View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Public Attitudes towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Public Attitudes towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance
Language: English
Authors: Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene, Burge, Philip, Brown, Hilary K.
Source: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Mar 2010 23(2):132-142.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2010
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Mental Retardation, Interpersonal Relationship, Interaction, Public Opinion, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Barriers, Social Bias, Social Attitudes, Familiarity, Severity (of Disability), Measurement Techniques, Age Differences, Educational Attainment
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.x
ISSN: 1360-2322
Abstract: Background: While current practices strive to include individuals with intellectual disabilities in community opportunities, stigmatizing attitudes held by the public can be a barrier to achieving true social inclusion. Methods: A sample of 625 community members completed the Social Distance Subscale of the Multidimensional Attitude Scale on Mental Retardation. Results: Older and less educated participants held attitudes that reflected greater social distance. Participants who had a close family member with an intellectual disability and those who perceived the average level of disability to be "mild" expressed less social distance. The limited variability in scores leads us to question our overall finding of very favourable attitudes towards social interaction with persons with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that although certain demographic variables are still relevant in identifying social distance attitudes, the measurement of this construct requires revision to ensure a valid and sensitive reflection of the public's attitudes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2010
Accession Number: EJ874352
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEefyCx_WrNwEdPQScenwXlAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGjbE2mpuK_oTX5WAwIBEICBmjaICP1Ank-jVcfu4PiI1UI4vdZqyLUocGuoUK9kDxohoXIn95D1Bl4ISxIknOc-Gu8Z3ZVNMzBVrr8YMZ3zVcAdSJo1s3LnSd3H9WvyMNVZfM5tPdrqJa5wnJUAuBeFFDHHlWV2aEHNG8d7CQJ4dZO5921E8sJHwKHzL1-sqDZy28R6yAKZTwrTRHbHJ_OTiINDpTdAjhiSGn0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0048225076;e0301mar.10;2019Jun04.08:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0048225076-1">Public Attitudes Towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance. </title> <p>Background  While current practices strive to include individuals with intellectual disabilities in community opportunities, stigmatizing attitudes held by the public can be a barrier to achieving true social inclusion. Methods  A sample of 625 community members completed the Social Distance Subscale of the Multidimensional Attitude Scale on Mental Retardation. Results  Older and less educated participants held attitudes that reflected greater social distance. Participants who had a close family member with an intellectual disability and those who perceived the average level of disability to be 'mild' expressed less social distance. The limited variability in scores leads us to question our overall finding of very favourable attitudes towards social interaction with persons with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions  This study demonstrates that although certain demographic variables are still relevant in identifying social distance attitudes, the measurement of this construct requires revision to ensure a valid and sensitive reflection of the public's attitudes.</p> <p>Keywords: developmental disability; inclusion; intellectual disability; mental retardation; social distance; attitudes</p> <p>Over the last several decades, policy surrounding intellectual disability has reflected a fundamental shift ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]), resulting in a transformation of the developmental services landscape from institutionalization to community‐based recreation, employment, and living options ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref2">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]). This movement rests on the beliefs that smaller settings allow for more individualized attention to client needs, that all individuals have a right to access their community, and that inclusion results in greater visibility – and therefore acceptance – of individuals with intellectual disability. Inclusion, in turn, is thought to enhance the quality of life of persons with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]). It has been argued that an important determinant of the success of community living efforts is the attitude of the public towards individuals with intellectual disability and their presence and involvement in the community ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>]). Social distance is a construct thought to reflect such attitudes and is defined as a 'willingness to recognize, live near, or be associated with' ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>], p. 143) a certain group or individual. The goals of the present study were to describe the level of social distance which members of the public prefer to keep between themselves and individuals with intellectual disability and to examine characteristics which may predict a desire for greater or lesser distance. Moreover, given the long evolution of the measurement of social distance, the current study endeavoured to examine its utility in reflecting contemporary public attitudes.</p> <p>While deinstitutionalization has resulted in the geographical shift of individuals with intellectual disability into the general community, researchers and practitioners alike have expressed concern that physical integration does not, in fact, guarantee true social inclusion ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). The success of the inclusion movement rests on effective interaction between individuals with and without disabilities as equals in all settings ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]). Furthermore, the stigma and discrimination commonly experienced by individuals with intellectual disability are not only a barrier to effective integration but also result in reduced self‐esteem and feelings of isolation ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Social distance is often used to describe attitudes towards stigmatized groups and was first defined by Bogardus as the 'degree of sympathetic understanding' between individuals or groups ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>], p. 7). It was developed out of an acknowledgement that physical proximity is inadequate in measuring the closeness between people. For instance, although two neighbours may be close geographically to one another, their social distance depends on the level of emotional intimacy or social prejudice between them ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]). Bogardus hypothesized that social distance is composed of a horizontal dimension, which accounts for sympathetic understanding occurring between peers, and a vertical dimension, which describes the sympathetic understanding between individuals of unequal status. He contended that it is the prejudice and discrimination occurring when a person's social status is attacked or lowered that increases the social distance between two people.</p> <p>Therefore, the degree of horizontal closeness which a person feels with another is dependent upon the vertical constraints of their relationship ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]). Individuals are more comfortable with others whom they perceive to be similar to themselves and therefore maintain a closer social distance to them. In contrast, when a person perceives another's behaviour to be unusual or abnormal, he or she will likely feel the desire to place a social distance between himself or herself and that person, resulting in aloofness or diffused fear ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref15">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]). Social distance therefore describes the relative willingness of an individual to take part in relationships of varying degrees of intimacy with a person who has a stigmatized identity ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Bogardus' scale was originally intended to record the American public's attitude towards immigrants of different nationalities ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). The desire for social distance was expressed as ranging from '1‐Would marry into group' to '7‐Would debar from my nation' ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>], p. 31). In the 1960s, the concept was used as a measure of attitudes towards groups varying in race, religion, nationality ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref21">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]), sex, age and occupation ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref23">40</reflink>]). Since then, it has been used primarily as an estimate of discrimination against persons with a mental illness ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref27">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]) and has also been used in the context of severe disability ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers have also recognized the applicability of the concept of social distance to populations with intellectual disability. The often stigmatized identity of individuals with intellectual disability offers the potential for members of the public to view them as 'abnormal' and to try to maintain a social distance from them. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>] adapted subscales used in studies of attitudes towards racial minorities ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]) to develop a measure of individuals' relative willingness to engage in social interactions with persons with intellectual disability. Harth's social distance scale is part of the Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory, which, in 1981, became known as the Multidimensional Attitude Survey on Mental Retardation (MASMR; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]) – although the two titles are still used interchangeably in the literature. The scale has undergone tests of reliability and validity and has been updated to reflect changing policies and practices ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]). It has since been used to explore teachers' attitudes towards mainstreaming children with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]), the attitudes of children ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>]) and high school students ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]) towards individuals with intellectual disability, and the impact of labeling on attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]). It has also been used in both Japan and China to study attitudes of college students towards individuals with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>The above literature has described demographic characteristics of respondents which are associated with attitudes of greater or lesser social distance. For instance, compared with males, females tend to display attitudes that reflect less social distance ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref47">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]). Younger people also tend to express less social distance than older people ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>], however, did not find that age and sex were related to social distance attitudes. Also, respondents who are highly educated, compared with their less educated counterparts, tend to show less social distance in their attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref52">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to these demographic variables, research has shown associations between measures of exposure to individuals with intellectual disability (such as contact with individuals with intellectual disability, frequency of this contact, and knowledge of intellectual disability) and attitudes towards them. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>] found that prior knowledge of a person with intellectual disability predicted attitudes reflecting less social distance. This finding is consistent with research by [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>], who found that children in well‐integrated schools (who therefore have greater contact with individuals with intellectual disability) express less social distance than do children in less integrated schools. Knowledge of intellectual disability has also been found to correlate with less social distance ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref56">18</reflink>]). Others have found non‐significant ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]) or only marginally significant ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]) results. However, the finding that, in general, contact with individuals with intellectual disability tends to improve attitudes towards them, is the foundation for many attitude change efforts and serves as one of the underlying assumptions of the inclusion philosophy ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Inconsistent findings with regard to associations between both demographic characteristics as well as contact with individuals with intellectual disability and attitudes towards them have caused researchers to question the utility of self‐report measures in studying attitudes. This method of data collection is vulnerable to threats to validity such as social desirability ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]) and has been criticized for its inability to consistently predict behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]). Nevertheless, self‐administered surveys are still widely used to measure attitudes.</p> <p>Given the 2004 decision to close the three remaining institutions in Ontario, Canada, by 2009 ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]), it was deemed critical to determine the attitude of the public towards the inclusion of individuals with intellectual disability in the community. This process was viewed as necessary to reduce barriers to the effective implementation of the government's policy and to decrease stigmatizing attitudes that are harmful to individuals with intellectual disability. The objectives of the current study were therefore (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>) to describe the social distance reflected in attitudes of the public in Ontario, Canada, towards individuals with intellectual disability and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>) to ascertain demographic characteristics of the public which may predict attitudes that, in showing greater social distance, are inconsistent with the goal of social inclusion. In addition, based on the results of our study, we offer cautionary advice on the use of the social distance scale and offer suggestions for its future use.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0048225076-3">Participants</hd> <p>We collected a stratified, random sample of adults (aged 18 and older) residing in a six county area of Ontario, Canada. At the time of the survey, the population in this area was estimated to be approximately half a million, of which 410 219 were adults ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref65">37</reflink>]). Following stratification of the region into 27 geographical areas, a random telephone contact list was created using InfoCanada's electronic databank of white pages residential phone numbers (i.e. Select Phone Canada). To ensure representation from each area, sampling across strata was based on the following quota rule: one in 440 households or a minimum of 25 households per geographic area. In total, 2949 potential participants were contacted. The final sample included 680 participants. The proportion of participants from each county very closely approximated the proportion of citizens living within each county. The actual completion rate was 23%.</p> <p>The protocol for this study was reviewed and approved by the Queen's University Research Ethics Board. Once randomly selected from the electronic telephone listing, only telephone numbers were provided to callers, thereby ensuring that participants' identities were not known and could not be associated with their opinions. Potential participants were told that their data would be pooled with others before analysis and were asked directly if they would participate. Answering 'yes' to this question was understood to indicate consent to participation. If a participant chose to discontinue the survey at any time before completion, their data were discarded.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-4">Measures</hd> <p>As part of a longer telephone interview about attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref67">31</reflink>]), participants completed the Social Distance Subscale of the MASMR ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). This scale requires participants to indicate, on a four‐point Likert‐like scale, their level of agreement (i.e. <emph>strongly agree</emph>, <emph>agree</emph>, <emph>disagree</emph>, or <emph>strongly disagree</emph>) with eight statements. Each statement presents a situation indicating a certain level of intimacy, and, through their responses, participants specify the level of social distance they would prefer to keep from such a situation. The scale contains positive and negative items to limit the influence of affirmative response bias. Negative items are reverse‐coded during analysis (see Results; Table 1, for a list of items included in this scale). The Social Distance Subscale of the MASMR has been found to have a reliability of 0.82, and internal validity analyses have shown a single construct underlying the subscale ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]). Moreover, in a convergent validity analysis ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]), the MASMR was found to correlate with the Community Living Attitudes Scale‐Mental Retardation ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref71">22</reflink>]), a well‐used scale of attitudes towards issues of inclusion for individuals with intellectual disability.</p> <p>1  Means and standard deviations for responses to social distance items</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Mean<sup>1</sup></th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>I would allow my child to accept an invitation to a birthday party given for a child with an intellectual disability.</td><td>3.61</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td>I am willing for my child to have children who have intellectual disabilities as close personal friends.</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>I have no objection to attending the movies or a play in the company of people who have intellectual disabilities.</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have people with an intellectual disability as dinner guests with my friends who are not intellectually disabled. (R)<sup>2</sup></td><td>3.26</td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have a person with an intellectual disability swim in the same pool that I am in. (R)</td><td>3.58</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>I would be willing to introduce a person with an intellectual disability to friends and neighbours in my hometown.</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an intellectual disability.</td><td>3.19</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have people who have intellectual disabilities live in the same apartment building I live in. (R)</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.60</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <sups>1</sups>Possible scores ranged from 1 'strongly disagree' to 4 'strongly agree'</p> <p>2 <sups>2</sups>R indicates that items were phrased in reverse and reverse‐scored to reflect the same scaling method as other items.</p> <p>Participants were also asked questions about the competence of adults with intellectual disability, which were used to measure the perceived level of disability estimated by participants to affect most adults with intellectual disability. These questions were originally developed by researchers at the Center for Social Development and Education at the University of Massachusetts at Boston ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref72">36</reflink>]). Participants also reported their gender, age, highest level of education achieved, and income level. In addition, as a measure of contact with individuals with intellectual disability, they were asked whether they had a close family member with an intellectual disability, worked with someone with an intellectual disability, knew anyone personally with an intellectual disability other than a close family member, or had seen people with an intellectual disability where they lived or worked.</p> <p>To clarify participants' understanding of the term 'intellectual disability', they were told at the beginning of the telephone interview: 'This survey is about people with an intellectual disability and the views of community members like yourself towards these people. Now, people with an intellectual disability have significantly impaired intelligence as well as limitations in their ability to adapt to everyday situations. Other terms which are sometimes used to describe this group include "people with mental retardation" or "people with a developmental disability"'.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-5">Analysis</hd> <p>The internal validity of the Social Distance Subscale was first calculated. Descriptive statistics were then used to provide a profile of the participants' demographic characteristics and their social distance attitudes. anova were conducted to study the relationship between categorical variables (i.e. gender, age, level of education, level of income, level of contact with individuals with intellectual disability, mild versus moderate/severe perceived disability) and participants' mean scores on the Social Distance Subscale items. All analyses were conducted using spss, version 14.0. A significance level of <emph>P </emph>< 0.05 was used in all analyses <emph>a priori</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-6">Results</hd> <p>Cronbach's alpha was 0.85, indicating acceptable internal validity. Participants who did not respond to all of the eight items on the Social Distance Subscale were excluded from the analysis, leaving a sample size of 625 individuals. Of those included in the analysis, 66% were female. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 93 years and had an average age of 50.08 years (SD = 15.92). Their reported level of education was as follows: 37.4% low (high school or less), 38.6% medium (community college or trade school) and 23.5% high (university degree). Their reported level of income was as follows: 8.3% <$20 000, 40.6% from $20 000 to <$60 000, 25.4% from $60 000 to <$100 000, and 9.8%$100 000 or more. Sample characteristics very closely approximated those of the underlying population [refer to [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]]. Of the participants, 19.4% stated that they had a close family member with intellectual disability. In addition, 73.6% of participants reported that they did not have a close family member with intellectual disability but that they had other forms of contact with individuals with intellectual disability (i.e. worked with, knew personally, or saw individuals with intellectual disability where they lived or worked). The remainder of participants (7%) reported no contact with individuals with intellectual disability. Finally, 57.4% of participants perceived the level of disability affecting most individuals with intellectual disability to be mild. The remainder reported moderate to severe perceived disability.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-7">Social distance items</hd> <p>Means and standard deviations for responses to the eight social distance items are reported in Table 1. Lower scores indicate a preference for higher social distance. Overall, participants tended to indicate a very low social distance in their perceptions of interactions with individuals with intellectual disability. Relative to the other items, the following two had lower mean scores which might suggest a preference for greater social distance in these specific situations. These were: 'I would rather not have people with an intellectual disability as dinner guests with my friends who are not intellectually disabled' (mean = 3.26, SD = 0.73) and 'I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an intellectual disability' (mean = 3.19, SD = 0.75).</p> <p>Table 2 shows a breakdown of responses for each item according to the <emph>strongly agree</emph>, <emph>agree</emph>, <emph>disagree</emph>, and <emph>strongly disagree</emph> response options. Again, participants' answers indicate low social distance as demonstrated by the majority of responses being <emph>strongly agree</emph> (or <emph>strongly disagree</emph> for reverse‐coded items). Although each item did have a small proportion of participants who indicated high social distance, the lowest mean for all items combined for any participant was 2.13. The highest mean on all items combined was 4.00 (indicating zero social distance).</p> <p>2  Proportion of positive and negative responses to social distance items (n = 625)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Strongly agree <italic>n (%)</italic></th><th> Agree
<italic>n (%)</italic></th><th> Disagree
<italic>n (%)</italic></th><th>Strongly disagree
<italic>n (%)</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>I would allow my child to accept an invitation to a birthday party given for a child with an intellectual disability.</td><td>390 (62.4)</td><td>228 (36.5)</td><td>5 (0.8)</td><td>2 (0.3)</td></tr><tr><td>I am willing for my child to have children who have intellectual disabilities as close personal friends.</td><td>356 (57.0)</td><td>254 (40.6)</td><td>12 (1.9)</td><td>3 (0.5)</td></tr><tr><td>I have no objection to attending the movies or a play in the company of people who have intellectual disabilities.</td><td>359 (57.4)</td><td>248 (39.7)</td><td>13 (2.1)</td><td>5 (0.8)</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have people with an intellectual disability as dinner guests with my friends who are not intellectually disabled. (R)<sup>1</sup></td><td>13 (2.1)</td><td>67 (10.7)</td><td>290 (46.4)</td><td>255 (40.8)</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have a person with an intellectual disability swim in the same pool that I am in. (R)</td><td>10 (1.6)</td><td>12 (1.9)</td><td>207 (33.1)</td><td>396 (63.4)</td></tr><tr><td>I would be willing to introduce a person with an intellectual disability to friends and neighbours in my hometown.</td><td>357 (57.1)</td><td>256 (41.0)</td><td>8 (1.3)</td><td>4 (0.6)</td></tr><tr><td>I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an intellectual disability.</td><td>227 (36.3)</td><td>307 (49.1)</td><td>74 (11.8)</td><td>17 (2.7)</td></tr><tr><td>I would rather not have people who have intellectual disabilities live in the same apartment building I live in. (R)</td><td>4 (0.6)</td><td>21 (3.4)</td><td>233 (37.3)</td><td>367 (58.7)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <sups>1</sups>R indicates that items were phrased in reverse and reverse‐scored to reflect the same scaling method as other items.</p> <p>Table 3 presents an analysis of participants' mean responses to social distance items according to their demographic information. Participants of varying age categories differed significantly in their social distance attitudes, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>, 605) = 7.10, <emph>P </emph>< 0.001. Follow‐up tests revealed significant differences between the 25–44 age category (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.54, SD = 0.42) and the 65+ age category (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.32, SD = 0.46) as well as between the 45–64 age category (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.49, SD = 0.42) and the 65+ age category. Therefore, older participants compared with younger participants preferred to keep a greater social distance from individuals with intellectual disability. Participants in different education categories also varied significantly in their preferences for social distance, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref75">2</reflink>, 619) = 14.33, <emph>P </emph>< 0.001. Follow‐up tests revealed that individuals with a low (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.39, SD = 0.45) or medium (mean =<emph> </emph>3.47, SD = 0.43) level of education were significantly more likely than those with a high level (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.63, SD = 0.37) of education to desire to distance themselves from individuals with intellectual disability. The results for gender and level of income were not significant.</p> <p>3  Associations between participant characteristics and desire for social distance from persons with ID</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Mean (SD)</th><th>d.f.</th><th><italic>F</italic>‐<italic>value</italic></th><th><italic>P</italic>‐<italic>value</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>624)</td></tr><tr><td> Males (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>210)</td><td>3.43 (0.43)</td><td valign="top">1.622</td><td valign="top">2.72</td><td valign="top">0.10</td></tr><tr><td> Females (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>414)</td><td>3.50 (0.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Age, years (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>609)</td></tr><tr><td> <25 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>37)</td><td>3.49 (0.07)</td><td valign="top">3.605</td><td valign="top">7.10</td><td valign="top">0.00*</td></tr><tr><td> 25–44 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>202)</td><td>3.54 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td> 45–64 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>246)</td><td>3.49 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td> ≥65 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>124)</td><td>3.32 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td>Level of education (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>622)</td></tr><tr><td> Low (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>234)</td><td>3.39 (0.43)</td><td valign="top">2.619</td><td valign="top">14.33</td><td valign="top">0.00*</td></tr><tr><td> Medium (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>241)</td><td>3.47 (0.43)</td></tr><tr><td> High (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>147)</td><td>3.63 (0.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Level of income, $ (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>526)</td></tr><tr><td> <20 000 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>52)</td><td>3.47 (0.50)</td><td valign="top">3.522</td><td valign="top">2.25</td><td valign="top">0.08</td></tr><tr><td> 20 000 to <60 000 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>254)</td><td>3.47 (0.45)</td></tr><tr><td> 60 000 to <100 000 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>159)</td><td>3.45 (0.42)</td></tr><tr><td> ≥100 000 (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>61)</td><td>3.61 (0.34)</td></tr><tr><td>Contact with individuals with ID (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>624)</td></tr><tr><td> Close family member with ID (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>121)</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.44</td><td valign="top">2.621</td><td valign="top">3.60</td><td valign="top">0.03*</td></tr><tr><td> Other contact with individuals with ID<sup>1</sup> (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>460)</td><td>3.46</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td> No contact (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>43)</td><td>3.38</td><td>0.42</td></tr><tr><td>Level of perceived disability (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>589)</td></tr><tr><td> Mild (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>359)</td><td>3.53</td><td>0.41</td><td valign="top">1.587</td><td valign="top">19.13</td><td valign="top">0.00*</td></tr><tr><td> Moderate/severe (<italic>n </italic>=<italic> </italic>230)</td><td>3.37</td><td>0.46</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <sups>1</sups>Category includes all participants who do not have a close family member with ID but who have contact through working with, knowing personally, and/or seeing individuals with ID where they live or work.</item> <item>5 *<emph>P</emph>‐value significant at <0.05.</item> </ulist> <p>Depending on their level of contact with individuals with intellectual disability, participants differed significantly with respect to their social distance scores, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>, 621) = 3.60, <emph>P </emph>= 0.03. Follow‐up tests revealed significant differences between individuals who had a close family member with intellectual disability (mean = 3.56, SD = 0.44) and those who did not have a close family member with intellectual disability but who had other forms of contact with individuals with intellectual disability (mean = 3.46, SD = 0.43). Participants with a close family member with intellectual disability also differed significantly from those with no contact with individuals with intellectual disability (mean = 3.38, SD = 3.46). There were no differences between those who had some form of contact with individuals with intellectual disability other than through close family members and those with no contact at all, resulting in the conclusion that it is contact with close family members in particular that accounted for differences in social distance attitudes in this sample. Finally, those participants who perceived the level of disability of most individuals with intellectual disability to be mild (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.53, SD = 0.41) were significantly less likely than those who perceived their level of disability to be moderate or severe (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>3.37, SD = 0.46) to prefer to maintain social distance in interactions with them, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>, 587) = 19.13, <emph>P </emph>< 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-8">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0048225076-9">Findings</hd> <p>The results of our study suggest that several participant characteristics remain relevant in today's society in predicting social distance attitudes. Several demographic characteristics of participants predicted a tendency to desire greater social distance from persons with intellectual disability. Older individuals were more likely than younger individuals to endorse a high social distance between themselves and persons with intellectual disability. This finding is similar to research by [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref78">46</reflink>]; however, others have failed to show significant differences among age groups ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref80">18</reflink>]). Consistent with past research ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref81">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>]), less educated persons were more likely than highly educated persons to desire social distance from individuals with intellectual disability. However, contrary to previous research ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref83">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref84">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref85">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]), no differences were found for gender.</p> <p>Similar to [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref88">46</reflink>] but in contrast with other research ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref90">26</reflink>]), participants who had greater contact with individuals with intellectual disability (as measured by having a close family member with intellectual disability) were less likely to desire social distance in situations involving individuals with intellectual disability. Finally, the current study showed that participants who perceived the level of disability affecting most individuals with intellectual disability to be mild (as opposed to moderate or severe) were significantly less likely to express a wish for social distance between themselves and individuals with intellectual disability. This finding is consistent with research in the field of mental illness, where participants tend to prefer greater social distance from individuals with mental illnesses which they perceive to be severe (i.e. schizophrenia) compared with mild (i.e. depression) ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref92">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although these findings demonstrate the continued relevance of associations between participant characteristics and attitudes towards intellectual disability, other aspects of our study raise concerns regarding the measurement of social distance. The results of the study indicated that, overall, participants seemed to hold remarkably positive attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability, as demonstrated by low social distance expressed on items of the Social Distance Subscale of the MASMR. These findings were consistent with recent studies of social distance towards individuals with intellectual disability. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref93">26</reflink>] found that most participants responded with <emph>strongly agree</emph> or <emph>agree</emph> to the social distance items of the MASMR (or <emph>strongly disagree</emph> or <emph>disagree</emph> to reverse‐coded items). Indeed, they found a mean score above 2.5 for all items, with the exception of 'I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an intellectual disability' (mean<emph> </emph>=<emph> </emph>2.42, SD = 0.83) ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>]). Krajewski and Flaherty concluded that their participants seemed not to be reluctant to socialize or live with individuals with intellectual disability but commented on the possibility of social desirability affecting responses and on the inability of attitudinal measures to predict behaviour. We have similar concerns with regard to the results of our study and will address them as shortcomings of the current measurement of social distance.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-10">The measurement of social distance: shortcomings and implications</hd> <p>Over the years, the nature of the social distance scale has changed. Originally, Bogardus designed it to be a Guttman Scale, which is ordinal and cumulative in nature ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref95">30</reflink>]). In this type of attitudinal measure, acceptance of a situation of a particular rank implies acceptance of all previous (in this case, more socially distant) items ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref96">34</reflink>]). To illustrate, Bogardus' scale ranged from '1‐Would marry into group' (zero social distance) to '7‐Would debar from my nation' (maximum social distance) ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref97">9</reflink>]). One would expect the level of social distance preferred by respondents to increase as the situation implied greater social closeness ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>]). However, especially within the context of cross‐cultural studies, Guttman scales of social distance have been criticized because the relative intimacy of a particular situation can be interpreted differently depending on the culture of the respondent. In addition, ordering can depend on the sex of the respondent and on the nature of the reference group ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref99">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>The social distance scale that we used was developed by [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref100">45</reflink>] and revised by [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref101">19</reflink>]. Although the validity and reliability of this scale have been established ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref102">5</reflink>]), it has lost the cumulative and ordinal nature which the original reportedly once possessed under Bogardus' conceptualization. The scale no longer requires respondents to choose one statement describing their preference for social distance from a quantitatively‐defined continuum of situations eliciting zero social distance to maximum social distance. Instead, responses to individual items, ranging from <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to <emph>strongly agree</emph> on a Likert‐like scale, are aggregated to produce an overall social distance score for each participant, which can then be used to examine associations with the demographic and experiential characteristics of the participant.</p> <p>It is possible that the nature of the items themselves prohibits accurate discrimination of social distance attitudes. In our study, only two items –'I would rather not have people with an intellectual disability as dinner guests with my friends who are not intellectually disabled' and 'I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an intellectual disability'– were reasonably informative in the spread of their scores. The remainder of the items showed the bulk of responses in the <emph>strongly agree</emph> or <emph>agree</emph> categories (or <emph>strongly disagree</emph> or <emph>disagree</emph> in reverse‐coded items), resulting in very little variation in response. The uniformly positive nature of the responses therefore calls into question the overall validity of the scale. Perhaps the two items on which there was more variability are tapping into the types of situations which might elicit a desire for social distance from respondents. In order to accurately reflect contemporary attitudes, future research should endeavour to determine the types of questions that truly vary in social intimacy. For example, it may be useful to return to key measures on the original Bogardus scale, including issues around marriage. As well, topics of current interest including the involvement of individuals with intellectual disability in employment, retail service, sports teams, and shared living arrangements may be explored.</p> <p>A further change to the social distance scale is that it is used increasingly to examine attitudes towards only one group rather than to compare attitudes towards many different groups. In the past, the scale was used to compare attitudes towards groups of different races ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref103">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref104">42</reflink>]) and with different mental illnesses ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref105">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref106">15</reflink>]), thereby ensuring the presence of a reference point for attitudes. However, like recent research ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref107">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref108">18</reflink>]), the current study examined attitudes towards only one group. It is therefore unclear whether our surprisingly positive findings are partially a function of a lack of reference group or are a true reflection of the attitudes of the public towards individuals with intellectual disability. Thus, it would be useful for future research to compare social distance attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability with those towards individuals with other disabilities, such as physical disabilities or mental illness.</p> <p>As a self‐reported attitudinal scale, the social distance scale has the potential to be biased by social desirability ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref109">32</reflink>]). Especially because respondents to direct measures of attitudes such as this are aware that their attitudes are being measured, their answers may be skewed by a desire to be viewed favourably by others ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref110">6</reflink>]). Indeed, because attitudinal surveys are social situations, individuals are motivated (and able) to present themselves in a socially desirably light ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref111">35</reflink>]), thereby threatening the validity of responses.</p> <p>Although assurances of anonymity and confidentiality can somewhat counteract the desire to respond in a socially desirable manner, perceptions of the attitudes of 'the majority' of individuals towards stigmatized groups highly influence participants' responses ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref112">35</reflink>]), especially when there is risk of criticism or sanctions for opinions ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref113">32</reflink>]). Questions asked in different contexts will therefore elicit different levels of social desirability in responses. The social distance questions used in the MASMR date back to the 1970s, and, as mentioned previously, we question whether items for which little disagreement was expressed can be viewed as sensitive to attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability in the current climate of political correctness. Pressure to respond favourably was perhaps heightened in our study, because of the fact that surveys were administered over the telephone rather than by the anonymous completion of paper questionnaires. It is possible that, in the contemporary context of institutional closure in Ontario, Canada (where the study took place), participants felt pressure to respond in ways that are consistent with current philosophies. However, analyses of other sections of the survey, reported elsewhere ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref114">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref115">31</reflink>]), revealed a much broader range of attitudes in support of or against various community living practices.</p> <p>Another caution relates to the general weakness cast on attitudinal studies which fail to include behavioural measures. All such attitudinal studies which use only self‐report measures are open to criticism for their lack of concrete links to the actual behaviour of participants ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref116">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref117">32</reflink>]). Therefore, behaviours displayed by residents of Ontario, Canada, may not be as positive as their attitudes seem to suggest.</p> <p>Finally, the interpretation of factors found to be associated with social distance in this study, while statistically significant, may not be practically significant. That is, a difference in means in the order of 0.24 or less on a scale of 1 to 4 (as observed in this study) may not indicate a difference in attitude that would be meaningful in the lives of respondents or individuals with intellectual disability. If indeed we were confident that the public's attitudes are highly positive towards individuals with intellectual disability, we might seek out and encourage the societal changes or policies which had most affected the improvement in attitude. However, the lack of clarity suggests a need to adopt a cautious stance towards our unexpected positive findings.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-11">Conclusions</hd> <p>As policy and services within the field of intellectual disability move towards a paradigm of inclusion, it is critical to determine the consistency of the public's attitudes with these efforts. More than ever, in an age of deinstitutionalization and community inclusion, the concept of social distance is highly relevant in describing the public's attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability and in informing inclusion efforts. The present study showed that several demographic and experiential characteristics of respondents remain pertinent in predicting attitudes of social distance. However, while the concept of social distance remains applicable in today's society, its measurement seems to lack a sensitivity which is necessary in the current context of political correctness. Over the years, the social distance scale has evolved away from the ordinal and cumulative framework first designed by [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>], and the questions themselves remain relatively unchanged since their conceptualization in the 1970s ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref119">19</reflink>]). It would be informative for future research to determine whether a return to Bogardus' original theory of social distance measurement allows for a more sensitive and realistic understanding of attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability, and, if so, how this measurement can be achieved in today's multiethnic and multilingual society. In addition, future research should reexamine the items of the social distance scale to determine what types of questions are most informative in discriminating among attitudes of social distance. Thus, we suggest that readers interpret the positive nature of our results with caution and we recommend a thorough reexamination and refinement of the measurement of social distance.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-12">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank the survey respondents as well as Gary N. Siperstein and Jennifer Bardon Norins from the Center for Social Development and Education (University of Massachusetts at Boston), project coordinator Beth Peterkin, research assistant Meghan Hamel, and the students from the Queen's University Office of Advancement Telefundraising Centre who worked as pollsters.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-13">Correspondence</hd> <p>Any correspondence should be directed to Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz, Queen's University Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Southeastern Ontario Community‐University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities, 191 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON, Canada, K7M 8A6 (e‐mail: oullette@queensu.ca).</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-14">Source of Funding</hd> <p>Funding for the South Eastern Ontario Community‐University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities (<ulink href="http://www.seocura.org">http://www.seocura.org</ulink>) was provided by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [no. 833‐20003‐1008]. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of all SEO CURA in ID partners, researchers, collaborators, or of SSHRC.</p> <hd id="AN0048225076-15">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>No conflict of interest has been declared.</p> <ref id="AN0048225076-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref60" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akrami N., Ekehammer B., Claesson M. & Sonnander K. (2006) Classical and modern prejudice: attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 27, 605 – 617.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Angermeyer M. C. & Matschinger H. (1997) Social distance towards the mentally ill: results of representative surveys in the Federal Republic of Germany. Psychological Medicine 27, 131 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Angermeyer M. C., Beck M. & Matschinger H. (2003) Determinants of the public's preference for social distance from people with schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 48, 663 – 668.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref29" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Angermeyer M. C., Matschinger H. & Corrigan P. W. (2004) Familiarity with mental illness and social distance from people with schizophrenia and major depression: testing a model using data from a representative population survey. Schizophrenia Research 69, 175 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref37" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Antonak R. F. & Harth R. (1994) Psychometric analysis and revision of the mental retardation attitude inventory. Mental Retardation 32, 272 – 280.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Antonak R. F. & Livneh H. (1995) Direct and indirect methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, with an exegesis of the error‐choice test method. Rehabilitation Psychology 40, 3 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref16" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann A. E. (2007) Stigmatization, social distance and exclusion because of mental illness: the individual with mental illness as a 'stranger'. International Review of Psychiatry 19, 131 – 135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bigby C. (2006) Shifting models of welfare: issues in relocation from an institution and the organization of community living. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 3, 147 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bogardus E. S. (1959) Social Distance. The Antioch Press, Yellow Springs, OH.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burge P., Ouellette‐Kuntz H. & Lysaght R. (2007) Public views on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26, 29 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 a peer interaction program. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 26, 229 – 239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corrigan P. W., Green A., Lundin R., Kubiak M. A. & Penn D. L. (2001) Familiarity with and social distance from people who have serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 52, 953 – 958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummins R. A. & Lau A. L. D. (2003) Community integration or community exposure? A review and discussion in relation to people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 16, 145 – 157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fichten C. S., Schipper F. & Cutler N. (2005) Does volunteering with children affect attitudes toward adults with disabilities? A prospective study of unequal contact. Rehabilitation Psychology 50, 164 – 173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaebel W., Baumann A., Witte A. M. & Zaeske H. (2002) Public attitudes towards people with mental illness in six German cities. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 252, 278 – 287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser W. & Deane K. (1999) Normalization in an abnormal world: a study of prisoners with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43, 338 – 356.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammond D. G., Zucker S. H., Burstein K. S. & DiGangi S. A. (1997) Computer‐mediated instruction for increasing regular education students' acceptance of students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 32, 313 – 320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hampton N. Z. & Xiao F. (2008) Psychometric properties of the mental retardation attitude inventory‐revised in Chinese college students. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52, 299 – 308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harth R. (1971) Attitudes toward minority groups as a construct in assessing attitudes towards the mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded 6, 142 – 147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harth R. (1981) Personally relevant and personally irrelevant attitude differences toward educable and trainable retarded children. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded 16, 213 – 216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry D., Keys C., Balcazar F. & Jopp D. (1996a) Attitudes of community‐living staff members toward persons with mental retardation, mental illness, and dual diagnosis. Mental Retardation 34, 367 – 379.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry D., Keys C., Jopp D. & Balcazar F. (1996b) The community living attitudes scale, mental retardation form: development and psychometric properties. Mental Retardation 34, 149 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner‐Johnson W., Keys C., Henry D., Yamaki K., Oi F., Watanabe K., Shimada H. & Fugjimura I. (2002) Attitudes of Japanese students toward people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46, 365 – 378.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaffe J. (1967) Attitudes and interpersonal contact: relationships between contact with the mentally retarded and dimensions of attitude. Journal of Counseling Psychology 14, 482 – 484.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennon A. F. & Sandoval J. (1978) Teacher attitudes toward the educable mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded 13, 139 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajewski J. & Flaherty F. (2000) Attitudes of high school students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation 38, 154 – 162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauber C., Nordt C., Falcato L. & Rössler W. (2004) Factors influencing social distance toward people with mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal 40, 265 – 274.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald J. D. & MacIntyre P. D. (1999) A rose is a rose: effects of label change, education, and sex on attitudes toward mental disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 6, 15 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Community and Social Services (2006) Opportunities and Action: Transforming Supports in Ontario for People who have a Developmental Disability. Available at <ulink href="http://www.cfcs.gov.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D643669A‐74A8‐420C‐8042‐6D46343106C1/92/DSreport.pdf">http://www.cfcs.gov.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D643669A‐74A8‐420C‐8042‐6D46343106C1/92/DSreport.pdf</ulink> (accessed on 28 June 2007).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oppenheim A. N. (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. Basic Books Inc., Publishers, New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouellette‐Kuntz H. & Burge P. (2007) Public perceptions of the best living arrangements for most adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 13, 133 – 147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parillo V. N. & Donoghue C. (2005) Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: a new national survey. The Social Science Journal 42, 257 – 271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis E. M. (1988) Improving attitudes of nonretarded fourth graders toward people who are mildly mentally retarded: implications for mainstreaming. Education and Training in Mental Retardation 23, 85 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherif C. W. (1973) Social distance as categorization of intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25, 327 – 334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigelman C. K. (1991) Social distance from stigmatized groups: false consensus and false uniqueness effects of responding. Rehabilitation Psychology 36, 139 – 151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Special Olympics (2004) Multinational Study of Attitudes Toward Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Available at <ulink href="http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/Initiatives/Research/Attitude%5fResearch/Multinational+Study.htm">http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/English/Initiatives/Research/Attitude%5fResearch/Multinational+Study.htm</ulink> (accessed on 23 January 2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Statistics Canada (2007) Canadian Socio‐Economic Information Management System, 2006 [Data File]. Available at <ulink href="http://cansim2.statcan.ca/">http://cansim2.statcan.ca/</ulink> (accessed on 23 January 2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuart H. & Arboleda‐Flórez J. (2001) Community attitudes toward people with schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46, 245 – 252.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend M. A. R., Wilton K. M. & Vakilirad T. (1993) Children's attitudes toward peers with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 37, 405 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triandis H. C. (1964) Exploratory factor analysis of the behavioural component of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 420 – 430.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triandis H. C. & Triandis L. M. (1960) Race, social class, religion, and nationality as determinants of social distance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61, 110 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triandis H. C., Davis E. E. & Takezawa S.‐I. (1965) Social determinants of social distance among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 540 – 551.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tringo J. (1970) The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups. Journal of Special Education 4, 295 – 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dorn R. A., Swanson J. W., Elbogen E. B. & Swartz M. S. (2005) A comparison of stigmatizing attitudes toward persons with schizophrenia in four stakeholder groups: perceived likelihood of violence and desire for social distance. Psychiatry: Interpersonal & Biological Processes 68, 152 – 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodmansee J. J. & Cook S. W. (1967) Dimensions of verbal racial attitudes: their identification and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7, 240 – 250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yazbeck M., McVilly K. & Parmenter T. R. (2004) Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities: an Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15, 97 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz; Philip Burge; Hilary K. Brown and Elizabeth Arsenault</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref111"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ874352
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Public Attitudes towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ouellette-Kuntz%2C+Helene%22">Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burge%2C+Philip%22">Burge, Philip</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brown%2C+Hilary+K%2E%22">Brown, Hilary K.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Mar 2010 23(2):132-142.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mental+Retardation%22">Mental Retardation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Opinion%22">Public Opinion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Attitudes%22">Social Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Familiarity%22">Familiarity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Severity+%28of+Disability%29%22">Severity (of Disability)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-2322
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: While current practices strive to include individuals with intellectual disabilities in community opportunities, stigmatizing attitudes held by the public can be a barrier to achieving true social inclusion. Methods: A sample of 625 community members completed the Social Distance Subscale of the Multidimensional Attitude Scale on Mental Retardation. Results: Older and less educated participants held attitudes that reflected greater social distance. Participants who had a close family member with an intellectual disability and those who perceived the average level of disability to be "mild" expressed less social distance. The limited variability in scores leads us to question our overall finding of very favourable attitudes towards social interaction with persons with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that although certain demographic variables are still relevant in identifying social distance attitudes, the measurement of this construct requires revision to ensure a valid and sensitive reflection of the public's attitudes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ874352
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ874352
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 132
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Mental Retardation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Opinion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Familiarity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Severity (of Disability)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Public Attitudes towards Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the Concept of Social Distance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ouellette-Kuntz, Helene
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burge, Philip
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brown, Hilary K.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-2322
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1