Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–1247

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities: A comparison ofyoung people from British South Asian and White British backgrounds

Joel Sheridan a,*, Katrina Scior b

a iCope, Islington Psychological Therapies and Wellbeing Service, Hill House (5th Floor), London N19 5NA, United Kingdomb Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 14 August 2012

Received in revised form 21 December 2012

Accepted 24 December 2012

Available online 14 February 2013

Keywords:

Attitudes

Cross-cultural

Intellectual disabilities

Inclusion

Stigma

Normalisation

Adolescents

A B S T R A C T

Research with South Asian families of individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID)

suggests an increased fear of stigma and isolation from the community. Evidence on

attitudes towards ID among the wider community is very limited and was the focus of the

present study. Responses were collected from 737 college students aged 16–19 using the

Community Living Attitudes Scale – ID version. Results indicated that British South Asians

(n = 355) were less in favour of the social inclusion of people with ID than White British

young people (n = 382). British South Asian adolescents were more likely to hold the view

that people with ID should be sheltered and not empowered. It is proposed that future

inclusion policies integrate ethnic minority views whose religious and cultural values do

not always conform to the core values of social inclusion policies. It is also proposed that

culturally specific school based interventions could be introduced with the aims of

decreasing stigma and fostering attitudes in line with the aims of normalisation.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research into public attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities (ID) has concluded that self-reportedattitudes are generally pro-inclusion (Scior, 2011 for a review). A recent Canadian general population study found attitudestowards people with ID to be ‘‘remarkably positive’’ (Ouellette-Kuntz, Burge, Brown, & Arsenault, 2010). However, peoplewith ID continue to report hostile attitudes and discrimination (Jahoda & Markova, 2004) and experience social exclusion,limited social relationships, lower rates of employment, and a reduced likelihood of participating in community basedactivities (Verdonschot, de Witte, Reichrath, Buntinx, & Curfs, 2009). Furthermore, some studies have reported warinessand hostility to the community integration of people with ID (Myers, Ager, Kerr, & Myles, 1998), and attitudes among thegeneral public are still less positive than among students and staff in disability services (Yazbeck, McVilly, & Parmenter,2004). Over recent years attention has been drawn to hate crimes committed against people with intellectual disabilities(Mencap, 2012; Quarmby, 2011). This suggests that in the wake of deinstitutionalisation and inclusive education,community integration has increased, but public attitudes continue to pose a potential barrier to the full social inclusionand equal rights of people with ID.

Normalisation, which paved the way for current inclusion policies, suggested that educational integration anddeinstitutionalisation are likely to contribute to societal attitudes towards people with ID becoming more pro-inclusion andless stigmatising (Wolfensberger, 1983). Indeed, research indicates that pro-inclusion attitudes towards people with ID areimportant in facilitating the process of social inclusion (e.g., Henry, Keys, Jopp, & Balcazar, 1996). However, the study of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +020 7685 4700; fax: +44 207 354 9120.

E-mail addresses: joel.sheridan@candi.nhs.uk, joel.sheridan@hotmail.co.uk (J. Sheridan), k.scior@ucl.ac.uk (K. Scior).

0891-4222/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.017

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–1247 1241

stigma has not received the same attention for people with ID, as it has done in psychiatric disability research (Scior, 2011;Werner, Corrigan, Ditchman, & Sokol, 2012).

1.1. Respondent characteristics and attitudes

A number of demographic factors may have a bearing on attitudes towards people with ID. Educational attainment hasbeen found to have a positive correlation with attitudes in support of empowerment and integration (Lau & Cheung, 1999;Yuker, 1994). Findings on the effects of gender, age and prior contact are mixed. Whereas some studies found that females,younger people, and those with prior contact demonstrated more positive attitudes (Gash & Coffey, 1995; Lau & Cheung,1999; McConkey, McCormack, & Naughton, 1983), others have not supported these findings (Horner-Johnson et al., 2002;Hudson-Allez & Barrett, 1996).

Current policies emphasise the need to empower people with ID, to maximise their choices and their social inclusion.However, the extent to which Wolfensberger’s original vision has been fulfilled and just how far the general populationsubscribes to the values of current policies is unclear.

1.2. The role of culture

Whilst it has been suggested that attitudes and beliefs regarding ID vary in different cultural contexts (e.g., Fatimilehin& Nadirshaw, 1994; Horner-Johnson et al., 2002; Scior, Kan, McLoughlin, & Sheridan, 2010), research has largely focusedon Caucasian participants, to the exclusion of ethnic minority groups (Mink, 1997). One of the few studies to focus on anethic minority community, Gabel (2004) carried out a 2-year ethnographic study involving first-wave North Indian Hinduimmigrants (n = 20) residing in the USA. The research team conversed with participants in their first language (Hindi) andused ethnographic methods. Gabel reported three dominant beliefs about people with ID. The first was the belief in theconsequence of bad deeds (Karma and Punarjanamphala). This reflects the Hindu belief in reincarnation and regards anydisability as a result of bad deeds in a previous life. The second belief identified was the idea of ‘suffering through’, i.e.,that a person must endure disability without complaint. However, Gabel argued that ‘suffering’ does not have the samenegative connotation that it might have for someone born and raised in the West; in contrast, it is regarded as a welcomeopportunity for learning that could free oneself from rebirth. The third belief identified was that of a mundh buddhi, whichis often used in Hindi to refer to people with ID, in the absence of any Hindi word for this concept. Whilst there was noconsensus as to its meaning, several prominent meanings of this term emerged in Gabel’s (2004) study, including the ideathat a person with ID is able to the same things and at the same pace as people without ID, but chooses not to due tolaziness.

The study of attitudes towards people with ID from the perspectives of different cultural groups is particularlyimportant in the context of multi-cultural societies, such as the UK. One of the largest cultural groups in the UK is the SouthAsian population. ‘South Asian’ is a term which refers to people originating from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka(Modood et al., 1997). By 2021 it is predicted that 7% of all British people with ID will be of South Asian origin (Hatton,Akram, Shah Robertson, & Emerson, 2003). Research has shown that formal and informal supports received by South Asianfamilies of people with ID are not adequate to meet their needs; they receive less support from extended family networkscompared to White families in similar positions (Chamba, Ahmad, Hirst, Lawton, & Beresford, 1999; Hatton et al., 2003)and, contrary to expectations, frequently do not receive much support from community or religious groups (Atkins &Rollings, 1996).

Despite South Asian families reporting a substantial need for formal services (Chamba et al., 1999; Mir et al., 2001),there is a low parental awareness of specialist services for people with ID and a low uptake of services such as respitecare for families (Hatton, Azmi, Caine, & Emerson, 1998; Hatton et al., 2003) and family support groups (Chamba et al.,1999). One reason for this low uptake could be that providers have not always done enough to make services accessible,e.g., by addressing South Asians’ language and information needs (Chamba et al., 1999; Mir et al., 2001). Attitudes heldby South Asian families with a member with ID may also play their part in the poor uptake of services. Fatimilehin andNadirshaw (1994) compared South Asian (n = 12) and White British (n = 12) families with a child with ID. Among SouthAsian parents they found evidence of fatalism, search for a cure, increased concern about the stigma of bearing a childwith a disability and fears about a possible negative impact on the marriage prospects of siblings. However, it is notknown how attitudes towards people with ID in the general population differ between South Asians and the majoritywhite culture.

1.3. The current study

Adolescents’ attitudes are useful to consider as they represent the new generation of adults whose attitudes will impacton the community in which people with ID live (Krajewski & Flaherty, 2000). They were the focus of the current study whichset out to assess attitudes towards people with ID among British South Asians (BSA) and compare these with a White British(WB) sample. The specific purposes of the study were to (a) establish whether the attitudes of BSA adolescents are in linewith efforts aimed at the greater integration and empowerment of people with ID, (b) to compare their attitudes with a WBsample, and (c) to examine the effects of demographics on attitudes, namely age, gender, and prior contact with someone

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–12471242

with ID. We hypothesised that BSA adolescents would have attitudes less in favour of inclusion and empowerment of peoplewith ID than WB adolescents.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

Convenience sampling was used to recruit a total of 737 participants aged 16–19 years; of these 382 were WB and 355were BSA. Participants were recruited during a Widening Access open day at the second author’s university and at colleges inLondon, Essex and Cambridge, where a project table was set up in dining areas at lunchtime and advertised with a largeposter to draw peoples’ attention. It was not feasible to count the figure of students who walked by the project table due tothe constant crowds of students passing by. Hence it is not possible to calculate a response rate.

2.2. Materials

Participants completed a demographics questionnaire and the Community Living Attitudes Scale – ID version (CLAS-ID;Henry, Keys, Jopp, et al., 1996). The CLAS-ID is a 40-item measure of attitudes towards people with ID on four associated butindependent subscales: Empowerment, Exclusion, Sheltering, and Similarity. Empowerment reflects the extent to whichrespondents believe that people with ID should be free to make their own life decisions; Exclusion reflects the extent to whichthey think people with ID should be excluded from society; Sheltering the extent to which they believe that people with IDneed help in keeping safe; and finally Similarity reflects the extent to which they feel that people with ID are similar tothemselves. Although Empowerment and Similarity are largely presented as positive and Exclusion and Sheltering asnegative attitudes, Horner-Johnson et al. (2002) pointed out that Sheltering does not necessarily indicate negativelyattitudes; people with ID may be more vulnerable to exploitation so participants endorsing Sheltering at the very least viewpeople with ID as worthy of care and concern.

Responses are on a six-point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’. Subscale scores were calculatedby averaging the items for each subscale and relevant procedures outlined in the manual were followed (Henry, Keys, & Jopp,1998). Given that social desirability has not consistently been found to influence attitudes towards people with ID inprevious research (Scior, 2011), a social desirability scale was not included in the current study. The reliability and validity ofthe CLAS-ID has been confirmed in a number of studies across different cultural contexts (Henry, Keys, Balcazar, & Jopp,1996; Henry, Keys, Jopp, et al., 1996; Horner-Johnson et al., 2002; Schwarz & Armony-Sivan, 2002; Scior et al., 2010; Yazbecket al., 2004). Results from previous studies with community samples are presented in Table 1.

For the purposes of the present study, one small alteration and two other additions were made to the measure: (a) Theword mental retardation was replaced with the term learning disabilities, the most commonly used term in the UK; (b) thefollowing note was added at the start of the questionnaire – ‘‘people with learning disabilities/intellectual disabilities aresometimes known as ‘‘mentally handicapped’’ to ensure that participants would be in no doubt about what they were beingasked; (c) and six items were added at the end that reflect specific cultural issues and beliefs that may be common within BSAcommunities. Some studies (Bhatti, Channabasavanna, & Prabhu, 1985; Fatimilehin & Nadirshaw, 1994) have suggested thatbeliefs that ID can be cured or overcome through medical interventions, marriage or religion, are more common in someAsian cultures (items 41–43). A tendency in Asian cultures towards the importance of family cohesion (e.g., Lee, 1999) mayreflect a belief that it is the parents and not external services that should take the sole responsibility for the care of childrenwith disabilities (item 44). Finally, as has been noted elsewhere (Hughes, 1983; Katbamna, Baker, Ahmad, Bhakta, & Parker,2001), families may worry that the marital prospects of their other offspring will be damaged as a result of having a familymember with ID or hold the belief that the person should be hidden away from society (items 45 and 46).

2.3. Procedure

Ethical approval was granted by the second author’s institutional research ethics committee. Participants were asked tocomplete a brief survey and given the option of entering a prize draw for a cash prize of up to £100 as incentive.

Table 1

Studies that have used the CLAS-ID: means (standard deviations).

Study Sample Sample size CLAS subscales

n Empowerment

M (SD)

Exclusion

M (SD)

Sheltering

M (SD)

Similarity

M (SD)

USA (Henry, Keys, Balcazar, et al., 1996) Students and

community members

387 3.91 (0.78) 1.87 (0.66) 3.26 (0.76) 4.90 (0.65)

USA (Henry, Keys, Jopp, et al., 1996) Disability staff 340 4.02 (0.79) 1.77 (0.63) 3.26 (0.79) 4.64 (0.64)

Israel (Schwarz & Armony-Sivan, 2002) Students 149 3.73 (0.66) 2.41 (0.72) 3.96 (0.66) 4.48 (0.61)

Japan (Horner-Johnson et al., 2002) Students 275 3.41 (0.47) 1.96 (0.62) 3.17 (0.49) 4.00 (0.53)

Hong Kong (Scior et al., 2010) General population 149 4.06 (0.59) 2.24 (0.67) 3.63 (0.73) 4.56 (0.58)

Table 2

Demographics of British South Asian (n = 353) and White British (n = 380) samples.

British South Asian (%) White British (%)

Gender Male 36.9 36.9

Female 63.1 63.1

Prior contact Yes 51.8 77.4

No 48.2 22.6

Religion Muslim 50.7 0

Hindu 28.9 0

Sikh 6.3 0

Christian 6.6 38.7

Other religion 2.0 3.7

Atheist/Agnostic 5.4 57.6

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–1247 1243

2.4. Data analysis

The data were screened for normality and outliers prior to any analysis being carried out. There was significant skewnesson the Exclusion and Similarity subscales. Statistical transformations were not conducted as the data were in meaningfulunits on a standardised scale which enables comparison with previous (and future) studies (Norman & Streiner, 2000).Instead equivalent non-parametric tests were carried out to confirm the findings of parametric tests on these two subscales.The South Asian and white British samples were compared in terms of key demographic characteristics using chi square andt-tests. Correlations between the CLAS-ID subscales were calculated using Spearman’s rho. The subscales’ internalconsistency for the current samples was examined with Cronbach’s alpha. The main research questions were examinedusing analysis of variance tests, followed by post hoc multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction to reduce the risk ofType 1 error associated with multiple testing. Effect sizes are stated as Cohen’s d.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic variables

The average ages of both samples were similar: 16.68 years (SD = 0.65) for the BSA sample and 16.72 years (SD = 0.70) forthe WB sample, t (733) = �0.99, p = 0.324. In both samples, women outnumbered men to a similar extent, x2 (1, 736) = 0.94,p = 0.48. BSA participants were far less likely to report prior contact with someone with ID than their WB counterparts, x2 (1,732) = 53.31, p < 0.001. The majority (71.1%) of the BSA sample described themselves as second generation and eitherMuslim (50%) or Hindu (28.4%). By contrast, the WB sample described themselves as predominantly Atheists (55.1%) orChristian (38.1%) and only 9.2% were first, second or third generation immigrants to Britain. The demographic characteristicsof the participants are displayed in Table 2.

3.2. Attitudes towards community living by cultural group

The subscales’ internal consistency was acceptable or good for both samples: Empowerment a = 0.61 for the BSA sampleand 0.79 for the WB sample; Exclusion a = 0.83 and 0.85 respectively; Sheltering a = 61 and 0.68; Similarity a = 80 and 0.76. Inboth samples, the subscales of the CLAS-ID were correlated in the same directions as reported in previous studies (Henry,Keys, Balcazar, et al., 1996; Horner-Johnson et al., 2002; Henry, Keys, Jopp, et al., 1996; Henry, Duvdevany, Keys, & Balcazar,2004), see Table 3.

Overall, both groups presented with attitudes that were largely consistent with contemporary policies, even if they werenot entirely positive about the full inclusion of people with ID. Only on the Sheltering subscale were attitudes moreambivalent, with the mean around the scale’s mid point (3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = agree somewhat). A multivariateanalysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship of the CLAS-ID subscales to ethnicity, whilstcontrolling for prior contact, which differed significantly between the two groups. Ethnicity had a significant effect on thecombined CLAS-ID subscales [F (4, 723) = 6.64 (Pillai’s trace), p < 0.001]. There were significant differences on two subscales,with BSA participants scoring lower on Exclusion and higher on Similarity, see Table 4.

Table 3

Correlations between the four CLAS-ID subscales.

Empowerment Exclusion Sheltering

Empowerment

Exclusion �0.53*

Sheltering �0.25* 0.28*

Similarity 0.63* �0.62* �0.33*

* Spearman’s rho correlation significant at the 1% significance level.

Table 4

CLAS-ID scores by ethnicity: means (standard deviations).

Subscale British South Asians

M (SD)

White British

M (SD)

F Cohen’s d

Empowerment 4.20 (0.55) 4.31 (0.62) 7.01 0.09

Exclusion 1.98 (0.89) 1.72 (0.75) 17.95* 0.32

Sheltering 3.27 (0.72) 3.10 (0.70) 9.77 0.24

Similarity 4.85 (0.75) 5.08 (0.64) 20.27** 0.33

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01 (Bonferroni corrected).

Table 5

CLAS-ID score for BSA group by parents’ country of birth: means (standard deviations).

Subscale UK

n = 31

M (SD)

India

n = 65

M (SD)

Bangladesh

n = 76

M (SD)

Pakistan

n = 52

M (SD)

Sri Lanka

n = 36

M (SD)

Africa

n = 43

M (SD)

Empowerment 3.98 (0.59) 4.34 (0.51) 4.05 (0.65) 4.24 (0.49) 4.29 (0.49) 4.24 (0.44)

Exclusion 2.19 (1.04) 1.94 (0.80) 2.08 (1.00) 2.11 (0.94) 1.90 (0.81) 1.74 (0.74)

Sheltering 3.09 (0.71) 3.36 (0.75) 3.28 (0.88) 3.38 (0.66) 3.38 (0.69) 3.24 (0.53)

Similarity 4.68 (0.71) 5.01 (0.70) 4.76 (0.81) 4.69 (0.82) 4.83 (0.68) 4.97 (0.69)

Table 6

CLAS-ID scores by gender and prior contact: means (standard deviations).

Empowerment

M (SD)

Exclusion

M (SD)

Sheltering

M (SD)

Similarity

M (SD)

Gender

Female (n = 465) 4.32 (0.54)** 1.73 (0.76) 3.18 (0.72) 5.04 (0.67)**

Male (n = 272) 4.16 (0.66) 2.03 (0.92)** 3.18 (0.72) 4.85 (0.74)

Prior contact

Yes (n = 477) 4.33 (0.59)** 1.72 (0.75) 3.13 (0.68) 5.06 (0.67)**

No (n = 256) 4.12 (0.58) 2.08 (0.94)** 3.27 (0.77)** 4.80 (0.73)

* p < 0.05 (Bonferroni corrected).

** p < 0.01 (Bonferroni corrected).

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–12471244

In order to identify possible differences in attitudes between the different BSA groups, we compared six South Asiangroups by parents’ country of birth (a very mixed ‘other’ category of n = 50 was excluded from this analysis) using analysis ofcovariance tests (ANCOVA), whilst controlling for prior contact. Parents’ country of birth had a significant effect on the on thecombined CLAS-ID subscales [F (20, 1184) = 1.68 (Pillai’s trace), p = 0.03]. The groups differed only on the Empowermentsubscale [F (5, 299) = 3.27, p = 0.007]; those of Indian heritage were most in favour and those of British and Bangladesh bornparents were least in favour of Empowerment, see Table 5.

3.3. Effect of gender and contact on attitudes

Whilst gender and prior contact have been found in some previous studies to influence attitudes towards people with ID,the influence of religion and level of religiosity on attitudes has not been measured in previous studies. The relationshipsbetween CLAS-ID subscale scores and these demographic variables were explored, see Table 6.

Gender had a significant effect on the combined CLAS-ID subscales [F (4, 723) = 5.073, p < 0.001]. There were significantdifferences on three subscales, Empowerment, Exclusion and Similarity. Females, irrespective of ethnicity or prior contact,were more likely to favour the empowerment and social inclusion of people with ID and were more likely to see them ashaving common life goals and rights. Prior contact also had a significant effect on all four CLAS-ID subscales [F (4,723) = 7.403, p < 0.01], see Table 6. Respondents who knew someone with an ID, irrespective of gender or ethnicity,demonstrated greater pro-inclusion attitudes than respondents who did not, scoring higher on Empowerment and Similarity

and lower on Exclusion and Sheltering.

3.4. Religion and attitudes

Considering the role of religion, the proportion within each religious group who reported prior contact differedsignificantly, x2 (5, 720) = 44.83, p < 0.001. Christians and non-religious and atheist participants were most likely to reportprior contact, 80% and 72% respectively. In contrast, only 51% of Muslims and Hindus reported prior contact, 59% of Sikhs and62% of those following other religions. A MANCOVA showed that religion had a significant effect on the combined CLAS-ID

Table 7

CLAS-ID scores by religion: means (standard deviations).

Empowerment Exclusion Sheltering Similarity

M (SD) y d M (SD) y d M (SD) y d M (SD) y d

Muslim (M)

n = 177

4.11 (0.58) – – 2.10 (0.97) H

C

A

0.37

0.48

0.39

3.30 (0.80) A 0.33 4.71 (0.79) – –

Hindu (H)

n = 101

4.30 (0.50) – – 1.78 (0.73) – – 3.29 (0.58) – – 5.03 (0.69) M 0.43

Sikh (S)

n = 22

4.18 (0.60 – – 2.12 (0.85) – – 3.18 (0.65) – – 4.92 (0.60) – –

Christian (C)

n = 168

4.32 (0.56) M 0.37 1.69 (0.72) – – 3.15 (0.71) – – 5.07 (0.64) M 0.50

Other (O)

n = 21

4.34 (0.57) – – 1.84 (0.93) – – 3.26 (0.58) – – 5.12 (0.62) – –

Atheist/Agnostic (A)

n = 235

4.32 (0.66) M 0.34 1.76 (0.79) – – 3.05 (0.71) – – 5.08 (0.65) M 0.51

y Significantly higher than another religious denomination at p < 0.05 (Bonferroni corrected).

Table 8

Descriptive statistics and effect sizes for items 41–46.

Item British South Asian

M (SD)

White British

M (SD)

Effect size

Item 41: People who have ID can be cured through a medical intervention 3.49 (1.48) 2.81 (1.16)* 0.51

Item 42: People who have ID can overcome these through religion 3.32 (1.55) 2.14 (1.26)* 0.84

Item 43: People who have ID can overcome these through marriage 2.99 (1.55) 2.36 (1.23)* 0.48

Item 44: Parents should bear the main responsibility for children with ID 3.91 (1.47) 3.34 (1.38)* 0.40

Item 45: Families should hide their relatives with ID rather than

by making it obvious through using services

1.84 (1.40) 1.34 (0.80)* 0.44

Item 46: Having a person who has ID in a family may damage

the marriage prospects of siblings

2.11 (1.46) 1.77 (1.19)* 0.26

* p < 0.01 (Bonferroni corrected).

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–1247 1245

subscales, while controlling for prior contact [F (20, 2852) = 2.11 (Pillai’s trace), p = 0.003]. On all four subscales, Muslimsdemonstrated less pro-inclusion attitudes than one or more other religious groups: they scored significantly lower onEmpowerment (than Christians and Atheists) and Similarity (than Hindus, Christians and Atheists), and significantly higher onExclusion (than Christians, Atheists and Hindus) and Sheltering (than Atheists), see Table 7. A MANCOVA, conducted todetermine the relationship of importance of religious beliefs to the CLAS-ID subscales while controlling for contact, was notsignificant [F (8, 950) = 0.857, p = 0.553]. This indicates that the importance of religion in participants’ lives did notsignificantly influence their attitudes to the inclusion of people with ID.

3.5. Additional items 41–46

As noted, these items were added to the CLAS-ID to tap into attitudes and beliefs that may be common in BSA cultures.Given that they have not been validated they were analysed separately, see Table 8. A MANCOVA was conducted todetermine the relationship between ethnicity and responses to the six additional items. Ethnicity had an effect on the sixcombined items [F (7, 713) = 8.02 (Pillai’s trace), p < 0.01]. The effect of prior contact and gender was not significant.Differences by ethnicity for most items were moderate to large.

A MANCOVA was conducted to determine the relationship between religion and responses to the six additional items.Religion had a significant effect on the six combined items [F (30, 3595) = 2.33 (Pillai’s trace), p < 0.001]. Multiplecomparisons (Bonferonni adjusted) found significant differences at p < 0.01 for item 43, in that Muslims were more likely toagree than Christians and those of other religions, and item 45, to which Muslims were more likely to agree than Christiansand both Muslims and Hindus agreed more than those of other religions.

4. Discussion

Our objective was to examine attitudes towards the community inclusion of people with ID among young British SouthAsian people and compare these to a white British sample. The hypothesis that less pro-normalisation attitudes would befound amongst the BSA population was partly supported by the data. On the one hand, the BSA sample as a whole scoredlower on Exclusion and higher on Similarity, which indicates less endorsement of inclusion. These differences were present

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–12471246

when contact, which was much lower among the BSA sample, was controlled for. While contact undoubtedly should bepromoted as it has a strong role to play in promoting more inclusion friendly attitudes in line with intergroup contact theory(Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), the present findings suggest that contact alone cannot explain attitudes amongBritish South Asians are less inclusion-friendly. These findings may at least to some extent arise from an interaction ofculture and religion, given that Muslims expressed less inclusion friendly attitudes than one or more other religiousdenominations on all aspects of inclusion attitudes examined.

Furthermore, on the additional questions regarding curability, significantly higher endorsements of items 43 (people whohave learning disabilities can overcome these through marriage) and 45 (having a person with a learning disability in afamily may damage the marriage prospects of siblings) were found for Muslims compared to Christians and participantsfrom other religious backgrounds. These findings echo an earlier study which found evidence of fatalism, the search for acure, the stigma of bearing a child with a disability and fears about the potential negative impact on the marriage prospectsof siblings amongst BSA families (Fatimilehin & Nadirshaw, 1994). That such attitudes prevail amongst BSA adolescents inthe UK may be detrimental for the inclusion and community acceptance of people with intellectual disabilities. Tacklingnegative attitudes towards people with disabilities among adolescents would seem very important as they represent thenew generation of adults whose attitudes will influence the community in which people with intellectual disabilities live.Perhaps the most promising avenue for such efforts is through school based interventions. School based interventions alsooffer opportunities for providing contact with peers with intellectual disabilities, which the current study suggests is lesscommon among young British people from South Asian backgrounds. The present findings indicate that interventions shouldpay close attention to the role of contact, culture and religion in shaping attitudes towards people with disabilities.

This study found support for increased stigma associated with intellectual disability among lay people from South Asiancommunities, something that has previously been voiced as a concern by family members of people with intellectualdisabilities (Hatton et al., 2003; Hughes, 1983). A fear of increased stigma on the part of parents of individuals with ID mayalso contribute to the observed lower uptake of some disability services among South Asians (Chamba et al., 1999; Hattonet al., 1998, 2003). Whilst inclusion policies advocate the rights of people with intellectual disabilities, one could argue thatthey do little to acknowledge the views of ethnic minority communities, whose religious and cultural values do notnecessarily conform to the core values of such policies. Neither have they informed the development of effectiveinterventions that aim to tackle attitudes that may pose barriers to the equal rights and inclusion of people with intellectualdisabilities, while being sensitive to beliefs, values and practices that have their roots in different cultures and religiousteachings.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Atkins, K., & Rollings, J. (1996). ‘Looking after their own?’ Family care-giving among Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities. In W. I. U. Ahmad & K. Atkin (Eds.),

Race and community care. Buckingham: Open University Press.Bhatti, R. S., Channabasavanna, S. M., & Prabhu, L. R. (1985). A tool to study the attitudes of parents towards the management of mentally retarded children. Child

Psychiatric Quarterly, 18, 44–47.Chamba, R., Ahmad, W., Hirst, M., Lawton, D., & Beresford, B. (1999). On the edge: Minority ethnic families caring for a severely disabled child. Bristol: The Policy Press.Fatimilehin, I., & Nadirshaw, Z. (1994). A cross-cultural study of parental attitudes and beliefs about learning disability. Mental Handicap Research, 7, 202–227.Gabel, S. (2004). South Asian Indian cultural orientations toward mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 42(1), 12–25.Gash, H., & Coffey, D. (1995). Influences on attitudes towards children with mental handicap. European Journal Special Needs Education, 10, 1–16.Hatton, C., Akram, Y., Shah, R. J., & Emerson, E. (2003). Supporting South Asian families with a child with severe disabilities: A report to the Department of Health,

Institute for Health Research. UK: Lancaster University.Hatton, C., Azmi, S., Caine, A., & Emerson, E. (1998). Informal carers of adolescents and adults with learning difficulties from the South Asian communities: Family

circumstances: Service support and carer stress. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 821–837.Henry, D., Duvdevany, I., Keys, C. B., & Balcazar, F. E. (2004). Attitudes of American and Israeli staff toward people with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation,

42, 26–36.Henry, D., Keys, C. B., Balcazar, F., & Jopp, D. (1996). Attitudes of community agency staff toward community living for persons with mental retardation. Mental

Retardation, 34, 367–379.Henry, D., Keys, C. B., & Jopp, D. (1998). The community living attitude scale – Reference manual (Tech. Rep.). Chicago: Dept. of Disability and Human Development,

University of Illinois at Chicago.Henry, D., Keys, C. B., Jopp, D., & Balcazar, F. (1996). The Community Living Attitudes Scale: Development and psychometric properties. Mental Retardation, 34,

149–158.Horner-Johnson, W., Keys, C., Henry, D., Yamaki, K., Oi, F., Watanabe, K., et al. (2002). Attitudes of Japanese students toward people with intellectual disability.

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 365–378.Hudson-Allez, G., & Barrett, J. (1996). Attitudes to people with intellectual disabilities moving into ordinary houses: What the neighbours say. Journal of Applied

Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 1–16.Hughes, J. M. (1983). Some selected attitudes to mental retardation in developed and developing countries. Teaching & Training, 21, 9–18.Jahoda, A., & Markova, I. (2004). Coping with social stigma: People with intellectual disabilities moving from institutions and family home. Journal of Intellectual

Disability Research, 48, 719–729.Katbamna, S., Baker, R., Ahmad, W., Bhakta, P., & Parker, G. (2001). Development of guidelines to facilitate improved support of South Asian carers by primary

health care teams. Quality in Health Care, 10, 166–172.Krajewski, J., & Flaherty, T. (2000). Attitudes of high school students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 2, 154–162.Lau, J. T., & Cheung, C. K. (1999). Discriminatory attitudes to people with intellectual disabilities or mental health difficulty. International Social Work, 42, 431–444.Lee, W. M. L. (1999). An introduction to multicultural counselling. Baltimore: Taylor & Francis.McConkey, R., McCormack, B., & Naughton, M. (1983). A national survey of young peoples’ perceptions of mental handicap. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research,

27, 171–183.Mencap. (2012). Lack of knowledge of learning disability revealed Retrieved from http://www.mencap.org.uk.Mink, I. T. (1997). Studying culturally diverse families of children with mental retardation. International Review on Research in Mental Retardation, 20, 77–98.

J. Sheridan, K. Scior / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 1240–1247 1247

Mir, G., Nocon, A., Ahmad, W., & Jones, L. (2001). Learning difficulties and ethnicity. London: Department of Health. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/lihs/hsc/documents.

Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., et al. (1997). Ethnic minorities in Britain: Difference and diversity. London: Policy Studies Institute.Myers, F., Ager, A., Kerr, P., & Myles, S. (1998). Outside looking in? Studies of the community integration of people with learning disabilities. Disability and Society,

133, 389–413.Norman, G. R., & Streiner, D. L. (2000). Biostatistics: The bare essentials (2nd ed.). London: BC Decker Inc.Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Burge, P., Brown, H. K., & Arsenault, E. (2010). Public attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the concept of

social distance. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23, 132–142.Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.Quarmby, K. (2011). Scapegoat: How we are failing disabled people. London: Portobello Books.Schwarz, C., & Armony-Sivan, R. (2002). Students’ attitudes to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the community. Disability and Society, 16, 403–413.Scior, K. (2011). Editor of: Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32,

2164–2182.Scior, K., Kan, K.-y., McLoughlin, A., & Sheridan, J. (2010). Public attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities: A cross-cultural study. Intellectual and

Developmental Disabilities, 48, 278–289.Verdonschot, M. M. I., de Witte, I. P., Reichrath, E., Buntinx, W. H. E., & Curfs, I. M. G. (2009). Community participation of people with an intellectual disability: A

review of empirical findings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 303–318.Werner, S., Corrigan, P., Ditchman, N., & Sokol, K. (2012). Stigma and intellectual disability: A review of related measures and future directions. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 33, 748–765.Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21, 234–239.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.Yuker, H. (1994). Variables that influence attitudes toward people with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Journal of Social Behaviour & Personality, 9, 3–22.