Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2010, 23, 132142

Public Attitudes Towards Individuals with

Intellectual Disabilities as Measured by the
Concept of Social Distance
Hele`ne Ouellette-Kuntz*, Philip Burge, Hilary K. Brown and Elizabeth Arsenault
*Queens University Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Southeastern Ontario Community-University Research
Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities, Kingston, ON, Canada; Queens University Department of Psychiatry; Southeastern
Ontario Community-University Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities, Kingston, ON, Canada

Accepted for publication

12 April 2009

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

Introduction
Over the last several decades, policy surrounding intellectual disability has reflected a fundamental shift
(Glaser & Deane 1999), resulting in a transformation of
the developmental services landscape from institutionalization to community-based recreation, employment,
and living options (Henry et al. 1996a; Bigby 2006). 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 (Cummins &
Lau 2003). 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 (Antonak & Livneh 1995; Burge et al.
2007). Social distance is a construct thought to reflect

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 publics attitudes.
Keywords: attitudes, developmental disability, inclusion,
intellectual disability, mental retardation, social distance

such attitudes and is defined as a willingness to recognize, live near, or be associated with (Harth 1971,
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.
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
(Cummins & Lau 2003; Fichten et al. 2005). The success
of the inclusion movement rests on effective interaction
between individuals with and without disabilities as
equals in all settings (Fichten et al. 2005). Furthermore,
the stigma and discrimination commonly experienced

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

10.1111/j.1468-3148.2009.00514.x

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 133

by individuals with intellectual disability are not only a

barrier to effective integration but also result in reduced
self-esteem and feelings of isolation (Cummins & Lau
2003).
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 (Bogardus 1959, 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 (Angermeyer & Matschinger 1997). 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 persons social status is
attacked or lowered that increases the social distance
between two people.
Therefore, the degree of horizontal closeness which a
person feels with another is dependent upon the vertical
constraints of their relationship (Bogardus 1959). 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 anothers 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 (Parillo &
Donoghue 2005; Baumann 2007). 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
(Lauber et al. 2004; Baumann 2007).
Bogardus scale was originally intended to record the
American publics attitude towards immigrants of different nationalities (Angermeyer & Matschinger 1997).
The desire for social distance was expressed as ranging
from 1-Would marry into group to 7-Would debar
from my nation (Bogardus 1959, p. 31). In the 1960s, the
concept was used as a measure of attitudes towards
groups varying in race, religion, nationality (Triandis &
Triandis 1960; Triandis et al. 1965), sex, age and occupation (Triandis 1964). Since then, it has been used primarily as an estimate of discrimination against persons
with a mental illness (Angermeyer & Matschinger 1997;
Corrigan et al. 2001; Stuart & Arboleda-Florez 2001;

Gaebel et al. 2002; Angermeyer et al. 2003, 2004; Lauber

et al. 2004; Van Dorn et al. 2005) and has also been used
in the context of severe disability (Tringo 1970; Carter
et al. 2001; Fichten et al. 2005).
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. Harth
(1971) adapted subscales used in studies of attitudes
towards racial minorities (Woodmansee & Cook 1967) to
develop a measure of individuals relative willingness to
engage in social interactions with persons with intellectual disability. Harths 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; Antonak & Harth
1994) 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 (Antonak & Harth 1994).
It has since been used to explore teachers attitudes
towards mainstreaming children with intellectual
disability (Kennon & Sandoval 1978), the attitudes
of children (Reis 1988) and high school students
(Krajewski & Flaherty 2000) towards individuals with
intellectual disability, and the impact of labeling on attitudes towards individuals with intellectual disability
(MacDonald & MacIntyre 1999). It has also been used in
both Japan and China to study attitudes of college
students towards individuals with intellectual disability
(Horner-Johnson et al. 2002; Hampton & Xiao 2008).
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 (Reis 1988; Townsend
et al. 1993; Hammond et al. 1997; Krajewski & Flaherty
2000). Younger people also tend to express less social
distance than older people (Yazbeck et al. 2004). Hampton & Xiao (2008), 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 (Antonak & Harth 1994; Yazbeck
et al. 2004).
In addition to these demographic variables, research
has shown associations between measures of exposure
to individuals with intellectual disability (such as

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

134 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

contact with individuals with intellectual disability, frequency of this contact, and knowledge of intellectual
disability) and attitudes towards them. Yazbeck et al.
(2004) found that prior knowledge of a person with
intellectual disability predicted attitudes reflecting less
social distance. This finding is consistent with research
by Townsend et al. (1993), 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 (Reis
1988; Hampton & Xiao 2008). Others have found nonsignificant (Jaffe 1967) or only marginally significant
(Krajewski & Flaherty 2000) 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 (Cummins & Lau 2003).
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 (Akrami
et al. 2006) and has been criticized for its inability to
consistently predict behaviour (Harth 1981). Nevertheless, self-administered surveys are still widely used to
measure attitudes.
Given the 2004 decision to close the three remaining
institutions in Ontario, Canada, by 2009 (Ministry of
Community and Social Services 2006), 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 governments policy and to decrease stigmatizing attitudes that are harmful to individuals with
intellectual disability. The objectives of the current
study were therefore (1) to describe the social distance
reflected in attitudes of the public in Ontario, Canada,
towards individuals with intellectual disability and (2)
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.

Method
Participants
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 (Statistics Canada 2007).
Following stratification of the region into 27 geographical areas, a random telephone contact list was created
using InfoCanadas 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%.
The protocol for this study was reviewed and
approved by the Queens 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.

Measures
As part of a longer telephone interview about attitudes
towards individuals with intellectual disability (Burge
et al. 2007; Ouellette-Kuntz & Burge 2007), participants
completed the Social Distance Subscale of the MASMR
(Harth 1971). This scale requires participants to indicate,
on a four-point Likert-like scale, their level of agreement
(i.e. strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree)
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

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 135

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 (Antonak & Harth 1994). Moreover, in a
convergent validity analysis (Yazbeck et al. 2004), the
MASMR was found to correlate with the Community
Living Attitudes Scale-Mental Retardation (Henry et al.
1996b), a well-used scale of attitudes towards issues of
inclusion for individuals with intellectual disability.
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

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for responses to social

distance items

I would allow my child to accept an invitation

to a birthday party given for a child with
an intellectual disability.
I am willing for my child to have children
who have intellectual disabilities as close
personal friends.
I have no objection to attending
the movies or a play in the company
of people who have intellectual disabilities.
I would rather not have people with
an intellectual disability as dinner
guests with my friends who are not
intellectually disabled. (R)2
I would rather not have a person with
an intellectual disability swim in the
same pool that I am in. (R)
I would be willing to introduce a person
with an intellectual disability to friends
and neighbours in my hometown.
I would be willing to go to a competent
barber or hairdresser with an
intellectual disability.
I would rather not have people who have
intellectual disabilities live in the same
apartment building I live in. (R)
1

Mean1

SD

3.61

0.52

3.54

0.56

3.54

0.58

3.26

0.73

3.58

0.61

3.55

0.56

3.19

0.75

3.54

0.60

Possible scores ranged from 1 strongly

disagree to 4 strongly agree
2
R indicates that items were phrased in reverse and reversescored to reflect the same scaling method as other items.

and Education at the University of Massachusetts at Boston (Special Olympics 2004). 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.
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.

Analysis
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
P < 0.05 was used in all analyses a priori.

Results
Cronbachs 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:

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

136 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

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 Ouellette-Kuntz &
Burge (2007)]. 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.

Social distance items

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).
Table 2 shows a breakdown of responses for each
item according to the strongly agree, agree, disagree, and
strongly disagree response options. Again, participants
answers indicate low social distance as demonstrated by
the majority of responses being strongly agree (or strongly
disagree 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).
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, F(3, 605) = 7.10, P < 0.001. Follow-up tests

revealed significant differences between the 2544 age

category (mean = 3.54, SD = 0.42) and the 65+ age category (mean = 3.32, SD = 0.46) as well as between the
4564 age category (mean = 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, F(2, 619) = 14.33, P < 0.001. Follow-up tests
revealed that individuals with a low (mean = 3.39,
SD = 0.45) or medium (mean = 3.47, SD = 0.43) level of
education were significantly more likely than those with
a high level (mean = 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.
Depending on their level of contact with individuals
with intellectual disability, participants differed significantly with respect to their social distance scores, F(2,
621) = 3.60, P = 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 = 3.53, SD = 0.41) were significantly less likely than those who perceived their level of
disability to be moderate or severe (mean = 3.37,
SD = 0.46) to prefer to maintain social distance in interactions with them, F(1, 587) = 19.13, P < 0.001.

Discussion
Findings
The results of our study suggest that several participant
characteristics remain relevant in todays society in
predicting social distance attitudes. Several demographic

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 137

Table 2 Proportion of positive and negative responses to social distance items (n = 625)

I would allow my child to accept an invitation to a birthday party given

for a child with an intellectual disability.
I am willing for my child to have children who have intellectual disabilities
as close personal friends.
I have no objection to attending the movies or a play in the company of
people who have intellectual disabilities.
I would rather not have people with an intellectual disability as dinner
guests with my friends who are not intellectually disabled. (R)1
I would rather not have a person with an intellectual disability swim in
the same pool that I am in. (R)
I would be willing to introduce a person with an intellectual disability to
friends and neighbours in my hometown.
I would be willing to go to a competent barber or hairdresser with an
intellectual disability.
I would rather not have people who have intellectual disabilities live in
the same apartment building I live in. (R)

Disagree
n (%)

Strongly
disagree
n (%)

228 (36.5)

5 (0.8)

2 (0.3)

356 (57.0)

254 (40.6)

12 (1.9)

3 (0.5)

359 (57.4)

248 (39.7)

13 (2.1)

5 (0.8)

13 (2.1)

67 (10.7)

290 (46.4)

255 (40.8)

10 (1.6)

12 (1.9)

207 (33.1)

396 (63.4)

357 (57.1)

256 (41.0)

8 (1.3)

4 (0.6)

227 (36.3)

307 (49.1)

74 (11.8)

17 (2.7)

4 (0.6)

21 (3.4)

233 (37.3)

367 (58.7)

Strongly
agree
n (%)

Agree
n (%)

390 (62.4)

R indicates that items were phrased in reverse and reverse-scored to reflect the same scaling method as other items.

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 Yazbeck
et al. (2004); however, others have failed to show significant differences among age groups (Townsend et al.
1993; Hampton & Xiao 2008). Consistent with past
research (Antonak & Harth 1994; Yazbeck et al. 2004),
less educated persons were more likely than highly educated persons to desire social distance from individuals
with intellectual disability. However, contrary to
previous research (Reis 1988; Townsend et al. 1993;
Hammond et al. 1997; Krajewski & Flaherty 2000), no
differences were found for gender.
Similar to Townsend et al. (1993) and Yazbeck et al.
(2004) but in contrast with other research (Jaffe 1967;
Krajewski & Flaherty 2000), 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)
(Angermeyer et al. 2004; Gaebel et al. 2002).
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. Krajewski & Flaherty (2000)
found that most participants responded with strongly
agree or agree to the social distance items of the MASMR
(or strongly disagree or disagree 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 = 2.42, SD = 0.83) (Krajewski & Flaherty

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

138 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Table 3 Associations between participant characteristics and

desire for social distance from persons with ID

Gender (n = 624)
Males (n = 210)
Females (n = 414)
Age, years (n = 609)
<25 (n = 37)
2544 (n = 202)
4564 (n = 246)
65 (n = 124)
Level of education
(n = 622)
Low (n = 234)
Medium (n = 241)
High (n = 147)
Level of income, $
(n = 526)
<20 000 (n = 52)
20 000 to <60 000
(n = 254)
60 000 to <100 000
(n = 159)
100 000 (n = 61)
Contact with individuals
with ID (n = 624)
Close family member
with ID (n = 121)
Other contact with
individuals with ID1
(n = 460)
No contact (n = 43)
Level of perceived
disability (n = 589)
Mild (n = 359)
Moderate severe
(n = 230)

Mean (SD)

d.f.

F-value

P-value

3.43 (0.43)
3.50 (0.43)

1.622

2.72

0.10

3.49
3.54
3.49
3.32

(0.07)
(0.03)
(0.03)
(0.04)

3.605

7.10

0.00*

3.39 (0.43)
3.47 (0.43)
3.63 (0.37)

2.619

14.33

0.00*

3.47 (0.50)
3.47 (0.45)

3.522

2.25

0.08

2.621

3.60

0.03*

1.587

19.13

0.00*

3.45 (0.42)
3.61 (0.34)

3.56

0.44

3.46

0.43

3.38

0.42

3.53
3.37

0.41
0.46

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.
*P-value significant at <0.05.

2000). 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.

The measurement of social distance: shortcomings and

implications
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 (Oppenheim 1966). 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 (Sherif 1973). To illustrate, Bogardus scale ranged from 1-Would marry into group
(zero social distance) to 7-Would debar from my nation
(maximum social distance) (Bogardus 1959, p. 31). One
would expect the level of social distance preferred by
respondents to increase as the situation implied greater
social closeness (Lauber et al. 2004). 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 (Sherif 1973).
The social distance scale that we used was developed
by Woodmansee & Cook (1967) and revised by Harth
(1971). Although the validity and reliability of this scale
have been established (Antonak & Harth 1994), 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 strongly disagree to strongly agree 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.
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 strongly agree or agree categories (or strongly disagree
or disagree in reverse-coded items), resulting in very little variation in response. The uniformly positive nature

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 139

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.
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
(Triandis & Triandis 1960; Triandis et al. 1965) and with
different mental illnesses (Angermeyer et al. 2004;
Gaebel et al. 2002), thereby ensuring the presence of a
reference point for attitudes. However, like recent
research (Krajewski & Flaherty 2000; Hampton & Xiao
2008), 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.
As a self-reported attitudinal scale, the social distance
scale has the potential to be biased by social desirability
(Parillo & Donoghue 2005). 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 (Antonak & Livneh 1995). Indeed,
because attitudinal surveys are social situations, individuals are motivated (and able) to present themselves in a
socially desirably light (Sigelman 1991), thereby threatening the validity of responses.
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 (Sigelman 1991),
especially when there is risk of criticism or sanctions for

opinions (Parillo & Donoghue 2005). 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 (Burge et al. 2007; Ouellette-Kuntz & Burge 2007),
revealed a much broader range of attitudes in support
of or against various community living practices.
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
(Harth 1981; Parillo & Donoghue 2005). Therefore, behaviours displayed by residents of Ontario, Canada, may not
be as positive as their attitudes seem to suggest.
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 publics
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.

Conclusions
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 publics 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

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

140 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

the publics 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 todays 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 Bogardus (1959), and the
questions themselves remain relatively unchanged since
their conceptualization in the 1970s (Harth 1971). 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 todays 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.

Acknowledgments
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 Queens University Office of Advancement Telefundraising Centre who worked as pollsters.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Hele`ne
Ouellette-Kuntz, Queens 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).

Source of Funding
Funding for the South Eastern Ontario CommunityUniversity Research Alliance in Intellectual Disabilities

(http://www.seocura.org) 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.

Conflict of Interest
No conflict of interest has been declared.

References
Akrami N., Ekehammer B., Claesson M. & Sonnander K. (2006)
Classical and modern prejudice: attitudes toward people with
intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities
27, 605617.
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,
131141.
Angermeyer M. C., Beck M. & Matschinger H. (2003) Determinants of the publics preference for social distance from people
with schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 48, 663668.
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, 175182.
Antonak R. F. & Harth R. (1994) Psychometric analysis and
revision of the mental retardation attitude inventory. Mental
Retardation 32, 272280.
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, 324.
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, 131135.
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, 147154.
Bogardus E. S. (1959) Social Distance. The Antioch Press, Yellow
Springs, OH.
Burge P., Ouellette-Kuntz H. & Lysaght R. (2007) Public views
on employment of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation 26, 2937.
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, 229239.
Corrigan P. W., Green A., Lundin R., Kubiak M. A. & Penn
D. L. (2001) Familiarity with and social distance from people

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 141

who have serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services 52, 953

958.
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, 145157.
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, 164173.
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, 278287.
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, 338356.
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, 313320.
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,
299308.
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, 142147.
Harth R. (1981) Personally relevant and personally irrelevant
attitude differences toward educable and trainable retarded
children. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded 16,
213216.
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, 367379.
Henry D., Keys C., Jopp D. & Balcazar F. (1996b) The community living attitudes scale, mental retardation form: development and psychometric properties. Mental Retardation 34,
149158.
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, 365378.
Jaffe J. (1967) Attitudes and interpersonal contact: relationships
between contact with the mentally retarded and dimensions
of attitude. Journal of Counseling Psychology 14, 482484.
Kennon A. F. & Sandoval J. (1978) Teacher attitudes toward the
educable mentally retarded. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded 13, 139145.
Krajewski J. & Flaherty F. (2000) Attitudes of high school
students toward individuals with mental retardation. Mental
Retardation 38, 154162.

Lauber C., Nordt C., Falcato L. & Rossler W. (2004) Factors

influencing social distance toward people with mental illness.
Community Mental Health Journal 40, 265274.
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, 1531.
Ministry of Community and Social Services (2006) Opportunities
and Action: Transforming Supports in Ontario for People
who have a Developmental Disability. Available at http://www.
cfcs.gov.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D643669A-74A8-420C-80426D46343106C1/92/DSreport.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2007).
Oppenheim A. N. (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude
Measurement. Basic Books Inc., Publishers, New York.
Ouellette-Kuntz H. & Burge P. (2007) Public perceptions of
the best living arrangements for most adults with
intellectual disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 13,
133147.
Parillo V. N. & Donoghue C. (2005) Updating the Bogardus
social distance studies: a new national survey. The Social
Science Journal 42, 257271.
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, 8591.
Sherif C. W. (1973) Social distance as categorization of intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
25, 327334.
Sigelman C. K. (1991) Social distance from stigmatized groups:
false consensus and false uniqueness effects of responding.
Rehabilitation Psychology 36, 139151.
Special Olympics (2004) Multinational Study of Attitudes
Toward Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Available at
http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+
Website/English/Initiatives/Research/Attitude_Research/
Multinational+Study.htm (accessed on 23 January 2008).
Statistics Canada (2007) Canadian Socio-Economic Information
Management System, 2006 [Data File]. Available at http://
cansim2.statcan.ca/ (accessed on 23 January 2008).
Stuart H. & Arboleda-Florez J. (2001) Community attitudes
toward people with schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46, 245252.
Townsend M. A. R., Wilton K. M. & Vakilirad T. (1993) Childrens attitudes toward peers with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 37, 405411.
Triandis H. C. (1964) Exploratory factor analysis of the behavioural component of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 68, 420430.
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, 110118.
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, 540551.

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142

142 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Tringo J. (1970) The hierarchy of preference toward disability

groups. Journal of Special Education 4, 295306.
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, 152163.

Woodmansee J. J. & Cook S. W. (1967) Dimensions of verbal

racial attitudes: their identification and measurement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 7, 240250.
Yazbeck M., McVilly K. & Parmenter T. R. (2004) Attitudes
toward people with intellectual disabilities: an Australian
perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15, 97111.

 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 23, 132142