Stigmatising young people with intellectual disability: Perceptions of the main stakeholders at a Spanish university

ABSTRACT

Background

One of the main challenges facing individuals with an intellectual disability is the stigma associated with the various obstacles that hinder their process of full integration. Despite the efforts made, more research is called for to explore the reference environments and reveal how public and self-stigma are perceived in higher education. This scientific paper’s overriding aim is to analyse how different university stakeholders (students, lecturers, and admin and service staff) perceive the presence of young people with intellectual disability.

Method

An ex post facto design has been used with a sample of 306 participants and a validated instrument for measuring the perception of individuals with an intellectual disability.

Results

Our findings reveal that women perceive less stigma than men, and when the analysis is broken down into the collectives involved, students with disability are clearly more conscious of public or self-stigma than their peers without any disability.

Conlcusion

The disparity between gender and roles underscores the need for socioeducational interventions to promote inclusion in higher education and address self-stigma, thereby fostering self-sufficiency and emotional wellbeing among young individuals with intellectual disabilities.

KEYWORDS:

• Stigma
• self-stigma
• intellectual disability
• higher education

Stakeholders in higher education are those agents in the academic community with shared interests and professional characteristics that enable them to consider themselves part of a university. Their importance within the educational arena acquires added value when we realise that it is commonplace to consider their influence as an effective source of change within higher education.

Furthermore, the recent inclusion each year in Spain of 450 young students with intellectual disability on diploma courses at both public and private universities creates a unique opportunity for investigating this new experience. In this very context, there emerges a compelling necessity for investigation, as both stigma and the social representation related to vulnerable groups stand as constraints on full and equitable participation (Calle Carrasco & Campillay Campillay, 2023).

The diplomas that young students enrol on are courses that are academically supervised by those universities that each year apply for the subsidy and funding provided by the UNIDIVERSIDAD program financed by the Spanish foundation for the visually impaired (Fundación ONCE in its Spanish acronym).

It is precisely this foundation that, in partnership with the European Social Fund, has organised diplomas in higher education designed for young people with intellectual or developmental disability and/or on the autistic spectrum, whereby this collective may attend university and receive an education that will enable them to find work and further their personal development and autonomy.

These courses are held at higher education institutions nationwide through an annual call that is open to all universities and to all young people with intellectual disability aged between 18 and 30 and registered in Spain’s youth guarantee program (Sistema Nacional de Garantía Juvenil – Fundación ONCE, 2023).

Against this background, we need to consider the recent redefinition of a disabled individual and the ongoing need for an assessment of the stigmatisation associated with this vulnerable collective, as they are aspects of considerable value added when analysing young intellectually disabled individuals’ presence, participation and support at higher education institutions, considering the toxic effects that public and self-stigma may have (e.g., on mental wellbeing, health, and interpersonal relationships).

This research has involved a review of the state-of-the-art based on other studies that evaluate the public and self-stigmatisation of disability. Due to the limited number of scientific studies with a central focus on the study of stigma among university students with intellectual disabilities, especially when it comes to identifying the role of professionals and agents as agents of change, our research has the following objective:

The aim here has been to study the perception of intellectual disability expressed as a social representation in higher education among its main stakeholders (i.e., lecturers, admin and services staff, and students) informed by the presence and active participation of young students with intellectual disability at a Spanish university.

1. University students with intellectual disability

We are undergoing a sea change both domestically and abroad in the definition, conceptualisation, and identification of support for individuals with intellectual disability. No definition can be understood without the contribution made by the following major reference sources: the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Schalock et al., 2021), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition DSM-5 (APA, 2013), and the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision ICD-11 (WHO, 2018).

Moreover, among these scientific contributions, we should like to single out the ones made by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, as the body that has established the appropriate support systems for people with intellectual disability (Schalock et al., 2021).

According to Echavarría and Tirapu (2021) “intellectual disability is a neurodevelopmental condition that is characterised by a cognitive deficit and functional alterations in a person’s adaptive behaviour that appear during their development” (p. 259). Along these same lines, Schalock et al. (2021) stressed the importance of major limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour during the development period.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the following are the criteria for conducting an appropriate diagnosis:

• Deficits in intellectual functioning, such as reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgement, academic learning, and experiential learning, measured through clinical assessment and individual standardised IQ tests.

• Deficits or impairments in adaptive functioning that lead to failure in meeting developmental and sociocultural standards for personal autonomy and social responsibility. Without ongoing support, adaptive deficits limit functioning in one or more activities of everyday life across multiple environments, such as communication, social participation, and independent living.

• Onset of intellectual and adaptive deficits during the developmental period.

Under all circumstances, diagnosing a case of intellectual disability requires the coexistence of these three interrelated criteria.

In turn, the requirements in terms of support are classified using an organisation formula based on a multidimensional approach. This formula divides people into subgroups depending on the intensity of their needs and the limitations in their adaptive and/or intellectual functioning. This multidimensional approach is based on the support model and uses standardised tools for evaluating and attending to its requirements. Alvarado et al. (2007) thus reported a social construct of a disabled individual whereby, besides their definition, the diagnostic criteria are a social group and a socially constructed concept.

In recent years, moreover, there has been an ever-increasing inclusion of people with disabilities in inclusive contexts. It is worth mentioning the concern expressed regarding providing care and sharing places and experiences with students with disabilities on university campuses. Policies and legislation on disability and higher education are in full development mode, making major inroads, and under permanent appraisal, while guaranteeing this care requires tools for its monitoring and improvement. Robust research by scholars such as Ferreira et al. (2014) ratified the need for drawing up a system of indicators for measuring these steps.

In this regard, higher education institutions have been advancing their inclusive policies and practices to favour the genuine and effective integration of disabled individuals, with a growing awareness of their equal right to inclusion (Echeita & Ainscow, 2010). A series of measures have sought to use current legislation to promote sundry resources to enable disabled individuals to access and study at higher education institutions.

Likewise, in 2010, for example, a Spanish committee of representatives of disabled people – Comité Español de Representantes de Personas con Discapacidad (CERMI), published a guide to show higher education institutions how to design their own plan and therefore be used as a handbook, reference, and tool for supporting these students with intellectual disability during their time at university. The plan is designed to provide a system of indicators for assessing the outcomes. As stated in this document, these indicators can be used to determine the degree of inclusion of disabled students at higher education institutions and their trend (CERMI, 2010).

Spain has recently enacted several laws whereby the measures higher education institutions introduce for disabled students are to be encapsulated in a plan. Accordingly, article 37 of the country’s Organic Law 2/2023, of 22 March, on Higher Education states that “universities are to facilitate the access to higher education of those persons with intellectual disability or other forms of disability by implementing diplomas suited to their abilities.”

As regards the studies conducted on this matter, some of the conclusions reached indicate that higher education institutions should adopt a series of active measures that are non-discriminatory and develop support programs, extending the range of different resources and making the necessary adjustments to commit to the provision of equal opportunities, accessibility, and an environment that caters for the diversity of the entire student body. All these measures are to be contained within a plan that should provide for due and proper evaluation instruments for assessing all the goals set from the start.

Notwithstanding the progress made in inclusion in education, specifically regarding individuals with intellectual disability and their involvement in higher education courses, the goal has yet to be fully achieved, as there is still a shortage of educational experiences and fully inclusive experiences along these lines. It is pertinent to underscore that, within this context, both the redefinition in diagnosis and the transformation of the support paradigm, centred on personal autonomy, should maintain ongoing development. This process aims to enhance inclusivity in university settings for all young individuals, affording them distinctive experiences.

2. Stigmatising people with intellectual disability

The word stigma is a Greek term that the Oxford English Dictionary (Stigma, 2023) defines as “A mark made upon the skin by burning with a hot iron (rarely, by cutting or pricking), as a token of infamy or subjection; a brand.”

Furthermore, Goffman (1963), one of the scholars who has shown the most interest in understanding and conceptualising this reality, indicated that it is a phenomenon informed by society itself, as it determines the specific means for categorising people, establishing the attributes that are considered common.

Along these same lines, Jones (1984) found that the stigmatising process is relational, with the context defining what is and what is not anomalous. Other scholars such as Herek et al. (2009) alluded to the inferior status society attributes to people with a particular trait or belonging to a specific group, and which in turn condition their greater or lesser social integration. In turn, Morin et al. (2013) referred to prejudices as a determining factor that devalues individuals or groups of individuals within a given context.

Elsewhere, Crandall and Coleman (1992) understood a stigma to be a trait that legitimises the discriminatory treatment of the individuals affected compared to those that do not have that particular trait. In turn, Vázquez and Stolkiner (2010) contended that a stigma involves a rejection that stems from what the community considers tolerable or not. Frost (2011) affirmed that politics, religions, legislation, and other institutional structures underpin the stigmatisation process that inform negative views of an individual and/or group. The consequences of this prejudice and the negative effect it has on the individual’s psychological wellbeing can be long-lasting (Moraleda et al., 2019). What is more, we should add that a stigma constitutes an ever-changing phenomenon that is influenced by prevailing social mores.

As regards the effects that a stigma has on individuals or groups of people, Quiles del Castillo (2019) propounded three specific factors that impact on daily life:

• Effects on mental wellbeing, where the negative appreciation may undermine a person’s self-concept and self-esteem.

• Effects on health, by undermining an individual’s personal identity (e.g., being overweight may exert a double social pressure due to the need to present an acceptable physical appearance).

• Effects on interpersonal relationships, due to the high levels of stress and anxiety caused by other people’s reactions.

Despite evidencing that a stigma is a characteristic that runs contrary to what is considered “normal,” scholars such as Devine (1989) contended that the fact most people may be conscious of a certain stereotype does not make it true. The problem arises when there is a lack of knowledge about a specific environment, collective, or individual, which significantly hinders the removal of the stereotype. Such is the case of individuals with intellectual disability, as stigma toward the community has persisted, leading to situations of marginalisation, discrimination, and social exclusion (Schalock et al., 2021).

Precisely with a view to dismantling any prejudices or false beliefs regarding intellectual disability, there are several schemes, investigations, and models that seek to provide a normalised and inclusive view of this collective in order to achieve a fully process far removed from defeatist and erroneous perspectives.

Direct contact is therefore one of the main tools for gaining a more realistic and objective understanding. Research such as that conducted by Horner-Johnson et al. (2002) indicates that contact with individuals with intellectual disability leads to a more effective perception focused on inclusion in the community. These findings have been corroborated in the study by Yazbeck et al. (2004), which reported more positive attitudes among those people with prior knowledge of individuals with intellectual disability or in regular contact with them.

Likewise, Ouellette-Kuntz et al. (2010) highlighted the need to reduce the degree of social distancing with individuals with intellectual disability with a view to mitigating the feeling of discomfort arising from the interaction with them, while Morin et al. (2013) found that such contact should take place in a suitable and cooperative context, as otherwise one may make the mistake of perceiving the collective with a certain amount of condescendence.

There are also specific programs that are indirectly designed to reduce the stigma towards intellectual disability through direct contact. For example, the Camilo Jose Cela University holds a course in social and labour skills called “Competencias Sociolaborales” with the aim of integrating young people with intellectual disability into university life at the same time as they acquire a series of competencies, skills, and mindsets for successfully functioning in a society that today is characterised by knowledge and information. The course involves direct contact with the rest of the student body, favouring a normalised and participative experience (Universidad Camilo José Cela, 2023).

To conclude, there are numerous studies that have sought to evaluate the stereotypes and distorted perceptions and attitudes regarding vulnerable collectives in recent years (Abellán et al., 2018; García-Sanz et al., 2022; Jenaro et al., 2018; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2004; Rello et al., 2014; Rodriguez-Medina et al., 2018; Rosero-Calderón et al., 2021).

All these studies call for the need to develop socio-educational interventions for banishing stigma, with a prior understanding of social perceptions and attitudes.

3. Method and materials

3.1. Purpose

This research encompasses two fundamental objectives, which emanate from two key research questions. The first question seeks to determine whether significant differences exist in the perception of stigma related to intellectual disability based on the participants’ gender. In this context, the hypothesis asserts that there are indeed significant differences in perceptions of stigma related to intellectual disability based on the gender of the participants, specifically, that women exhibit lower levels of stigma than men. The second research question delves into the examination of potential significant differences in these perceptions based on the roles assumed by participants within the university, including professors, administrative and service personnel, students with intellectual disabilities, and students without such conditions. In this case, the initial hypothesis postulates that there are no significant differences in perceptions based on the roles that participants assume within the university.

3.2. Design

This descriptive study has followed an ex post facto research design, with an empirical-analytical method. This is a type of research that is used when investigating the causes and awareness of a phenomenon that has already occurred (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Fox, 1969; Kerlinger, 1987; Mateo, 1997).

3.3. Sample

The study has involved a sample of 306 individuals at Camilo Jose Cela University, compiled by means of causal non-probability sampling.

The descriptive statistical analysis (Table 1) reflects a mean age (M) of 28.43, ranging between the ages of 18 and 77, with a standard deviation (SD) of 11.70. The table also presents the data dichotomised by role and gender.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for age dichotomised by role and gender.

		M	SD	N	%
Admin and services staff	Male	57.03	NaN	1	0.33%
	Female	37.62	9.72	16	5.23%
	Total	38.81	10.52	17	5.56%
Lecturers	Male	44.14	11.72	31	10.13%
	Female	43.82	9.64	47	15.36%
	Total	43.92	10.44	78	25.49%
Students without intellectual disability	Male	23.12	4.35	21	6.86%
	Female	21.62	2.59	177	57.84%
	Total	21.84	2.85	198	64.71%
Students with intellectual disability	Male	23.32	3.30	7	2.29%
	Female	22.21	1.17	6	1.96%
	Total	22.83	2.52	13	4.25%
Total	Male	34.53	14.04	60	19.61%
	Female	26.91	10.62	246	80.39%
	Total	28.43	11.70	306	100.00%

Note: author’s own work.

3.4. Instrument

The perceptions of individuals with intellectual disability were measured using the Goratu Questionnaire “Percepciones sobre las personas con discapacidad intelectual” (Cabezas et al., 2022b), with a Cronbach’s α of .719 and validated by means of an exploratory factor analysis applying a principal components analysis for extracting factors and a subsequent factor analysis for determining the optimal number of said factors. The questionnaire has acceptable indices of reliability and validity and may therefore be considered a useful instrument for identifying the perception of individuals with intellectual disability. The Goratu Questionnaire specifically focuses on the perceptions, ideas, and beliefs (cognitive dimension) regarding individuals with intellectual disability. The tool’s specificity is an innovative feature compared to others used elsewhere. The authors’ conceptual framework draws from the analysis of attitude assessment instruments towards disability. After conducting the appropriate psychometric analyses, they have integrated items based on current diagnostic terminology. Additionally, they have incorporated terms that are socially recognised and deemed relevant from other studied instruments into some of the items.

The questionnaire consists of 15 items that address a series of perceptions, ideas, and beliefs regarding individuals with intellectual disability to be answered using a 4-point Likert-type scale, with values of 1 (fully agree) to 4 (fully disagree). It also gathers a series of sociodemographic data on the participants, such as age and gender.

The instrument is arranged into five factors, which are also reflected in the overall score for the participants:

• Factor 1. Infantilisation/competencies: ideas related to their immature state, lack of personal competencies (items 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14).

• Factor 2. Emotional satisfaction and wellbeing: ideas related to their emotional state, view of themselves, personal wellbeing (items 2, 3, and 9).

• Factor 3. Social segregation/inclusion: ideas related to their social status, their interest in taking part in inclusive scenarios as opposed to segregated ones (items 1 and 6).

• Factor 4. Interpersonal relationships/socialisation: ideas related to their interpersonal relationships (items 7, 12, and 15).

• Factor 5. Self-sufficiency: ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency (items 4 and 5).

The 15 items are scored on a scale of 1–4 to reflect an increasing resistance to the stigma toward disability except for items 2, 3, 7, 9, and 15, which follow the reverse order. The data were gathered through the online platform Google Forms.

3.5. Procedure

The data have been gathered according to the principle of non-intervention, with the aim being the complete independence of the population to be analysed, thereby ensuring their total freedom when completing the questionnaire.

In addition, the sample’s involvement was voluntary without any financial or academic reward for taking part in the study. Moreover, the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality were upheld at all times.

The instrument application took place during the academic year, within working/class hours. For teachers and administrative staff, the instrument was sent electronically, along with an explanatory document describing the research's purpose, study phases, and key determinants. As for students with and without disabilities, several moments were allocated in their classroom during their subjects. It is worth mentioning that, to facilitate valid and truthful responses for students with disabilities, supportive measures were employed, such as providing instructions in an easy and accessible reading format, utilising pictograms as support measures in response categories, and, when necessary, auxiliary personnel assisted them in a timely manner to ensure their autonomous completion of the instrument.

Furthermore, informed consent was sought along with permission in those cases as required by a person’s altered legal capacity. This information was gathered by specialist staff who knew the participants and had interacted with them. Furthermore, the informed consent provided assurances that the data would be treated solely for research purposes, complying with ethical principles for scientific studies, as laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. The university’s ethical research committee – Comité de Ética de la Investigación de la Universidad Camilo José Cela – adjudged the study’s ethical, methodological, and legal aspects to be due and proper, recording them under number 06_23_ISESDI.

3.6 Data analysis

Before exploring the data, the assumption of normality was verified by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p_k-s < .001). According to the results, the data analysis involved non-parametric statistics, specifically the Kruskal–Wallis H test or one-way ANOVA on ranks with eta squared (η²) to estimate the size of the effect measured, as well as comparing the Mann–Whitney U test with the rank-biserial correlation (r_bis) for estimating the size of the effect, using version 26.0 of the statistical analysis software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences).

4. Results

The results below have been organised according to the study’s main variables: the participants’ gender and their role at university.

4.1. Results according to gender

The results of the statistical analysis present the values of the mean and standard deviation of the five factors and the overall score differentiated by gender (Table 2).

Table 2. Descriptive statistical analyses of the variables to be analysed: factors and overall score.

	Group	N	M	SD
Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state	Male	60	14.77	3.46
	Female	246	16.06	2.70
	Total	306	15.80	2.91
Factor 2: Ideas related to their emotional state	Male	60	10.28	1.86
	Female	246	10.53	1.35
	Total	306	10.48	1.46
Factor 3: Ideas related to their social state	Male	60	5.08	1.45
	Female	246	5.47	1.21
	Total	306	5.39	2.27
Factor 4: Ideas related to their interpersonal relationships	Male	60	9.95	1.90
	Female	246	10.39	1.39
	Total	306	10.30	1.51
Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency	Male	60	6.82	1.65
	Female	246	7.34	1.19
	Total	306	7.24	1.31
Overall score	Male	60	46.90	8.25
	Female	246	49.78	5.27
	Total	306	49.22	6.06

Note: author’s own work.

Once these data had been obtained, providing a detailed view of each dimension and the overall score for their main statistics, the next step was to compare the analysis of these variables to discover which ones recorded statistically significant differences (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of the Mann–Whitney U signed test. Comparison of dimensions according to gender.

	U	p	rbis
Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state	5811	.010*	0.213
Factor 2: Ideas related to their emotional state	7218	.785	0.022
Factor 3: Ideas related to their social state	6507	.142	0.118
Factor 4: Ideas related to their interpersonal relationships	6522	.152	0.116
Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency	5944	.007**	0.194
Overall score	5939	.019*	0.195

Notes: Author’s own work.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

The Mann–Whitney U signed rank test revealed statistically significant differences in two of the five factors and in the overall score, and in all cases women recorded higher values with a small effect size (r_bis < .300) (Coolican, 2009). Specifically, women recorded statistically higher values than men in Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state (U = 5811, p < .010, r_bis = .213), in Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency (U = 5944, p <, 007, r_bis = .194), and in the overall score (U = 5939, p < .019, r_bis = .195).

4.2. Results classified by role at the university

The results regarding the roles of the stakeholders at university are divided into the following four groups (G1–G4):

• G1: admin and services staff.

• G2: lecturers.

• G3: students without intellectual disability.

• G4: students with intellectual disability.

The groups are presented in Table 4, using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric rank-based H test, together with Table 5 with the subsequent pairwise comparisons, a comparison of the four groups in the scores for the five dimensions and the overall score.

Table 4. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis rank-based H test. Comparison of dimensions according to role.

	χ^2	df	p	η^2	Post-hoc comparisons
Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state	11.90	3	.008*	.213	G3 > G4*
Factor 2: Ideas related to their emotional state	8.18	3	0.130	.022
Factor 3: Ideas related to their social state	22.54	3	.000***	.118	G1 > G4** G2 > G4*** G3 > G4***
Factor 4: Ideas related to their interpersonal relationships	3.86	3	.277	.116
Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency	11.15	3	.011*	.194	G3 > G4*
Overall score	15.49	3	.001**	.195	G2 > G4* G3 > G4**

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Results of the post-hoc comparison. Comparison of dimensions according to role.

	Group	N	Mean rank	Group	N	Mean rank	χ^2	p
Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state	G1	17	156.65	G2	78	135.50	−1.120	.858
				G3	198	164.15	0.423	.991
				G4	13	95.23	−2.708	.222
	G2	78	135.50	G3	198	164.15	3.530	.061
				G4	13	95.23	−2.541	.275
	G3	198	164.15	G4	13	95.23	−3.703	.044*
Factor 2: Ideas related to their emotional state	G1	17	118.50	G2	78	137.28	1.289	.799
				G3	198	161.56	2.804	.195
				G4	13	173.85	2.160	.421
	G2	78	137.28	G3	198	161.56	3.076	.130
				G4	13	173.85	1.786	.587
	G3	198	161.56	G4	13	173.85	0.833	.936
Factor 3: Ideas related to their social state	G1	17	153.74	G2	78	168.87	0.954	.907
				G3	198	154.40	0.060	.999
				G4	13	47.27	−4.884	.003**
	G2	78	168.87	G3	198	154.40	−1.857	.555
				G4	13	47.27	−6.174	.000***
	G3	198	154.40	G4	13	47.27	−6.342	.000***
Factor 4: Ideas related to their interpersonal relationships	G1	17	133.18	G2	78	146.27	0.817	.939
				G3	198	159.88	1.733	.611
				G4	13	126.35	−0.363	.994
	G2	78	146.27	G3	198	159.88	1.703	.624
				G4	13	126.35	−1.282	.802
	G3	198	159.88	G4	13	126.35	−1.832	.566
Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency	G1	17	166.18	G2	78	139.24	−1.830	.567
				G3	198	161.37	−0.356	.994
				G4	13	102.62	−2.978	.151
	G2	78	139.24	G3	198	161.37	3.160	.114
				G4	13	102.62	−2.618	.250
	G3	198	161.37	G4	13	102.62	−3.703	.044*
Overall score	G1	17	143.12	G2	78	140.87	−0.165	.999
				G3	198	164.59	1.400	.755
				G4	13	74.00	−3.233	.101
	G2	78	140.87	G3	198	164.59	2.876	.176
				G4	13	74.00	−3.833	.034*
	G3	198	164,59	G4	13	74.00	−4.923	.003**

Notes: The p-values were adjusted by means of the Bonferroni correction. Author’s own work.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Likewise, and to complement the research by differentiating according to a determinant variable (i.e., the above groups formed according to their role at university), the aim was to find statistically significant differences in the factors and overall score.

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis rank-based H test revealed significant differences with a small effect size (η² < .250) (Ferguson, 2009), in three dimensions: in Factor 1 (χ²_{(3, 306)} = 11.90, p = .008, η² < .213), in Factor 3 (χ²_{(3, 306)} = 22.54, p = .000, η² < .118), and in Factor 5 (χ²_{(3, 306)} = 11.15, p = .011, η² < .194); as well as in the overall score (χ²_{(3, 306)} = 15.49, p = .001, η² < .195).

The subsequent group comparisons reveal a greater and more significant resistance to stigma in the following cases: in Factor 1 Ideas related to their immature state in the groups of students without intellectual disability compared to those with intellectual disability (p = .044); in Factor 3 Ideas related to their social state in the group of admin and services staff (p = .003), the group of lecturers (p = .000), and the group of students without intellectual disability (p = .000), compared to the group of students with intellectual disability; in Factor 5 Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency in the group of students without intellectual disability compared to those with (p = .044), and in the overall score both in the group of lecturers (p = .034) and among the students without intellectual disability (p = .003), in both cases compared to those students with intellectual disability.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The results reveal significant differences across these stakeholders in some of the factors analysed here depending on gender and the role they play at university. As regards gender, women recorded less stigma towards individuals with intellectual disability than men did in three specific cases; Ideas related to their immature state, Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency, and in the overall score. These results are consistent with the study directed by Muñoz López (2022), as part of a group at the Complutense University of Madrid called UCM-Grupo 5 against stigma, which found that women are less prone to express stigmatising attitudes and tend to be more willing to speak about intellectual disability-related issues.

Along these same lines, Li et al. (2012) have examined the relationships between the attitudes of students towards the inclusion of individuals with intellectual disability, stressing that women recorded more positive attitudes than their male counterparts. These same findings have been reported in a study by Vera Noriega et al. (2022) in which women recorded more positive scores towards intellectual disability. In turn, Wilson and Scior (2014) have reviewed a number of studies assessing the implicit attitudes towards individuals with a physical impairment (visual, motor, or hearing) or intellectual disability, finding that most of the research considering the “gender” factor has reported that women express more positive attitudes towards individuals than men, favouring the removal of the barriers that impede this collective’s full inclusion.

As regards the gender comparison, this study’s results reveal how female participants recorded higher scores than their male counterparts in Factor 1: Ideas related to their immature state, Factor 5: Ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency, and most importantly, in the overall scores. These results are consistent with two studies by Cabezas et al. (2022a) involving secondary and sixth-form pupils. The first one involved administering the Goratu instrument to 413 pupils in these stages of schooling, with the comparison between boys and girls revealing significant differences in four of the fifteen items. In all cases, the higher mean scores corresponded to girls. The second one (Cabezas et al., 2022c) involved administering the questionnaire twice following an intervention, The girls recorded higher scores in terms of the improvement in their perceptions.

Regarding the results obtained concerning the role of the participants, it is worth noting that significant differences were observed among the groups. In terms of the infantile status among university students without disabilities, statistically significant differences were identified compared to other university students with disabilities. As for self-determination capacity, the data reveal statistically significant differences that align with the second objective set in this research.

Equally noteworthy is the contrast between the perceptions of participants from the administrative and services staff group, university teachers, and university students without disabilities compared to the perceptions of students with intellectual disabilities regarding ideas related to their social status. These findings suggest the need to explore future lines of research and focus on interventions. The involvement of students with disabilities in the university environment may not be sufficient, and the results emphasise the importance of incorporating measures within educational policies related to the inclusion of young individuals with disabilities in university programs. This may be particularly relevant for addressing what appears to be one of the stigmas most frequently identified by all participant groups in the study.

This situation also arises among individuals with intellectual disability regarding the phenomenon referred to as “self-stigma.” These results indicate that university students with a disability are precisely the ones that seem to express a personal perception that might impact upon their mental wellbeing, and significantly so on their self-concept and self-esteem (Quiles del Castillo, 2019). Furthermore, scholars such as Varughese et al. (2011) contend that the stigma and self-stigma in this collective hinder the provision of treatment, support, and assistance, with the ensuing consequence for their possibilities of social engagement.

Verdonschot et al. (2009) posited that individuals with intellectual disability are less likely to take part in community groups and leisure activities, often because of their own perception of themselves, thereby creating greater difficulties for maintaining normal social relationships. Jahoda et al. (2010) contended that even when individuals with disability find it difficult to express their views in words, their actions may show how they struggle to establish or maintain positive social identities, sometimes at the expense of their mental health and due to their own and public prejudices. Kamil et al. (2015) affirmed that a large part of the community considers that being disabled is an indirect restriction for properly undertaking a given task or activity, which leads to greater vulnerability, creating a two-way relationship between disability and social exclusion that impedes an optimum level of independence (Fernández-Cid, 2021; López de la Osa & De Prada, 2018).

Self-stigma, therefore, plays a part in the results for factors 1, 3, and 5, as well as in the overall score. It should be noted that the studies conducted over the past 20 years have focused precisely on the development within this collective of strategies for addressing this cognitive dimension in order to reinforce their self-sufficiency, their view of their emotional and immature state, and the need to provide new settings and environments for improving their interpersonal relationships. Nevertheless, the results arising from our study prompt the need to continue reinforcing these aspects so that young people with intellectual disability can face this challenge with more effective tools and, therefore, with greater assurances of success.

In sum, and as stated at the beginning of this study, there is a need to develop socio-educational interventions (Moraleda et al., 2023) that help to reduce self-imposed and public prejudices among individuals with intellectual disability, as above all this phenomenon poses a problem of social justice (Fyson & Kitson, 2010). This prompts the need to provide community environments or contexts (Cooney et al., 2006) for learning and development that, from numerous perspectives (e.g., work, family, and social), enable individuals with intellectual disability to enjoy the same rights and opportunities for acquiring the personal skills that today’s inclusive society expects.

5.1. Limitations

As regards this study’s limitations, there is no control group and the sample size does not enable us to affirm that the results obtained can be considered definitive. Furthermore, as corresponds to studies of this nature, the lack of control variables typical of processes of exposure to other vulnerable groups or the existence of prior experiences are aspects to be considered in future research.

This article also reflects the limitations specific to studies that use nonparametric variables. A key aspect to be considered, as a further limitation, involves the choice of questionnaire, given that as the aim is a shared “perception of individuals with intellectual disability” the target collective has been amended, as instead of being used to evaluate pupils in secondary education and the sixth form it has been used here to evaluate stakeholders in higher education institutions (students, lecturers, and admin and service staff).

This article is expected to have a positive impact on the scientific community and on society at large, as it presents information designed to stimulate new research whose protagonists, as educational agents, are considered active and participative players that can help to transform the perception of the stakeholders in higher education institutions regarding the stigma associated with young people with intellectual disability.

Acknowledgements

This article is part of the research project on socio-educational intervention involving the social stigma towards intellectual disability “Intervención socioeducative ante el estigma social hacia la discapacidad intelectual” (ISESDI in its Spanish acronym). It has been funded by the 9th research call at Camilo Jose Cela University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Universidad Camilo Jose Cela.