 but has not ratified the CRPD
at the time of writing) are required to eliminate discrimination against
people with disabilities ‘in all matters relating to marriage, family, par-
enthood and relationships’ as well as retaining their fertility.
However, the CRPD arguably reflects similar tensions as found within
modern child protection in general, with a potential conflict between
the rights of people with disabilities to raise children and the rights of
children, which are argued to supersede those of parents. However, these
rights do not necessarily have to be in conflict. Aunos and Feldman (2008)
argue that while the protection of the child is paramount in international
conventions, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the
violation of children’s rights can also occur when children are removed
from the home as the result of parents not being provided appropriate
support. The rights of parents with disabilities, the rights of children,
and the dual roles of child protection agencies in protecting children and
supporting parents can clash when adequate supports to parents are not
provided. Measures to support children as well as parents are, of course,
necessary and child protection is by no means an easy task. Yet in our
research we routinely encountered statements in case conclusions, which
asserted that all possible forms of support had been tried, yet no evidence
was provided that parents with intellectual disabilities had been provided
with the specific kinds of support they required. The literature demon-
strates that parents who are not provided such supports are at greater risk
of losing custody of their children. This can be particularly problematic
where efforts to support parents with intellectual disabilities intersect
with long-standing prejudices, the historic role of professionals in assess-
ing and governing people with intellectual disabilities, as well as the exis-
tence of legal tools that allow for the permanent removal of children on
the basis of intellectual disability itself and the perceived ‘risks’ that this
diagnosis entails.
Labeling ‘Unfit’ Parents

Iceland is a small nation and our analysis of a national sample of perma-
nent custody removal cases during the period 2002 to 2014 identified
only a small number of cases where parents had an intellectual disabil-
ity. However, a number of findings from the international literature are
worth presenting. One of the major themes that has emerged in the inter-
national literature concerns the overrepresentation of parents with intel-
lectual disabilities in custody removal cases (Emerson and Brigham 2014;
Gould and Dodd 2014; McConnell and Llewellyn 2000, 2002). While
it is difficult to make similar assertions concerning custody removal rates
in Iceland given the small sample size, it is obvious in our research that
many of the other issues still resonate with the international literature.
Here we will focus on two key assumptions identified in the international
literature: parents who have been evaluated by professionals as having a
low IQ, which serves as evidence of ‘unfit’ parenting in and of itself, and
the assumption that parents with intellectual disabilities cannot benefit
from education, training, and support measures.
Two particular cases caught our attention for the purposes of this
chapter—they exhibit these assumptions and mirror some of the issues
identified in the international literature, though other cases will be
referred to in passing. Both were couples evaluated as having intellec-
tual disabilities, or borderline intellectual functioning, and both cases
involved parents with multiple children, the first of which was removed
from custody shortly after birth and the remainder removed at a later
date. Impairment labels figured prominently in these cases, often with
little reference to how these impairment labels linked to abusive or neg-
ligent parenting. One couple was referred to as having ‘significant intel-
lectual impairments’ (‘verulega þroskaskerðingu’) and a number of other
problems, such as assumed substance abuse, but it appeared that the low
measured IQ was the main factor concerning the perception of their
parenting and general competence. This was clearly stated in the case by
a physician who referred to ‘certain intellectual impairments’ as the key
issue in regard to why treatment programs for their alcohol and cannabis
use would be ineffective—their ‘treatment capacity’ (Is. meðferðarhæfni)
was posited to be ‘below average’. It has been suggested that any use of
alcohol or drugs, even mild or recreational, by someone with intellec-
tual disabilities is perceived as problematic and as potentially a sign of
addiction (Simpson 2012). Others have noted that the issue is a lack of
access to treatment for addiction, if such is needed, not the inability to be
treated (Slayter 2010); and if treatment fails, then the treatment methods
need to be revised in conjunction with the service users to be effective
(Taggart et al. 2007).
In another case, one weekend of alcohol misuse by the parents while they
were being investigated by child protection services (CPS) was drawn upon
repeatedly for the duration of the case as indicative of a pattern of alcohol
abuse, when this specific weekend was the only reference we could find in
the court documents to any alcohol use on the part of either parent. This was
despite the fact that at one point the couple was under five and later seven
day-a-week surveillance by CPS. This is typical, Simpson (2012) contends,
of evidence of “an intrinsically pathologized and discrete pattern alcohol
consumption being posited for adults with intellectual disabilities” (p. 186).
In other words, the label of intellectual disability of itself colors and informs
and perhaps distorts the interpretation of such behavior, including as well
the perceived links between intellectual disability and poor parenting.
In the cases we examined, reference to the intellectual disability label
was often made without an explicit connection to allegations of parental
abuse or neglect. This mirrored patterns in other cases where disability
was a factor. It was common to see references to parent(s) spending time
under the care of psychiatric services, in which even voluntary attempts
to seek treatment were consistently used as evidence to present parents
in a negative light. Parents were often referred to as ‘disability pensioners’
(Is. öryrkjar), a heavily stigmatized label in Iceland (Rice 2010), with low
disability pension rates used as evidence of the parents not being able to
adequately support their children. In one case, a mother was referred to as
having a history of epilepsy, without any explicit connection being made
between epilepsy and parenting, as the case mainly focused on children
neglected due to the mother working night shifts. As McConnell and
Llewellyn (2000) note, in this type of situation, “intellectual disability
per se, is treated as prima facie evidence of parental inadequacy” (p. 886).
Tymchuk and Andron (1990) argue that while some intellectual capacity
is obviously needed to parent, it is not at all clear what IQ level is ade-

quate, nor is it clear what is meant by adequate parenting. IQ alone is not
an adequate indicator of parenting ability and the literature has stressed
for some time that parents with intellectual disabilities can be adequate
parents with the proper support (Feldman 1994; Llewellyn et al. 2010;
Wade et al. 2008), throwing into question the heavy reliance upon IQ
tests for the purpose of parenting or custody assessment.
The importance of the intellectual disability label was so significant
to all professionals involved in the cases we examined that in certain
cases the parents’ impairments were not only exaggerated but appeared
to increase in the severity depicted over the duration of the investigative
process. In one case, both parents were described in the opening of the
court documents as having ‘developmental deviations’ (Is. þroskafrávik).
In a report on a neurological assessment for a young mother who had
come to the attention of CPS, she was described as being ‘intellectually
diminished’ (Is. vitsmunalegrar skerta) in certain regards but ‘normal’ in
others, and the report’s author surmised that in sum she perhaps could
be given a diagnosis of borderline intellectual disability. By the following
year, the mother was described as having ‘low intellectual ability’ (Is. lága
greind) and the father as ‘mentally deficient’ (Is. greindarskertur) as he was
consistently referred to as having a lower IQ than the mother. Four years
later both parents were referred to as having ‘intellectual impairments’ (Is.
þroskaskerðingar). A further three years after this point, the term ‘mentally
deficient’ (Is. greindarskertur) was used for the couple by the CPS, even
though a psychological assessment earlier described the mother as having
a ‘lower-average’ IQ. Toward the conclusion of the case, the diagnosis of
dyslexia also entered the picture for the mother while her spouse con-
tinued to be described as a ‘significantly intellectually impaired father’
(Is. verulega greindarskerðingu föður). By the summation of the case, the
lawyer for the CPS argued that both parents had intellectual disabilities
(Is. þroskaskert).
Permanent custody removal was justified based primarily on a descrip-
tion of the parents’ impairments and their alleged lack of cooperation with
the CPS. Evidence of neglect remained ambiguous, as counterevidence
of professionals asserting positive examples of parenting were disregarded
in favor of their ‘low intelligence’ label and its negative associations.
The final justification for permanent custody removal was based primarily
upon the potential risks the parents’ impairments represented to their
children. The main legal justification was Article 29, Section d of the
Child Protection Act (nr. 80/2002), which provides that parents may be
deprived of custody if the CPS believes ‘that it is certain that the child’s
physical or mental health or his/her maturity is at risk because the parents
are clearly unfit to have custody, due, for instance, to drug use, mental
instability, or low intelligence, or that the behavior of the parents is likely
to cause the child serious harm’.
Conclusions
We have argued that child protection is a necessary albeit difficult task
and one fraught with difficulties in the case of parents with intellectual
disabilities. One problem therein is that as our reading of these cases and
the history of Icelandic legislation suggests—enhanced with a reading of
the history of similar developments in Nordic countries and the trans-
Atlantic region in general—that people with intellectual disabilities have
long been viewed through the prism of stigmatic and prejudiced beliefs,
rooted in older eugenic concerns and anxieties about their reproductive
potential, and which in certain ways have been transposed to the area of
child protection and custody. The role of stigma as an influence on the
treatment of people with intellectual disabilities in these processes needs
to be considered and critically reflected upon.
Key Learning Points

• Parents with intellectual disabilities face additional discrimination in
custody cases due to persistent stereotypes and stigma associated with
intellectual disability.
• Those involved in child protection share many of the same assump-
tions and stereotypes about disability that negatively influence how
parents with intellectual disabilities are viewed and treated within the
legal system.
• The label of intellectual disability acts as evidence in and of itself of

parenting inability, despite research showing that it is a poor predictor
of parenting ability.
• Parents with intellectual disabilities are perceived as unable to benefit from
support measures, despite common claims made in custody proceedings
that all support measures have been tried prior to custody removal.
• The multitude of diagnostic labels and disability categories applied to
individual parents throughout custody cases call into question the sci-
entific validity of these parenting and custody assessments.
• The cases we analyzed suggest the importance of reflexivity on the part
of professionals in child protection work in order to question the influ-
ence of their views, assumptions, and knowledge and training in the
development and outcomes of custody proceedings.
Accessible Summary
• Parents with intellectual disabilities are commonly believed to be unfit
to raise children.
• Such beliefs are based on prejudice about people with intellectual
disabilities.
• Prejudice can lead to children being removed from their parents.
• What others believe does not tell us how things are—it only tells us
how they imagine things to be.
References
Aunos, M., & Feldman, M. (2008). There’s no place like home: The child’s right
to family. In T. O’Neill & D. Zinga (Eds.), Children’s rights: Multidisciplinary
approaches to participation and protection (pp. 137–162). Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto press.
Davis, L. J. (2010). Constructing normalcy. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability
studies reader (5th ed., pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Routledge.
Diekema, D. S. (2003). Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retarda-
tion: An ethical analysis. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
9(1), 21–26. doi:10.1002/mrdd.10053.
Emerson, E., & Brigham, P. (2014). The developmental health of children of

parents with intellectual disabilities: Cross sectional study. Research in
Feldman, M. A. (1994). Parenting education for parents with intellectual dis-
abilities: A review of outcome studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
15(4), 299–332. doi:10.1016/0891-4222(94)90009-4.
Gould, S., & Dodd, K. (2014). ‘Normal people can have a child but disability
can’t’: The experiences of mothers with mild learning disabilities who have
had their children removed. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,
25–35. doi:10.1111/bld.12006.
Llewellyn, G., Traustadóttir, R., McConnell, D., & Sigurjónsdóttir, H. B.
(2010). Conclusion: Taking stock and looking to the future. In L. G.
Llewellyn, R. Traustadóttir, D. McConnell, & H. B. Sigurjónsdóttir (Eds.),
Parents with intellectual disabilities: past, present and futures (pp. 241–262).
London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Karlsdóttir, U. (1998). Mannkynbætur: Hugmyndir um bætta kynstofna hérlendis
og erlendis á 19. og 20. öld. [Eugenic ideas in Iceland and other countries in the
19th and 20th century]. Reykjavík, Iceland: University of Iceland Press.
McConnell, D., & Llewellyn, G. (2002). Stereotypes, parents with intellectual
disability and child protection. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law,
24(3), 297–317. doi:10.1080/09649060210161294.
McConnell, D., & Llewellyn, G. (2000). Disability and discrimination in statu-
tory child protection proceedings. Disability & Society, 15, 883–895.
doi:10.1080/713662015.
Mitchell, D., & Snyder, S. (2003). The eugenic Atlantic: Race, disability, and
the making of an international eugenic science, 1800–1945. Disability and
Society, 18, 843–864. doi:10.1080/096875903200012728.
National Council on Disability (2012). Rocking the cradle: Ensuring the rights of
parents with disabilities and their children. Washington, DC: NCD.
Park, J. M., Solomon, P., & Mandell, D. S. (2006). Involvement in the child
welfare system among mothers with serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services,
57, 493–497. doi:10.1176/ps.2006.57.4.493.
Priestley, M. (2003). Disability: A life course approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Rice, J. G. (2010). Questions of disempowerment in disability specific entitle-
ments in Iceland. In O. Ólafs & H. Proppé (Eds.), Rannsóknir í félagsvísin-
dum XI [Research in Social Sciences XI] (pp. 99–105). Reykjavík, Iceland:
Social Science Research Institute and the University of Iceland Press.
Series, L. (2015). Mental capacity and the control of sexuality of people with
intellectual disabilities in England and Wales. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.),
Disability research today: International perspectives (pp. 149–165). London,
UK: Routledge.
Simpson, M. (2012). Alcohol and intellectual disability: Personal problem or
cultural exclusion? Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 16(3), 183–192.
doi:10.1177/1744629512455595.
Simpson, M. K. (2011). Othering intellectual disability: Two models of classifi-
cation from the 19th century. Theory and Psychology, 22(5), 541–555.
doi:10.1177/0959354310378375.
Slayter, E. M. (2010). Disparities in access to substance abuse treatment among
people with intellectual disabilities and serious mental illness. Health and
Social Work, 35(1), 49–59. doi:10.1093/hsw/35.1.49.
Stefánsdóttir, G. V. (2014). Sterilisation and women with intellectual disability
in Iceland. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 39(2),
188–197. doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.899327.
Stefánsdóttir, G. V., & Traustadóttir, R. (2015). Life histories as counter-
narratives against dominant and negative stereotypes about people with intel-
lectual disabilities. Disability and Society, 30, 368–380. doi:10.1080/096875
99.2015.1024827.
Stubblefield, A. (2007). “Beyond the pale”: Tainted whiteness, cognitive disability,
andeugenicsterilization.Hypatia,22(2),162–181.doi:10.1111/j.15272001.2007.
tb009-87.x.
Taggart, L., McLaughlin, D., Quinn, B., & McFarlane, C. (2007). Listening to
people with intellectual disabilities who misuse alcohol and drugs. Health
and Social Care in the Community, 15, 360–368.
Tøssebro, J., Bonfils, I. S., Teittinen, A., Tideman, M., Traustadóttir, R., &
Vesala, H. T. (2012). Normalization fifty years beyond—Current trends in
the Nordic Countries. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities,
9(2), 134–146. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00340.x.
Tymchuk, A. J., & Andron, L. (1990). Mothers with mental retardation who do
or do not abuse or neglect their children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14,
313–323.
Wade, C., Llewellyn, G., & Matthews, J. (2008). Review of parent training inter-
ventions for parents with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in
Wolfensberger, W. (1980). A brief overview of the principle of normalization. In
R. J. Flynn & K. E. Nitsch (Eds.), Normalization, social integration and com-
munity service (pp. 7–30). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
World Health Organization (2014). Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise

involuntary sterilization: An interagency statement. Retrieved from http://apps.
who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112848/1/9789241507325_eng.pdf
Legislation
Barnaverndarlög, nr. 80/2002 [Child Protection Act, nr. 80/2002].
Lög um að heimila í viðeigandi tilfellum aðgerðir á fólki, er koma í veg fyrir, að það
auki kyn sitt, nr. 16/1938. [Law setting out when surgery prevent procreation
is appropriate], nr. 16/1938. Retrieved from http://www.althingi.is/
lagas/137/1938016.html
Lög um aðstoð við þroskahefta, nr. 47/1979. [Law on assistance for ‘the mentally
retarded’, nr. 47/1979]. Retrieved from http://www.althingi.is/thingstorf/
thingmalalistareftirthingum/ferill/?ltg=100&mnr=270
Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks, nr. 59/1992 með síðari breytingum. [Law on the
affairs of people with disabilities, nr. 59/1992 with later amendments].
Retrieved from http://eng.velferdarraduneyti.is/acts-of-Parliament/nr/3704
Lög um ráðgjöf og fræðslu varðandi kynlíf og barneignir og um fóstureyðingar og ófr-
jósemisaðgerðir, nr. 25/1975. [Law on counselling, education on sex and family
planning, abortion and sterilisation (nr. 25/1975 with later amendments].
Retrieved from http://www.althingi.is/lagas/124/1975025.html#G33
7
Self-stigma in People with Intellectual
Disabilities
Rory Sheehan and Afia Ali
In this chapter we consider the concept of self-stigma, present a review of

the relevant literature, and consider future directions for research in this
area. Self-stigma can be defined as an internal experience whereby indi-
viduals perceive themselves (and others with intellectual disabilities) to be
socially unacceptable (Vogel et al. 2007). Self-stigma is important as it is
associated with a wide range of detrimental effects, including diminished
self-esteem, shame, secrecy, and withdrawal (Ritsher et al. 2003).
Self-stigma, like public stigma, comprises stereotypes, prejudice, and
discrimination. Stereotypes such as ‘I am a weak person’ or ‘I am inca-
pable’ are endorsed by the individual and lead to self-prejudice in the
form of negative emotional responses, such as low self-esteem or self-
worth. These in turn can lead to self-discrimination through behavioral
responses such as not seeking employment opportunities or avoiding
social relationships. It has been proposed that self-stigma develops in a
R. Sheehan • A. Ali ( )
Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_7
92 R. Sheehan and A. Ali
stepwise manner (Corrigan and Rao 2012). Firstly, an individual (the

person with intellectual disabilities) becomes aware of a negative stereo-
type. The negative stereotype is accepted uncritically by the individual
who must also believe that it applies to them. Finally, the process of self-
stigmatization results in deleterious outcomes. Self-stigma can occur in
the absence of actual experiences of discrimination, due to the anticipa-
tion or fear of rejection or devaluation.
This stepwise model of self-stigma has limited empirical support.
A study measuring public stigma and self-stigma among college students
at two time points, three months apart, found that the strongest rela-
tionship was between public stigma at time point 1 and self-stigma at
time point 2, suggesting that public stigma leads to the development of
self-stigma as people internalize negative attitudes (Vogel et al. 2013).
The stepwise model of self-stigma arises from research with other stigma-
tized groups and has not been applied in the intellectual disability field.
However, the following sections demonstrate that it is possible to relate
each step to this population.
Evidence for Self-stigmatization
Table 7.1 provides a summary of the research on self-stigma in people
Awareness of stigmatized status. Applying public stigma to oneself,
or internalizing negative societal attitudes, lies at the heart of the pro-
cess of self-stigmatization, see Fig. 7.1. This would appear to require an
individual to have knowledge of their intellectual disability identity and
the negative stereotypes associated with it. Indeed, evidence suggests that
many people with intellectual disabilities are aware of the stigma asso-
ciated with the condition. For example, in the early days of deinstitu-
tionalization, Edgerton (1967) observed that individuals resettled from
long-stay institutions into the community often attempted to hide their
disability and distance themselves from peers with intellectual disabilities
for fear of being stigmatized.
In a different study, individuals with mild intellectual disabilities attend-
ing an adult training center were found to be aware of their stigmatized
Table 7.1 Summary of studies on stigma in people with intellectual disabilities (ID)
Author (year) Design Sample Method Main findings
Ali et al. (2015) Quantitative 229 adults with mild Self-report measures of Stigma was associated
or moderate ID stigma (experiences of positively with
recruited from 12 discrimination and psychological distress and
sites/centers in reaction to service use and negatively
7
England discrimination), with quality of life.

psychological distress, Psychological distress
quality of life, mediated the relationship
adherence to between stigma and
treatment, and service quality of life and service
use use.
Chen and Shu Qualitative 14 students with Semi-structured Students internalized the
(2012) mild-moderate ID interviews examining stigma of ID from a
recruited from experience of stigma, young age. Responses to
special educational views, and responses to stigma were avoidance,
program of a stigmatizing isolation, and attempts at
mainstream school treatment; thematic self-promotion.
analysis of responses
Cooney et al. Cross-sectional 60 adolescents with Interview including Those in mainstream
(2006) mild-moderate ID experiences of stigma, schools experienced more
recruited from social comparisons, and stigma inside school. Both
mainstream and future aspirations groups had similar
specialist schools experience of stigma
outside school. No
relationship between
Self-stigma in People with Intellectual Disabilities
self-report of stigmatized
treatment and perception
of likelihood of achieving
93
future goals.
(continued)
Table 7.1 (continued)
94

Craig et al. (2002) Mixed methods (1) 92 referrals to (1) Audit of referrals No referrals to the
psychology service (2) Focus group of psychology service
audited people with ID mentioned coming to
(2) 6 people with ID covering their terms with the ID identity
living in experience of the ID as pertinent.
supported identity Discussions around ID
housing (3) Staff survey identity were associated
with discomfort and
there was a tendency for
R. Sheehan and A. Ali
participants to distance
themselves from ID
identity.
Cunningham and Mixed methods 78 parents and 77 Semi-structured Half of people with Down
Glenn (2004) individuals with interviews with syndrome did not
Down syndrome parents; questionnaires recognize their condition.
administered to people One quarter were aware
with ID of the stigma associated
with Down syndrome.
Dagnan and Cross-sectional 43 people with Self-report measures of Social comparison was
Sandhu (1999) mild-moderate ID self-esteem, social related to self-esteem
recruited from adult comparison, and and depression.
training centers depression
Emerson (2010) Cross-sectional 1273 adults with ID Interviews assessed Self-reported exposure to
living in private or self-reported health, bullying and acts of
supported well-being, and disablism were associated
accommodation exposure to bullying with worse self-reported
and disablism health outcomes.
7
Material or social
resources can mitigate
the effect of
discrimination.
Finlay and Lyons Mixed methods 28 people with Interviews assessing Two thirds of the group
(1998) mild-moderate ID representations of ID, endorsed a label of ID,
recruited from ID self-descriptions, although none
services self-esteem, group mentioned this
evaluation, and group spontaneously. Self-
identification esteem was not
correlated with group
evaluation, even when
the group was viewed
negatively.
Finlay and Lyons Qualitative 33 people with ID Semi-structured People with ID tended to
(2000) interviews addressing present themselves in a
descriptions of self and positive light and view
others and social themselves as ‘better’
comparisons than others with ID and
as ‘as good as’ those
without ID.
(continued)
95
96

Jahoda and Qualitative 28 people with mild Semi-structured Participants were aware of
Markova (2004) ID moving to more interviews addressing and had experienced
independent living participants’ discrimination and
awareness, experience, prejudice.
and response to stigma
associated with ID
Jahoda et al. Qualitative 12 adults with ID Semi-structured All participants were aware
(1988) interviews covering of the stigma associated
social life, autonomy, with ID. Only a minority
handicap, and stigma endorsed negative

stereotypes and viewed
themselves as ‘essentially
different’ from people
without ID. The majority
did not internalize their
stigmatized status.
Paterson et al. Cross-sectional 43 people with ID Questionnaires Perceived stigma
(2012) measured perception negatively correlated
of stigma, self-esteem, with self-esteem and
and social comparison negative social
comparisons.
Szivos-Bach (1993) Cross-sectional 50 students with Self-esteem and social Stigma was negatively
mild-moderate ID comparison scales plus correlated with self-
discussion of esteem and belief in
participants’ fulfilling aspirations.
perception of stigma
7
and life aspirations

Szivos (1990) (1) Cross- (1) 50 people with ID (1) Self-esteem, including (1) ‘Being different’
sectional (2) 7 people with ID feelings of subscale scores were
(2) Qualitative stigmatization, and negatively correlated
aspirations and with total ‘expectation’
expectations score.
measured by guided (2) Those in discussion
questionnaire group expressed fear of
(2) Discussion group over being discredited by
13 weekly sessions nature of their ID.
(continued)
97
98

Zetlin and Turner Qualitative 46 individuals with Participant observations Identified four different
(1984) mild ID and their and in-depth attitudes to social
parents interviews over 18 identity:
months about how (1) Acceptance: parents and
individuals with ID and individuals accepted
their parents viewed label; parents promoted
their ID identity self-sufficiency. Stigma
was not salient.
(2) Qualification:
individuals rejected ID
label but were aware
of their limitations and
stigma. Parents
minimized difficulties
and promoted
self-sufficiency.
(3) Vacillation: reluctance
to discuss label; parents
ambivalent or avoidant
and overprotective.
Most had experienced
stigma/discrimination.
(4) Denial: rejection of ID
label and denial of
stigma; parents
ambivalent or avoidant
and overprotective.
1. Awareness of cultural stereotypes

about intellectual disabilities
For example, people with ID are not

capable of living independently
2. Endorsement of cultural
stereotypes
For example, I believe that people with
ID are not capable of living
independently
3. Applying cultural stereotypes to

oneself
For example, I believe that I cannot live

independently
Fig. 7.1 The three-stage process of self-stigma
status and reported rejection and bullying from peers. Some individuals
were aware that certain restrictions were imposed on them at home that
did not apply to their siblings and were aware of the stigma attached to
day services (Jahoda et al. 1988). Participants who had recently moved
from an institution to the community described feeling ‘cut off’ from the
outside world and described experiences of rejection and discrimination
(Jahoda and Markova 2004). They were aware of the stigma attached to
the hospital, wanted to distance themselves from it and other patients
who had resided there, and were keen to develop a new identity. Those
who had moved from the family home to residential community settings
described feeling overly protected by family members, being considered

incapable, and having their achievements go unrecognized.
Cooney et al. (2006) interviewed adolescents attending mainstream
and segregated schools. The mainstream group reported more stigmatiz-
ing treatment such as being ridiculed, facing violent physical contact, or
being ignored by other pupils. None of the students from the segregated
school reported stigmatizing treatment within the school. However, out-
side the school setting, both groups reported stigmatizing treatment from
people in the local area or their siblings calling them names and described
being restricted at home.
Agreement with stigmatized status. The second step in the model of
self-stigma requires that people with intellectual disabilities endorse negative
attitudes relating to the disability. There is limited research on this topic.
How people with intellectual disabilities view themselves has been investi-
gated by Jahoda et al. (1988). Three of the 12 participants they interviewed
regarded themselves as ‘handicapped’ and as essentially different from ‘non-
handicapped people’. They felt that they were not able to engage in activities
that ‘non-handicapped’ individuals were able to do, accepted stereotypes
associated with their disability, and did not expect to receive the same
opportunities as others who did not have intellectual disabilities. These three
participants, therefore, appeared to endorse negative stereotypes associated
with intellectual disabilities. The other nine participants, however, did not
endorse negative stereotypes associated with intellectual disabilities. They
regarded themselves as ‘essentially the same as non-handicapped individu-
als’. Two of these nine participants rejected the label of intellectual disability
and wanted to distance themselves from others with the disability, but the
remaining seven accepted the label and showed solidarity with peers.
Other studies have found little evidence that people with intellectual
disabilities endorse negative stereotypes about themselves. Jahoda and
Markova (2004) found that although their participants were aware of
stigma, they did not agree with their stigmatized status and believed them-
selves to be the same as people without intellectual disabilities. Cooney
et al. (2006) found that even though adolescents from mainstream and
segregated schools had experienced stigmatizing treatment, they still com-
pared themselves favorably to peers with and without disabilities. Both
groups had positive aspirations about the future, such as getting a job, and
this was not affected by their negative social interactions with others.
Application of negative stereotypes to oneself and harm. The final

aspect of self-stigma is the translation of the internalized devalued iden-
tity into negative outcomes, in the form of loss of self-esteem and self-
discrimination. One aspect of this has been termed the ‘why try’ effect,
whereby self-stigma results in a loss of confidence and self-efficacy which
in turn affects one’s willingness to set and strive for life goals (Corrigan
et al. 2009). In a study conducted in Taiwan, 14 school students with
intellectual disabilities who had a ‘handicapped identity card’ that enti-
tled them to have free access to additional educational support were inter-
viewed. The possession of the card was found to be stigmatizing as these
students realized that they were different from other students. Students
endorsed and applied negative stereotypes to themselves. They viewed
themselves as ‘not good students’, ‘troublemakers’, or ‘odd’ because of
the reaction they received from others. Students felt ashamed and embar-
rassed about possessing the card. There was evidence that some of the
students had internalized the stigma associated with their disability and
responded by avoiding interactions with peers or trying to conceal the
fact that they held the card. A few students used self-promotion to cope
with stigma (Chen and Shu 2012).
Factors That Influence Whether People

with Intellectual Disabilities Internalize Stigma
Research suggests that many people with intellectual disabilities may not be
aware of their disability or attribute this label to themselves. Possible rea-
sons for this finding include the cognitive development hypothesis, the use
of denial as a defense mechanism, lack of awareness stemming from others’
protection, and differentiating between awareness at the level of discourse
and experience (Beart et al. 2005). A sufficient degree of cognitive devel-
opment is required for an individual to be aware of one’s disability and to
understand one’s limitations within a wider social context (Cunningham
et al. 2000). It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that a number of studies
have found that many individuals lack awareness that they have a disability
and even fewer are aware of the stigma associated with the label of intellec-
tual disability. For example, Cunningham and Glenn (2004) interviewed
77 individuals with Down syndrome and found that only half of the sam-
ple were aware of having Down syndrome and only a quarter of the sample
recognized the stigma associated with the condition.
Some individuals with intellectual disabilities may downplay their dif-
ficulties or frame their difficulties using phrases that are more socially
acceptable, such as ‘I have difficulties with reading and writing’, or may
emphasize their strengths. Studies of social comparisons suggest that
when individuals with intellectual disabilities compare themselves with
others with intellectual disabilities, they may regard themselves as ‘bet-
ter’ and may even consider themselves to be ‘as good as’ people without
intellectual disabilities (Finlay and Lyons 2000). This lack of identifica-
tion with the stigmatized group may help some individuals avoid stereo-
types associated with intellectual disabilities. However, Finlay and Lyons
(1998) found that group identification was not associated with evaluating
the group negatively. Even if people described themselves as having intel-
lectual disabilities and evaluated people with intellectual disabilities more
negatively compared to those without intellectual disabilities, this did not
lead to a lowering of self-esteem. Some individuals did not believe that
the label of intellectual disabilities was applicable to them. These issues
are considered further in Chap. 14 of this book.
Lack of awareness of intellectual disability or of its stigmatized status
may be influenced by how parents and carers disclose or discuss disability
with their loved ones. For example, Todd and Shearn (1997) found that
most parents avoided discussing their child’s intellectual disability with
them in order to protect them from stigma, and were complicit in agree-
ing with their child’s unrealistic expectations of future jobs or marriage,
even if they themselves did not believe this to be possible. In addition,
carers who appeared overprotective or in denial about their child’s dif-
ficulties were reluctant to disclose to their child that they had an intellec-
tual disability. Zetlin and Turner (1984) found that parents who accepted
their offspring’s condition were more likely to disclose this to the indi-
vidual, and, subsequently, the individual was more comfortable talking
about their disability. In contrast, individuals who were uncomfortable
talking about their disability had parents who were ambivalent about
disclosing such information to their offspring. However, Cunningham
et al. (2000) found that awareness of having an intellectual disability was
not related to parental disclosure, indicating the difficulty of separating

associations from cause and effect relationships.
Jahoda et al. (1988) found that carers who thought the individual
with an intellectual disability was essentially different from people
without disabilities provided them with less autonomy and choice than
carers who thought that the individual was essentially the same as peo-
ple without disabilities. Self-concept, or the way one views oneself, was
not found to be determined by the way they were viewed or treated
by significant others or according to whether they had more or less
autonomy. Instead, individuals were capable of evaluating their own
capability and actions.
Intellectual disability services may also play a role in perpetuating ser-
vice users’ lack of awareness or recognition of having intellectual dis-
abilities. Referrals to a specialist psychology service for people disabilities
were found to rarely make reference to helping an individual come to
terms with their identity or stigmatized status (Craig et al. 2002). When
professionals at a community intellectual disability service were surveyed,
the researchers found that most thought that it was important to talk to
individuals about their intellectual disability but many found it difficult
to do so because they thought the topic was too sensitive and were
worried about upsetting the individual or their family. Some professionals
also perceived such discussions as stigmatizing.
Some researchers have argued that it is not mandatory that individuals
understand the concept of intellectual disability in order to experience
feelings of rejection or alienation by others through their social interac-
tions (Beart et al. 2005). Individuals do not need to acknowledge that
they have an intellectual disability in order to be aware that they are
different as they experience stigma at the emotional level. Language that
may be routinely used within services might not be accessible or under-
stood by people with intellectual disabilities, which may explain why
some may not internalize labels that are applied to them (Beart et al.
2005). Finally, Sinason (1992) proposed that denial of having intellectual
disabilities may be a defense mechanism that enables individuals to cope
with the pain associated with having a stigmatized status.
Coping with Self-stigma
Resilience and the ability to cope and make sense of stigmatizing and
discriminatory treatment may influence whether individuals internalize
stigma. Reframing experiences in a positive way, or focusing on strengths
rather than limitations, can help individuals maintain self-esteem and protect
against self-stigma. Having a number of meaningful roles such as being an
employee, a mother, or a member of a club can help to act as a buffer against
the emotional consequences of stigma (Dagnan and Sandhu 1999).
The possibility of utilizing experiences of stigma as a force for good has
largely been overlooked in the intellectual disability literature, although
other fields have shown that it is possible for members of a stigmatized
group to be energized by experiences of discrimination and use their
‘righteous anger’ to drive positive change (Corrigan and Watson 2002).
The Effect of Stigma on Self-concept

and Well-Being
There is limited empirical research that links self-stigma to reduced well-
being in people with intellectual disabilities. Research has so far focused
on the relationship between experiences of stigmatizing or discriminatory
treatment and outcomes such as self-esteem, future aspirations, psychiat-
ric symptoms, and quality of life.
College students with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities who
reported more stigmatizing treatment were found to also have lower self-
esteem (Szivos-Bach 1993). Similar findings have been reported by other
researchers (e.g., Paterson et al. 2012). Students who reported higher levels
of stigmatizing treatment were more likely to have lower aspirations in life
(Szivos 1990; Szivos-Bach 1993). However, Cooney et al. (2006) found that
experiences of stigma did not affect future aspirations, as many of the students
they interviewed had high expectations about future employment prospects.
Four published studies have examined the impact of stigma on psychiatric
symptoms. By far the largest study is by Emerson (2010) who carried out a
secondary analysis of data from a population-based study of 1273 individu-
als with intellectual disabilities living in the community. Both bullying at
school and incidents of bullying generally during the preceding 12 months

were associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression and poorer self-
reported health. In particular, access to social or material resources moderated
the relationship between bullying and symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Individuals who had poorer social or material resources were more likely to
report depression or anxiety due to bullying, compared to those who had
better access to resources. Paterson et al. (2012) found that higher levels of
stigma were associated with more psychiatric symptoms and Dagnan and
Sandhu (1999) found lower attractiveness and less perceived group mem-
bership to be associated with more depressive symptoms. More recently, Ali
et al. (2015) concluded that higher levels of stigma are associated with higher
levels of psychological distress (symptoms of depression and anxiety) and a
lower quality of life. Participants reporting more stigmatizing treatment were
more likely to use community intellectual disability services and make con-
tact with the police. The relationship between stigma and quality of life and
service use was found to be mediated by psychological distress.
Conclusions
There is a general lack of research on self-stigma as applied to people with
intellectual disabilities. There is some limited evidence to support the three-
stage process of self-stigma in people with intellectual disabilities, but more
research on the validity and utility of applying this model to people with
intellectual disabilities is required. Consideration should also be given to
other models or approaches to understanding how stigma is internalized
(or not) by people with intellectual disabilities, as this may differ from
other stigmatized groups. For example, use of stigma research conducted
with people affected by mental illness may provide a helpful framework to
understand general principles, but several difficulties exist in extrapolating
insights directly to individuals with intellectual disabilities (Ditchman et al.
2013). Stereotypes of people with mental illness and intellectual disabilities
differ substantially, with the former more likely to be described as ‘crazy’
or ‘dangerous’ and the latter as ‘dependent’ or ‘innocent’. In addition, peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities are more likely to experience additional
visible physical disabilities which can alter the public perception of their
condition. Perceived attribution, or blame, may also differ between those

with mental illness and those with intellectual disabilities, further influenc-
ing societal attitudes. Finally, the cognitive deficits of people with intellec-
tual disabilities may mean that some are unaware of stigma and therefore
the process of self-stigma may be altogether less relevant.
Many of the studies examining self-stigma in people with intellectual dis-
abilities have included only a small number of participants and population-
based prevalence studies have not been completed. Similarly, there is a lack of
longitudinal studies which could help to explain the outcomes of self-stigma,
and there are no trials of interventions that could disrupt the internalization
of stigma and promote positive outcomes (Ali et al. 2012). Future research
should focus on developing a model of self-stigma in people with intellectual
disabilities. Longitudinal studies investigating the long-term consequences
of stigma on health and social outcomes are also needed. Finally, the devel-
opment of interventions that promote self-esteem and help individuals to
develop coping strategies for managing self-stigma will play an important
role in improving the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities.
Key Learning Points

• There is limited research on the conceptualization of self-stigma in
people with intellectual disabilities.
• Evidence suggests that people with intellectual disabilities are able to
describe experiences of rejection, bullying, and discrimination.
However, there is little research on whether people with intellectual
disabilities internalize stigma.
• The ability of people with intellectual disabilities to internalize stigma
may be affected by their level of cognitive development, disclosure,
and overprotection from significant others, social interactions with
others, and factors such as coping and resilience.
• Higher levels of stigmatizing treatment or bullying have been found to
be associated with lower self-esteem, lower aspirations in life, and
more psychiatric symptoms.
• Services for people with intellectual disabilities should recognize that
stigma can have a negative impact on the well-being of people with
intellectual disabilities and ensure that appropriate support is provided.
• Future research should focus on improving our understanding of

whether people with intellectual disabilities internalize stigma and of
the consequences of self-stigma on health and social outcomes. In
addition, there is a need to develop evidence-based interventions that
help individuals address self-stigma or cope with stigmatizing and dis-
criminatory treatment.
Accessible Summary
• This chapter looks at research on how people with intellectual disabili-
ties view themselves and how they are treated.
• We wanted to find out if people with intellectual disabilities believe
that bad things that are said about them are true and how this affects
them.
• Many people with intellectual disabilities say that they are treated
badly or differently, such as being called names.
• Being treated badly by others can make people feel bad about them-
selves, depressed, and anxious.
• Services need to help people who have experienced bad treatment
from others.
References
Ali, A., King, M., Strydom, S., & Hassiotis, A. (2015). Self-reported stigma and
symptoms of anxiety and depression in people with intellectual disabilities:
Findings from a cross sectional study in England. Journal of Affective Disorders,
187, 224–231. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.07.046.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.013.
Chen, C. H., & Shu, B. C. (2012). The process of perceiving stigmatisation:
Perspectives from Taiwanese young people with intellectual disability. Journal
of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability, 25, 240–251. doi:10.111

1/j.1468-3148.2011.00661.
Cooney, G., Jahoda, A., Gumley, A., & Knott, F. (2006). Young people with intel-
lectual disabilities attending mainstream and segregated schooling: Perceived
stigma, social comparison and future aspirations. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 50, 432–444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00789.
Corrigan, P. W., Larson, J. E., & Rüsch, N. (2009). Self-stigma and the “why
try” effect: Impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry,
8, 75–81. doi:10.1002/j.2051-5545.2009.tb00218.
Corrigan, P. W., & Rao, D. (2012). On the self-stigma of mental illness: Stages,
disclosure, and strategies for change. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue
Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 57, 464–469.
Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). Understanding the impact of stigma
on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry, 1, 16–20.
Craig, J., Craig, F., Withers, P., Hatton, C., & Limb, K. (2002). Identity conflict
in people with intellectual disabilities: What role do service providers play in
mediating stigma? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15,
61–72. doi:10.1046/j.1360-2322.2002.00101.
Cunningham, C., & Glenn, S. (2004). Self-awareness in young adults with
Down syndrome: I. Awareness of Down syndrome and disability. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 335–361. doi:10.1080
/1034912042000295017.
Cunningham, C. C., Glenn, S. M., & Fitzpatrick, H. (2000). Parents telling their
offspring about Down syndrome and disability. Journal of Applied Research in
Dagnan, D., & Sandhu, S. (1999). Social comparison, self-esteem and depres-
sion in people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 43, 372–379. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.1999.043005372.
Ditchman, N., Werner, S., Kosyluk, K., Jones, N., Elg, B., & Corrigan, P. W.
(2013). Stigma and intellectual disability: Potential application of mental ill-
ness research. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58, 206–216. doi:10.1037/a0032466.
Edgerton, R. B. (1967). The cloak of competence: Stigma in the lives of the mentally
retarded. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press.
Emerson, E. (2010). Self-reported exposure to disablism is associated with poor
self-reported health and wellbeing among adults with intellectual disabilities
in England: A cross sectional survey. Public Health, 124, 682–689.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2010.08.020.
culties: Implications for self advocacy groups. Disability and Society, 13,
37–57. doi:10.1080/09687599826902.
Finlay, W. M., & Lyons, E. (2000). Social categorizations, social comparisons

and stigma: Presentations of self in people with learning difficulties. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 129–146. doi:10.1348/014466600164372.
Disability Research, 48, 719–729. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00561.
Jahoda, A., Markova, I., & Cattermole, M. (1988). Stigma and the self concept
of people with a mild mental handicap. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research,
32, 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1988.tb01396.
Paterson, L., McKenzie, K., & Lindsay, B. (2012). Stigma, social comparisons and
self esteem in adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disability, 25, 166–176. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00651.
Ritsher, J. B., Otilingam, P. G., & Grajales, M. (2003). Internalized stigma of
mental illness: Psychometric properties of a new measure. Psychiatry Research,
121, 31–49. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2003.08.008.
Sinason, V. (1992). Mental handicap and the human condition: New approaches
from the Tavistock. London, UK: Free Association Books.
Szivos-Bach, S. E. (1993). Social comparisons, stigma and mainstreaming: The
self esteem of young adults with a mild mental handicap. Mental Handicap
Research, 6, 217–236. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.1993.tb00054.
Szivos, S. E. (1990). Attitudes to work and their relationship to self-esteem and
aspirations among young adults with a mild mental handicap. British Journal
of Subnormality, 36, 108–117.
Todd, S., & Shearn, J. (1997). Family dilemmas and secrets: Parents’ disclosure
of information to their adult offspring with learning disabilities. Disability
and Society, 12, 341–366. doi:10.1080/09687599727218.
Vogel, D. L., Bitman, R. L., Hammer, J. H., & Wade, N. G. (2013). Is stigma
internalized? The longitudinal impact of public stigma on self-stigma. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 60, 311–316. doi:10.1037/a0031889.
Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Hackler, A. H. (2007). Perceived public stigma
and the willingness to seek counseling: The mediating roles of self-stigma and
attitudes toward counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 40–50.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.40.
Zetlin, A. G., & Turner, J. L. (1984). Self perspectives on being handicapped:
Stigma and adjustment. Monograph of the American Association of Mental
Deficiency, 6, 93–120.
8
Intellectual Disability, Stigma,
and Hate Crimes
Mark Sherry and Anna Neller
Disability hate crimes involve criminal victimization which is aimed at

people specifically because of their disability. Using recent examples of
disability hate crimes directed at people with intellectual disabilities in
the UK and USA, the chapter highlights the magnitude of this problem,
as well as the reasons why disability hate crimes usually go unreported.
The time period 2011 to 2015 was selected largely because previous stud-
ies such as Sherry (2010) and Quarmby (2011) have outlined a number
of crimes before this period, and with the increased awareness of dis-
ability hate crimes since then, it is important to examine whether there
have been any significant cases since that time. Cases were selected on
the basis of three criteria. First, they had to already be publicly reported
(the authors were careful not to discuss cases where the victim/survivor
did not want publicity). Second, they had to reflect a diverse range of
locations, in order to give a sense of the global nature of this problem;
M. Sherry ( ) • A. Neller
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_8
112 M. Sherry and A. Neller
this criterion was somewhat difficult because disability hate crimes are
not officially recognized as a specific form of criminal activity in many
countries. And third, the crimes had to range in severity; although a large
number of disability hate crimes result in fatalities or serious injury, we
deemed it important to include other examples of hate crimes as well.
Labels and Insults
Over time, terms once associated with the medical diagnosis of intel-
lectual disability have morphed into the language of insult used in hate
speech and in the commission of disability hate crimes. Historically, pub-
lic health institutions often regarded those with intellectual disabilities as
subhuman, relying on eugenic ideas which suggested that some lives are
less worthy than others (Wolfensberger and Nirje 1972). The category
of ‘intellectual disability’ was initially defined through a medical model
replete with negative labels such as ‘feebleminded’, ‘idiot’, ‘mental defec-
tive’, ‘subnormal’, ‘imbecile’, ‘moron’, and ‘retarded’. Such terms over
time have trickled into common usage as generic slurs which take on
extra layers of meaning when aimed at people with intellectual disabili-
ties. For instance, the word ‘retard’ is widely used as an insult as well as
a specific form of hate speech used in the commission of disability hate
crimes.
Disability scholars consistently stress the importance of understanding
intellectual disability in its social context (Gill 2015). This means that
one cannot understand intellectual disability without noting the wider
social context of disablism (prejudice and discrimination against disabled
people) and ableism (processes and practices that privilege nondisabled
minds, senses, or bodies) (Campbell 2009). Attitudes toward intellec-
tual disability are not just characterized by stigma and prejudice; they
may involve hostility and even hatred as well. The results of such atti-
tudes include higher rates of violence, criminal victimization, and social
exclusion. These experiences are framed by disablism and ableism—wider
power systems that devalue and marginalize people with disabilities. The
combined effects of stigma, disablism, ableism, and intolerance are seen
most starkly in the violence of disability hate crimes.
In such a context, it may be easier to identify disablism because one

can identify hurtful interpersonal experiences such as name-calling, teas-
ing, and bullying—a commonplace and devastating experience in the
lives of many people with intellectual disabilities (Robinson 2013). But it
is equally important, and often harder, to examine ableist social dynamics
which usually operate under the surface, creating situations of privilege
or disadvantage, safety or harm, inclusion or exclusion. Both disablism
and ableism operate in the context of stigma and intellectual disability,
and both need to be addressed in order to challenge the connections
between intellectual disability, stigma, and disability hate crime.
By situating disability hate crimes within a wider social content of
prejudice and discrimination, it may seem that they are simply another
manifestation of overall hostility to people with disabilities. Clearly, there
is some weight to this suggestion. Disablist slurs are commonly used in
the commission of disability hate crimes. But failing to distinguish these
crimes from other beliefs, attitudes, and practices is not entirely satis-
factory. There are distinct differences between prejudice (which is often
unexpressed), disabling barriers (which are oftentimes legal), and crimi-
nal activity. Disability hate crimes are often felonies—serious actions
which (if successfully prosecuted) result in imprisonment. Clearly, such
actions and consequences are significantly different from other nonfelo-
nious patterns of discrimination and prejudice.
People with intellectual disabilities experience more interpersonal
abuse in schools, violence perpetrated by staff and other people with
disabilities in institutional settings, and hate crimes (both from strang-
ers and from people pretending to be friends) which are often brutally
violent and hypersexual (Sherry 2010). They also experience higher
rates of criminal victimization than the rest of the population (Petersilia
2001). Sexual abuse is also alarmingly common for both children and
adults with intellectual disabilities (McCarthy 2014)—some cases have
been considered disability hate crimes. The classification of such sex-
ual and criminal acts—particularly whether they are labeled ‘disability
hate crimes’ or not—varies from one jurisdiction to another. In some
cases, they are immediately labeled as hate crimes; in others they may be
given another classification, such as a ‘crime against a dependent adult’.
When crimes against a dependent adult are successfully prosecuted, they
do involve serious consequences and enhanced penalties if the victim/

survivor receives serious injuries. Lesser crimes against dependent adults
are usually not associated with the additional sentencing provisions of a
disability hate crime. Such inconsistencies seem to be linked to prevalent
attitudes and legislation about disability, care, crime, and victimization
in a particular region.
The decision to prosecute a crime as a ‘hate crime’ is incredibly signifi-
cant because when an act is labeled a ‘hate crime’, penalty enhancement
occurs. Accordingly perpetrators often receive time and a half sentenc-
ing for their felonies. Such penalty enhancement is associated with hate
crimes because the law recognizes that there are two victims in any hate
crime: the individual victim and the community to which they belong.
For instance, when a person with an intellectual disability is violently
attacked in a hate crime, they are likely to avoid the area in future—but so
too are other people with intellectual disabilities. Their freedom to travel
in any area without fear has been taken away. This flow-on effect of a
disability hate crime is the ultimate reason behind penalty enhancement.
People with intellectual disabilities may also suffer injustice in the legal
system, particularly when it is assumed that they are considered ‘unre-
liable witnesses’ whose victim testimonies do not have sufficient cred-
ibility to be believed (Bottoms et al. 2003). This faulty assumption has
meant that many cases of crime, including sexual assault, rape, violence,
theft, maltreatment, abuse, and hate crimes against people with intel-
lectual disabilities, have not been prosecuted (Henry and Wilcock 2013).
This is particularly troubling because victims of crime who have intel-
lectual disabilities may experience psychological distress at greater levels,
and for longer periods, than nondisabled victims (Khalifeh et al. 2013).
Additionally, when offenders feel that they will not be prosecuted for
crimes against this population, they may feel encouraged to continue or
escalate their crimes. A review of various forms of violence against chil-
dren with disabilities published in The Lancet suggested that the social
factors which result in lower prosecution rates include:
“… societal stigma and discrimination, negative traditional beliefs and
ignorance within communities, lack of social support for carers, type of
impairment (for example communication difficulties), and heightened
vulnerability as a result of the need for increased care, including medical

attention.” (McCarthy and Thompson 1997, p. 1)
People with intellectual disabilities experience significant prejudice
and social exclusion globally, including in Taiwan (Chen and Shu 2012),
China and Hong Kong (Human Rights Watch 2013), and Africa (Njenga
2009). These attitudes and behaviors often result in a failure to take the
testimonies of victims with intellectual disabilities and lack of access to
the justice system. As well, responses to disability hate crimes differ greatly
across the globe. Few countries formally recognize disability hate crimes,
leaving victims with intellectual disabilities without legal recourse or pro-
tection. When disability hate crimes occur, few people know exactly what
legal protection and redress is available (Scior et al. 2015). This failure to
properly recognize and respond to disability hate crimes has been a major
focus of the activism of disability rights campaigners in the UK.
UK Examples of Disability Hate Crimes

2011–2015
Personal stories of violent victimization put a human face on disability
hate crimes. There are many well-known cases of crimes against people
with intellectual disabilities. Some of these hate crimes were immedi-
ately recognized as hate crimes, but others were not, leading to cam-
paigns by disability advocates (and sometimes prosecutors) to argue that
they should have been identified in this way. In the UK, some of the
horrific crimes against people with intellectual disabilities include the
2014 crimes against Craig Kinsella, who had been ‘living like a slave’ in
a garage, sleeping on a piece of carpet, using an old curtain as a blanket,
and eating scraps of food from a garbage bin (BBC Staff Reporter 2014);
the 2011 murder of Gamma Hayter, who was locked in a toilet, forced
to drink urine, beaten and left with a broken nose, and who choked on
her own blood before she was stripped naked and dumped near a disused
railway track (Slater 2011); the violent assaults on David Busby, who
was beaten with a cricket bat and a metal dumbbell in 2012, sustaining
14 fractured ribs, a displaced breastbone, and a broken shoulder blade
(Cockerton 2012); and an (unnamed) woman in Oldham who in 2014

was kicked in the groin, punched, burned with a lighter, had her head
and eyebrows shaved, and forced to eat dog food and raw sausages (Cox
2014). While disability rights campaigners immediately labeled these as
‘hate crimes’, law enforcement was often much more reluctant to use this
term.
One problematic term which has been applied to certain hate crimes
in the UK is the notion of ‘mate crime’. This term suggests that peo-
ple who pose as friends of the victim then use their position of trust to
attack the person with an intellectual disability. While such a term has
gained some currency in the press and among disability advocates, it is
problematic because it risks biasing the understanding of disability hate
crime in favor of male victims. Female victims also commonly know their
attackers but are more likely to experience rape and assault in hate crimes
(Sherry 2010). Rape and sexual assault are never considered ‘mate crimes’
(and often they are not considered ‘hate crimes’ either). So responses to
the incidence of ‘mate crime’ tend to have an implicit masculinist bias.
Surprisingly, however, it is difficult to estimate the exact number of
disability hate crimes against people with intellectual disabilities in the
UK. Between 2007 and 2015, only 4,000 cases of disability hate crimes
were prosecuted in the UK (Wheeler 2015). However, the UK Disability
Hate Crime Network estimates the actual number of disability hate
crimes to be much larger—‘at least 30 times higher than official police
records indicate’ (Dodenhoff 2014). The Equality and Human Rights
Commission also believes that police statistics vastly underestimate the
actual numbers of disability hate crimes—they believe that there are
approximately 72,000 incidents of disability hate crime per year in the
UK (Coleman et al. 2013).
Unfortunately, despite widespread recognition of the problem of dis-
ability hate crime (Beadle-Brown et al. 2014), the response from the
UK authorities has been disappointing overall. In 2013, a major report
entitled Living in a Different World: Joint Review of Disability Hate Crime
was published as a result of a collaboration between major institutions
involved in the UK criminal justice system (HMCPSI, HMIC, and
HMIC Probation 2013). It stated that disability hate crime was ‘the hate
crime that has been left behind’ (p. 5) in comparison to other forms
of hate crime, such as hate crime related to race, religion, or sexual

orientation, and that there was significant underreporting of such crimes.
Some of the problems the report specifically identified included lack of
knowledge, misunderstanding, misclassification of crimes, and failure to
record significant information at all levels of the criminal justice system.
Specifically, the above report identified lack of training and lack of pri-
oritizing disability hate crimes among police, prosecutors, witness care
units, the probation service, and those involved in the postconviction
process.
A 2015 follow-up report by the same institutions found that the
problems identified in the Living in a Different World report are ongoing
(HMCPSI, HMIC, and HMIC Probation 2015). There are still major
problems in the way disability hate crimes are identified. The number
of reports remains low; data handling errors persist; the information
recorded is often inadequate; there are insufficient cases where pen-
alty enhancements (referred to as ‘uplifts’) are applied to disability hate
crimes; and training has been ‘inconsistent and slow’.
US Examples of Disability Hate Crimes 2011–2015

The situation in the USA appears to be worse, because much smaller num-
bers of cases of disability hate crimes are prosecuted. For instance, despite
the inclusion of disability hate crimes in federal legislation in 2009, only
one case was prosecuted in the USA in the subsequent two years. This was
the first time federal charges covering disability hate crimes had been laid
under the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The fact that
this was the first case to involve such charges is itself noteworthy, given
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reported 102 disabil-
ity hate crimes in 2012, 58 in 2011, and 46 in 2010 (Federal Bureau
of Investigation 2010–2013). The FBI does not provide details on the
outcome of these other cases.
In the one case prosecuted between 2009 and 2011, in Philadelphia,
disability hate crimes were allegedly inflicted upon four people with
intellectual disabilities over a ten-year period. In January 2013, a fed-
eral indictment claimed that from 2001 to 2011, Linda Ann Weston
kidnapped four people with intellectual disabilities, locked them in a

tiny basement, beat them, starved them, and stole their disability benefit
checks (Dolak 2013). Weston was allegedly assisted by four others who
would confine, discipline, and transport the victims. She allegedly lured
one of the victims, Maxine Lee (a woman with an intellectual disability),
over the Internet, forced her into prostitution, beat her with sticks and
bats, locked her in a cabinet under a kitchen sink, and left her in a base-
ment where she died in a malnourished state, suffering from bacterial
meningitis (Martin 2013).
In a later case, in 2014, three teens from Newark, New Jersey, were
charged with a disability hate crime under State legislation after they
allegedly kicked and punched a man with an intellectual disability in the
head (Associated Press 2015). They were originally charged with offensive
touching and assault of a vulnerable adult, but their charges were later
upgraded to include a hate crime element. But throughout the USA, there
seems to be no clear rationale behind the process of labeling some acts as
‘disability hate crimes’ and not labeling similar sadistic crimes in the same
way. For instance, in May 2015, a Florida man was charged with using
a walking stick he called the ‘Stupid Stick’ to perpetrate repeated physi-
cal abuse against his housemates, a disabled woman and her 15-year-old
son with an intellectual disability and no verbal communication skills
(WTSP10 News Staff 2015). The alleged perpetrator, Phillip Simons,
was a 52-year-old former policeman. Simons allegedly threatened the
crime victims with guns, beat them with his hands, and verbally abused
them. He is also accused of grabbing the minor’s genitals in order to
traumatize and intimidate him (Fox 8 News Staff Winterhaven 2015).
According to news reports, the woman reported his behavior to police
only after he put a gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her, while her
son and another boy watched (Wagner 2015). But his actions were never
described in terms of ‘disability hate crimes’.
Another US crime which arguably could have been identified as a dis-
ability hate crime occurred in Ohio in 2014. It involved a 14-year-old
boy who was tricked into participating in the ‘ice bucket challenge’—but
in this case the bucket was drenched in classmates’ feces, urine, and spit
(Caulfield 2014). The crime was committed by multiple perpetrators—
five teenagers aged between 14 and 16. All five were charged in juvenile
court with disorderly conduct and three were also charged with delin-
quency and assault (Corcoran and Faberov 2014). However, another
element of their actions deserves attention for those interested in the con-
nection between stigma and disability hate crimes: the teenagers assumed
that a crime against someone with an intellectual disability was socially
acceptable, not shameful, and that it was funny or entertaining enough
to share widely online.
Uploading such material online is becoming an alarmingly common
feature of crimes against people with disabilities—four examples (of the
many which are online) should demonstrate their nature. One video
which was uploaded to the Internet by the perpetrators shows two men
tormenting a 42-year-old woman with an intellectual disability outside
a Sacramento donut store. They then push her, spit on her, and punch
her in the face, laughing as they assault her (CBS13 Staff Reporters
2011a, b). Another video shows three teenagers in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, pushing a man with physical and intellectual disabilities down
an embankment, chasing him, and continuing to attack him until he is
motionless on the ground (Anthony 2015). A third video, uploaded to
Facebook, shows six people attacking a 48-year-old woman with an intel-
lectual disability with their fists and shoes, as well as kicking her (Pow and
Staff Reporter Daily Mail 2013). A fourth video shows a group of girls
beating a man with an intellectual disability in Caruthersville, Missouri,
as he says ‘Baby, leave me alone’ (St. Amand 2012).
This small number of cases from the USA, alongside those discussed
earlier from the UK, only scratch the surface of the global dimension of
this problem. Reports from many other countries suggest that similar
cases of violence, abuse, torture, murder, and kidnapping, as well as sex-
ual assault, occur with alarming frequency—particularly for those people
with disabilities who reside in institutions. Placement in segregated insti-
tutions, located far away from the rest of the population, adds to the
stigma and prejudice experienced by people with intellectual disabilities.
Their social isolation is compounded by the reluctance of other people
to visit them in hospital-like institutions. Without external support and
safeguards, institutionalized people become more vulnerable to victim-
ization, violence, and abuse.
A horrifying case of institutional abuse (involving, among other things,

severe physical abuse of people with intellectual disabilities) was uncov-
ered by the BBC at the Winterbourne View care home in 2011. Because
of their segregation from the rest of society, and the relative isolation of
residents, institutions can be permeated by a culture of abuse. Often a
country will claim that they have no institutions, because the label ‘insti-
tution’ has been removed from a facility, but many disability agencies
nevertheless operate as de-facto institutions. Long-term residents have
few alternative accommodation options and as a result, stay for many
years. Demeaning attitudes that deny the rights of people with intellec-
tual disabilities can flourish in such de-facto institutions. For instance,
in many of these institutions, residents are dehumanized, devalued, and
denied their right to choose the most basic things, such as when they will
eat meals. In the aftermath of the Winterbourne exposé, many family
members reported abuse in other UK institutions. Within a year, a joint
report by two disability agencies reported another 260 cases of neglect
or abuse identified by people who had family members with intellec-
tual disabilities in institutions (Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour
Foundation 2012). Instead of providing more statistics about this grue-
some problem, we will now turn to ways of addressing disability hate
crimes.
Tackling Disability Hate Crime

There are a number of effective strategies which have been developed to
tackle disability hate crime. Some of these include the following:
• Establishing community education programs which address common

misunderstandings (both among victims and law enforcement) about
what constitutes a disability hate crime
• Involving families, friends, and other advocates in the process of safe-
guarding people with intellectual disabilities and emphasizing their
key role in reporting abuse, neglect, and hate crimes
• Emphasizing accessible communication with people with intellectual
disabilities and ensuring that they know they have the right to be safe,
that their experiences may be disability hate crimes, and that they can
get support and seek justice through the legal system if they want
• Stressing to people with intellectual disabilities that such instances are
not ‘just a part of normal life’ but do deserve police involvement
• Ensuring that disability hate crimes are appropriately identified and
not mislabeled as something else
• Acknowledging and addressing disagreements among various parts of
the legal system over the use of disability slurs during the commission
of a crime, especially as to whether they are indicators of hate or sim-
ply generic insults
• Acknowledging the reluctance of victims to report the crimes (particu-
larly their fears of retaliation or of not being believed) and putting in
place meaningful safeguards which ensure that they are safe and pro-
tected and that their complaints are given a fair hearing
• Demonstrating to victims that making a complaint about a disability
hate crime will not just involve reliving some of the worst experiences
in their life without recourse to any real justice
• Community education programs which increase knowledge about the
nature of disability hate crimes and teach people what they can do
about them
• Partnerships between law enforcement agencies and disability groups
to build trusting relationships which might lead to an increase in
reporting of disability hate crimes
• Community education tools which involve personal accounts of dis-
ability hate crimes, discussing their physical and emotional effects
• Removing the stigma attached to intellectual disability so that people
are not afraid of being publicly identified as someone with an intel-
lectual disability
• Innovations that make it easier to report disability hate crimes, such as
a reporting app for mobile phones, and the establishment of third-
party reporting programs
• Enhanced education programs throughout the entire law enforcement
system—from street-level policing to prosecutors, judges, parole offi-
cers, and so on
• Tracking the numbers of reported disability hate crimes which are suc-
cessfully prosecuted
Conclusions
Disability hate crimes are a graphic reminder of the insult, abjection,
and violence directed at people with intellectual disabilities. This chapter
mainly focused on the UK and the USA, but the problem of violence,
abuse, and disability hate crime is not confined to those countries, far
from it. Disability hate crimes are a global problem. In challenging envi-
ronments that produce such crimes, it is necessary to confront both able-
ism and disablism. Both create environments which devalue, segregate,
marginalize, stigmatize, and endanger people with disabilities. But there
are also specific responses to disability hate crimes which are necessary, for
instance, community education, increased liaison between law enforce-
ment and disability groups, improved training for people at all levels of
the criminal justice system, and innovations in reporting processes such
as the advent of third-party reporting systems and the development of
reporting apps on telephones. But most importantly, there needs to be
improved communication with people with intellectual disabilities, and
their families and friends in order to ensure that they know what dis-
ability hate crimes are, and how they can seek justice when such crimes
occur.
Key Learning Points

• The stigma attached to intellectual disability, combined with the wider
power structures of ableism and disablism, create an environment
which can be exclusionary, unsafe, and hostile for people with intel-
lectual disabilities.
• Historical medical terms for intellectual disability are now being recir-
culated as terms of insult and hate, for instance, people are often called
a ‘retard’ during disability hate crimes.
• Disability hate crimes are often directed at people with intellectual
disabilities—both the size of the problem and the violence of the
attacks are alarming.
• Such crimes are usually unreported.
Accessible Summary
• Sometimes people will hit you, kick you, or hurt you in some other
way just because you have a disability. This is not okay. It is called a
disability hate crime.
• You are not alone. This type of crime has happened to many other
people and you can get support and help.
• You can report it to the police if you want to, or someone else can help
you report it. They are less likely to hurt you, your family, or your
friends again if you go to the police.
• You have the right to be safe.
• No one has the right to harm you or discriminate against you.
References
Anthony, C. (2015, January 13). Police: W-S teenagers recorded their attack on
disabled man. Retrieved from http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/
local/2015/01/12/wfmy-winston-salem-police-teens-record-attack/21621375/
Associated Press (2015, March 16). Teens sentenced after pleading guilty in
videotaped assaults on mentally disabled man. Retrieved from http://www.
foxnews.com/us/2015/03/16/teens-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-in-
videotaped-assaults-on-mentally/
BBC Staff Reporter (2014, January 7). Rooke family treated vulnerable man as
‘slave’. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-
25642431
Beadle-Brown, J., Richardson, L., Guest, C., Malovic, A., Bradshaw, J., &
Himmerich, J. (2014). Living in fear: Better outcomes for people with learning
disabilities and autism. Tizard Centre, Canterbury, UK: University of Kent.
Bottoms, B. L., Nysse-Carris, K. L., & Tyda, K. (2003). Jurors’ perceptions of
adolescent sexual assault victims who have intellectual disabilities. Law and
Human Behavior, 27(2), 205–227.
Campbell, F. K. (2009). Contours of ableism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Caulfield, P. (2014, September 9). Cops identify bullies who poured urine,
feces on autistic teen in sick Ice Bucket Challenge. Retrieved from http://
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-id-bullies-poured-urine-feces-autistic-
teen-sick-ice-bucket-challenge-prank-article-1.1933509
CBS13 Staff Reporters (2011a). Police arrest second suspect in viral video beat-
ing. Retrieved from http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/11/13/police-
arrest-second-suspect-in-youtube-beating/
CBS13 Staff Reporters (2011b). Video shows brutal attack at Sacramento strip
mall. Retrieved from http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/10/11/video-
shows-brutal-attack-at-sacramento-strip-mall/
Chen, C. H., & Shu, B. C. (2012). The process of perceiving stigmatisation:
Perspectives from Taiwanese young people with intellectual disability. Journal
of Applied Research in Intellectual disability, 25, 240–251. doi:10.1111/j.
1468-3148.2011.00661.
Cockerton, P. (2012, December 5). Bordering upon sadistic torture: Four locked
up for “appalling” attacks on disabled man. Retrieved from http://www.mir-
ror.co.uk/news/uk-news/four-locked-up-for-appalling-attacks-1474522
Coleman, N., Sykes, W., & Walker, A. (2013). Crime and disabled people:
Baseline statistical analysis of measures from the formal legal inquiry into
disability-related harassment. Manchester, UK: Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Corcoran, K., & Faberov, S. (2014, October 14). Five teens CHARGED over
sickening Ice Bucket Challenge prank in which autistic boy was doused with
urine, feces and cigarette butts. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
news/article-2793112/five-teens-charged-sickening-ice-bucket-challenge-
prank-autistic-boy-doused-urine-feces-cigarette-butts.html
Cox, C. (2014). Ringleader jailed after gang tortured vulnerable housemate over
rent debt 28 July. Retrieved from http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/
news/greater-manchester-news/lee-carter-jailed-torture-stacey-7522455
Dodenhoff, P. (2014). Challenging ‘hate’ within the UK–The disability hate
crime network. Retrieved from http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/
discrimination/dhcn.php
Dolak, K. (2013, January 23). Hate crime charges for allegedly stealing from
mentally disabled. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/hate-crime-
charges-allegedly-stealing-mentally-disabled/story?id=18294194
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010–2013). Uniform crime reports for the
United States 2010–2013. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Fox 8 News Staff Winterhaven (2015, May 21). Florida man beat woman with
‘stupid stick’. Retrieved from http://myfox8.com/2015/05/21/police-florida-
man-beat-woman-with-stupid-stick
Gill, M. (2015). Already doing it: Intellectual disability and sexual agency.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Henry, L., & Wilcock, R. (2013). Witnesses with intellectual disabilities.

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(1), 1–2.
doi:10.1080/1034912x.2013.757126.
HMCPSI, HMIC, & HMIC Probation (2013). Living in a different world: Joint
review of disability hate crime. London, UK: HMCPSI, HMIC, HMI Probation.
HMCPSI, HMIC, & HMIC Probation (2015). Joint review of disability hate
crime follow-up. London, UK: HMCPSI.
Human Rights Watch (2013). ‘As long as they let us stay in class’: Barriers to educa-
tion for persons with disabilities in China. Chicago, IL: Human Rights Watch.
Khalifeh, H., Howard, L. M., Osborn, D., Moran, P., & Johnson, S. (2013).
Violence against people with disability in England and Wales: Findings from
a national cross-sectional survey. PLOS ONE, 8(2), e55952. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0055952.
Martin, J. P. (2013, January 25. Federal charges announced against Linda Ann
Weston in Tacony basement case. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2013-
01-25/news/36529296_1_maxine-lee-tacony-basement-linda-ann-weston
McCarthy, M. (2014). Women with intellectual disability: Their sexual lives in
the 21st century. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 39(2),
124–131. doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.894963.
McCarthy, M., & Thompson, D. (1997). A prevalence study of sexual abuse of
adults with intellectual disabilities referred for sex education. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(2), 105–124. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-3148.1997.tb00012.
Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation (2012). Stopping the abuse
and neglect of people with a learning disability. London: Mencap and the
Challenging Behaviour Foundation.
Njenga, F. (2009). Perspectives of intellectual disability in Affrica: Epidemiology
and policy services for children and adults. Current opinion in psychiatry, 22,
457–461. doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e32832e63a1.
Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review
essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694. doi:10.1177/009385
480102800601.
Pow, H., & Staff Reporter Daily Mail (2013, February 1). Two teenage girls
given prison terms after they pleaded guilty in shocking beating of mentally
disabled woman captured on video. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-2272004/Jasmir-Womack-Rahmiiyah-Henderson-plead-
guilty-shocking-beating-mentally-disabled-woman.html#ixzz3bElVTD4R
Quarmby, K. (2011). Scapegoat: Why we are failing disabled people. London:
Portobello books.
Robinson, S. (2013). Preventing the emotional abuse and neglect of people with
intellectual disability: Stopping insult and injury. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Scior, K., Hamid, A., Hastings, R., Werner, S., Belton, C., Laniyan, A.,…,Kett,
M. (2015). Intellectual disabilities: Raising awareness and combating stigma—
A global review. London, UK: University College London. Retrieved from
www.ucl.ac.uk/ciddr/documents/Global_ID_Stigma_Report_Final_
July_15.pdf
Sherry, M. (2010). Disability hate crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people?
Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Slater, R. (2011, July 31). The disabled woman abandoned to be murdered for
fun by a gang of savages who she thought were her friends. Retrieved from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2020648/Gemma-Hayter-
Disabled-woman-abandoned-murdered-fun.html
St. Amand, A. (2012, July 12. Teen girls accused of beating disabled Missouri
man. Video posted on Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.stltoday.com/
news/local/crime-and-courts/teen-girls-accused-of-beating-disabled-
missouri- man-posting-video/article_477532c2-cc2b-11e1-bddd-
001a4bcf6878.html#ixzz20bnmaksp
Wagner, M. (2015, May 21). Florida man arrested for allegedly beating disabled
woman, teen with ‘stupid stick’. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/
news/crime/fla-man-disabled-woman-teen-stupid-stick-cops-article-1.2230860
Wheeler, C. (2015). Hate crimes on disabled up by 213 %. Retrieved from
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551327/EXCLUSIVE-Hate-
crimes-on-disabled-rise-by-213
WTSP10 News Staff (2015). Man beats handicapped victims with “Stupid
stick”. Retrieved from http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/05/21/
physical-abuse-handicapped-phillip-simons/27707029/
Wolfensberger, W., & Nirje, B. (1972). The principle of normalization in human
services. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Part III
Tackling Intellectual Disability
Stigma
9
Interventions Aimed at Tackling
Intellectual Disability Stigma: What
Works and What Still Needs to Be Done
Shirli Werner and Katrina Scior
Throughout the years, changes in policies, service provision, and societal

views of people with intellectual disabilities have led to their increased
physical integration in society. Nevertheless, discrimination continues to
be an everyday reality for many. The reluctance to interact with people
with intellectual disabilities has been attributed to misconceptions that
they have few capabilities, as well as discomfort related to lack of famil-
iarity and insecurity about how to interact with them (Ouellette-Kuntz
et al. 2010). Clearly more needs to be done to tackle stigma directed at
S. Werner ()
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
K. Scior ()
Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London,
London, UK

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_9
130 S. Werner and K. Scior
people with intellectual disabilities—this chapter provides an overview

of such interventions and their outcomes. Because efforts in this area are
very limited, where indicated, this chapter will draw on experience from
other disability fields.
Levels of Stigma Change Interventions

We propose a multilevel model for combating intellectual disability
stigma. This is informed by theories in the mental health field (Cook
et al. 2014). However, our model incorporates the family as central force
for stigma maintenance or conversely anti-stigma activism in the lives of
persons with intellectual disabilities. This model provides a framework
for exploring the range of stigma change interventions that have been
employed within the intellectual disability field, as well as identifying
where interventions are thin on the ground. It distinguishes interventions
that target stigma at the intrapersonal, familial, wider interpersonal, and
structural levels and emphasizes that efforts at different levels are related
and reciprocally affect one another (Fig. 9.1).
The bulk of initiatives that have been attempted to date in the intel-
lectual disabilities field, and which will constitute most of this chapter,
have focused on the interpersonal level. Here we provide a brief overview
of interventions at all levels.
Interventions at the Intrapersonal and Familial

Levels
Interventions at the intrapersonal level focus on the persons affected by
stigma, and aim to help them cope with the negative consequences of
stigmatization, such as self-stigma. While cognitive behavior therapy is
now widely used across a large range of presentations and populations
to challenge unhelpful self-beliefs (Butler et al. 2006) and strategic
self-disclosure has been utilized within the mental health field (Rüsch
et al. 2014), to date these approaches have not been used explicitly to
9 Interventions Aimed at Tackling Intellectual Disability Stigma 131
Structural
Interpersonal
(beyond family)
Familial
Intrapersonal
Fig. 9.1 Multilevel model of stigma change interventions
counter self-stigma affecting people with intellectual disabilities. Some

authors have provided accounts of psychological group work interven-
tions aimed at enabling individuals with intellectual disabilities to learn
to cope with their stigmatized identity as a route to accepting the under-
lying impairment and developing a positive group identity (Szivos and
Griffiths 1990). They label this process ‘consciousness raising’ but future
work may wish to explore the impact of work of this kind on self-stigma.
Others have noted the promise of narrative therapy, in which dominant
stories are deconstructed and power relations that underpin them are
examined (Scior and Lynggaard 2006). However, again the potential of
such approaches to counter self-stigmatization has not been assessed. Of
course, the potential value of individual and group self-advocacy in coun-
tering self-stigma cannot be underestimated but to our knowledge has
not been formally tested.
Parents of individuals with intellectual disabilities have been central in

improving perceptions of intellectual disability and in the fight against
negative attitudes and discrimination. Conversely, negative family reac-
tions, such as shame about having a child with a disability, can have detri-
mental effects on the individual concerned and may promote their social
exclusion. While attention has been paid to how to ensure that families
are well informed and supported around the time of diagnosis, such edu-
cation and support is not available in many places or at different points of
the family lifecycle, leaving families subject to widely held negative con-
ceptions regarding intellectual disability. It may seem surprising that few
reports are available on how to sensitively challenge stigmatizing beliefs
that families may hold about their family member’s intellectual disabil-
ity despite the often detrimental effect of such beliefs on the individual
concerned. We suggest that future research examine the effects of family-
based approaches on all family members’ ability to resist stigma.
Interpersonal-Level Interventions
Interpersonal-level interventions (beyond the familial level) target social
interactions between stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals (Cook
et al. 2014). Two broad types of interventions have been employed at the
interpersonal level: education and contact. Educational approaches are
those that challenge inaccurate stereotypes by providing factual information
(Seewooruttun and Scior 2014). Many disability organizations and NGOs
in the intellectual disability field, either at national level (such as Mencap in
the UK, AKIM and Keren Shalem in Israel, Community Living Association
in Canada, or Lebenshilfe in Germany and Austria to name but a few) or at
international level (Inclusion International and Special Olympics in particu-
lar), have provided education and messages designed to promote inclusion
and more positive attitudes to children and adults in the general population
via their programs, websites, leaflets, and social media. However, it is ques-
tionable to what extent their efforts reach audiences not already positively
inclined toward people with intellectual disabilities. Further, the impact
of these initiatives on attitude change has rarely been empirically studied,
Special Olympics programs being an exception (Siperstein et al. 2003).
Educational interventions which have been more frequently evaluated

have focused on students and convenience samples. They have attempted
to challenge misconceptions and increase knowledge and awareness
in order to improve attitudes through Internet-delivered brief films
(Seewooruttun and Scior 2014), university-based lecture programs
(Campbell et al. 2003), educational vignettes (MacDonald and MacIntyre
1999), and knowledge provision (Rae et al. 2011). For example, reading
an educational vignette that emphasized skills, daily activities, and inter-
ests of an individual with an intellectual disability resulted in improved
attitudes among university students (MacDonald and MacIntyre 1999).
Educational approaches have been frequently utilized among teach-
ers, health and social service staff, and those training to enter relevant
professions. For example, attempts have been reported to increase trainee
teachers’ understanding of intellectual disability, through a half-day
training event (Rae et al. 2011). Elsewhere, a mix of formal teaching and
experiential learning was provided through a semester-long course which
improved teachers’ knowledge of Down syndrome and their attitudes
to teaching children with intellectual disabilities within inclusive envi-
ronments (Campbell et al. 2003). As another example, a recent Scottish
study examined student teachers’ attitudes to inclusion at the begin-
ning and end of a one-year diploma course which emphasized inclusion.
Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward the principles of inclusive educa-
tion remained positive throughout the course and were largely undimin-
ished by school experience. The researchers concluded that the teaching
program helped sustain pro-inclusion attitudes despite students possibly
being prone to conflicting messages within school settings in which they
worked (Beacham and Rouse 2012).
A rather different approach to most other educational interventions
was taken in a recent study that investigated the impact of human rights
awareness training on support staff within an intellectual disability ser-
vice (Redman et al. 2012). The training, not surprisingly, increased
knowledge of human rights. However, it did not affect attitudes toward
human rights or views on the relevance of human rights to support staff
members’ everyday work with individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Focusing on a different target group, attempts have been made to edu-
cate police officers about the needs of people with intellectual disabilities
and improve their attitudes toward them. Such attempts employed an

awareness-raising training event in which participants took part in role-
play exercises as well as a debriefing knowledge provision explanation.
Results showed a reduction in eugenic-based attitudes toward people
with intellectual disabilities following training (Bailey et al. 2001).
While educational approaches have been found to be useful in increas-
ing knowledge (Seewooruttun and Scior 2014), their impact on stigma
change is frequently short-lived and of limited magnitude (Corrigan
et al. 2012). Thus, researchers have advocated for interpersonal contact
with members of stigmatized groups as the most effective stigma reduc-
tion strategy. In the mental health field, contact provided either in person
(in vivo) or indirectly (e.g., through films) has been shown to result in
positive shifts in attitudes and behavioral intentions, with more signifi-
cant change following in vivo contact (Corrigan et al. 2012).
Some studies employed direct contact with people with intellectual dis-
abilities as part of student training programs. For example, the impact of
volunteering at sporting events, especially via the Special Olympics, on
volunteers’ attitudes was examined (Freudenthal et al. 2010). Elsewhere,
interpersonal contact was provided by getting college students to house and
entertain individuals with intellectual disabilities and their support staff over
a 2.5-day period (Nosse and Gavin 1991). These contact-based interventions
mostly showed positive effects on attitudes, because the target volunteers
could be seen as ‘preaching to the converted’ (Seewooruttun and Scior 2014).
Recently, a study in Israel has examined stigmatic attitudes of soldiers
without intellectual disabilities toward soldiers with intellectual disabili-
ties. Unlike the above studies, as military service in Israel is mandatory,
inclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities into this setting
brings about contact with young adults from various population groups
and not solely volunteers. Findings from this study have shown that
soldiers without intellectual disabilities who serve in units that are inclu-
sive of soldiers with intellectual disabilities hold more positive attitudes
toward individuals with intellectual disabilities than soldiers who lack
such contact (Werner 2015).
In responding to concerns about inadequate healthcare delivered
to people with intellectual disabilities, attempts have been made to
increase knowledge of intellectual disability, increase skills in providing
healthcare, and tackle negative attitudes among medical students. A posi-

tive effect was found for interventions that integrated didactic learning,
discussions, disability awareness tasks, and workshop exercises facilitated
by a tutor with intellectual disabilities (Tracy and Iacono 2008). In a
different study, medical students had a two-hour meeting with the fami-
lies of children with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, during
which they interviewed the parents about their experiences of parenting
the respective child. The students subsequently wrote an account of the
visit and their insights and showed increased understanding and empathy
with these parents (Sharma et al. 2008).
An additional target group of contact-based interventions has been on
neighbors. A study of neighbors’ views of residential facilities for people
with intellectual disabilities found that visiting the facility did not have
a positive effect on attitudes across all participants, but only for some
neighbors. Positive effects were observed, for example, on neighbors who
had young children and visited the facility, perhaps because the visit alle-
viated fears they may have had for the welfare of their children (Schwartz
and Rabinovitz 2001).
Given that in many instances it may be difficult to provide direct con-
tact and control the quality of that contact, some attempts have been
made to use indirect contact to improve attitudes. Such studies have
simulated contact through the use of photographs and films delivered
in a classroom or experimental site (Hall and Minnes 1999; Iacono et al.
2011), or via the Internet (Walker and Scior 2013).
For example, researchers compared the effects of showing a drama
versus a documentary television program on college students’ attitudes
to people with Down syndrome. Greater comfort and more willingness
to volunteer were associated with watching the documentary (Hall and
Minnes 1999). More recently, the effect of brief film intervention within
undergraduate healthcare education was examined (Iacono et al. 2011).
In line with the social model of disability, the film highlighted the inter-
ests, activities, and relationships of the individual featured, as well as
their health and social needs and everyday life, rather than focusing on
their disability. Results of this study were mixed; quantitative evaluation
did not show changes in level of comfort while qualitative data revealed
increased awareness, insight, and knowledge.
Some studies have suggested that instead of providing each separately,

it is most useful to combine contact-based approaches with educa-
tion. The potential of combining between these can be seen in a recent
UK-based pilot trial in which a convenience sample of adults were ran-
domly exposed to one of two film-based interventions delivered via the
Internet (Walker and Scior 2013). Both films featured people with intel-
lectual disabilities, support workers, and professionals providing infor-
mation on how intellectual disability is defined and noting inequalities
faced by this population. One film stressed similarities between people
with and without intellectual disabilities and showed both engaged as
equal members of a band. The other film showed a man with an intel-
lectual disability talk about his experiences of targeted violence and hos-
tility while out alone in public. Both interventions resulted in positive,
although modest, changes in inclusion attitudes and stigma, which were
maintained after one month. The second film resulted in greater change,
perhaps because it evoked stronger emotional responses.
With the growing awareness to disability hate crime, in many places
police officers are receiving training related to the reporting of and
responding to instances of possible disability hate crimes perpetrated
against people with intellectual disabilities. One study evaluated the
effects on police officers of a 45-minute didactic awareness training ses-
sion, including indirect contact via video. Officers’ self-rated knowledge
and confidence in interacting with someone with an intellectual disabil-
ity increased, but there was no change in their attitudes to people with
intellectual disabilities (Raczka et al. 2014).
An additional type of interpersonal interventions are mass media cam-
paigns which employ a means of communication intended to reach large
audiences and are not reliant on person-to-person contact (Clement et al.
2013). Few such efforts have been made to change attitudes toward peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities. One exception is a study by Russell and
Ayer (1988), which attempted to influence attitudes toward people with
intellectual disabilities among managers and bosses in industry through
repeated information-based mail-outs.
In contrast to the lack of mass media campaigns within the intel-
lectual disability stigma field, large mass media campaigns have been
employed in other fields, such as Beyond Blue in Australia which aimed
to raise awareness of depression and tackle stigma or the broader mental

health anti-stigma campaigns Time to Change in England and See Me
in Scotland. In the disability field, the recent UK campaign End the
Awkward aimed to tackle discomfort rooted in lack of familiarity with
people with physical and sensory disabilities and avoidance of talking to
them. Such mass media campaigns have been found to result in small to
medium reductions in stigma. Furthermore, those that included two or
more of the following components tended to reduce stigma more than
those with only one component: (1) Internet-based, such as interactive
computer education programs, web-delivered newspaper articles, and
email educational adverts; (2) audiovisual and audio recordings; and (3)
print material, including magazine articles, brochures, written texts, and
photographs (Clement et al. 2013).
The above-cited studies have been conducted with adult popula-
tions. However, fostering positive attitudes should start early with
children and adolescents within the education system. Few would
question that placing children with intellectual disabilities alongside
their peers without disabilities within inclusive schools is important
in principle and may also affect negative attitudes and discrimination.
A recent study from Greece suggests that children in inclusive schools
show more positive attitudes toward peers with intellectual disabili-
ties than children in non-inclusive schools (Georgiadi et al. 2012).
However, reports of bullying and feeling excluded within inclusive
environments (Emerson 2015; Mencap 2007) indicate that physical
inclusion alone is not enough and that more should be done to com-
bat negative attitudes and behaviors and actively promote social inter-
actions. Accordingly, children and young people in inclusive schools
may receive interventions aimed at raising disability awareness and
reducing bullying, including work targeting bullying of peers with dis-
abilities, such as a current large program funded by the Department
for Education in the UK (Anti-Bullying Alliance n.d.). However, one
argument against such efforts, common among teachers, is that active
interventions draw attention to the disability and enhance notions of
difference (Beckett et al. 2009). Further, few efforts address negative
attitudes to peers with intellectual disabilities specifically or tackle
reluctance to engage closely with them.
Of note, more interventions have been reported in the literature that

aim to educate or tackle negative attitudes toward peers with autism. One
such example involved a six- to eight-session anti-stigma program that
combined education with both direct and video contact with individu-
als with high functioning autism. The intervention was shown to have a
positive effect on the knowledge and attitudes of adolescents but had no
effect on their behavioral intentions toward peers with autism (Ranson
and Byrne 2014; Staniland and Byrne 2013). In addition, a recent review
of 42 disability awareness interventions that have targeted school-aged
children concluded that multimedia and multicomponent approaches
involving a range of activities are most likely to be effective in improving
children and young people’s attitudes and peer acceptance (Lindsay and
Edwards 2013).
In summary, attempts to tackle intellectual disability stigma at the
interpersonal level have focused on the general public, people more likely
to have formal contact with the target population such as health and
social care providers (or those in training), police and law enforcement
personnel, and individuals who are likely to have informal contact with
the target population such as neighbors, children, and young people in
inclusive schools. Very few studies have focused on employers, which is
of concern given the very low proportion of people with intellectual dis-
abilities who are in some form of employment. This may reflect an insti-
tutionalized perception that people with intellectual disabilities really
cannot work.
Structural-Level Interventions
Interventions at the structural level focus on social forces and institutions,
through legislative action, mass media, governmental or organizational
policies which aim to reach a large audience (Cook et al. 2014), and ser-
vice delivery. Legislation such as the USA’s Americans with Disabilities
Act (1990), Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Israel’s
Disability Equality Act (1998), or the UK Equality Act (2010), to name
just a few of many available acts, place a duty on public sector bodies to
ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to public services to ensure
that all sections of society, including people with disabilities, can access
them.
Universal support for these rights, at least in principle, is reflected
in the 161 nations (as of February 2016), which have ratified the 2006
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN General
Assembly 2007). The convention calls for the prevention of discrimina-
tion through increased awareness raising efforts to combat stereotypes and
prejudice toward individuals with disabilities (Article 8). Other examples
of legislation and policy aimed at decreasing discrimination toward indi-
viduals with intellectual disabilities can be seen in the widespread adop-
tion of inclusive education as well as the naming of ‘disability’ as one of
the categories motivating hate crime under legislation such as the UK’s
Criminal Justice Act (2003) and the USA’s Matthew Shepard and James
Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009).
The impact of legislation and policy by their very nature are very dif-
ficult to evaluate as their effects do not occur in isolation. Thus, not sur-
prisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence on what
impact such structural-level interventions have had in reducing intellec-
tual disability stigma.
Limitations of Research on Stigma Change

Interventions
Numerous interventions from different parts of the world have been
reported that aim to change stigma directed at people with (intellec-
tual) disabilities, including disability awareness and disability equality
training, and a host of mostly small-scale, isolated, contact-based inter-
ventions. Unfortunately, the utility of most of these interventions has
not been evaluated in research, and many interventions that have been
tested, despite showing promising results, have not resulted in wider
implementation.
In addition, studies that have been conducted have methodological
and conceptual limitations. Methodologically, existing studies have relied
on small samples of mainly students and volunteers. Many studies were
retrospective in nature rather than employing a before and after design.

Finally, most studies have failed to test the impact of attitude change
interventions on actual behavior. Furthermore, many interventions have
not been based in a coherent fashion on theories of attitude and attitude
change, despite these being abundant in the field of social psychology.
Without clear theoretical underpinnings that guide intervention design,
that is, a statement of how attitude change is expected to happen, any
changes observed are vulnerable to unconvincing, post hoc explanations.
Conclusions and Recommendations for Action

The overview presented here suggests that there is a need to do more to
tackle attitudinal barriers within society at large and among groups that
are more likely to have contact with people with intellectual disabilities.
The available evidence on interventions designed to improve attitudes
and reduce discrimination in relation to people with intellectual disabili-
ties is not sufficiently robust to recommend one type of intervention over
another at the present time.
Given the rather piecemeal nature of interventions and research
reported to date, several recommendations for research can be made. We
suggest that a greater emphasis on collaboration between those deliver-
ing interventions and researchers is needed to develop a strong evidence
base, as well as collaboration with individuals with intellectual disabili-
ties themselves. Where such collaboration involves multinational efforts,
close attention should be paid to exploring universal change processes
alongside the influence of local and national circumstances, demands,
and resources, as evident in a recent study by McKenzie et al. (2013).
With regard to general population attitudes to intellectual disability,
more research is needed to decipher which specific components of inter-
ventions are effective drivers for change, which make best use of lim-
ited resources and which are most capable of reaching large audiences,
while being effective. To achieve this understanding, interventions and
awareness projects should have carefully designed evaluation built in
from the outset. Further, the effects of direct and indirect contact both
through face-to-face and e-learning should be tested to advance our
understanding of the conditions under which contact with individuals

or groups of people with intellectual disabilities leads to positive attitude
change. More research is also called for on the effects of interventions on
real-life behaviors.
In addition, more interventions are needed that focus on the stigma
experienced by parents and family members of persons with intellectual
disabilities, an area that, as noted, has found limited attention to date
(Ali et al. 2012). Research should also advance our understanding of
the impact of intellectual disability stigma on its targets and examine
interventions designed to reduce the impact of internalized stigma. These
issues are discussed in depth in Chap. 7 of this book.
Several recommendations can be made in terms of priorities for inter-
ventions. In view of apparent widespread confusion about what an intel-
lectual disability is, and misconceptions about the capabilities of people
with intellectual disabilities, attempts to educate the general public
should be part of efforts to counter prejudice and discrimination. The
media clearly have a role to play in providing more positive portrayals
that refrain from depicting people with intellectual disabilities as inca-
pable, childlike, or pitiable victims. Also, as the media are frequently
a big cause of stigma, there is a need to establish reporting criteria for
how to refer to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Nevertheless, it
is important to acknowledge that it is unclear by how much we need
to increase people’s understanding about intellectual disability and what
type of understanding of intellectual disability would generate more posi-
tive attitudes. Furthermore, efforts to educate the public should draw on
a range of terms in use nationally and internationally and should not rely
on any one specific label, such as ‘intellectual disability’, not least as labels
are changeable.
Lack of direct contact with or exposure to people with intellectual dis-
abilities may leave many feeling uncomfortable and unsure how to inter-
act with someone with an intellectual disability. To counter the risk that
such discomfort prompts avoidance, more exposure to people with intel-
lectual disabilities is called for. Research fairly consistently points to the
role of contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities as one of the
most promising routes to improving attitudes. While direct personal con-
tact has been found to be most useful, recent evidence (Walker and Scior
2013) suggests that indirect contact (e.g., through films featuring persons
with intellectual disabilities) may also be beneficial and their integration
into more wide-ranging efforts to change attitudes should be considered.
With regard to the need to challenge stereotypes, evidence from other
fields suggests that exposing people to individuals who moderately or
strongly disconfirm common stereotypes, and who vary in terms of their
backgrounds, life roles, and the challenges they face (Clement et al.
2012), is likely to be most effective. These suggestions should be tested
in relation to intellectual disability stigma. There is clear scope for expo-
sure to individuals who challenge common stereotypes of people with
intellectual disabilities as childlike, dependent, and in need of protection.
This will need balancing, carefully though, without denying the needs of
people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities who may be at
risk of being further marginalized.
Contact-based interventions need to be carefully planned to minimize
the risk of unintended, adverse consequences. For example, negative con-
tact experiences, especially in childhood, may in fact increase social dis-
tance (Tachibana 2005), while a moderate amount of contact, as opposed
to no or ample contact, appears to have the strongest association with more
positive attitudes and willingness to interact (Freudenthal et al. 2010).
For the general public, contact is most likely to be facilitated by the
media. Efforts to educate and challenge the formation of prejudice
directed at individuals with intellectual disabilities should start at an early
age. For children and young people, contact can be provided through
inclusive activities and inclusive education. For those more likely to be in
regular contact with people with intellectual disabilities, contact should
be provided as part of training and continuing professional development.
In addition, fighting for the right of people with intellectual disabili-
ties to have increased access to community resources must be an inte-
gral part of efforts to change attitudes. Equal participation in education,
employment, and social and leisure pursuits not only respects the rights
of people with intellectual disabilities but also gives the general public
increased opportunities for, and benefit from, direct contact.
Finally, involving people with intellectual disabilities in delivering atti-
tude change interventions is important, as first person narratives have
been found to have greater impact than narratives by family members or
carers (Walker and Scior 2013). Although the utility of such interventions
needs to be explored further, reliance on first person narratives rightly
privileges the experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Key Learning Points

• More needs to be done to tackle attitudinal barriers among children
and adults in the general population and among groups that are more
likely to have contact with people with intellectual disabilities.
• Collaboration is needed between those implementing interventions
and researchers, and between research teams, in order to develop a
strong evidence base.
• To counter discomfort in interacting with people with intellectual dis-
abilities resulting from lack of contact, more exposure to and contact
with individuals with intellectual disabilities is of high importance.
• Contact-based interventions, along with knowledge and education
provision, are recommended for stigma reduction. However, these
must be carefully planned and evaluated in order to minimize risk of
unintended, adverse consequences.
• Involving people with intellectual disabilities in delivering attitude
change interventions is likely to lead to more positive outcomes while
also respecting their right to voice their own concerns and relate their
experiences first hand.
Accessible Summary
• More should be done to fight negative attitudes toward individuals
• Research is needed so we learn how to fight negative attitudes.
• People without intellectual disabilities should meet more frequently
with people with intellectual disabilities.
• People should also learn more about intellectual disability.
• People with intellectual disabilities should tell their life stories to help
change negative attitudes.
References
Ali, A., Hassiotis, A., Strydom, A., & King, M. (2012). Self-stigma in people
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.06.013.
Anti-Bullying Alliance SEN and Disability. n.d. Developing effective anti-bullying
practice. Retrieved from http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/send-
programme
Bailey, A., Barr, O., & Bunting, B. (2001). Police attitudes toward people with
intellectual disability: An evaluation of awareness training. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 45, 344–350. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00339.
Beacham, N., & Rouse, M. (2012). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about
inclusion and inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 12, 3–11. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01194.
Beckett, A. E., Buckner, L., Barrett, S., Ellison, N., & Byrne, D. (2009).
Promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people—The views of schools and
teachers. DEEPS Project Working Paper 2. University of Leeds, UK: School
of Sociology & Social Policy.
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., & Beck, A. T. (2006). The empir-
ical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical
Psychology Review, 26, 17–31. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003.
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’
attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 28, 369–379. doi:10.1080/136682503100016164
07.
Clement, S., Lassman, F., Barley, E., Evans-Lacko, S., Williams, P., Yamaguchi,
S., et al. (2013). Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related
stigma (Review). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7.
doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009453
Clement, S., van Nieuwenhuizen, A., Kassam, A., Flach, C., Lazarus, A., de
Castro, M., et al. (2012). Filmed versus live social contact interventions to
reduce stigma: Randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201,
57–64. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.093120.
Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Meyer, I. H., & Busch, J. T. (2014). Intervening
within and across levels: A multilevel approach to stigma and public health. Social
Science and Medicine, 103, 101–109. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.023.
Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., Rafacz, J. D., & Rüsch, N. (2012).
Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: A meta-analysis of outcome
studies. Psychiatric Services, 63, 963–973. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201100529.
Emerson, E. (2015). The determinants of health inequities experienced by children
with learning disabilities. Durham, UK: Public Health England.
Freudenthal, J. J., Boyd, L. D., & Tivis, R. (2010). Assessing change in health
professions volunteers’ perceptions after participating in Special Olympics
healthy athlete events. Journal of Dental Education, 74, 970–979.
Georgiadi, M., Kalyva, E., Kourkoutas, E., & Tsakiris, V. (2012). Young chil-
dren’s attitudes toward peers with intellectual disabilities: Effect of the type of
school. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25, 531–541.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2012.00699.
Hall, H., & Minnes, P. (1999). Attitudes towards persons with Down’s syn-
drome: The impact of television. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 11, 61–76. doi:10.1023/A:1021812702337.
Iacono, T., Lewis, B., Tracy, J., Hicks, S., Morgan, P., Recoche, K., et al. (2011).
DVD-based stories of people with developmental disabilities as resources for
inter-professional education. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 1010–1021.
doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.520802.
Lindsay, S., & Edwards, A. (2013). A systematic review of disability awareness
interventions for children and youth. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35,
623–646. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.702850.
MacDonald, J. D., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). A rose is a rose: Effects of label
change, education and sex on attitudes towards mental disabilities. Journal of
Developmental Disabilities, 6, 15–31.
McKenzie, J. A., McConkey, R., & Adnams, C. (2013). Intellectual disability in
Africa: Implications for research and service development. Disability and
Mencap (2007). Bullying wrecks lives: The experiences of children and young people
with a learning disability. London, UK: Mencap Publications.
Nosse, L. J., & Gavin, K. J. (1991). Influence of direct contact on college stu-
dents’ attitude towards adults with mental handicaps. College Student Journal,
25, 201–206.
Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Burge, P., Brown, H. K., & Arsenault, E. (2010). Public
attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the
concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,
23, 132–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.
Raczka, R., Theodore, K., & Williams, J. (2014). Can brief training have an
impact on police attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities?
Presentation for the British Psychological Society. Retrieved from https://

www.bps.org.uk/system/files/user-files/Faculty%20for%20Learning%20
Disabilities%20CPD%20event/paper_can_brief_awareness_training_
impact_on_police_attitudes_towards_people_with_intellectual_disabilities.
pdf
Rae, H., McKenzie, K., & Murray, G. (2011). The impact of training on teacher
knowledge about children with an intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual
Disabilities, 15, 21–30. doi:10.1177/1744629511401168.
Ranson, N. J., & Byrne, M. K. (2014). Promoting peer acceptance of females
with higher-functioning autism in a mainstream education setting: A replica-
tion and extension of the effects of an autism anti-stigma program. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2778–2796. doi:10.1007/
s10803-014-2139-1.
Redman, M., Taylor, E., Furlong, R., Carney, G., & Greenhill, B. (2012).
Human rights training: Impact on attitudes and knowledge. Tizard Intellectual
Disability Review, 17, 80–87. doi:10.1108/13595471211218811.
Rüsch, N., Abbruzzese, E., Hagedorn, E., Hartenhauer, D., Kaufmann, I.,
Curschellas, J., et al. (2014). Efficacy of Coming Out Proud to reduce stig-
ma’s impact among people with mental illness: Pilot randomised controlled
trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 204, 391–397. doi:10.1192/bjp.
bp.113.135772.
Russell, T., & Ayer, F. E. (1988). The effects of a direct-mail informational cam-
paign on attitudes of industrial managers toward the mentally retarded popu-
lation. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32, 183–191.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1988.tb01404.
Schwartz, C., & Rabinovitz, S. (2001). Residential facilities in the community for
people with intellectual disabilities: How neighbours’ perceptions are affected
by the interaction of facility and neighbour variables. Journal of Applied Research
in Intellectual Disabilities, 14, 100–109. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2001.00060.
Scior, K., & Lynggaard, H. (2006). New stories of intellectual disabilities: A
narrative approach. In S. Baum & H. Lynggaard (Eds.), Intellectual disabili-
ties: A systemic approach (pp. 100–119). London, UK: Karnac.
Seewooruttun, L., & Scior, K. (2014). Interventions aimed at increasing knowl-
edge and improving attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities
among lay people. Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 35, 3482–3495.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.028.
study of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. Washington,
DC: Special Olympics.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service
teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments
about persons with disabilities. Disability and Society, 23, 773–785.
doi:10.1080/09687590802469271.
Staniland, J. J., & Byrne, M. K. (2013). The effects of a multi-component
higher-functioning autism anti-stigma program on adolescent boys. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2816–2829. doi:10.1007/
s10803-013-1829-4.
Szivos, S. E., & Griffiths, E. (1990). Group processes involved in coming to
terms with a mentally retarded identity. Mental Retardation, 6, 333–341.
Tachibana, T. (2005). Attitudes of Japanese adults toward persons with intel-
lectual disability: An exploratory analysis of respondents’ experiences and
opinions. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 352–359.
Tracy, J., & Iacono, T. (2008). People with developmental disabilities teaching
medical students: Does it make a difference? Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 33, 345–348. doi:10.1080/13668250802478633.
UN General Assembly (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabili-
ties: Resolution. Adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007.
Walker, J., & Scior, K. (2013). Tackling stigma associated with intellectual dis-
ability among the general public: A study of two indirect contact interven-
tions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 2200–2210. doi:10.1016/j.
ridd.2013.03.024.
Werner, S. (2015). Equal in uniform: Its impact on attitudes of soldiers without
disabilities towards soldiers with intellectual disabilities. Beit Issie Shapiro’s 6th
International Conference on Disabilities: Unity and Diversity in Action. Tel-
Aviv, Israel.
10
Relationships Matter: Addressing
Stigma Among Children and Youth
with Intellectual Disabilities
and Their Peers
Erik W. Carter, Elizabeth E. Biggs, and Carly L. Blustein
Conversations about effective schooling often pivot around provid-

ing students with access to strong instruction and learning experiences
marked by their rigor and relevance. But if one were to ask most students
to reflect on their own school experiences, one would be quite likely to
hear first about the ways in which their relationships mark their memories
and shape their sense of self. Attention to relationships right alongside
rigor and relevance is central to strong schooling for all students, but par-
ticularly for children and youth with intellectual disabilities. Supportive
and satisfying relationships can enhance their engagement in school,
contribute to a sense of belonging, and create rich contexts for learning
within and beyond the classroom. The absence of such relationships,
however, can lead to loneliness, isolation, marginalization, and stigma
(Kersh et al. 2013).
E.W. Carter ( ) • E.E. Biggs • C.L. Blustein

Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_10
150 E.W. Carter et al.
This chapter focuses centrally on the contributions of peer relation-

ships to reducing stigma during elementary through secondary school.
Numerous studies affirm the strong influence peer relationships can have
on the lives and learning of any student, as well as their special salience for
students with intellectual disabilities (Carter et al. 2014; Kersh et al. 2013).
In many schools, hundreds of students navigate the same classes, hallways,
cafeterias, and extracurricular activities each day as their schoolmates with
intellectual disabilities. Whether and how the lives of these students inter-
sect with one another throughout the week can either contribute to or
counter stigma. In this chapter, we review various indicators of stigma in
schools, address elements comprising successful efforts to promote rela-
tionships and reduce stigma, review promising school-based intervention
approaches, and offer recommendations for future research in this area.
Indicators of Stigma in Schools

The social experiences and stigma of school-age children and youth with
intellectual disabilities can vary widely within and across schools, com-
munities, and countries. Some students report being warmly welcomed
within the classrooms, clubs, and cafeterias of their school; others attend
school each day feeling wounded or invisible. Available studies suggest
that peers without disabilities hold a broad range of attitudes toward
their schoolmates with intellectual disabilities—from negative to positive
and all points in between. For example, Siperstein et al. (2007) found
that middle school students in the USA held varied views regarding the
capabilities of their schoolmates with intellectual disabilities, the types of
activities they would be willing to do with them, and the benefits they
attributed to inclusion. Studies conducted in other countries reveal simi-
larly heterogeneous portraits (Scior 2011; Siperstein et al. 2011). Peers
also can hold inaccurate knowledge about the origins and outcomes of
having an intellectual disability, which in turn contribute to negative
stereotypes and actions (Carter et al. 2001). Studies have highlighted
the ways in which students with intellectual disabilities are frequently
avoided, ostracized, teased, or bullied (e.g., Christensen et al. 2012).
10 Relationships Matter 151
Such collective encounters may lead some students with intellectual dis-
abilities to adopt a type of ‘self-stigma’, in which reluctance to participate
in school activities is driven by a belief that one’s own social identity is
devalued (Ditchman et al. 2013).
These various forms of stigma contribute in part to the paucity of peer
relationships and friendships in the lives of many students with intellec-
tual disabilities. According to a large-scale study involving parents of chil-
dren with intellectual disabilities (ages 6–13) in the USA, 17 % of parents
reported their child with an intellectual disability never visited friends during
the previous year and 50 % reported their children never or rarely received
telephone calls from friends (Wagner et al. 2003). The scarcity of social
relationships becomes even more apparent when focusing on high school
students with intellectual disabilities: according to their parents, only 22 %
frequently saw any friends outside of school, 42 % never or rarely received
telephone calls from friends, and only 54 % got together with friends out-
side of school and took part in organized activities at least once each week.
Important Intervention Elements

Creating opportunities for students with and without intellectual dis-
abilities to meet, learn alongside, and get to know one another may be
among the most promising pathways for fostering relationships and
reducing stigma within schools. The published literature provides ample
evidence that increased awareness, knowledge, interactions, and friend-
ships can be addressed through well-designed, school-based interventions
(see reviews by Carter et al. 2010; Lindsay and Edwards 2013). In this
section, we cull from this literature five core elements that may substan-
tially increase the likelihood that students with and without intellectual
disabilities will develop positive relationships with one another within
the school environment. Each element may represent a key consideration
in the design and delivery of school-based interventions.
Shared experiences. One primary barrier to peer relationships is the
limited extent to which students with and without intellectual disabilities
are present in the same places at the same times and engaged in the same
activities. The absence of students with intellectual disabilities from
regular classes, extracurricular activities, and other school events severely

restricts or altogether precludes students with and without intellectual
disabilities from ever encountering one another. Given the influential
role of personal contact in shaping attitudes, ensuring students with
intellectual disabilities have the opportunities, encouragement, and sup-
port to be part of the breadth of social and learning opportunities taking
place in schools can reduce stigma and provide the foundation for most
other intervention efforts. Moreover, such shared experiences must be
sustained—rather than episodic and time-limited—to best position stu-
dents to develop new relationships.
Common connections. Shared interests, backgrounds, and experi-
ences can provide the catalyst for new friendships. Connecting students
on the basis of these commonalities may create opportunities for new
friendships within shared experiences. This could involve inviting peers
who have hobbies, sports, or music interests in common with the focus
student; planning activities that incorporate the student’s interests; or
helping students develop age-appropriate interests and activities (Koegel
et al. 2013). When students discover such connections, lasting relation-
ships may be more likely to maintain when formal expectations to spend
time together end.
Valued roles. The roles students are assigned within shared activities
also matters. When the students with intellectual disabilities are always
the recipients of support—or have minimal involvement in inclusive
activities—they may be viewed only in terms of their differences and
deficits. Giving all students valued roles in activities may enable peers to
see them in light of their talents, strengths, and contributions. Having a
leadership role, volunteering within a service project, or being assigned
interdependent roles within a group activity all reflect high-status roles.
Relevant information. What peers know and think about disability
may affect their receptivity toward developing friendships with students
with intellectual disabilities. Reluctance to spend time with these students
can stem from limited knowledge, uncertainty about how to interact, or
questions about someone’s capabilities. Providing relevant information and
training may help peers feel more confident in their interactions. Targeted
curricula, media, personal contact, and/or simulations have all been part of
efforts to promote awareness (Lindsay and Edwards 2013). However, such
training may have more of an impact within individualized interventions

when it focuses on individualized information about a particular student
and the expectations of a particular activity (Carter et al. 2015a).
Balanced support. The presence and support of paraprofessionals,
special educators, and other professionals can help—or inadvertently
hinder—positive peer relationships among students. The persistent pres-
ence of adults can be particularly problematic in adolescence, limiting
peer interactions and leading to greater stigmatization. At the same time,
the facilitative role of staff can be instrumental in creating connections
among students and supporting inclusive involvement. Finding just the
right balance between providing sufficient adult support to promote par-
ticipation—but not too much to hinder new relationships—is critical to
consider within any intervention effort.
Promising Intervention Approaches

Although few school-based interventions have been framed as reducing
stigma directed at children and youth with intellectual disabilities, hun-
dreds of studies have addressed avenues for improving the interactions,
relationships, attitudes, and knowledge of students with and without dis-
abilities. Our selective review focuses on intervention approaches with
particular promise for creating contexts in which relationships might
flourish and stigma might fade. We highlight six categories of interven-
tion approaches that have been implemented individually or in combina-
tion with one another.
Inclusive educational experiences. Involvement in inclusive class-
room and school activities maximizes opportunities for students with
and without intellectual disabilities to spend time together in shared
experiences throughout the school day. Numerous comparative studies
have documented social advantages associated with involvement in typi-
cal versus specialized school settings for students with intellectual disabili-
ties (see reviews by Jackson et al. 2008; Ryndak et al. 2013). Most of this
research has focused on students in elementary and middle school settings.
However, the specific sources of these social advantages are multifaceted
and complicated to pinpoint. Enrollment alone (i.e., physical presence)
may be necessary, but insufficient, for promoting social connections and

improving attitudes. Indeed, students can be further stigmatized when
insufficient or inappropriate supports are provided in inclusive settings.
Instead, the available literature suggests how the participation of students
with intellectual disabilities is supported is as essential to consider as where
these students spend their school day (Feldman et al. 2015). Inclusive
education is a powerful intervention only when accompanied by well-
planned efforts to equip, connect, and support students with and without
Awareness and informational interventions. A number of disability-
related awareness and informational interventions have been evaluated
as avenues for improving knowledge about, attitudes toward, and accep-
tance of peers with disabilities (see reviews by Leigers and Myers 2015;
Lindsay and Edwards 2013). These interventions have varied widely in
their length (e.g., single session, year-long program), format (e.g., pre-
sentations, multimedia, activities, role-playing), setting (e.g., classroom,
school-wide), level (e.g., elementary, secondary), and scope (e.g., general
categorical information, individualized information about a student). The
outcomes associated with these interventions have been mixed and few
studies have focused narrowly on students with intellectual disabilities.
However, multicomponent interventions that combine informational
content with personal contact may be the most promising. Moreover, it is
important to consider what information is shared with peers so it reflects
what students would want to be shared, introduces them in a positive
light, and protects confidential information.
Social competence interventions. Many students with intellectual
disabilities have social, communication, and behavioral difficulties that
may make interactions with peers challenging to navigate. Effective
interventions for teaching communication strategies, strengthening
social skills, enhancing self-advocacy, and decreasing socially inappropri-
ate behaviors among students with intellectual disabilities across the age
span have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Carter et al. 2010;
Rispoli et al. 2010). Such skill-building interventions may enhance how
students with intellectual disabilities are viewed by others. Students with
such difficulties are equally deserving of respect, positive interactions,
and membership as students who do not experience such difficulties.
In advocating for social competence interventions we are not suggest-

ing that students themselves are at fault for the stigma they experience.
Instead, we assert that skills-focused interventions may serve an impor-
tant role in improving the quality and frequency of students’ interactions
by building their strengths and capabilities.
Peer interaction training. Peers may themselves benefit from
receiving instruction on specific social skills and strategies for convers-
ing with students who have complex communication needs. When
peers are uncertain of what to say or how to sustain a conversation,
they may be likely to avoid interactions altogether. Numerous studies
demonstrate that peers can learn to implement a variety of targeted
conversational skills that contribute to higher-quality interactions
with students with intellectual disabilities. Peers have been taught
strategies for sustaining conversations during group activities (Hughes
et al. 2011), for inviting students who appear socially isolated to par-
ticipate in play leisure activities (Kasari et al. 2011), and for interact-
ing socially with students with severe and multiple disabilities (Brady
et al. 1991). While the research in this area is promising, very few
studies have isolated the specific impact of peer training from larger
multicomponent interventions.
Adult facilitation. Equipping and encouraging paraprofessionals and
other school staff to actively facilitate social interactions and collabora-
tive learning among students with and without intellectual disabilities
also has research support across grade levels, both on its own and as a
component of other packaged interventions (Brock and Carter 2015;
Causton-Theoharis and Malmgren 2005). Educators might adapt activ-
ities to include a clear role for the student with disabilities, highlight
shared interests, provide interpretation of unconventional or unfamiliar
behaviors, redirect conversation away from adults and toward other class-
mates, or model ways for peers to initiate and maintain conversations.
Such active efforts call attention to and capitalize on interaction oppor-
tunities that might be inadvertently overlooked. Although less empiri-
cal attention has focused on the more subtle influences of adults, the
ways in which educational professionals talk about and to students with
intellectual disabilities often serves as the primary role model for pupils.
When adults model respectful interactions, use affirming language, and
communicate high expectations for students with intellectual disabilities,

other students may be more likely to engage in similar behaviors.
Peer-mediated interventions. Peer-mediated interventions cre-
ate individualized, supported opportunities for students with intellec-
tual disabilities to interact with and learn alongside their peers within
or beyond the classroom. They involve equipping one or more peers to
provide targeted social, behavioral, or academic assistance to students
with disabilities with guidance and support from teachers, paraprofes-
sionals, counselors, or other school staff (Carter et al. 2015b). These
interventions can be mutually beneficial. Short-term increases in social
interactions, skill acquisition, and engagement have been documented in
numerous studies (see reviews by Carter et al. 2010; Chung et al. 2012).
Moreover, peers often report substantial changes in their attitudes toward
and expectations of students with disabilities, speak about their enjoy-
ment and the friendships they formed, and report becoming stronger
advocates in their schools (Carter et al. 2015a; Hochman et al. 2015).
We provide an overview of four categories of peer-mediated interven-
tions, each of which incorporates some of the intervention approaches
previously described.
Peer support arrangements. Within peer support arrangements, one
to three classmates without disabilities are taught to provide ongoing social
and academic support to a student with intellectual disabilities within an
inclusive classroom (Carter et al. 2011, 2015a). Peers are selected from
the same classroom to maximize natural interaction opportunities. Peers
participate in an initial orientation and receive ongoing support from a
special educator or paraprofessional on how to work collaboratively with
their classmate during various instructional activities (e.g., small-group
activities, whole-group instruction, and independent seatwork). Peers
might initiate conversations, encourage the student to contribute to class
discussions, or make introductions to other peers in the class. Similarly,
they might promote academic participation by sharing materials, part-
nering together on assignments, or providing assistance. An educator or
paraprofessional provides facilitation to students as necessary to ensure
they are successful and confident in their work together. Within peer
support arrangements, peers without disabilities gain opportunities and
support to work alongside and interact with their classmate with intellec-
tual disabilities that may replace stigma with positive attitudes and expe-
riences. Additionally, supporting a student with intellectual disabilities to
become a more valued member of the classroom may promote an overall
climate in the class of acceptance, respect, and belonging. Empirical sup-
port for these interventions is most prominent among adolescents with
severe intellectual disabilities; less is known about their efficacy with stu-
dents in earlier grades or who have less extensive support needs.
Peer networks. Peer network interventions focus on increasing social
connections outside of the classroom, such as during lunch, in the play-
ground, in hallways, within extracurricular groups, or before and after
school. Peer networks involve three to six peers and the student with the
disability meeting both formally and informally as a social group (Carter
et al. 2013; Hochman et al. 2015; Koegel et al. 2013). The network meets
weekly or biweekly to participate in an enjoyable shared activity such as
playing a game, eating a meal, or completing a service project together.
School staff (a coach, teacher, or guidance counselor) facilitate the net-
work meetings to ensure all students actively participate. Outside of each
formal meeting, students plan other ways to connect with one another
between classes, such as eating lunch together or meeting for an activity
outside of school. As with peer support interventions, peer networks have
primarily been evaluated in secondary schools. Moreover, much of this
research has involved students with autism.
Peer tutoring. Peer tutoring interventions involve pairs or groups
of students working with one another to practice, review, and master
academic content. These instructional interventions have been widely
evaluated among students with mild intellectual disabilities. They can
involve peers of similar or different ages and can be established for a
single student or carried out on a whole class basis. Although peer tutor-
ing promotes both interactions and academic skill development, static
roles involving peers as ‘helpers’ and students with intellectual disabilities
as the recipients of assistance may inadvertently perpetuate deficit-based
views of students. Although there is an important place for this type of
academic support, promoting opportunities for students with and with-
out disabilities to provide reciprocal support may reduce stigma by high-
lighting the strengths of students with intellectual disabilities.
Peer partner programs. Peer partner programs are formal, group-

based initiatives to connect students with and without intellectual dis-
abilities during the school day. Although referred to by a variety of names
(e.g., peer buddy programs, peer mentoring programs, Best Buddies),
these programs similarly build into the school day regularly occurring
opportunities for students to spend time together while receiving guid-
ance and support from special educators or other school staff. Many
programs involve having peers spend time with students in special edu-
cation classrooms (reverse mainstreaming). However, they can also serve
as a platform for planning new inclusive activities at a school, carrying
out school-wide awareness efforts, or equipping peers to later provide
support in general education classrooms (Hughes and Carter 2008).
Although formal evaluations of these programs have been limited, avail-
able research suggests that they may draw in peers who already have
positive attitudes (Carter et al. 2001).
Implications for Research
The pervasiveness of segregated service delivery models highlights the need
for high-quality research to push policy and practice in new directions.
We highlight five areas of particular importance. First, little attention
has focused on the broader or longer-term impact of the interventions
described in this chapter, including the ways in which each might shape
the attitudes, expectations, career pathways, and future behaviors of peers
who had the opportunity to get to know fellow pupils with intellectual
disabilities while in school. The few studies that have explored the impact
of interventions that continued beyond a single school term suggest
that some newly formed friendships are maintained and that positive
attitudes may endure (Carter et al. 2015a; Kishi and Meyer 1994).
Recognizing that the peers of present are the civic, corporate, congrega-
tional, and community leaders of tomorrow, well-designed school-based
interventions hold potential to shape broader societal attitudes over time.
Longitudinal studies are needed to explore these possible pathways. The
spread of these interventions should also be considered more closely to
learn whether and how other students who are not directly involved in
these interventions may be affected by what they observe.
Second, much of the existing literature has emphasized student-level
interventions, with only modest attention dedicated to classroom-level
efforts. Scaling up these interventions to be delivered throughout an
entire school in intentional and coordinated ways is a continued need.
What might it take for schools to prioritize addressing stigma amidst
the numerous other priorities school leaders may view as competing or
more pressing? How might schools shift from a reactive to a proactive
posture, in which these interventions are viewed to be an important
investment in creating a safe and inclusive school? Such questions need
strong answers.
Third, the intersection of policy and practice warrants much closer
consideration. Policies addressing educational placement, school staffing
patterns, discipline, and service delivery all have implications for how
students with intellectual disabilities are received and perceived in their
schools. While much attention has focused on how these policies affect
the academic and behavioral outcomes of students, how they shape atti-
tudes and stigma should be explored more fully.
Fourth, the limited extent to which the voices of students have per-
meated this literature is striking. Relatively few studies have focused on
how students with disabilities view the issue of stigma and the recom-
mendations they have for the design and delivery of school-based inter-
ventions. Likewise, the perspectives of participating peers have not been
prominent. The input and ‘buy-in’ of participating students with and
without intellectual disabilities are especially important to understand
when designing interventions aimed at addressing stigma.
Fifth, much of the research described in this chapter has taken place
in Western contexts. Because countries and cultures differ in their
priorities, policies, resources, and prevailing attitudes, additional invest-
ment is needed to replicate and extend available research across diverse
educational and community contexts. The biggest obstacles to ensuring
students with intellectual disabilities are seen as valued members of
schools and communities—as well as the most effective efforts to elimi-
nating these barriers—may be different across various contexts. Moreover,
international conversations about these issues can identify important cul-

tural influences and promote opportunities to learn from other contexts.
Summary
Although substantial changes in the participation and perceptions of
young people with intellectual disabilities have taken place over the past
three decades, far too many students remain on the periphery of every-
day school life and are the focus of considerable stigma. In this chapter,
we highlighted important elements and research-based interventions that
put students in the best position to learn alongside and develop positive
relationships with their peers without disabilities in inclusive school expe-
riences. The importance of this investment to the long-term outcomes of
young people with intellectual disabilities is hard to overestimate.
Key Learning Points

• The prominence of peers in the lives of children and youth makes
them an essential entry point for intervention efforts aimed at reduc-
ing stigma.
• Although peers hold varying views and attitudes about their classmates
with intellectual disabilities, many are willing to play an active role in
promoting shared learning and relationship opportunities.
• Fostering supportive peer relationships should focus adequate atten-
tion on shared experiences, common connections, valued roles, rele-
vant information, and balanced support.
• Peer-mediated interventions—such as peer support arrangements,
peer networks, and peer partner programs—are effective and feasible
approaches for promoting social connections and participation in
inclusive activities.
• Key research needs include investigating the breadth and long-term
impact of these interventions, pursuing the perspectives of students,
and exploring intervention applications across cultures and contexts.
Accessible Summary
• Some of your classmates at school may think of you differently because
you have a disability.
• You should not allow negative experiences with your peers to change
the way you feel about yourself or make you feel any less of a person.
• Friendships are very important in life. There are many people around
you who want to be your friend or help you make friends.
• Participating in activities inside and outside of school with your class-
mates can give you an opportunity to get to know each other and
become friends.
• Teachers and researchers are always coming up with new ideas to sup-
port you in school and help you make friends easier. There are many
ways adults can help you connect more with your classmates.
References
Brady, M. P., Martin, S., Williams, R. E., & Burta, M. (1991). The effects of
fifth graders’ socially directed behavior on motor and social responses of chil-
dren with multiple handicaps. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12,
1–16. doi:10.1177/105381519301700301.
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2015). Efficacy of teachers training paraprofes-
sionals to implement peer support arrangements. Exceptional Children.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0014402915585564.
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Cooney, M., Weir, K., Vincent, L., et al.
(2013). Peer network strategies to foster social connections among adoles-
cents with and without severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
46(1), 51–59. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110[366:FISIAH]2.0.CO.
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Amirault, K. A., Biggs, E. E., Born, T. L.,
et al. (2015a). Randomized evaluation of peer supports arrangements to
support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional
Children. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0014402915598780.
Carter, E. W., Bottema-Beutel, K., & Brock, M. E. (2014). Social interactions
and friendships. In M. Agran, F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk, & D. Ryndak
(Eds.), Equity and full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A
vision for the future (pp. 197–216). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Carter, E. W., Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., & Breen, C. (2001). Differences
between high school students who do and do not volunteer to participate in
peer interaction programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 26, 229–239. doi:10.2511/rpsd.26.4.229.
Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Hoffman, A., Chung, Y. C., & Sisco, L. (2011). Efficacy
and social validity of peer support arrangements for adolescents with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 78, 107–125. doi:10.1352/2008.46:346-363.
Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Asmus, J., Fesperman, E., Cooney, M., Brock,
M. E., et al. (2015b). Promoting inclusion, social relationships, and learning
through peer support arrangements. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48,
9–18. doi:10.1177/0040059915594784.
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-Chapman, T. (2010). Peer
interactions of students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of
the intervention literature. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 35, 63–79. doi:10.2511/rpsd.35.3-4.63.
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). Increasing peer interac-
tions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training.
Exceptional Children, 71, 431–444. doi:10.1177/001440290507100403.
Christensen, L. L., Fraynt, R. J., Neece, C. L., & Baker, B. L. (2012). Bullying
adolescents with intellectual disability. Journal of Mental Health Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 49–65. doi:10.1080/19315864.2011.637660.
Chung, Y., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). A systematic review of inter-
ventions to increase peer interactions for students with complex communica-
tion challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37,
271–287. doi:10.2511/027494813805327304.
Ditchman, N., Werner, S., Kosyluk, K., Jones, N., Elg, B., & Corrigan, P. W.
(2013). Stigma and intellectual disability: Potential application of mental ill-
ness research. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58, 206–216. doi:10.1037/a0032466.
Feldman, R., Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., & Brock, M. E. (2015). Presence, prox-
imity, and peer interactions of adolescents with severe disabilities in general
education classrooms. Exceptional Children. doi:10.1177/0014402915585481.
Hochman, J. M., Carter, E. W., Bottema-Beutel, K., Harvey, M. N., &
Gustafson, J. R. (2015). Efficacy of peer networks to increase social connec-
tions among high school students with and without autism. Exceptional
Children, 82, 96–116. doi:10.1177/0014402915585482.
Hughes, C., & Carter, E. W. (2008). Peer buddy programs for successful secondary
school inclusion. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hughes, C., Golas, M., Cosgriff, C., Brigham, N., Edwards, C., & Cashen, K.
(2011). Effects of a social skills intervention among high school students
with intellectual disabilities and autism and their general education peers.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 46–61.
doi:10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.46.
Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008). The dynamic rela-
tionship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclu-
sive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 33, 175–195. doi:10.2511/rpsd.33.4.175.
Kasari, C., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Locke, J., & Gulsrud, A. (2011). Making the
connection: Randomized controlled trial of social skills at school for children
with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
53, 431–439. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02493.
Kersh, J., Corona, L., & Siperstein, G. (2013). Social well-being and friendship
of people with intellectual disability. In M. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 60–81). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Kishi, G. S., & Meyer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: A
six-year follow-up of the effects of social contact between peers with and
without severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 19, 277–289. doi:10.1177/154079699401900404.
Koegel, R., Kim, S., Koegel, L., & Schwartzman, B. (2013). Improving social-
ization for high school students with ASD by using their preferred interests.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2121–2134. doi:10.1007/
s10803-013-1765-3.
Leigers, K. L., & Myers, C. T. (2015). Effect of duration of peer awareness edu-
cation on attitudes toward students with disabilities: A systematic review.
Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 8, 79–96. doi:
10.1080/19411243.2015.1021067.
Lindsay, S., & Edwards, A. (2013). A systematic review of disability awareness
interventions for children and youth. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35,
623–646. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.702850.
Rispoli, M., Franco, J., van der Meer, L., Lang, R., & Carmargo, S. (2010). The
use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individu-
als with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental
Neurorehabilitation, 13, 276–293. doi:10.3109/17518421003636794.
Ryndak, D., Jackson, L. B., & White, J. M. (2013). Involvement and progress
in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12
inclusive-education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1,

28–49. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028.
Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual
disability: a systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32,
2164-2182. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.005.
Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon, J. N., & Widaman, K. F. (2007). A national
study of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with intellectual dis-
abilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 435–455. doi:10.1177/001440290707300403.
Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Norins, J., & Widaman, K. F. (2011). A national
study of Chinese youths’ attitudes towards students with intellectual disabili-
ties. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55, 370–384. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2788.2011.01382.
Wagner, M., Cadwallader, T., Marder, C., Cameto, R., Cardoso, D., Garza, et al.
(2003). Life outside the classroom for youth with disabilities. A report from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), (Retrieved from www.
nlts2.org/reports/2003_04-2/nlts2_report_2003_04-2_complete.pdf.
11
Empowering People with Intellectual
Disabilities to Challenge Stigma
Sian Anderson and Christine Bigby
Many people with intellectual disabilities remain on the social and

economic margins of society, in our country Australia as much as else-
where, living in a ‘distinct social space’ made up of family, paid staff, and
other people with disabilities, without employment or engagement in
meaningful activities or social relationships (Clement and Bigby 2010;
Productivity Commission 2011). More than three decades of social poli-
cies promoting equal rights and social inclusion have failed to gener-
ate the social conditions or deliver the individual support necessary to
enable people with intellectual disabilities to lead full lives of their own
design. Disability discrimination legislation, for example, has achieved
far more for people with physical and sensory disabilities than those
with intellectual disabilities. Having an intellectual disability remains
a powerful and stigmatized social identity (Beart et al. 2005). A ‘fear
S. Anderson () • C. Bigby

Living with Disability Research Centre, LaTrobe University, Melbourne,
Australia

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_11
166 S. Anderson and C. Bigby
of difference’ obstructs the engagement of the broader community with

people with intellectual disabilities as a means of overcoming prejudice
(Goffman 1961; Hubert 2000). For example, both leaders and members
of mainstream community groups are often reluctant to countenance
the inclusion of a person with an intellectual disability in their group.
One study that investigated processes that support inclusion found a
pattern of group leaders offering only ‘conditional’ group membership to
a potential member with an intellectual disability and anxiety on the part
of members without disabilities about the person’s capacity to ‘fit in’ and
‘be manageable’ by the group (Craig and Bigby 2015). Even inclusion in
the disability rights movement has proven problematic for people with
intellectual disabilities given the need to embrace a stigmatized disability
identity to join, and if they do, they are frequently placed at the bottom
of the ‘disability hierarchy’ (Byrne 2010; Dowse 2001). Finding ways to
reject stigmatized labels, build more positive identities, and locate com-
fortable places to ‘belong’ (Bauman 1996) poses a significant challenge to
people with intellectual disabilities, their allies, and policy makers.
The Social Model, Disability Rights Movement,

and People with Intellectual Disabilities
Conceptualizing the distinction between impairment and disability, the
social model of disability has focused on the way people with impair-
ments are disabled by social structures and processes. It grew out of the
lived experiences of people with physical disabilities and some commen-
tators have claimed that people with intellectual disabilities have been
left out of subsequent social model theorizing and the disability rights
movement. Goodley (2004, p. 49), for example, writes that people with
intellectual disabilities
have been only partially included in major theoretical developments in dis-

ability studies; their activism is not given the same weight as that of their
physically impaired comrades; the leaders of the People First movement are
too easily ignored and the policies and practices that impact upon their lives
remain in the hands of the nondisabled policy makers who created them.
11 Challenging Stigma 167
This latter point has been glaringly evident in the new Australian National
Disability Insurance Scheme; the design of the scheme reflected an atten-
dant care model, and during its first 12 months of operation, it failed to
have any formal advisory structures which included people with intel-
lectual disabilities or their representative organizations (Bigby 2015b).
The lack of social model theorizing about people with intellectual dis-
abilities has meant neglect of social processes and structures more specifi-
cally disadvantaging to them, such as societal reliance on complex written
or spoken communication or replacement of staff with technology in
systems such as public transportation. A drawback of diverting attention
away from impairment has been the seemingly unproblematic acceptance
of intellectual disability as a biological given. More recent work in disability
studies on psychosocial and political views of impairment holds promise
for greater attention both to the social construction of impairment and
more nuanced action about the complex interactions between different
types of impairment and social processes (Goodley and Roets 2015).
Inclusion in collective action and the disability rights movement has held
a problematic contradiction for people with intellectual disabilities. The dif-
ficulties posed by the presumption that to be part of the movement one must
adopt a ‘disabled identity’, and thus embrace an ascribed label, have not been
acknowledged (Dowse 2001). The label ‘intellectual disability’ carries with
it a level of stigma and negativity not generally ascribed to those with other
disabilities which may explain a lack of willingness to openly adopt such an
identity. ‘Passing’ rather than identifying with a stigmatized label is the pre-
ferred option for many people with intellectual disabilities (Edgerton 1993;
Rapley 2004). The choice ‘not to identify’ is seen by some disability activists
as a rejection of the social model, an ‘internalized oppression’ (Shakespeare
and Watson 2002). Yet if the common identity to be embraced is highly
stigmatized, it seems unreasonable to pathologize people with intellectual
disabilities by accusing them of ‘internalizing oppression’. As noted in Chap.
14, for many, rejecting the identity of someone with an intellectual disability
is one way to deal with stigma. If an individual is willing to take on the label
and join a group for people with intellectual disabilities advocating change in
social attitudes toward people with stigmatized identities, there remains the
question of the willingness of the broader disability rights movement to be
inclusive enough to support their wearing of the ‘badge’ of an activist.
Narratives About Self-advocacy

Independent self-advocacy groups and networks, such as People First, have
been the main avenue for collective action of people with intellectual dis-
abilities and their connection with the broader disability rights movement.
The dominant narrative about self-advocacy has been political, seeing it as
a ‘countervailing force, questioning the devalued status, oppression and
discrimination experienced by people with intellectual disability’ (Frawley
and Bigby 2015, p. 2). Self-advocacy groups have been seen as a means for
people with intellectual disabilities to speak out, have a say and develop
skills in empowerment (Goodley 2000; McNally 2002; Nind and Seale
2009). Run by and for adults with intellectual disabilities, it is claimed
that groups enable feelings of being powerful and strong (Beresford 2012),
providing opportunities for their members to engage with ideas about
rights and empowerment and to share and celebrate their personal resil-
ience. There may however be another narrative about self-advocacy, which
frames it as a ‘self-authored space’ and is more subtly radical.
In this chapter we draw on our research about social identity and inclu-
sion conducted in Australia to illustrate the ‘subtle radicalism’ of indepen-
dent self-advocacy groups as one route to combating stigma and furthering
the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. While this
research is based mainly on the Australian experience, it is relevant to most
(Western) societies. The study ‘Self-advocacy and inclusion: What can be
learned from “Speaking Up” over the years’ was a collaboration between
academics and members of Reinforce, the oldest self-advocacy group in
Melbourne. Group members wanted to write their history and the aca-
demics wanted to explore links between self-advocacy and social inclu-
sion. The project investigated the history of Reinforce, through interviews
and document reviews using inclusive research methods. Additionally, a
PhD study of independent self-advocacy groups in the UK and Australia
investigated the impact of group membership on individual social identity
(Anderson 2013; Anderson and Bigby 2015; Bigby 2015a; Bigby et al.
2014; Frawley and Bigby 2015, Frawley et al. 2013).
During the 1980s Reinforce reflected the more radical political narra-
tive of self-advocacy. It was a vibrant and radical organization that could
get things done. As one member said, ‘in the early days like in the ‘80s,
well, if we wanted to see a particular person we’d just go up there and

sit outside their office, wait for them’. ‘We achieved so much’, one self-
advocate observed, ‘fighting for rights more, getting somewhere, letting
the people out there know that we’re not as dumb, as stupid, as what they
think we are’. And indeed, by the end of the decade, self-advocacy had been
included in the broader advocacy sector and recognized by government
policy as integral to the disability service system. The state government
continued to embrace Reinforce as a representative body, thus giving the
voice of people with intellectual disabilities a place alongside parents and
professionals. For example, in the late 1980s, several Reinforce members
were part of consultations about plans for the redevelopment of the dis-
ability service system and members of various government advisory com-
mittees. Some members were sought out by the first Public Advocate, Ben
Bodna, to take on voluntary roles as community visitors to group homes.
These were significant milestones in the engagement of people with deeply
stigmatized identities in political activities around issues which had very
real impacts on their quality of life.
However, the face of self-advocacy has changed since the 1980s, influ-
enced by conservative political climates and the conditions that came
with dependence on governments for funding (Frawley et al. 2013). For
many organizations like Reinforce, staying afloat in times of retrench-
ment and just keeping the doors open have become a more dominant
theme than radical action. As one of the founding members of Reinforce
talking about the early years reflected, ‘we were more radical, when we
first started’.
Milner and Kelly’s (2009) conceptualization of ‘self-authored spaces’ as
places where people with intellectual disabilities come together to create
communities and celebrate their individuality provides an alternative, less
radical narrative about self-advocacy groups, perhaps more reflective of
current political climates. Self-authored spaces, such as a drama group for
people with intellectual disabilities described by Hall and Wilton (2011),
act as a vehicle for inclusion through creating a strong sense of belong-
ing within the group, friendships, and social connections with the wider
community. Such groups provide opportunities to challenge entrenched
stigma and exclusion but do so in subtle ways, through their influence
on members’ self-identities and social participation, and, in turn, the
public’s perception of people with intellectual disabilities. Our study of

Reinforce found, for example, that membership of the group had been
a means of social inclusion, providing a sense of belonging and social
connection to the wider community, as well as an occupation for some
members (Frawley and Bigby 2015).
While self-authored spaces, such as independent self-advocacy groups,
are segregated, they mimic the social spaces in the mainstream commu-
nity where people with common interests come together and through
which people find identity and belonging: the football club, the com-
munity choir, the self-help group. Indeed there are signs throughout
accounts of the experiences of self-advocates of the potential of groups to
positively change the social identities of people with intellectual disabili-
ties (Anderson and Bigby 2015; Beart et al. 2005; Caldwell 2010). By
enabling people with intellectual disabilities to see themselves differently
and for others to see them ‘in a new light’, independent self-advocacy
groups and other self-authored spaces may counter some of the negativ-
ity, labeling, and entrenched stigma attached to their identities.
New Positive Identities Through Self-Advocacy

Anderson (2013) investigated these ideas further among self-advocates
in Australia and the UK, finding that engagement with self-advocacy
groups affected members’ social identities in highly positive ways. The
six independent self-advocacy groups involved in the study (four in
the UK and two in Australia) were characterized by collegiality, which
contributed to members’ feelings of being affirmed as individuals.
Respectful relationships were the norm and groups offered a wide
range of interesting activities providing opportunities to members for
recreation, skill development, and paid and voluntary employment.
Members had a strong sense of ownership and being in control of their
group, even in groups where supporters played a significant role in
directing the agenda. Membership of a self-advocacy group had opened
up a range of previously new, unimagined, and more positive social
identities, including being an expert, a businesslike person, an inde-
pendent person, and a self-advocate. Most importantly, these identities,
outlined below, challenged the stigmatized notions of incapacity and

dependency so often attached to the social identities of people with
Being an expert. Self-advocates talked about becoming ‘experts’ about
their own lives and had used this expertise in powerful ways: sharing
experiences with other group members, talking to community groups, or
participating in research. The idea that a person with an intellectual dis-
ability could be an ‘expert’ was an important shift in their social identity.
For many, this shift occurred after a lifelong identity as a service user, a
client, or a patient in services, treatment, or rehabilitation. It was not dif-
ficult to see the impact of being regarded by others as having important
knowledge on the self-confidence and esteem of these self-advocates. One
of the interviewees said that he loved going to schools and speaking and
that the children enjoyed hearing him speak. He felt affirmed as a person
and as an expert about his own life.
Being a ‘businesslike’ person. Many self-advocates gave examples
of deriving a ‘businesslike’ or worker identity from their involvement
in a group. The enormous pleasure and satisfaction gained from par-
ticipating in the ‘business’ of self-advocacy stood out as a highlight for
many, whether they did so on a paid or voluntary basis. The trusted self-
determination implicit in the assigning of tasks in an office context was
important to the self-advocates in many ways. It signified the positive
regard in which they were held by both the group’s support staff and by
fellow members. The tasks, such as answering the phone, passing on mes-
sages, and buying tins of coffee and stamps, were all examples of ‘work’ of
the kind the self-advocates recognized. Their participation in these tasks
gave them the identity of ‘worker’, an identity many had been told (or
had understood) that they could never attain. One member described a
meeting with a former teacher from his early school days and the pride
he felt in being able to say to him that he had a job and that he worked at
Green Group, saying ‘I told him I’ve been working down in [city], like,
and he was surprised and he said; ‘[Frank], I am surprised that you’ve got
a job’. The office-based nature of the tasks marked them as white collar
jobs perhaps mimicking the work environments of some of the disabil-
ity professionals with whom many of the self-advocates would have had
prolonged contact.
Being an independent person. Some of the self-advocates had

embraced the social identity of an ‘independent person’. For two, this
was evidenced by having their own front door keys and their own flats.
They felt pride and pleasure at their ability to live with confidence in
a new setting with limited support, making choices about daily living
and activities such as what to watch on television or whether to invite
friends or family around for a meal. For others developing the identity
of an independent person was evidenced through their participation in
activities in the broader community. Greater personal confidence gained
from the group meant people felt more comfortable about being ‘out
and about’ in the community, more able to travel and to participate in
a greater range of activities, and be in social spaces like pubs and cafes.
Being a self-advocate. For the self-advocates, the self-advocacy group
offered a safe place to take risks and build skills in articulating opinions
and choices which drew on rather than detracted from individual resil-
ience. There was some acknowledgment of the stigma attached to their
identities outside the group alongside an emphasis on individuals showing
to themselves and others that they were capable and engaged. The identity
of ‘self-advocate’ encompassed both speaking up for oneself and acting in
ways which supported and enabled peers to understand their rights and to
deal with the negative consequences of a disabling society, such as exclu-
sion and bullying. Group members spoke as much about ‘helping’ as they
did about ‘speaking out’ in describing what they understood to be ‘self-
advocacy’. It is this insight which reveals a great deal about the potential
that membership of such groups has to change the lived experience of peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities. Seeing themselves as capable and skilled
in bringing about change in the lives of their peers radically altered their
stigmatized social identity. The negative identity attached to a person who
is a client, patient, or service user is underpinned by an assumption that
they are passive recipients—of advice, of treatment, of therapy or control.
For these self-advocates, the disability activism in which they were
engaged took them beyond negative social identities ascribed by the broader
community to embracing multiple (more) positive and included identi-
ties. These newer identities were highly individual and demonstrated that
many people with intellectual disabilities were not interested in wearing
either the ‘label or the badge’ of disability (Shakespeare 2006), but in being
recognized as themselves. These new identities involved occupying differ-

ent kinds of social space, both within their group and in the broader com-
munity, which raised their visibility and changed their public image.
Subtle Radicalism of Self-Advocacy and Self-

Authored Spaces
The self-advocacy group members who participated in Anderson’s (2013)
study did not feel ‘left out’ of the broader disability movement. Those who
had sought to engage with other advocacy organizations had not found the
shared understanding and experiences which were such a positive feature of
their own self-advocacy groups and decided not to remain involved. Their
engagement with activism was highly personal and for the most part enacted
within the self-advocacy group setting. Nor did they adopt the ‘assimilation’
approach described by Szivos and Griffiths (1990), whereby individuals
in stigmatized or disadvantaged groups seek to ‘pass’ into the mainstream.
What emerged from the findings was a modulated version of ‘consciousness
raising’, as described by Szivos and Griffiths (1990), that built positive social
identity based both on difference and on shared humanity.
These self-advocacy groups rarely engaged in overtly political acts such
as staging protests, signing petitions, or participating in street marches;
instead, their activities could be described as subtle radicalism. The vol-
untary nature of engagement in groups and the range of activities and
roles offered provided a framework for individuals to build on and dem-
onstrate their skills, capacity, and confidence. The groups were places
in which people were valued as individuals and experienced a positive
social environment unlike any other in their lives. The groups were ‘self-
authored’ (Milner and Kelly 2009), with a culture and character created
by members and supporters, representing a social environment quite dif-
ferent from that experienced by many adults with intellectual disabilities
in the wider community. While it is difficult to measure the impact of this
on challenging the stigma attached to intellectual disability among those
outside the group, it is important to acknowledge the significant positive
impact this engagement with self-advocacy had on the self-perception of
those involved.
Empowering people with intellectual disabilities to challenge stigma is

complex. When stigma is deeply entrenched, people who are viewed by
others in negative ways may choose to reject the label and seek to ‘pass’
(Edgerton 1993; also see Chap. 14). In so doing, they reject the focus
on a shared disability identity and risk losing support to improve their
quality of life. Self-advocacy groups appear to offer a middle way for peo-
ple with intellectual disabilities. They empower individuals to challenge
stigmatized identities but in a subtly radical way. The low-key nature of
their political activity may frustrate some commentators, but it is clear
that they are working to challenge stigma in ways which have significant
positive personal impact for their members. It is troubling that opportu-
nities for people with intellectual disabilities to engage with such groups
remain so limited. In both Australia and the UK, limited funding and a
lack of explicit policy support threaten their sustainability. In other coun-
tries, there are no self-advocacy groups and where advocacy organizations
exist, they are often led by parents whose activism is unlikely to consti-
tute as overtly a challenge to intellectual disability stigma as the voices of
self-advocates themselves.
Key Learning Points

• In many Western countries including Australia and the UK, decades of
social policy promoting equal rights and social inclusion for people
with intellectual disabilities have not delivered the social conditions or
support arrangements necessary to enable individuals to live full,
engaged lives of their own design.
• The broader disability rights movement’s focus on the social model has
to a great extent left out the voices of people with intellectual
disabilities.
• Self-advocacy groups have a long history of offering a unique social
space for people with intellectual disabilities.
• Self-advocacy groups are subtly radical in challenging the stigma
attached to the identity of members and offer them occupation, peer
support, recreation, and friendship.
Accessible Summary
• In Australia and the UK, governments have tried for many years to
make it easier for people with intellectual disabilities to make their
own choices. But many people are still not living how they would like.
• Sometimes, people with intellectual disabilities have not been included
in groups that fight for better rights for people with disabilities.
• Self-advocacy groups are really important. They challenge some of the
negative ideas people have about people with intellectual disabilities.
They offer different activities which can make people feel more confi-
dent and independent. They are also places where people can enjoy
support from friends.
References
Anderson, S. (2013). ‘We just help them be them really’—Building positive,
included identities: engagement in self-advocacy groups by adults with intellectual
disabilities (Unpublished PhD thesis). LaTrobe University, Melbourne,
Australia.
Anderson, S., & Bigby, C. (2015). Self-advocacy as a means to positive identities
for people with intellectual disability: “We just help them, be them really”.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1111/jar.12223.
Bauman, Z. (1996). From pilgrim to tourist—Or a short history of identity. In
S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 18–36). London:
SAGE.
Beresford, P. (2012). The theory and philosophy behind user involvement. In
P. Beresford & S. Carr (Eds.), Social care, service users and user involvement
(pp. 21–37). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Bigby, C. (2015a). Self-advocacy and inclusion: A summary of the study ‘What can
be learned from speaking up over the years’. La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Australia: Living with Disability Research Centre. Retrieved from https://
engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Final-self-advocacy-and-
inclusion- what-can-be-learned-from-speaking-up-over-the-years-
Bigby-21-07-2015.pdf
Bigby, C. (2015b). Is the national disability insurance scheme taking account of

people with intellectual disability (Editorial). Research and Practice in
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 1, 93–97. doi:10.1080/23297018
.2014.974484.
Bigby, C., Frawley, P., & Ramcharan, P. (2014). A collaborative group method
of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability, 27,
54–64. doi:10.1111/jar.12082.
Byrne, M. (2010). Levelling the disability hierarchy. Eureka Street, 20, 23.
Caldwell, J. (2010). Leadership development of individuals with developmental
disabilities in the self-advocacy movement. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 54, 1004–1014. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01326.
Clement, T., & Bigby, C. (2010). Group homes for people with intellectual dis-
abilities: Encouraging inclusion and participation. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley.
Craig, D., & Bigby, C. (2015). ‘She’s been involved in everything as far as I can
see’: Supporting the active participation of people with intellectual disability
in community groups. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability,
40, 12–25. doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.977235.
Dowse, L. (2001). Contesting practices, challenging codes: Self-advocacy, dis-
ability politics and the social model. Disability and Society, 16, 123–141.
doi:10.1080/09687590020020903.
Edgerton, R. (1993). The cloak of competence (Revised and updated ed.). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Frawley, P., & Bigby, C. (2015). Reflections on being a first generation self-
advocate: Belonging, social connections and doing things that matter. Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40, 254–264. doi:10.3109/1366
8250.2015.1028910.
Frawley, P., Bigby, C., Banfield, D., Blythman, N., Rosengrave, J., Hiscoe, A.,
et al. (2013). Reinforce self-advocacy: Speaking up over the years. Melbourne,
Australia: La Trobe University.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and
other inmates. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Goodley, D. (2000). Self-advocacy in the lives of people with learning difficulties.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Goodley, D. (2004). The place of people with ‘learning difficulties’ in disability
studies and research: Introduction to this special issue. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 32, 49–51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00279.
Goodley, D., & Roets, G. (2015). The (be)comings and goings of ‘developmen-
tal disabilities’: The cultural politics of ‘impairment. Discourse: Studies in
Cultural Politics of Education, 29, 239–255. doi:10.1080/01596300801966971.
Hall, E., & Wilton, R. (2011). Alternative spaces of ‘work ‘and inclusion for
disabled people. Disability and Society, 26, 867–880. doi:10.1080/09687599
.2011.618742.
Hubert, J. (2000). The social, individual and moral consequences of physical
exclusion in long-stay institutions. In J. Hubert (Ed.), Madness, disability and
social exclusion. The archaeology and anthropology of ‘difference’ (pp. 196–207).
London, UK: Routledge.
McNally, S. (2002). A survey of self-advocacy groups for people with learning
disabilities in an English region. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 6, 185–199.
doi:10.1177/14690047030073004.
Milner, P., & Kelly, B. (2009). Community participation and inclusion: People
with disabilities defining their place. Disability and Society, 24, 47–62.
doi:10.1080/09687590802535410.
Nind, M., & Seale, J. (2009). Concepts of access for people with learning diffi-
culties: Towards a shared understanding. Disability and Society, 24, 273–287.
doi:10.1080/09687590902789446.
Productivity Commission (2011). Disability support and care. Canberra,
Australia: Productivity Commission.
Rapley, M. (2004). The social construction of intellectual disability. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London, UK: Taylor and
Francis Routledge.
Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2002). The social model of disability: An out-
dated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28. doi:10.1016/
S1479-3547(01)80018.
Szivos, S., & Griffiths, E. (1990). Group processes involved in coming to terms
with a mentally retarded identity. Mental Retardation, 28, 333–341.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2008.00507.
12
Tackling Stigma in Developing
Countries: The Key Role of Families
Roy McConkey, Callista Kahonde,
and Judith McKenzie
Intellectual disability occurs in every nation on earth, although it is not

uniformly understood or perceived across the world. Likewise this dis-
ability, as with other bodily impairments, has existed through the genera-
tions but our understanding and perceptions of it have changed especially
during the last 100 years (Parmenter 2001). But the extent to which these
changes have occurred differs across nations. More developed nations of
the ‘North’ with their long-established educational, health and social care
systems founded on industrial and technological economies present a
very different social context for persons with an intellectual disability
than do poorer countries of the ‘South’, which were reliant on agrarian
economies but are rapidly urbanizing with poorly developed education,
health and social services. Yet despite the economic and social disparities
R. McConkey ()
University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, Coleraine, UK
C. Kahonde • J. McKenzie
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_12
180 R. McConkey et al.
across the nations, people with intellectual disabilities and their families
still encounter stigma and discrimination from their fellow citizens. Thus,
the lessons learnt of tackling stigma in the developed world and described
in the earlier chapters of this book may well be applicable to less devel-
oped countries. And the converse is equally true: the methods that have
proved effective in less affluent nations can inform and guide actions that
need to be taken in more affluent countries if full equality of opportunity
is to be obtained for all their citizens. In that sense, this chapter is well
placed to challenge and extend our current understanding of the roots of
stigma within human society and to offer tangible strategies to reduce, if
not remove, the stigmatizing impact of disability in every nation.
An Impossible Dream?
It certainly will be a struggle to attain the aspiration of removing the
stigmatizing impact of disability in every nation because three main fac-
tors may work against us. First, disability never exists in a pure form;
rather, reactions to it are compounded by other societal attitudes, such
as to women, ethnic and religious minorities and by the impact of pov-
erty—the link between disability and poverty is long established globally
(Eide and Ingstad 2011). Thus, the stigma that families and people with
intellectual disabilities experience can be an expression of attitudes that
go beyond those relating to disability and strategies to counter discrimi-
nation must take this into account.
A second consideration is that every nation is an amalgam of differ-
ent cultures and communities with diverse beliefs and values. Thus, we
should expect, as research confirms, variations in public understanding
and perceptions of disability within and between countries (Siperstein
et al. 2003). This suggests that a range of approaches will be needed often
tailored to ‘sub-cultures’ rather than relying on national strategies.
The third challenge is arguably the most daunting: how do we move
beyond changing attitudes to changing people’s behavior? Some would
say we have placed too much reliance on giving people ‘head knowledge’
about disability and insufficient opportunity for them to experience ‘heart
knowledge’ that engages their emotions because that is a more effective
12 Tackling Stigma in Developing Countries 181
motivator for people to change their behavior. Our change strategies

need to be focused on people getting to know one another personally
(McConkey et al. 2009).
Although it might appear like an impossible dream to remove from
human society the stigma of intellectual disability, it is far too early to be
despondent because in the great scope of human history we have barely
begun to try.
The Key Role of the Family

In this chapter, we want to focus on the key role that families have in
perpetuating and also in reducing stigmatizing attitudes to people with
an intellectual disability. This is not to excuse others, such as profession-
als, from their responsibilities in this regard. Rather in low-income coun-
tries in particular, families arguably have the greatest influence due to the
dearth of professional advocates (McKenzie and Muller 2006), which
incidentally was true throughout the developed world over the past two
generations and some would argue is still the case. But more significantly
it is within the family that the child first experiences acceptance or rejec-
tion and if families offer positive experiences they will do a great deal
to build the resilience of the child to bolster their identity in the face of
stigma. By ‘family’ we refer to all those in parenting roles such as grand-
mothers and siblings and other relatives living as extended families in a
shared habitat.
Figure 12.1 illustrates the mediating role that all families play between
the affected person and the wider society. This is especially true through-
out the childhood years, but for persons with an intellectual disability
this may extend long into adulthood because of their ongoing need for
support, which in developing countries most families provide without
any external assistance (McKenzie et al. 2013).
We focus on two sets of influences. As the arrows indicate, these oper-
ate as mutual influences between society and family and between the
family and the person. Thus, societal attitudes impact on the family but
equally the reactions of families contribute to and confirm society’s atti-
tudes. Likewise the family response to the person affects the person but
Fig. 12.1 Family influences on society and the person with an intellectual
disability
equally the person affects the family. These are dynamic influences that
become ever more entwined over time.
We distinguish between reactive and proactive influences. By reactive
we mean the passive acceptance of prevailing reactions to intellectual dis-
ability that are reinforced within the community and contribute to the
self-stigma of the family and of the person. Four common reactions are
detailed in the following section. In contrast, proactive influences chal-
lenge prevailing attitudes and perceptions of intellectual disability. These
too are mutual so that families can influence their community and also
the person, while also being open to proactive influences coming to them
from the community and from the person. Four examples of proactive
influences will be presented.
It is likely that these two cycles of influence are present in varying
degrees within families, with the balance possibly changing over time
and in relation to certain issues, for example, the availability of sup-
port for the family and varying characteristics of the child/adult with an
intellectual disability. Moreover, intrafamilial differences in reactions to
the disability are a further source of tension between these two cycles that
can result in the affected child’s nuclear family ‘splitting away’ from the
reactive influences of the wider family. Sometimes the tension happens
within the nuclear family whereby one of the parents, usually the mother,
gets blamed for the occurrence of a disability (Haihambo and Lightfoot
2010). Such tensions invariably add to maternal stress. However, interna-
tional experience suggests that all families are capable of becoming more
proactive and that this is an essential component in reducing the self-
stigmatization of families and that of their relative with an intellectual
disability, as well as challenging stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors in
their community and wider society.
Reactive Influences
We begin by highlighting the strength of negative reactions in the com-
munity and in families to people with an intellectual disability as uncov-
ered in our ongoing research in South Africa (Kahonde 2015; McKenzie
and McConkey 2015) and in various recent studies undertaken in other
developing countries such as Ghana, Tanzania, Namibia and Pakistan
(Aldersey 2012; Haihambo and Lightfoot 2010). A much more extensive
literature exists in more affluent countries yet it is broadly supportive of
the dominant reactions described here. However, comparisons should be
made cautiously as there have been few well-controlled, cross-cultural
studies. Further research is needed not only to define the issues facing
families in different countries but also to provide a yardstick against
which change can be measured within cultures.
The stigma of shame. One clear message emerges from past research:
intellectual disability brings shame on families. A common response is
then to hide the person from the community and even the wider family
(Essop 2012; Haihambo and Lightfoot 2010). This response further rein-
forces the shamefulness associated with this disability that is still prevalent
in many societies. Intellectual disability is often interpreted as misfortune
befalling the family because of their misdeeds. Other families may prefer
to hide children or adults with intellectual disabilities because of physical
deformities or behavioral challenges (Ingstad 2001). Such reactions nega-
tively affect the growing child. A woman with Down syndrome in Cape
Town described how her mother reacted to the birth of a child with a
disability (quotations are from McKenzie and McConkey 2015):
My mother was in shock when they told her I was Down Syndrome. She
did not know how to handle me and so my mother cried for days. She
locked herself in a dark room and cried because she was in shock because
her child was disabled.
Zimbabwean mothers explained how their shame was reinforced when

they turned to traditional healers for a ‘cure’. These healers attributed the
cause of disability to the evil spirits that possessed the child because of
the mother’s misdeeds or breaking of taboos and used traditional rituals
to cast out these spirits (Tarusarira 2015).
The burden on families. Caring for a child or adult with an intel-
lectual disability places additional burdens on the family. Some of this
comes from the physical demands of looking after a child with mobility,
feeding, or behavioral difficulties (Mirza et al. 2009). Financial pressures
often add to the stress on mothers as they have limited time for tending
to the family farm or obtaining other sources of income and there is no
one else to relieve them of their caring responsibilities. The toll on moth-
ers’ health and well-being due to stress can be great and in turn affects
the growing child or adult. On one hand, it can lead to neglect and abuse
within the family, while at the other extreme, it may be expressed as
‘over-protectiveness’ on the part of mothers especially and a reluctance to
expose the person to opportunities outside the home.
The burden of care is further exacerbated by poor living conditions as
this example illustrates of a mother living in an informal settlement near
Cape Town:
It is not easy to wash them, you have to lift her up, I suffered from back-
ache. I think they need to have separate bathroom that is equipped with
standing frame which will make easier for us to wash them. It is worse for
us staying in the shacks because we do not even have decent toilets.
All these burdens accumulate in a sense of failure on the part of parents as

this mother noted: ‘I don’t know that we are doing him any favors to just
keep him at home unable to access companionship and so forth.’ Parents

dwelling overly on their child’s vulnerabilities to abuse from others may
impair the self-confidence and self-esteem of their children (Ali et al. 2015).
She does not like to go out, always watch television. If I go to Eastern

Cape, I took her with me; wherever I go she is always next to me. I do not
want anything happened to her.
The reactive influences described here if left unchallenged only serve

to perpetuate the negative perceptions and misunderstandings about
disability that persist in many countries around the world. But just as
the family is central to this self-fulfilling prophecy of hopelessness and
despair, so can it provide the stimulus for change.
Proactive Influences
The relationship between parents, especially mothers/grandmothers, and
the child with the disability is the engine that drives a proactive challenge to
existing attitudes. Oftentimes this is expressed when parents proclaim that
they will treat the child just like their other children. This is not to deny
their child’s additional needs, but rather it is recognition that the label of dis-
ability need not alter a ‘normal’ relationship with their child (Essop 2012).
Indeed, this distinction between the person and the label is fundamental to
reshaping societal responses to disability. Four main strategies have proved
effective in challenging negative perceptions of intellectual disability.
Nurturing development. Treating the child as any other sibling
means actively nurturing their development so as to assist them to gain
developmental milestones in mobility, communication and self-care,
albeit at a later age than their peers without disabilities (Einfeld et al.
2012). It also means taking the child outside the home and participat-
ing in family and community events despite the inevitable criticism and
disdain of others. Children who are nurtured in such supportive family
environments will hopefully escape most of the self-stigma that can be
associated with intellectual disability. Equally as they acquire the com-
petencies that others thought impossible, they in turn further convince
their families that disability need not constrain their child’s abilities, tal-
ents and personality.
Nonetheless much resolve and resilience is needed by parents to persist
in their beliefs and not to be defeated. In the African context mothers
frequently draw on their faith in God as their greatest support in coping
with their child’s disability (Essop 2012).
So I go down on my knees still every night and I believe, if you are sincere,
God would provide. Before I used to be a different person but, today with-
out Him I am lost. Every step I take is in His name.
Meeting other parents of children with disabilities also provides much

needed emotional support along with the informational and practical
supports that can make life easier. Thus, parent associations, such as
Down Syndrome South Africa, can play a crucial role in making families
proactive change agents for their children.
Inclusion. One immediate, but crucial, outcome of family proac-
tivity is the child’s presence and participation in the life of the family
and in due course in the life of the community. No longer hidden
away, the child has the opportunity to gain from interacting with oth-
ers and they with him or her. Yet the courage of parents to break the
time-honored conventions within families and communities around
disability can be met with rejection and hostility. Once again they need
support from allies and the discernment to choose with care the chal-
lenges they take on. Of primary importance is the child’s opportunity
to join in formal and informal education through crèches, playgroups,
schools and religious communities. The potential developmental gains
for the child are manifold, but it also confirms for families the valid-
ity of their aspiration for the child to have the same opportunities as
their other children. Yet families in rural areas can face formidable
challenges given the long distances children have to walk to school or
community events.
Information. Family proactivity needs to extend into the wider
community in other ways. Foremost of which is the provision of
information regarding the causes of intellectual disability. Myths and
superstitions persist because they are left unchallenged. That is why

many parent associations place such an emphasis on giving families
information about disabilities so that parents themselves become better
informed and can in turn pass on this knowledge to others, especially
in relation to their own child. Sympathetic professionals in positions
of authority are crucial allies in educating families and the wider com-
munity (Kelly et al. 2012), but even so their efforts are made all the
more effective when they are applied to particular individuals: a task
that parents can fulfill.
Advocacy. International Declarations of Rights have been supported
by governments in poor and rich countries alike, yet the realization of
those rights is far from complete, particularly in low-income countries
that face competing demands on their limited resources. Moreover, the
voices of people with disabilities are usually drowned out by more stri-
dent groups arguing for their rights. Here too families have taken the lead
in speaking up for their children both as individuals and collectively as
local and national associations of parents. Parental advocacy has brought
the needs of people with intellectual disabilities to the attention of politi-
cians and officials and ensured that they got a fair deal when it comes to
the provision of support services (Lansdown 2002). For example, parents
in Tanzania described how they attempted to change the attitudes of the
community toward their child and how they draw strength from such
campaigns as they learnt to appreciate the positive elements of parenting
a child with a disability (Aldersey 2012).
Maintaining Motivation
Naming these four proactive strategies for changing perceptions does not
do justice to the vast amount of physical and emotional energy required
by parents to sustain these actions in the face of rejection and intransi-
gence. Many families are defeated by the task but fortunately in every
country there are parents who have persisted and shown remarkable lead-
ership that has benefited many thousands up to now and will do so for
millions more in the future.
Practical Actions
In this final section, we want to identify certain strategies especially suited
to developing countries that bring together the proactive influences we
have described and that are a counter to the reactive influences that many
families still experience.
Parent and friends associations. The value of parent associations in
changing perceptions within families and communities is well attested
internationally as they can combine a national presence founded on a
network of local groups. As already noted, they can be a source of emo-
tional and practical support to new parents, especially as they come to
terms with having a child with a disability. They can provide information
to counter ignorance and misrepresentations in wider society. They give
parents a sense of solidarity from which they can advocate individually or
corporately locally, nationally and internationally. The UN Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was shaped through the involve-
ment of parental advocacy.
In countries such as Lesotho and Zanzibar, the associations are open
to professional ‘friends’, teachers and nurses, for example, as well as fam-
ily friends, such as siblings and grandparents, to create a broad coalition
of mutual support and widen their sphere of influence (McConkey and
Mariga 2010). Most associations exist on a self-help basis, but they can
be grown in localities with support from sympathetic professionals such
as community-based rehabilitation workers or personnel from national
parent associations. Training can be provided to members to equip them
to be community educators or to assist parents with income generation
(McConkey et al. 2000). Many present-day community-based support
services for people with disabilities were started by parent groups.
Parent associations are not without their difficulties and shortcomings.
In rural areas, villages are further apart and the availability and cost of
transport, allied to taking time away from farming activities, can prevent
families from attending meetings. Professionals have an important role
to play in identifying the support that families need to maintain their
resilience and to think of new ways of providing support to the persons
with an intellectual disability and their families, making use of available
community resources rather than expensive special programs (World

Health Organization and World Bank 2011).
Village gatherings. Parent associations and other advocacy groups
focus on village or community gatherings as a means of communicating
their messages about intellectual disability as the messages can be harmo-
nized with local cultural values and activities. Such gatherings are held
with the permission of community elders and draw on the oral traditions
that remain strong in rural communities especially. They use culturally
appropriate music and dance to draw an audience often made up of all
ages. Drama and songs recount the stories, experiences and emotions of
parents and people with disabilities, which are tailored to that particular
culture. Speeches from an invited dignitary are used to reinforce the mes-
sages as are posters and wall paintings that provide ongoing reminders of
key slogans such as ‘Disability is not Inability’. These gatherings aim to
nurture a pride in disability, in families and in local communities.
Radio broadcasts. Engagement with wider audiences is best achieved
through radio, which is widely listened to in many developing countries.
Program producers and presenters in local radio stations are told of forth-
coming events such as village meetings or talks to be given by invited
speakers. The advent of mobile phones opens up possibilities of phone-in
programs where callers can debate issues, get information and make con-
tact with other like-minded persons. Dramas and story-telling relating to
intellectual disability are also well suited to radio. Oral communication
in local languages is much cheaper than the production of print materials
with their associated translation and distribution costs.
Support from community leaders. The opinion leaders within com-
munities are key allies for families wishing to bring about change. This
should include village chiefs and elders, traditional healers and religious
leaders, as well as elected politicians and officials. Building personal rela-
tionships seems to be an effective means of gaining their support for
specific initiatives within local communities, such as those proposed by
parent associations. Engaging with those leaders who have a relative with
a disability can be especially fruitful as they have personal insights and
reactions to share. The support of community leaders can be crucial when
it comes to removing discriminatory practices such as school exclusions,
access to health services and charges levied by minibus and taxi compa-
nies for transporting people in wheelchairs.
The role of traditional healers in combating stigma deserves particular
attention. Many families turn to them, yet they too lack understanding
about the causes of intellectual disability and fall back on supernatural
explanations, such as that disability is a punishment for the breaking of
tribal taboos by family members. These traditional healers could contrib-
ute positively to reducing stigma if they seek to understand and accept
other explanations (Kromberg et al. 2008).
Productive work. In many cultures, one’s human status is judged by
the extent to which people can participate in valued activities within that
society (Aldersey et al. 2014). The active participation of children and
young adults with intellectual disabilities in family and community life
therefore conveys a strong challenge to negative attitudes, especially when
they can be seen to be contributing to family life, such as undertaking
household tasks like fetching water and firewood or taking part in com-
munity activities such as team sports. In rural agrarian settings, most of
the livelihood activities do not require any abstract thinking, so someone
with a mild to moderate intellectual disability, who does not have physical
limitations, can be involved in subsistence farming, household chores and
most activities of daily living. Hence, parents and professionals need to
prepare children to become productive members of their community so
as to counter beliefs around their helplessness. Ultimately being accepted
within communities depends not on labels but on the relationships that
people forge with their peers. Hence, participation in schooling, sports
and religious activities enable others to relate to the person and the person
with them. Indeed, international evidence confirms that personal contact
is a potent force for challenging stigma (Macmillan et al. 2014).
Looking to the Future
In this chapter we have chosen to focus on the family as the channel for
tackling stigma. But theirs is not the only channel for change and indeed
family efforts need to be reinforced by legal rights, national policies that
are enforced and changes in discriminatory practices of professionals and
services to name but a few. We accept too that reliance on families and local
communities to tackle stigma will likely result in greater disparities within
countries in their attitudes to intellectual disability as there is unlikely to
be uniform implementation of common actions. We are also conscious of
placing extra burdens on families and implying that they are to blame for
the stigma their relative experiences. So in looking to the future, let’s be
clear of the key messages on tackling stigma. Our aim is to build relation-
ships between people who are perceived to be different with their families
and with their local communities. People’s negative reactions to the label
‘intellectual disability’ can be initially separated from their perceptions of
individuals with whom they have built a relationship. This process can be
proactively facilitated within families and communities, thereby reduc-
ing the stigma associated with the label. In so doing, societal responses to
intellectual disability will change over time and across cultures. In a nut-
shell, that is the journey we have inherited from previous generations and
it is one we must continue to advance in coalitions with all interested and
involved parties. But we continue to assert that central to these endeavors
is the leadership and example that families provide. It is they who have
brought us thus far on the journey and they who will see us home.
Key Learning Points

• Families are uniquely placed to challenge negative perceptions in soci-
ety. In many developing countries they are the main advocates for
change.
• Families have had to overcome common reactions such as shame and
failure and become more proactive in changing the perceptions of
other family members and their immediate community.
• These reactive and proactive influences coexist. Parents need allies to
maintain their resilience.
• Practical strategies include the formation of parent associations, the
use of village gatherings, radio broadcasts and gaining the support of
community leaders.
• Building relationships among families and communities with people
who are perceived to be different is the basis for reducing stigma.
Accessible Summary
• People with intellectual disabilities are treated unfairly in every
country of the world and especially in poorer countries.
• Families have led the way in changing attitudes, despite the negative
reactions they experience from others.
• The support from other parents has helped families to promote more
positive attitudes in local communities.
• Village gatherings, radio broadcasts and support from community
leaders have been good ways of doing this.
• Families need support from professionals and politicians nationally to
match their local efforts.
References
Aldersey, H. M. (2012). Family perceptions of intellectual disability:
Understanding of support in Dar es Salaam. African Journal of Disability, 1,
1–12. doi:10.4102/ajod.v1i1.32.
Aldersey, H., Turnbull, A., & Turnbull, R. (2014). Factors contributing to con-
struction of personhood of individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. Canadian Journal of
Disability Studies, 3, 29–61. doi:10.15353/cjds.v3i2.156
Ali, A., Kock, E., Molteno, C., Mfiki, N., King, M., & Strydom, A. (2015).
Ethnicity and self-reported experiences of stigma in adults with intellectual
disability in Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 59, 530–540. doi:10.1111/jir.12158.
Eide, A., & Ingstad, B. (2011). Disability and poverty: A global challenge. Bristol,
UK: Policy Press.
Einfeld, S. L., Stancliffe, R. J., Gray, K. M., Sofronoff, K., Rice, L., Emerson, E.,
et al. (2012). Interventions provided by parents for children with intellectual
disabilities in low and middle income countries. Journal of Applied Research in
Essop, F. (2012). Parents’ and special care workers’ understanding of “accep-
tance” and “denial” in relation to a child’s intellectual disability. In Unpublished
Master’s thesis. Disability Studies Division: University of Cape Town, South
Africa.
Haihambo, C., & Lightfoot, E. (2010). Cultural beliefs regarding people with
disabilities in Namibia: Implications for inclusion of people with disabilities.
International Journal of Education, 25, 76–87.
Ingstad, B. (2001). Disability in the developing world. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D.
Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 772–792).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kahonde, C. (2015). A grounded theory study of family caregivers’ responses to
sexuality and relationship support needs of young adults with intellectual disabili-
ties. PhD thesis in preparation, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Kelly, A., Ghalaieny, T., & Devitt, C. (2012). A pilot study of early intervention
for families with children with or at risk of an intellectual disability in
Northern Malawi. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9,
195–205. doi:10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00354.
Kromberg, J., Zwane, E., Manga, P., Venter, A., Rosen, E., & Christianson, A.
(2008). Intellectual disability in the context of a South African population.
Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 89–95. doi:10.111
1/j.1741-1130.2008.00153.
Lansdown, G. (2002). Disabled children in South Africa: Progress in implementing
the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Report retrieved from www.daa.org.
uk/uploads/pdf/SA%20Childrens%20report%20.pdf
McConkey, R., Dunne, J., & Blitz, N. (2009). Shared lives: Building relation-
ships and community with people who have intellectual disabilities. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
McConkey, R., & Mariga, L. (2010). Building social capital for inclusive educa-
tion: Insights from Zanzibar. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
11, 12–19. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01174.
McConkey, R., Mariga, L., Braadland, N., & Mphole, P. (2000). Parents as
trainers about disability in low income countries. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 47, 309–317. doi:10.1080/713671113.
McKenzie, J., & McConkey, R. (2015). Caring for adults with intellectual dis-
ability: The perspectives of family carers in South Africa. Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
jar.12209.
McKenzie, J. A., McConkey, R., & Adnams, C. (2013). Intellectual disability in
Africa: Implications for research and service development. Disability and
McKenzie, J., & Muller, B. (2006). Parents and therapists: Dilemmas in part-
nership. In B. Watermeyer, L. Swartz, T. Lorenzo, M. Schneider, &
M. Priestley (Eds.), Disability and social change: A South African agenda
(pp. 311–323). Cape Town, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council
Press.
Macmillan, M., Tarrant, M., Abraham, C., & Morris, C. (2014). The associa-
tion between children’s contact with people with disabilities and their atti-
tudes towards disability: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine and
Child Neurology, 56, 529–546. doi:10.1111/dmcn.12326.
Mirza, I., Tareen, A., Davidson, L. L., & Rahman, A. (2009). Community man-
agement of intellectual disabilities in Pakistan: A mixed methods study.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 559–570.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01176.
Parmenter, T. R. (2001). Intellectual disabilities—Quo vadis? In G. L. Albrecht,
K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 267–296).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
study of attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities. Washington,
DC: Special Olympics Inc.
Tarusarira, W. (2015). Support for Zimbabwean families with a disabled child
seeking asylum in South Africa. MPhil thesis in preparation: University of
Cape Town, South Africa.
Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
13
The Law as a Source of Stigma
or Empowerment: Legal Capacity
and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities
Janos Fiala-Butora and Michael Ashley Stein
When it comes to disability-related stigma, the law is often perceived as

playing a positive role. Anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws can
protect persons with disabilities from unfair treatment. Constitutional
provisions can serve to reinforce their dignity and equality by explicitly
acknowledging their fundamental rights. Human rights treaties, espe-
cially the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(CRPD, UN General Assembly 2007), spell out human rights protec-
tions, with the CRPD taking the added step of requiring governments
to tackle stigma and discrimination by, among others, raising awareness
about persons with disabilities. Further, mainstream human rights bod-
ies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee, have recently started to
recognize the interests of persons with disabilities in formulating their
jurisprudence and recommendations. Notably, the European Court of
Human Rights held in 2010 in Kiss v. Hungary (2010) that persons with
J. Fiala-Butora ( ) • M.A. Stein

Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_13
196 J. Fiala-Butora and M.A. Stein
intellectual disabilities are a historically marginalized group who will

benefit from strict scrutiny in the Court’s jurisprudence.
The law is therefore often depicted to be on the side of persons fighting
stigma and inequality. This chapter, however, argues that in reality the
situation is more complicated. The law seemingly furthers the interests
of persons with intellectual disabilities, but at the same time is also fre-
quently the source of their stigmatization and exclusion. For although a
plethora of legal instruments superficially help persons with intellectual
disabilities, many established legal institutions build on centuries-old
stereotypes of these individuals as helpless and incapable objects of care
rather than as persons with agency. These assumptions often are unstated
and unrecognized. Yet they nonetheless motivate the daily interaction
between the law and the disability in a profound way, by reinforcing
misperceptions that persons with intellectual disabilities are incapable
and provide the means through which those individuals are socially dis-
empowered and excluded.
The Case of Guardianship

To illustrate the general claim made above, this chapter describes how
guardianship stigmatizes and violates the human rights of persons with
intellectual disabilities globally on a daily basis. And yet to avoid the
negative consequences of guardianship, we argue that even overtly rec-
ognizing the stigmatizing effects of the law is insufficient to counter
their impact. Hidden and embedded assumptions of legal institutions
must be uncovered and new institutions created that build on positive
imagery and presumptions regarding the agency and abilities of persons
with intellectual disabilities. Only then can legal systems amend their
daily practices and exert a positive influence on socio-legal perceptions of
persons with intellectual disabilities. This chapter demonstrates how the
CRPD provides an avenue for such legal reform by replacing guardian-
ship with supported decision-making.
Guardianship is a legal institution that exists in some form or other in
all countries of the world, conceivably to protect the interests of persons
with disabilities who are unable to manage their own affairs (Nowak 1993).
13 The Law as a Source of Stigma or Empowerment 197
It involves the limitation of a person’s right to make legally valid decisions

(the limitation of their legal capacity) and the authorization of another per-
son (the guardian) to make decisions on the person’s behalf. The newly
legally incapacitated person loses the right to make decisions about their
property and even their own body: about medical decisions, family matters
such as care over their children, where they live, who they associate with, and
so on. These issues will now be decided by the person’s guardian. Because
incapacitation is obviously a severe interference with personal autonomy
and integrity, guardianship is thought of as a measure of last resort which
can be ordered only by a court (or another State-sanctioned administrative
agency) and is utilized only for a narrow circle of persons with intellectual
and psychosocial disabilities (the latter group is also referred to as individu-
als with mental disabilities).
Guardianship has changed little in its 2000-year history. On the sur-
face, it is applied through a functional test and affects only those persons
who are found by a medical assessment to lack capacity to make their own
decisions. However, in practice, the main determinant of incapacitation
is the existence of an intellectual (or psychosocial) disability (Dhanda
2007). The person’s actual skills or desires matter little (Szegediné and
Sebestyén 1982). Studies of guardianship systems have found that guard-
ianship is overused in many countries (Salzman 2011). In addition, most
incapacitations result in plenary guardianship, the most severe form of
guardianship, which restricts a person’s rights to make decisions in all
areas of life (Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) 2013).
The overuse of guardianship has serious effects on persons with intel-
lectual disabilities (Kohn et al. 2013). First, individuals are denied legal
capacity in areas where they may well be functionally capable of mak-
ing decisions, including consent to medical treatment (Plesó v. Hungary
2012), voting (Fiala-Butora et al. 2014), marriage, work, applying to
courts (Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia 2009), and participation in adop-
tion proceedings (X. v. Croatia 2008). This is because courts undervalue
their skills, and thus consider persons with intellectual disabilities as less
capable than they in fact are.
Due to these legal limitations, it becomes much more difficult
for a person with an intellectual disability to secure their interests.
This is because the guardian has control over their life and is legally
entitled to make decisions on the person’s behalf. In consequence,

it is enormously difficult, if not impossible, for the person to chal-
lenge the guardian’s decisions. If they and their guardian disagree, it
is the guardian’s will which nearly always prevails (Salzman 2011).
Ironically and tragically, while guardianship is supposed to protect
persons with disabilities from abuse, it makes abuse by guardians not
only possible but also commonplace (MDAC 2013).
The denial of rights also has an important pedagogic (or anti-
therapeutic) effect. When a person cannot exercise certain rights, or make
certain decisions because they are made on their behalf by others, they
gradually lose their functional ability to exercise rights in the respective
areas (Kohn et al. 2013). As an empirical matter, the condition of persons
under guardianship deteriorates, and it is rare for any of them to recover
their decision-making abilities once stripped of their legal capacity and
precluded from exerting their agency (Salzman 2011).
Guardianship is likewise an important social marker of lack of skills.
It signals to others that the person is unable to make their own decisions
and is associated with the severe inability of an individual. After all, if
only the most incapable persons with intellectual disabilities are incapaci-
tated, it follows that those under guardianship are severely disabled and
unable to act on their own behalf.
Although the above misplaced correlation between guardianship and
inability is widely believed, it is far from the truth. It is not uncommon
for persons able to work, live alone or with a partner, and attending to
all of their own affairs to nevertheless end up under guardianship. Yet,
strikingly, interviews conducted by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union
with persons under guardianship show that at times it is solely the place-
ment under guardianship which reveals to others that the person has a
disability. For example, one interviewee explained that her new neigh-
bors did not notice she had a disability until they found out that she
was not allowed to vote because she was under guardianship (Hungarian
Civil Liberties Union [Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, TASZ] 2012). From
that, the neighbors deduced that there must be ‘something wrong’ with
her and her condition must be severe if courts thought it appropriate to
appoint a guardian.
These examples are not merely the result of faulty applications of an

otherwise well-designed legal system. Guardianship laws automatically
produce inflated numbers of incapacitated persons. Of course, the degree
of overuse varies across jurisdictions, but it cannot be completely avoided.
Even the best assessment tools will produce false incapacitations. Overuse
is unavoidable in great part because the system is built on the presump-
tion that persons with intellectual disabilities in general lack capacity to
manage their affairs, and, in order to protect them, others need to make
decisions on their behalves.
Guardianship laws play an important role in maintaining this long-
standing societal prejudice. Guardianship has institutionalized the idea
that to help a person with an intellectual disability, their skills and abili-
ties have to be supplanted. It creates persons who are objects of care by
prohibiting them from helping themselves—from working, learning,
marrying, and making decisions in general. Yet, persons with intellectual
disabilities are not a socially marginalized population because of their
disability; they are excluded from social participation in part through the
operation of guardianship laws.
By treating persons with intellectual disabilities as objects of protec-
tion, and at the same time denying their agency, the law strengthens
outdated stereotypes that lead to exclusionary practices. Thus, legal insti-
tutions aimed at helping persons with intellectual disabilities often harm
them. The stigmatization this chapter addresses is not a necessary effect
of otherwise beneficial measures, but rather an unintended and avoidable
outcome. It is commonplace rather than rare that this system has serious
problems and leads to many human rights abuses. The reason guardian-
ship still exists is that there does not seem to be a better solution. Or, at
least until recently, there has not been one.
The Alternative—Supported Decision-Making

For millennia, guardianship has been the only solution to help persons
with decision-making difficulties. However, in recent years, substituted
decision-making has emerged as an alternative. The concept was devel-
oped in the domestic laws of Sweden and Canada (Gordon 2000) and
received worldwide recognition during the negotiations of the CRPD,

adopted in 2006. Article 12 of the CRPD requires that persons with
disabilities exercise their legal capacity on an equal basis with persons
without disabilities, which many argue means without any restrictions of
their legal capacity (Minkowitz 2010).
Supported decision-making rests on the notion that even though some
persons with intellectual disabilities might have difficulties making deci-
sions, those difficulties do not justify making decisions on their behalves
(Carney 2012). Instead, those individuals should receive assistance from
supporters to make their own decisions (Bach and Kerzner 2010), and
with such assistance they are able to make their own decisions (Dhanda
2007). Indeed, this process is not all that different from how individu-
als without disabilities make decisions. With complicated issues such as
buying a house or investing money, everybody relies on informal support
of family, friends, experts in the area, and other trusted persons (Lord
and Stein 2013). Persons with intellectual disabilities might require a
higher level of support, even in areas where most people get along on
their own or with a minimum of assistance (such as with shopping or
cooking), but that is not a qualitatively different situation (Gordon
2000). Guardianship law makes an arbitrary choice by labeling the use
of support by persons with disabilities as a proof of incapacitation, but
accepts support utilized by persons without disabilities as the natural
consequence of fully autonomous and competent decisions.
The goal of legal reform, required by the CRPD, is to create a legal
framework which validates the supported decisions of persons with intel-
lectual disabilities. This is not an easy task since difficulties and embed-
ded resistance arise from many quarters. Legislators, academics, and
advocates are, for example, debating how to protect supported persons
from possible abuse and how to incorporate persons with higher support
needs who are arguably unable to make decisions even with support, into
a support framework. The purpose of this chapter is not to give an over-
view of the possible solutions, something that has been done elsewhere
(Fiala-Butora 2015), but to underline the connection between stigma
and the law’s treatment of legal capacity.
In contrast with guardianship, supported decision-making does not
underestimate the abilities of persons with intellectual disabilities. It
relies on whatever abilities they have and strengthens their capacity by

providing support. There are no legal restrictions on what a person with a
disability is allowed to do; any emphasis is put on overcoming their lack
of knowledge, experience, and skills. This has an opposite pedagogic or
therapeutic effect to guardianship: regardless of the starting position, the
abilities of a person participating in supported decision-making should
develop, rather than diminish as is common under guardianship.
There is a dearth of empirical evidence about whether supported deci-
sion-making can deliver on these promises in practice (Kohn et al. 2013).
It is, however, clear that its legal design forces others to interact with
the person with an intellectual disability. They cannot be hidden in the
background, or be made voiceless or invisible while others communicate
with their guardian. By talking directly with the person with a disability,
contracting parties form a personal and realistic impression about the
person’s skills—and they will have their supporters to ensure that they
perform well in the process.
No doubt some persons with intellectual disabilities will find it dif-
ficult to take care of their own interests, especially if they were prevented
from doing so in the past. Others will perhaps not receive the support
they need. It is sure, however, that the underlying assumptions on which
supported decision-making is built are much more favorable to persons
with disabilities. It requires all involved to act on the assumption that
persons with intellectual disabilities are able to make decisions given the
opportunity and means, and thereby pushes legal transactions to reflect
the idea of persons with intellectual disabilities as capable and equal
actors.
How to Transform Legal Institutions—The

Perspective of Stigma
Supported decision-making is already an existing practice in some
countries of the world, such as Canada and Sweden, and is proliferat-
ing in others through legal reform. It is tempting to suggest that when
existing guardianship laws are replaced with laws based on support, the
underlying problems will be resolved. However, the challenge is much
more difficult to meet as the stigma reflected in and created by the law is
not easy to overcome.
Prejudices against persons with disabilities—and specifically, the widely
held belief that persons with intellectual (and psychosocial) disabilities
are unable to manage their own affairs—are deeply socially entrenched.
For millennia these beliefs have manifested themselves in guardianship
laws which precluded persons with disabilities to make decisions on their
own. In a circular way, these laws also shaped societal conventions regard-
ing the misperceived inability of people with disabilities. Thus, guardian-
ship laws are not solely responsible for the image of a person with an
intellectual disability as incompetent; the prejudice is older and much
more entrenched.
The law is important, however, in the way prejudice against individu-
als with intellectual disabilities currently manifests. The guardianship
system deprives many otherwise capable people of their legal capac-
ity. They are considered incapable of independent life once they were
placed under guardianship, even if they had been able to work and live
alone before that legal procedure. Some persons may not even know
for years that they are legally incapacitated: they continue to take care
of themselves and go about their lives while in the eyes of the law they
are considered incapable of having those very same independent lives
(Sýkora v. the Czech Republic 2012). Once rights are taken away from
them, persons with intellectual disabilities gradually lose these skills,
and guardianship becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: those deprived
of their legal capacity often become dependent on various forms of
assistance. Guardianship law, often arbitrarily administered, plays a
key role in determining who becomes a totally incapable, severely dis-
abled person in need of society’s help, and in defining the nature of that
dependency.
Nevertheless, and despite the unintended injurious effect, the law can
also have a positive influence on societal attitudes. The task of systemic
reform in this context is to put in place legal institutions that promote the
image of persons with disabilities as equally capable and empowered with
agency. However, abolishing all existing guardianship laws and replac-
ing them with support mechanisms, while helpful, is insufficient. This
is especially true for countries with an established guardianship system
where the instantiated culture does not consider persons with disabilities
as autonomous. In those States, social workers, medical professionals,
public administration, guardians, and family members acting under cur-
rent guardianship regimes are all working under the view of persons with
disabilities as objects of care rather than individuals with decision-making
abilities. Simply abolishing guardianship will not immediately change
that attitude. To the contrary, they would likely respond by reinventing
the repressive institutional culture in a new legal framework by renaming
‘guardianship’ as ‘supported decision-making’. Thus, even changing the
criteria of guardianship so that it does not formally restrict legal capacity
is not enough.
Besides establishing a new general framework, legislators must also
identify specific obstacles in which this institutional culture manifests
itself and directly overrule them. Safeguards must be put in place so that
persons with disabilities can indeed make decisions which are currently
most often denied to them. Hence, legal reform has to affect the way
banks engage with their clients and offer loans, doctors talk to patients,
child custody is exercised by parents, public administration handles cus-
tomers, courts hear witnesses, and many other areas which currently con-
stitute a direct obstacle to persons with disabilities exercising their legal
capacity.
The law cannot in itself change embedded societal structures over-
night. That is a much more complex task, requiring a longer period of
time and other factors to be present. The law can and should, however,
establish the structure and create the instruments to allow society to
gradually accept and incorporate the notion that persons with disabili-
ties can make their own decisions. By recognizing persons with disabili-
ties as decision-makers under the law, supported decision-making forces
all other actors to communicate with them instead of their guardians.
Some will no doubt find this burdensome, but the law’s normative goal
should be to expand those areas where the wishes of persons with dis-
abilities will be honored rather than to exclude persons with disabilities
from decision-making on the ground of administrative convenience. In
this process it is crucial that we uncover the hidden assumptions that
continue to undermine the equal place and legal capacity of persons with
Conclusions
This chapter has argued that the stigmatizing effects of the law are not
always evident. Legal institutions can directly contribute to building a
positive image of persons with intellectual disabilities by, for example,
prohibiting open discrimination against them or expressly securing their
fundamental rights. At the same time, legal institutions are built on incor-
rect assumptions about persons with intellectual disabilities. Through
their daily operation they allow these prejudicial assumptions to influ-
ence the social environment. This negative effect is harder to observe,
but nevertheless very damaging to the public perception of persons with
Guardianship is an example of a widely used legal mechanism that is
built on the idea of persons with intellectual disabilities as incapable of
managing their own affairs. Due to more than 2000 years of guardianship
laws, unfounded stereotypes regarding the inability of persons with intel-
lectual disabilities to make their own decisions has been deeply embed-
ded across cultures. Family members, medical and legal professionals,
service providers, and all kinds of caregivers have learned to ignore the
wishes of persons with intellectual disabilities, and instead to make deci-
sions on their behalves, to preserve their ‘best interests’.
Supported decision-making, a newly emerged alternative to guardian-
ship, shows that protecting the human rights of persons with intellectual
disabilities does not have to come at the cost of undermining their capac-
ity and social perception. Stigmatization is not a necessary cost of help,
but rather an obstacle to be overcome. Implementing supported decision-
making will be a long process, because it requires changing societal norms
about how to interact with persons with intellectual disabilities.
While this seems to be a daunting task, one must recall that existing
prejudicial attitudes were to a great extent created and are maintained
through the operation of guardianship laws. The law can therefore equally
play a role in dismantling those social constructs. To achieve this goal, the
task of legal reform should be to uncover hidden assumptions behind our
legal institutions that covertly contribute to stigmatizing persons with
intellectual disabilities. Guardianship serves as one example in this chap-
ter. Similar seemingly disability-neutral mechanisms excluding persons

with intellectual disabilities from equal participation can be found in
other areas of the law, from labor law through criminal law to family law
and other sectors (Fiala-Butora 2013).
The CRPD provides an impetus for reexamining our institutions from
a disability human rights perspective. It sets a high standard by requiring
the full inclusion and equal participation of persons with intellectual dis-
abilities in all areas of life. In many areas, it directly identifies the existing
obstacles which until now went unnoticed by domestic legislators and
courts. In others, it will be the task of self-advocates, supporters, legis-
lators, and academics to uncover and root out the outdated prejudices
deeply embedded in our legal system.
Key Learning Points

• Legal institutions can be based on prejudiced assumptions and have a
stigmatizing effect on persons with intellectual disabilities.
• Guardianship is an example of a seemingly benign institution. It is
based on a presumption that persons with intellectual disabilities are
incapable of decision-making and reinforces this stereotype through
its operation.
• Guardianship still exists because it is wrongly considered irreplaceable.
However, supported decision-making has emerged as an alternative
that strengthens the capacity of persons with intellectual disabilities
instead of limiting their right to make decisions.
• To shift legal systems from guardianship to supported decision-
making, current social norms and expectations need to be challenged.
The law helped to create prejudiced attitudes and it can help change
them as well.
• Legal reform should uncover hidden prejudice in laws and replace out-
dated institutions with new ones built on realistic and empirically
founded understandings of persons with intellectual disabilities.
• The widely adopted CRPD provides good momentum for large-scale
legal reform.
Accessible Summary
• The law often treats persons with intellectual disabilities as unable to
make decisions for themselves.
• Guardianship stops persons with intellectual disabilities from making
their own decisions.
• Supported decision-making helps persons with intellectual disabilities
to make their own decisions.
• We need to replace guardianship with supported decision-making. It is
not easy, because many people are used to the old laws and think per-
sons with intellectual disabilities cannot make their own decisions.
• Changing laws can also help change people’s minds.
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is pushing
countries to change their laws. We should use the Convention to
change laws that are bad for persons with intellectual disabilities.
References
Bach, M., & Kerzner, L. (2010). A new paradigm for protecting autonomy and the
right to legal Capacity. (Paper prepared for the Law Commission of Ontario).
Carney, T. (2012). Guardianship, “social” citizenship, & theorizing substitute
decision-making law. Sydney Law School Research Paper, 12/25.
Dhanda, A. (2007). Legal capacity in the disability rights convention:
Stranglehold of the past or lodestar for the future? Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, 34, 429–462.
Fiala-Butora, J. (2013). Disabling torture: The obligation to investigate ill-
treatment of persons with disabilities. Columbia Human Rights Law Review,
45, 214–280.
Fiala-Butora, J. (2015). Reconstructing personhood: Legal capacity of persons
with disabilities. SJD Dissertation, Harvard Law School, MA, forthcoming.
Fiala-Butora, J., Stein, M. A., & Lord, J. E. (2014). The democratic life of the
Union: Towards equal voting participation for Europeans with disabilities.
Harvard International Law Journal, 55, 71–104.
Gordon, R. M. (2000). The emergence of assisted (supported) decision-making
in the Canadian law of adult guardianship and substitute decision-making.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23, 61–77.
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union [Társaság a Szabadságjogokért, TASZ]. (2012).

Választójog és fogyatékosság [Suffrage and Disability]. Retrieved from http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBgao8ZklGY
Kohn, N. A., Blumenthal, J. A., & Campbell, A. T. (2013). Supported decision-
making: A viable alternative to guardianship? Penn State Law Review, 117,
1111–1157.
Lord, J. E., & Stein, M. A. (2013). Contingent participation and coercive care:
Feminist and communitarian theories of disability and legal capacity. In
B. McSherry & I. Freckelton (Eds.), Coercive care: Rights, law and policy.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC). (2013). Legal Capacity in Europe.
Retrieved from http://mdac.info/sites/mdac.info/files/legal_capacity_in_
europe.pdf
Minkowitz, T. (2010). Abolishing mental health laws to comply with the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In B. McSherry &
P. Weller (Eds.), Rethinking rights based mental health laws. Oxford, UK: Hart
Publishing.
Nowak, M. (1993). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR
Commentary. Kehl am Rhein, Germany: N.P. Engel.
Salzman, L. (2011). Guardianship for persons with mental illness—A legal and
appropriate alternative? Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law and
Policy, 4, 279–329.
Szegediné Dr., & Sebestyén, K. (1982). A gondnokság alá helyezés iránti
perekről [About guardianship proceedings]. Magyar Jog, 7, 606–615.
UN General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities: Resolution. Adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007.
Legislation
Kiss v. Hungary, No. 38832/06 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., May 20, 2010).
Plesó v. Hungary, No. 41242/08 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., October 2, 2012).
Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., October 13,
2009).
Sýkora v. the Czech Republic, No. 23419/07 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., 22 November
2012).
X. v. Croatia, no 11223/04, (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., July 17, 2008).
14
Intellectual Disability, Group
Identification, and Self-Evaluation
Jason Crabtree, William Mandy, and Hannah Mustard
Previous chapters have considered the potential consequences of stigma

on the well-being and life chances of people with intellectual disabilities
as well as the potential psychological consequences of internalizing nega-
tive societal views. This chapter will extend these discussions to consider
how identifying with others who share the label of intellectual disability
has the potential to mediate the internalization of negative societal views
(stigma) and protect positive self-evaluations. Clinical implications of the
research findings are discussed, including how positive self-evaluation
may be promoted among individuals with intellectual disabilities.
J. Crabtree ( )
Westminster Learning Disabilities Service, London, UK
W. Mandy
Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London,
London, UK
H. Mustard
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7_14
210 J. Crabtree et al.
Theoretical Background
Early models of self-identity such as Cooley’s (1902) ‘Looking Glass’ self
and Mead’s (1934) Symbolic Interactionist perspective suggested that
the self cannot be separated from the society in which it is located. As
a result, individuals’ self-evaluations are considered a direct consequence
of the views that others hold of them. Similarly, Gergen’s (1977) Social
Constructionist theory proposes that a person’s self-evaluations are formed
through social interactions. Accordingly, individuals with intellectual dis-
abilities will simply interpret stigma held by others toward them as a reflec-
tion of their ‘true’ value and internalize, leading to negative self-evaluations.
Research has found that the self-evaluations made by individuals
belonging to a number of stigmatized groups are frequently comparable
to those of individuals not belonging to stigmatized groups (e.g., ethnic
minority groups, Verkuyten 1994; children with mild intellectual disabil-
ities, Crabtree and Rutland 2001; individuals with mental health prob-
lems, Hayward and Bright 1997). It therefore seems too crude to suggest
that merely belonging to a stigmatized group leads to low self-evaluation
(Camp et al. 2002).
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979) offers a more complex
understanding of the development of self-identity and evaluation and
accounts for how members of stigmatized groups may maintain positive
self-evaluations. It suggests that individuals’ self-evaluations depend on
the views that society has of their group and how this compares to other
social groups. Therefore, positive self-evaluations can be achieved when
it is possible to make favorable comparisons between one’s in-group and
out-groups. Where this is not possible, as in the case of belonging to a
stigmatized group, individuals’ resultant self-evaluations are likely to be
negative. The theory postulates that individuals strive to maintain posi-
tive self-evaluations, and therefore may seek to distance themselves from
the stigmatized in-group and align themselves with more socially val-
ued groups. In the case of individuals who have no choice in leaving the
group (i.e., the group has no ‘permeability’), Tajfel (1978) suggested that
individuals may promote positive self-evaluation through engaging in
group action to bring about social change. However, a high level of group
identification would appear to be a necessary prerequisite for such action.
14 Group Identification and Self-evaluation 211
In a comprehensive review of the literature, Crocker and Major (1989)

found limited support for the notion that members of stigmatized groups
(including individuals with intellectual disabilities) automatically experi-
ence low self-evaluations. Instead, members of stigmatized groups attri-
bute the negative evaluations of others to prejudice, make use of in-group
social comparisons rather than out-group comparisons to boost positive
self-evaluations, and place greater value on the attributes in which their
group compares favorably, while devaluing those in which their group
compares less favorably.
Branscombe et al. (1999) developed Crocker and Major’s (1989) ideas
in their Rejection-Identification model of group identification and self-
evaluation. They suggested that identifying as a member of a stigmatized
group provides social support and resources to resist the discrimination
and prejudice experienced by the group. This then mediates the rela-
tionship between identifying as a member of a stigmatized group and
how individuals evaluate themselves in order to promote more positive
self-evaluation.
In summary, contemporary theories of group identity suggest that self-
evaluations of stigmatized group members can be protected via a number
of mechanisms, made available to them as a result of identifying with the
group, despite it being stigmatized. These include the following:
1. The provision of direct social support

2. Providing a group of similar others with which to compare one’s
attributes
3. Allowing for greater value to be placed on positive attributes belong-
ing to the group or attributes in which the group differs little from
others
4. Supporting the rejection of stigmatized societal views as invalid or
misrepresented
These mechanisms have been found in research on the self-evaluations

made by members of a number of stigmatized groups. It is unclear, how-
ever, whether these mediating mechanisms are used in the same way or
to the same extent by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Below we
consider the limited amount of research in this area and attempt to draw
some conclusions regarding the impact on self-evaluations of identifying

with a group whose ‘membership’ is based on significant intellectual
impairment.
Group Identity and Self-Esteem Among

Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities
There is a dearth of literature that has explicitly explored the link between
group identification and self-evaluation among individuals with intel-
lectual disabilities. Much of the literature reported here frequently makes
inferences about group identification, rather than explicitly measuring the
degree to which individuals with intellectual disabilities actually identify
themselves as such. Finlay and Lyons (1998), for example, investigated
the significance of the label ‘learning difficulties’ (the term commonly
used by self-advocates in the UK to denote intellectual disability) for the
self-evaluations made by individuals with mild intellectual disabilities.
Two-thirds of their sample recognized that they had an intellectual dis-
ability when asked directly, but the label was not often used spontane-
ously in their self-descriptions. Participants who devalued others with
intellectual disabilities did not report more negative self-evaluations even
when they identified with the label, and conversely those who identified
with the label did not evaluate the label any more positively than those
who rejected it. These findings suggest that firstly, it cannot be assumed
that all individuals with intellectual disabilities automatically identify
with this label; and secondly, that group-evaluation and self-evaluation
processes occur independently in people with intellectual disabilities.
These researchers went on to investigate how sense of self is constructed
by people with intellectual disabilities through their social comparisons
with others (Finlay and Lyons 2000). They found that the attributes on
which individuals compared themselves to others belonging to both their
in-group and out-groups were those most likely to result in positive self-
evaluations. More specifically, participants made in-group comparisons
on attributes such as level of ability and behavioral disturbance. That is,
when comparing themselves to in-group members, they chose to com-
pare themselves to individuals who were less able or who displayed higher
levels of behavioral disturbance. Attributes selected to make comparisons

against members of out-groups included morally questionable or nega-
tive behavior, such as people who steal. Thus, in each case individuals
with intellectual disabilities were making use of self-protective strategies
in evaluating their sense of self.
The above findings would also appear to suggest that participants
attempted to distance themselves from the in-group in order to protect
their self-identity and could be deemed to offer support for Tajfel and
Turner’s (1979) model of identity. It could, however, be argued that com-
paring oneself to the in-group on group-based, stigmatized characteristics
such as ability and behavior is in itself an indication of recognizing that
one belongs to that group (Hinkle and Brown 1990). If this were assumed
to be the case, then the presence of in-group comparisons in Finlay and
Lyons’ studies suggests that some group identification did exist, but that
individuals attempted to position themselves at the more capable end
of the group’s spectrum of intellectual ability. Such social comparisons
would therefore suggest both a sense of identification with the intellec-
tual disability group and a desire to distance oneself from more stigma-
tized members of the group.
Coping strategies used by individuals with intellectual disabilities to
manage social stigma in the context of transitioning from institutional
settings and the family home were explored by Jahoda and Markova
(2004). They concluded that interviewees were aware both of the stigma
associated with intellectual disability and that this affected how they were
treated by others. Two key coping strategies to manage stigma that are
linked to group identification were identified. Either participants iden-
tified with the in-group and regarded themselves as part of a minority
group who rejected prejudice, or they attempted to distance themselves
from others with intellectual disabilities and associated stigmatizing
‘institutionalized’ services. More specifically, those moving from institu-
tionalized settings spoke of greater feelings of shame due to being visibly
defined as an inpatient (via hospital tags) and a wish to hide the fact that
they lived at the hospital. Those living in community settings with a
potentially greater opportunity to conceal their difference more positively
identified with the intellectual disability group. These findings suggest
that self-stigma is linked to being identified as using a stigmatized service
and perhaps to whether or not an individual has the choice to conceal a

negative group identity.
While not explicitly measuring group identity, Crabtree and Rutland
(2001) compared the self-evaluations made by young people aged 11–16
years with mild intellectual disabilities attending ‘special schools’ (i.e.,
segregated schools) with their typically developing peers attending main-
stream schools. Overall they found no significant difference between the
self-evaluations of these two groups, adding to the argument that indi-
viduals with intellectual disabilities employ mechanisms to protect self-
evaluations. This study attempted to artificially manipulate the social
comparison group used by the participants with intellectual disabilities by
asking them to compare themselves to predefined groups (‘young people
like you’ and ‘young people in other schools’). As anticipated, who the
students compared themselves to affected their self-evaluations—compar-
isons with more similar and/or less able (in-group) peers were associated
with more positive self-evaluations. The students also placed greater value
on non-academic attributes, such as physical appearance and athletic abil-
ity, when comparing themselves to their typically developing peers.
In a follow-on study, Crabtree and Meredith (2003) compared the
self-evaluations of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities attend-
ing both mainstream and special schools. Those attending special schools
where there was a readily available group of similar others tended to make
in-group social comparisons, while those attending mainstream schools
most frequently made out-group social comparisons with typically devel-
oping peers. Interestingly, while differences between groups were found
in terms of their self-evaluations of their maths and general intellectual
abilities, no other differences were found in their self-evaluations on a
range of other academic and non-academic domains. Thus, while iden-
tifying with similar others may affect positive self-evaluations in stigma-
tized groups somewhat, other processes, such as placing greater value on
attributes that are not impaired, are also important in determining overall
self-evaluations.
A small number of studies have attempted to explicitly measure group
identification and its link to self-evaluations in people with intellec-
tual disabilities. In a study involving individuals attending a day center,
Dagnan and Waring (2004) included two items to assess levels of group
identification (feeling part of a group or on their own and feeling the

same or different as other people). In addition to finding relatively low
levels of group identification, negative self-evaluative beliefs were found
to be correlated with scores on a measure of stigma perception and were
also associated with low self-rated social attractiveness. They concluded,
somewhat contrary to much of the previously reported research, that
there is a link between perceived stigma and self-evaluation. Furthermore,
those living in staffed housing experienced a greater degree of self-stigma
than those living independently. This relationship was fully mediated by
level of verbal ability: those whose intellectual disability was milder (and
who demonstrated higher levels of verbal ability) lived independently and
experienced less self-stigma than those who needed extra support due to
the severity of their intellectual disability. These differences echo Jahoda
and Markova’s (2004) findings that people living more independently,
and who were therefore able to distance themselves from the intellectual
disability group when they chose to, experienced less self-stigma.
It is possible that the lack of association between group identification
and self-evaluation found in Dagnan and Waring’s (2004) study may be
accounted for by the way in which group identification was measured
rather than the absence of this relationship. Only two items were used to
gauge group identification, and there was a lack of specificity regarding
which group of ‘other people’ participants were comparing themselves to.
Therefore, the apparently opposing evidence from Dagnan and Waring’s
study should be treated with some caution. Further research is required
that uses more robust methods to explore levels of group identification in
participants with intellectual disabilities.
In Paterson et al.’s (2012) study of the relationship between stigma,
social comparison, and self-evaluations, individuals with intellectual dis-
abilities chose to make comparisons with others (both those belonging
to the in-group and out-group) on attributes on which they felt them-
selves to be in a comparatively better position. Participants who identi-
fied themselves as someone with an intellectual disability and compared
themselves to less able members of the group made more positive self-
evaluations. Interestingly, when comparing themselves with a broader
target social comparison group of ‘people living in their city’ the selective
use of attributes on which to compare themselves to others appeared to
come into play, with those who rated themselves as more socially attrac-
tive and able reporting higher self-evaluations. This again suggests that
downward social comparisons have a protective effect on self-evaluations
when an individual identifies with a stigmatized group.
Conclusions
From the research presented in this chapter it appears that the relation-
ship between group identification and self-evaluation in people with
intellectual disabilities is complex. Firstly, some individuals do not explic-
itly appear to acknowledge the label of intellectual disability as applying
to themselves (Finlay and Lyons 1998), potentially as a means of distanc-
ing themselves from belonging to a stigmatized group.
Secondly, for those individuals identifying with the group the evidence
presented suggests that there are a number of mechanisms afforded to
them by group membership that appear to buffer the potentially nega-
tive consequences of belonging to a stigmatized group. These include (1)
comparisons with less able in-group members; (2) mediating the value
placed on attributes based on the performance of the in-group compared
to other groups; and (3) shared group identification to reject stigma.
In terms of clinical implications and future research directions, it seems
important to consider how those with intellectual disabilities compare
to other groups for whom initiatives to reduce stigma and protect self-
evaluations are more developed. There are certainly similarities between
stigma research in the mental health arena and research involving people
with intellectual disabilities in terms of both populations’ awareness of
stigma. However, there appear to be some differences between the two
groups in how self-evaluation is protected. There seems to be more of
an emphasis in the mental health literature on the impact of social sup-
port from other group members, whether from defined support groups
or through a sense of belonging to a wider community, in mediating the
relationship between stigma and self-evaluation (Crabtree et al. 2010;
Watson et al. 2007). This contrasts with the findings from the intellectual
disability literature, which suggests that people assigned to this group are
more likely to try and distance themselves from other members, whether
physically (Jahoda and Markova 2004) or through downward comparison

(Finlay and Lyons 2000; Jahoda and Markova 2004; Paterson et al. 2012).
It is possible that individuals with intellectual disabilities also receive social
support from identifying with this group and that this provides a resource
for coping with stigma. Future research should investigate the role of
group identification, social support, and stigma resistance among people
with intellectual disabilities, as it is not clear to what extent peer sup-
port can protect the self-evaluations made by this population. Evidence of
downward comparisons may in fact suggest a greater tendency to stigma-
tize one’s own group, compared to groups where peer support and united
group strategies against stigma are more readily found. Greater attention
is called for to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities can access
peer-to-peer support, advocacy, and group-based coping resources to
minimize the potential of experiencing both group and self-stigma.
An important issue raised by the literature presented in this chapter is
whether group identification occurs when an individual is either not ‘out’
about their diagnosis or does not use services that bring them into contact
with others with a shared diagnosis of intellectual disability. Given the
general direction of service provision for those with intellectual disabili-
ties, focused on individualized support and person-centered approaches,
opportunities for developing a shared group identity may well be reduced.
The emphasis on the central role of peer support and collectively speak-
ing up within the stigma literature appears to be notably absent from the
intellectual disability literature. This perhaps indicates a persistence of
perceiving people with intellectual disabilities as receivers of support from
those without disabilities, rather than peers with intellectual disabilities.
More research is clearly needed to investigate whether peer support offers
the same self-protective value as it does for other stigmatized groups.
Key Learning Points

• Viewing oneself as belonging to a group of ‘people with intellectual
disabilities’ does not automatically result in negative self-evaluations.
• Individuals with intellectual disabilities appear to use three key strate-
gies to buffer stigma and maintain positive self-evaluations:
• Selective use of in-group and out-group social comparisons.

• Selective valuing of personal and group attributes.
• Distancing from the group of ‘people with intellectual disabilities’.
• Social comparisons, either with less able peers or those belonging to
groups presenting with other stigmatizing attributes, are the most fre-
quently identified strategy.
Accessible Summary
• Having intellectual disabilities does not mean people inevitably feel
bad about themselves.
• People with intellectual disabilities use different ways to feel good
about themselves:
• Comparing themselves to less able people or people who behave in
disruptive ways
• Placing more importance on the things they do well
• Sometimes not seeing themselves as having an intellectual
disability
• More research is needed to look at the benefits peer support has on
how people with intellectual disabilities feel about themselves.
References
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving perva-
sive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group iden-
tification and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135.
Camp, D. L., Finlay, W. M., & Lyons, E. (2002). Is low self-esteem an inevitable
consequence of stigma? An example of women with chronic mental health
problems. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 823–834. doi:10.1016/
S0277-9536(01)00205-2.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Two major works: Social organization and human nature
and the social order. Glencoe, UK: Free Press.
Crabtree, J. W., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2010). Mental
health support groups, stigma and self-esteem: Positive and negative implica-
tions of group identification. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 553–569.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01662.x.
Crabtree, J. W., & Meredith, C. (2003). Self-concept and social comparisons in
learning disabled students attending mainstream and special schools: Does
integration have an impact? In R. G. Craven & H. Marsh (Eds.), Self-concept
Theory, Research and Practice: Advances for the New Millennium (pp. 187–193).
University of Western Sydney, Australia: 2000 SELF Research Centre.
Crabtree, J., & Rutland, A. (2001). Self-evaluation and social comparison
amongst adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Community and
Applied Psychology, 11, 347–359. doi:10.1002/casp.634.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-
protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608.
Testing a social-cognitive model of the experience of people with intellectual
disabilities. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 11, 247–254. doi:10.1002/
cpp.413.
culties: Implications for self-advocacy groups. Disability and Society, 13,
37–51. doi:10.1080/09687599826902.
Finlay, M., & Lyons, E. (2000). Social categorizations, social comparisons and
stigma: Presentations of self in people with learning difficulties. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 129–146. doi:10.1348/014466600164372.
Gergen, K. J. (1977). The concept of self. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston.
Hayward, P., & Bright, J. (1997). Stigma and mental illness: A review and cri-
tique. Journal of Mental Health, 6, 345–354. doi:10.1080/09638239718671.
Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity:
Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity
theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 48–70). New York, NY:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behav-
iorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Paterson, L., McKenzie, K., & Lindsay, B. (2012). Stigma, social comparison and
self-esteem in adults with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research
inIntellectualDisabilities,25,166–176.doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00651.x.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Inter-individual behavior and intergroup behavior. In

H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psy-
chology of intergroup relations (pp. 61–76). London, UK: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup rela-
tions (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Verkuyten, M. (1994). Self-esteem among ethnic minority youth in Western
countries. Social Indicators Research, 32, 21–47. doi:10.1007/BF01078464.
Watson, A. C., Corrigan, P. W., Larson, J. E., & Sells, M. (2007). Self-stigma in
people with mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33, 1312–1318.
doi:10.1093/schbul/sbl076.
Epilogue
Katrina Scior and Shirli Werner
Since the days of the almost complete denial of the personhood and
rights of people with intellectual disabilities and their large-scale confine-
ment in institutions in many countries, much progress has been made.
Many no longer question the human-ness of persons with intellectual
disabilities and the days of their physical segregation from society appear
numbered in many, but by no means all, parts of the world. In the fight
for respect and acceptance, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD) can be seen as a very important step forward,
though one that needs to be accompanied by action on many levels. The
inclusion of persons with intellectual disabilities under the Convention,
at least theoretically, commits signatory states to enact domestic laws and
measures to improve their rights and to abolish legislation, customs, and
practices that discriminate against them. Nevertheless, the experts from
various fields brought together in this book are unanimous in concluding
that we are a long way from abolishing stigma and accepting children and
adults with intellectual disabilities fully into society. For example, while
in many Western countries there appears to be a growing willingness
among the general public to include people with intellectual disabilities
within their communities, there are many signs that there is a continuing

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7
222 Epilogue
reluctance to welcome them as equals into inclusive schools and work

places. Further, research that taps into more deeply held implicit attitudes
suggests that these continue to be grounded in negative constructions of
intellectual disability. In many low- and middle-income countries the
fight for equal rights for people with intellectual disabilities has barely
begun and largely relies on the efforts of parents. At global level then,
there is still a huge way to go until the equal human value of such persons
is not only being paid lip service to but truly accepted.
Many may question whether we will ever reach a point of true accep-
tance and full inclusion for individuals with intellectual disabilities. In
putting together this first text book on intellectual disability stigma, it is
our firm conviction that this is not only a goal very much worth striving
for, but also one that is attainable. If we look to the early days of the civil
rights movement, for example, many entertained similar doubts about a
future in which members of different races would be seen as equals. Going
back a little bit further, fierce debates were held as to whether women had
sufficient capability for reasoning to justify their right to vote. One factor
that makes the fight against intellectual disability stigma unquestionably
harder is that many persons with intellectual disabilities require support
to make their voice heard and to engage in collective action. Article 12 of
the CRPD recognizes that all individuals should hold the right to legal
capacity. Individuals with intellectual disabilities have the basic human
right to self-determination and autonomy, to being provided with the
opportunity to make their own decisions. This indicates growing recogni-
tion that the central role of supporters, advocates, and researchers should
not be one of doing or speaking for but of facilitating people doing and
speaking themselves. This recognition may well be at the heart of many
services and organizations but is still very alien in many others. In fact,
the message of the huge importance and value of self-advocacy emerges
again and again throughout this book.
As Pat Corrigan notes in the foreword to this book, in the intellec-
tual disability field our work as experts has mostly focused on develop-
ing innovative ways for people to overcome their impairments to meet
personal goals. Certainly focusing solely on the individual’s impairments
does not meet the aim of tearing down barriers which are inherent in
communities and within society. Thus, our agenda in moving forward
Epilogue 223
must be to develop effective strategies to tear down community barriers

to these goals while not losing sight of underlying impairments and the
associated need for support. As we note in Chap. 9, contact between indi-
viduals with intellectual disabilities and others in the community seems
to be the most promising way to reduce stigma. Further, stigma change
efforts should begin early in life and be provided to all age groups; they
also must not lose sight of the fact that persons with intellectual dis-
abilities in low- and middle-income countries are as much, and in many
cases more, subjected to stigma as those in high-income countries where
most anti-stigma efforts take place to date. In this process we suspect
those of us in the roles of experts, advocates, or supporters will need
to ask ourselves searching questions about our own deeply held beliefs
about human-ness and the huge value accorded to intellectual prowess
and autonomy, as well as our own emotional responses to disability.
Further, advancing research in this field is a mandatory step. Pat
Corrigan in his foreword reminds us that our role as researchers should be
to humbly guide how the fight against intellectual disability stigma is most
likely to be effective and what strategies carry more risks than likely ben-
efits. On this note, we encourage our colleagues in the world of research
to become more active in examining the effects of different strategies.
At present, the intellectual disability field is alive with diverse efforts to
achieve attitude change but there is currently very little consideration of
whether such efforts have the desired effect and where resources are best
spent. In an effort to advance this field, it is highly important for different
stakeholders to join forces. Collaboration between self-advocates, par-
ents/families, disabled people’s organizations, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, statutory services, and researchers is highly important. Individuals
with intellectual disabilities themselves, and those who support them and
are most familiar with them, rather than so-called experts, have most
knowledge on how stigma affects their lives and should be empowered to
take an active role in delivering stigma change interventions.
While research and innovations have mainly focused on high-income
countries, as noted above, we need to recognize that we have left millions of
people with intellectual disabilities and those frequently battling for their
most basic rights ignored. Thus, more collaboration across world regions
is needed as is a greater willingness for those in high-income countries to
224 Epilogue
support efforts in low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, orga-

nizations focused on challenging intellectual disability stigma across the
world (such as Inclusion International and Special Olympics) as well as
those operating at national and community level should collaborate with
researchers to ensure that resources are used in the most effective way and
set a united and evidence-driven agenda for stigma change.
Index
A Autonomy, 9, 39, 103, 197,

Acceptance, 19, 21, 22, 71, 79, 98, 222, 223
138, 154, 157, 167, 181, Awareness/ awareness raising, 31,
182, 221, 222 33, 49, 92–103, 111,
Activism/activists, 115, 130, 166, 133–40, 151, 152, 154,
167, 172–4 158, 195, 216
Adolescents, 100, 137, 138, 157, 214
Adults/adult, 9, 15, 19, 23, 31,
33–6, 38, 39, 51, 65, 67, B
68, 79, 84, 92, 113, Belonging, 50, 149, 157, 169, 170,
114, 118, 132, 134, 210–12, 215–18
136, 137, 143, 153, Bullying, 33, 51, 99, 104–6, 113,
155, 161, 168, 173, 137, 172
182–4, 190, 221
Anti-stigma, 130, 137, 138, 223
Attitudes, 5, 16–19, 31, 49, 68, 92, C
112, 132, 150, 167, 180, Campaign(s), 116, 136, 137, 187
202, 222 Capability/capabilities, 68, 71, 78,
Attribution(s), 7, 38, 106 79, 103, 129, 141, 150,
Autism, 62, 65, 138, 157 152, 155, 222

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52499-7
226 Index
Challenge(s)/challenge misconceptions, Diagnosis, 38, 82, 85, 112,

11, 15, 16, 35, 39, 40, 55, 132, 217
58, 68, 113, 118, 130, 132, Discomfort, 19, 58, 129, 137,
133, 142, 165–75, 180, 182, 141, 143
183, 185, 186, 190, 191, Discrimination, 5, 6, 10, 16,
198, 201, 205 19, 34, 35, 37, 40,
Child/children, 9, 15, 21–2, 31, 53, 82, 86,91, 92, 99,
65, 77, 102, 113, 132, 104, 106, 112–14,
149–61, 171, 197, 210, 221 129, 132, 137–41,
Choices, 31, 39, 40, 42, 43, 68, 81, 165, 168, 180, 195,
172, 175 204, 211
Class(es)/ classroom(s), 17, 21, 35, Down Syndrome, 8, 37, 65,
71, 80, 135, 149, 150, 102, 133, 135, 183,
152–4, 156–9 184, 186
Cognitive behavior therapy, 130
Community inclusion/ social
inclusion, 17, 31, 165, 168, E
170, 174 Education, 3, 32, 34, 38, 41–3,
Community integration, 32, 35–6, 67, 71, 83, 101, 120–2,
41, 42 132–9, 142, 143,
Consciousness raising, 131, 173 153–5, 158, 159,
Contact, 6, 21, 54, 56, 63, 100, 179, 186
105, 132, 134–6, 138–43, Eugenic(s), 4, 31, 78–80, 86,
152, 154, 171, 189, 190, 112, 134
217, 223 Evidence-based, 107
Convenience samples, 133 Exclusion(s)/social exclusion, 7, 18,
Convention on the Rights of 31, 32, 66, 112, 113, 115,
Persons with Disabilities, 122, 132, 169, 172,
82, 139, 188, 195, 206, 221 189, 196
Cope(s)/ coping, 4, 57, 101, 103, Experiential learning, 133
104, 106, 107, 130, 131,
186, 213, 217
F
Familiarity, 129, 137
D Families, 8–10, 23, 34, 39, 40, 51,
Deinstitutionalization, 42, 79, 92 57, 66, 81, 120, 122, 132,
Developing countries, 3, 32, 34, 37, 135, 179–92, 223
179–92 Films, 63
Index 227
G Intellectual disability, 3–11, 15–24,

General public/ public, 6, 10, 31, 49, 65, 77–87, 92,
18, 31, 35–7, 41, 56, 61, 111–23, 129–43, 150, 165,
65, 66, 81, 92, 105, 112, 179, 197, 209–18, 222
136, 138, 141, 142, 167, Interactions/ Social interactions, 6,
169, 170, 173, 180, 203, 10, 19, 100, 103, 106, 132,
204, 221 137, 151–7, 167, 210
Government(s), 70, 169, 175, 187, Internalization, 8, 106, 209
195, 223 Internet, 36, 63, 118, 119, 133,
Group identity, 131, 211–17 135–7
Guardianship, 81, 196–206 Interpersonal, 113, 130, 132–8
Intervention(s), 23, 38, 41, 66, 70,
80, 106, 107, 129–43,
H 150–60, 223
Health, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 32, 36–9, 41–3, Intrapersonal, 130–2
78, 79, 86, 105–7, 112, 130,
133–5, 137, 138, 179, 184,
189, 190, 210, 216 K
Healthcare, 134, 135 Knowledge, 18, 19, 38, 69, 71, 73,
87, 92, 117, 121, 131, 133,
134, 136, 138, 139, 143,
I 150–4, 167, 171, 173, 180,
Identity, 5, 8–9, 54, 99, 101, 103, 187, 201, 216, 223
131, 151, 165–8, 170–4,
181, 210–17
Impairment(s), 4, 5, 54, 77, 78, 83, L
85, 86, 114, 131, 166, 167, Label(s), 4, 5, 8, 9, 24, 49, 50, 56, 77,
179, 212, 222, 223 79, 83–5, 87, 100, 101, 103,
Inclusion, 9, 17, 21, 31, 32, 112–16, 120, 131, 141, 166,
34–6, 39, 113, 117, 167, 170, 172, 174, 185,
132–4, 136, 137, 150, 190, 191, 209, 212, 216
165–70, 174, 186, 205, Law(s), 31, 34, 52, 80, 81, 114, 116,
221, 222, 224 120, 121, 138, 195–206, 221
Institutionalization/ institutions/ Legal system(s), 86, 114, 121, 196,
institutionalize, 36, 78, 81, 199, 205
92, 112, 116, 117, 119, Legislation, 80, 81, 86, 114, 117,
120, 138, 196, 199, 202, 118, 138, 139, 165, 221
204, 205, 213, 221 Leisure, 35, 36, 67, 142, 155
228 Index
M 167, 170, 171, 174, 180,

Marginalized/ marginalization, 31, 190, 197–9, 202, 203, 222
142, 149, 196, 199 Outcomes/ intervention outcomes/
Mass media, 61–73, 136–8 outcomes of interventions, 6,
Measure(s)/measurement, 9, 15–24, 10, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 87,
56, 82, 83, 87, 183, 197, 92, 95, 101, 104, 106, 107,
199, 214, 215, 221 130, 143, 150, 154, 158–60
Media, 36, 61–73, 136–8, 141,
142, 152
Mencap, 120, 132, 137 P
Mental health, 6, 7, 37, 78, 86, 130, Parents, 8, 32, 34, 39, 77, 79–87,
134, 137, 210, 216 94, 98, 102, 132, 135, 141,
Methodology/methods, 15–24, 168, 151, 169, 174, 183–92,
180, 215 203, 222, 223
Misconception, 7, 129, 133, 141 Participation, 32, 35–8, 41, 42, 68,
Model(s), 4, 19, 66, 92, 100, 105, 142, 153, 154, 156, 160,
106, 112, 130, 131, 135, 169, 171, 172, 186, 190,
155, 158, 166–7, 174, 210, 197, 199, 205
211, 213 Participatory research, 42, 50, 57, 70
Movies, 67, 73 Peers, 34, 38, 92, 99–101, 137, 138,
Multilevel, 130, 131 149–61, 172, 185, 190,
214, 217, 218
Perception/perceptions, 15, 17,
N 40, 50, 67, 69, 71, 83,
Narrative therapy, 131 93, 96, 97, 105, 132, 138,
Negative attitudes, 8, 34, 37, 38, 43, 160, 170, 179, 180, 182,
49, 50, 92, 100, 132, 135, 185, 187, 188, 191, 196,
137, 138, 143, 190 204, 215
Negative consequences, 130, 172, Photographs, 135, 137
196, 216 Police officers, 33, 133, 136
Neighbor/neighbors, 135, 138, 198 Policy/policies, 10, 17, 18, 23, 31, 34,
Newspaper, 61–3, 65–6, 70–3, 137 37, 38, 40, 41, 57, 70, 78,
80, 129, 138, 139, 158, 159,
165, 166, 169, 174, 190
O Positive attitudes, 132, 134, 137,
Occupation/work, 18, 21, 34, 35, 141, 142, 157, 158, 192
53, 54, 65–7, 71–3, 77, 78, Power/ power relations, 5, 10, 55,
84, 87, 129–43, 156, 157, 56, 71, 112, 122, 131
Index 229
Prejudice(s), 5, 10, 16, 19, 22, 50, Segregation, 17, 35, 41, 42, 78,
77, 82, 86, 87, 91, 96, 112, 120, 221
113, 115, 119, 139, 141, Self-advocacy, 50, 52, 55, 57, 131,
142, 166, 199, 202, 205, 154, 168–75, 222
211, 213 Self-determination, 32, 39–40, 42, 222
Professionals, 18, 23, 37–9, 50, Self-disclosure/ disclosure,
70–2, 82, 83, 85, 87, 103, 103, 106, 130
136, 153, 155, 169, 171, Self-esteem, 7, 57, 91, 94–7, 101,
181, 187, 188, 190, 192, 102, 104, 106, 185, 212–16
203, 204 Self-stigma, 32, 41, 49, 50, 56, 57,
Public stigma, 37, 56, 91, 92 91–107, 130, 131, 151,
182, 185, 213, 215, 217
Service providers/ service provision,
Q 33, 42, 57, 129, 204, 217
Quality of life, 37, 39, 41, 42, 93, Services, 18, 37, 38, 81, 84, 86, 95,
104–6, 169, 174 99, 103, 105–7, 138, 171,
179, 187, 188, 190, 191,
213, 217, 222, 223
R Sex(es), 38, 78
Research, 5, 16, 32, 50, 64, 79, Sexual relations, 32, 38, 39, 79, 113,
91, 132, 150, 168, 180, 114, 116, 117, 119
209, 223 Social media, 36, 132
Rights/human rights, 4, 5, 7, 9, Social model, 135, 166–8, 174
17, 18, 31–3, 35, Social psychology/ psychologist, 6, 7,
38–42, 55, 66, 77–87, 10, 19, 140
115, 116, 120, 133, Societal views, 62, 129, 209, 211
139, 142, 165–9, 172, Society, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 53, 56, 57,
174, 175, 187, 188, 62–4, 68, 70, 72, 78, 79,
190, 195–9, 202, 204–6, 120, 129, 139, 140, 165,
221–3 172, 180–3, 188, 190, 191,
202, 203, 210, 221, 222
Special Olympics, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69,
S 132, 134, 224
Scale(s), 15–24, 97 Stereotype/ stereotypes, 5, 6, 16, 19,
School(s), 17, 19, 34, 66, 71, 72, 93, 23, 61–3, 68, 72, 73, 77,
100, 101, 105, 113, 133, 86, 91, 92, 96, 99–102,
137, 138, 149–61, 171, 105, 132, 139, 142, 150,
186, 189, 190, 214, 222 196, 199, 204, 205
230 Index
Stigma change, 23, 70, 130, 131, Terminology, 10, 31

134, 139–40, 223, 224 Theory/theories, 6, 7, 10, 16, 22, 64,
Stigma/stigmatization, 3–11, 15–24, 130, 140, 210, 211
31–43, 49–58, 62, 69, 77–87, Training, 33, 35, 37–41, 83, 87, 92,
91–107, 111–23, 129–43, 94, 117, 122, 133, 134,
149–61, 165–75, 179–92, 136, 138, 139, 142, 152,
195–206, 209–18, 221 153, 155, 188
Structural, 34–6, 38, 41, 130, 138, 139
Structural level, 38, 130, 138, 139
Structural stigma, 35, 36, 38 U
Students, 17, 18, 34, 71, 92, 93, 97, UN Convention, 82, 139, 188,
100, 101, 104, 133–5, 139, 195, 221
149–60, 214
Supported decision-making, 40, 196,
199–201, 203–6 V
Supports, 66, 72, 82, 154, 186 Valued roles, 152, 160
Vignette(s), 18, 19, 133
Volunteer(s)/volunteering, 17, 67,
T 134, 135, 139, 152
Tackling stigma, 179–92
Teachers, 19, 34, 133, 137, 156,
161, 188 W
Television, 61–3, 65–7, 69–73, 135, Well-being, 35, 40, 42, 95, 104–6,
172, 185 184, 209

Intelectual Disability Nas Stigma PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intelectual Disability Nas Stigma PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intelectual Disability Nas Stigma PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY AND STIGMA

Stepping Out from the Margins

ISBN 978-1-137-52498-0 ISBN 978-1-137-52499-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950063

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The stigma of intellectual disabilities is as troubling for people with these

impact. They ground their discussion in research methods to make sure

I absolutely endorse African American rights agendas. However, I need

Part I Theory and Concepts 1

1 Toward Understanding Intellectual Disability Stigma:

2 Measurement Methods to Assess Intellectual

Part II The Consequences of Intellectual Disability Stigma 29

3 How Stigma Affects the Lives of People with Intellectual

4 How Stigma Affects Us: The Voice of Self-advocates 49

5 Rarely Seen, Seldom Heard: People with Intellectual

6 Stigmatic Representation of Intellectual Disability

7 Self-stigma in People with Intellectual Disabilities 91

8 Intellectual Disability, Stigma, and Hate Crimes 111

Part III Tackling Intellectual Disability Stigma 127

9 Interventions Aimed at Tackling Intellectual Disability

10 Relationships Matter: Addressing Stigma Among Children

11 Empowering People with Intellectual Disabilities to

12 Tackling Stigma in Developing Countries: The Key Role

13 The Law as a Source of Stigma or Empowerment:

14 Intellectual Disability, Group Identification, and

Katrina Scior is a senior lecturer in Clinical Psychology at University College

János Fiala-Butora is a doctor of juridical science candidate at Harvard Law

Roy McConkey is Emeritus Professor of Developmental Disabilities at the

James G. Rice is an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of

The recent World Report on Disability (World Health Organization and

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 3

additional disadvantage of having their needs inadequately understood

of disability stigma are experienced. Importantly though, as several of the

What Is Intellectual Disability Stigma?

to be mostly used to refer to the cognitive component alone and less so

Why Is Intellectual Disability Stigmatized?

consequently, physical disability becomes less stigmatized. However, as

Box 1.1 Social-Psychological Theories of Stigma

The Impact of Intellectual Disability Stigma

under pressure and at maximum speed, increasingly this notion is being

Key Learning Points

• Researchers have produced different ideas why attitudes to disability

Community and teacher views of Down syndrome. International Journal of

Adequate measurement tools are needed to allow researchers to examine

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 15

Theoretical and Methodological Challenges

Summary of Leading Scales

The Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory—Revised (MRAI).

of intellectual disability. Discomfort refers to situations that can create

It is important to note that debates have arisen regarding the psycho-

(see Vignes et al. 2008 for a comprehensive review). First, the Acceptance

scales presented can serve as a beginning point for continued develop-

Key Learning Points

Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N., & Werner, S. (2007). The Multidimensional

Pan-American Health Organization & World Health Organization (2004).

Worldwide, children and adults with intellectual disabilities face social

N. Ditchman () • K. Kosyluk • E.-J. Lee