Public stigmatisation of people with intellectual disabilities: a mixed-method population survey into stereotypes and their relationship with familiarity and discrimination

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptives of stereotypes and structure matrix of principal axis factoring with direct oblimin (n = 888).

Item	Factor loading	h	M (SD)	Agree (%)	Neutral (%)	Disagree (%)
Friendly (α = .746; ω = .754; glb = .780; avg_iic = .427)
… are friendly	0.745	0.567	3.67 (0.66)	59.9	38.6	1.5
… are sociable	0.683	0.497	3.40 (0.62)	40.1	57.1	2.8
… are happy	0.651	0.435	3.48 (0.61)	44.8	53.7	1.5
… are to be trusted	0.479	0.296	3.34 (0.70)	37.3	56.2	6.5
… are affectionate	0.425	0.226	3.44 (0.68)	44.3	51.7	4.1
In need of help (α = .571; ω = .582; glb = .610; avg_iic = .306)
… are in need of help	0.599	0.366	3.53 (0.69)	53.7	41.3	5.0
… have difficulty functioning in society	0.553	0.379	3.52 (0.68)	53.7	40.7	5.6
… are vulnerable	0.542	0.341	3.95 (0.63)	80.8	19.3	1.6
Give nuisance (α = .687 ω = .690; glb = .698; avg_iic = .356)
… give nuisance	0.644	0.428	2.49 (0.74)	5.0	47.9	47.1
… are sad	0.597	0.344	2.29 (0.81)	6.7	30.2	63.1
… neglect themselves	0.574	0.367	2.69 (0.70)	8.1	56.5	35.4
… are criminal	0.547	0.424	1.84 (0.78)	1.0	19.9	79.1
… are childlike	0.437	0.328	3.19 (0.76)	35.1	50.3	14.5
Unintelligent (α = .57; avg_icc 273)
… are intelligent	0.718	0.555	2.81 (0.72)	11.1	60.0	27.9
… have difficulty learning	−0.446	0.269	3.58 (0.70)	57.2	38.6	4.2
Remaining items
… are able to work in a paid position	–	–	3.56 (0.69)	56.8	37.8	5.3
… can be aggressive	–	–	3.65 (0.62)	68.2	34.2	2.6
… are looking physically different	–	–	3.27 (0.76)	37.3	50.8	11.8

Remaining items lacked any factor loading higher than .40. h (communality) refers to the sum of the squared factor loadings of that variable.

Glb: greatest lower bound; Avg iic: average inter-item-correlation.

Table 2. Predicting social distance and intention towards helping behaviour.

	Social distance				Helping behaviour
Predictor variables	B (SE)	β	p	ΔR^2	B (SE)	β	p	ΔR^2
Step 1 – controls				.002				0.018
Constant	2.798 (0.131)		0.000		3.516(0.108)		<0.001
Gender	−0.037 (0.050)	−0.025	0.453		0.050(0.041)	−0.041	0.227
Age	−0.017 (0.015)	−0.039	0.244		0.045(0.012)	0.123	<0.001
Education level	−0.010 (0.017)	−0.020	0.558		0.001(0.014)	0.002	0.958
Step 2 – familiarity				.026				0.027
Constant	3.060 (0.140)		<0.001		3.295 (0.115)		<0.001
Gender	−0.025 (0.049)	−0.017	−0.606		−0.060(0.040)	−0.049	0.141
Age	−0.017 (0.015)	−0.040	0.234		0.045(0.012)	0.124	<0.001
Education level	−0.003(0.016)	−0.006	0.848		−0.005(0.014)	−0.012	0.721
Familiarity	−0.151 (0.031)	−0.162	<0.001		0.128(0.026)	0.165	<0.001
Step 3 – stereotype factors				.203				0.192
Constant	2.723 (.324)		<0.001		2.973 (0.268)		<0.001
Gender	−0.016 (0.044)	−0.011	0.717		−0.064 (0.036)	−0.053	0.077
Age	−0.013(0.013)	−0.031	0.309		0.039 (0.011)	0.109	<0.001
Education level	−0.026(0.015)	−0.053	0.081		0.010 (0.012)	0.025	0.410
Familiarity	−0.115(0.028)	−0.123	<0.001		0.094(0.023)	0.122	<0.001
Mean friendly	−0.349(0.051)	−0.231	<0.001		0.333(0.042)	0.266	<0.001
Mean in need of help	−0.005(0.047)	−0.003	0.924		0.047(0.039)	0.038	0.228
Mean nuisance	0.339(0.045)	0.253	<0.001		−0.255(0.037)	−0.229	<0.001
Mean unintelligent	0.212(0.041)	0.164	<0.001		−0.108(0.034)	−0.101	0.001

Significant regression coefficients are marked in boldface type.

Table 3. Complementary stereotypes based on quotations and codes analyzed from the open question.

Stereotypical category	Illustrations / subcategories	Example quotations	# quotations
Less independent	Less independent More reliant on others Specific examples or areas of (in)dependence Having difficulties in making decisions and taking responsibilities.	“not the capacity to develop as an independent individual” “more reliant on others for support and attention” “some can work and take care of themselves, others are dependent”	166
Low levels of social skills	Socially smart people (n = 6 quotations) Lacking social skills Having difficulties with communication living in their own world	“social people, perfectly fine to have contact with” “less socially skilled” “difficulty in making contact with other people” “people who very much live within themselves”	81
Impairments in thinking*	A child’s way of thinking Specific impairments in thinking	“most of them have the mind of a child and not of an adult” “they forget that you asked them something”	64
Visibility	A visible impairment or a reference to specific visible symptoms (n = 43 quotations) Some specifically mentioned Down syndrome as a visible intellectual disabilities. Not visible (n = 8 quotations)	“Spasms” “wheelchair” “from the outside you do see nothing sometimes”	51
Naïve/open		“pure” “spontaneous”	39
Can be aggressive		“I know that people with intellectual disabilities can also be aggressive”	37
Slow		“slow”, “they need more time to do something”	37
Disinhibited		“people without inhibitions like normal people” “impulsive”	24
Not categorized	(n = 66 stereotype codes) were mentioned infrequently (<10 times) and therefore not categorized.	E.g., “humorous” (n = 6), “musically gifted” (n = 4), “in need of attention” (n = 10).	<10

Table 4. Frequency of quotations in the free response question referring to stereotype-items used in the trait rating scale.

Factor^a	# Literal	Example literal	# Synonym	Example synonym	Total frequency	Proportional frequency^b
Friendly (5 items)	110	‘friendly persons’	173	‘agreeable in contact’	283	52
In need of help (3 items)	32	‘they need help’	179	‘in need of care’	211	70
Nuisance (5 items)	18	'nuisance to the neighbourhood'	33	‘someone who stays a child’	51	10
Unintelligent (2 items)	18	‘very low IQ’	84	‘people who are behind in their mind’	102	51

^a The factors refer to the all the items under this factor.

^b Proportional frequency refers to the number of quotations divided by the number of items under the factor.