Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2012, 25, 531–541
Young Children’s Attitudes Toward Peers with
Intellectual Disabilities: Effect of the Type of
School
Maria Georgiadi*, Efrosini Kalyva†, Elias Kourkoutas* and Vlastaris Tsakiris‡
*University of Crete, Crete, Greece; †The International Faculty of the University of Sheffield, City College, Thessaloniki, Greece; ‡Special Needs
Educator, Thessaloniki, Greece
Accepted for publication 12 July 2012
Background This study explored typically developing
children’s attitudes towards peers with intellectual
disabilities, with special reference to the type of school
they attended.
Materials and Methods Two hundred and fifty-six Greek
children aged 9–10 (135 in inclusive settings) completed
a questionnaire and an adjective list by Gash (European
Journal of Special Needs Education 1993; 8, 106) and drew
a child with intellectual disabilities, commenting also on
their drawings.
Results Typically developing children expressed over-
all neutral attitudes towards peers with intellectual
disabilities. Type of school differentiated their attitudes,
with children from inclusive settings being more
positive towards peers with intellectual disabilities and
choosing less negative adjectives to describe them than
Introduction
Inclusion is defined as access to mainstream settings,
where children with special educational needs are
educated together with their typically developing
classmates through an array of useful and appropriate
activities (Blamires 1999). Despite the fact inclusion is
common practice nowadays in a variety of countries
(Van Kraayenoord 2003), it seems that only a small
percentage of students with intellectual disabilities are
fully included in regular education classrooms (11% in
the USA in 2002–2003 according to Smith & O’Brien
2007). ‘An underlying assumption of successful inclusive
programs is that all children will be included in the
learning and social communities of the school and
that classrooms in these schools will be so accepting
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
children from non-inclusive settings. Girls and students
who expressed more positive social, emotional and
overall attitudes towards students with intellectual
disabilities chose more positive adjectives to describe a
child with intellectual disabilities. It was also found
that children from inclusive settings drew children with
intellectual disabilities as more similar to a child with
Down syndrome in comparison with children from
non-inclusive settings.
Conclusions Effective inclusive practices should be
promoted to foster social acceptance of students with
intellectual disabilities.
Keywords: attitudes, inclusion, Intellectual disabilities,
peers
of diversity that no one will be left out from the very
beginning’ (McLeskey & Waldron 2007, p. 166).
Peer acceptance constitutes an important determinant
of successful inclusion (Lewis 1995), because social
rejection may contribute to the development of various
emotional and behavioural problems (Hay et al. 2004).
Many primary schools students with intellectual
disabilities feel rejected by their typically developing
peers and are rarely chosen as friends (Roberts &
Zubrick 1992; Sale & Carey 1995). Siperstein et al.
(2007a, p. 134) concluded from their review of relevant
studies that ‘these findings are dramatic in that
children with intellectual disabilities were found to be
equally significantly more often rejected than their non-
disabled peers in both integrated and segregated
settings’.
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2012.00699.x
532 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
The social rejection of children with intellectual
disabilities can be partly attributed to their lack of basic
interpersonal/social skills, to their inability to exhibit
sophisticated psychosocial skills (Vaughn & Elbaum 1999;
Pearl & Donahue 2004) or to their deficits in the cognitive
component of the social domain of adaptive behaviour
that prevents them from making a judgment when
confronted with conflicting information in social challenges
(Leffert et al. 2010). Another variable that could account for
the social rejection experienced by children with
intellectual disabilities is the negative attitudes that
typically developing children tend to express towards
them, with Siperstein et al. (1988) recording a strong
connection between the negative attitudes of typically
developing children towards children with intellectual
disabilities and the actual social rejection of these
children. In fact, typically developing children express
more negative attitudes towards peers with intellectual
disabilities than peers with other disabilities (Lewis
1995; Kendall 2000; Georgiadi 2002).
Positive peer attitudes towards children with
intellectual disabilities, on the other hand, can facilitate
the normalization process (Antonak & Livneh 1991;
Henry et al. 1996) and the integration in mainstream
schools (Gash & Coffey 1995). The following factors are
consistently found to affect typically developing
children’s attitudes towards their peers with intellectual
disabilities: age – with older children expressing more
negative attitudes (Townsend et al. 1993; Tang et al. 2000);
gender – with girls being more favourable (Gash 1993;
Antonak & Harth 1994); attitudes of parents and teachers
towards individuals with intellectual disabilities
(Gollnick & Chinn 2002; McDougall et al. 2004); and
contact with children with intellectual disabilities –
children in contact with a child with intellectual
disabilities express more positive attitudes, but have
more difficulty engaging in a personal interaction with
the specific child (Gash 1993; Manetti et al. 2001), the
presence of labels and the behavioural characteristics
of the child with intellectual disabilities (Siperstein
et al. 2007a,b).
The vast majority of relevant studies was conducted
mainly in North America, with some studies taking
place amongst schoolchildren in Zambia (Nabuzoka &
Ronning 1997), the United Kingdom (Furnham & Gibbs
1984), Italy (Manetti et al. 2001) and China (Siperstein
et al. 2011). There are many differences in the inclusion
practices of these countries, while Downs & Williams
(1994) found that even students from Western countries
differ in the nature of the attitudes that they express
towards their peers with intellectual disabilities. The
first inclusion law in Greece was implemented in 2001
(law 2817/2000, Ministry of Education 2001). It
recognized the rights of all children with disabilities to
be educated in the least restrictive environments, and it
was revised again in 2008 (law 3699/2008, Ministry of
Education 2008). The legislation 102357/G6 (2002)
provided detailed information about the implementation
of inclusion practices, and it provided guidelines about
which school children with disabilities should attend.
Children with mild disabilities (including children with
intellectual disabilities) can be integrated in the
mainstream school classroom (sometimes with the
parallel support of an educator) or can attend inclusion
classes during the first teaching hours and then return
to the mainstream school classroom. Children with
intellectual disabilities attend inclusion classes for no
more than 10 h per week (typically two teaching hours
per day) with other children with various disabilities,
while their main education takes place in the
mainstream school classroom together with their
typically developing peers. Inclusion classes provide
children with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to
study some difficult units, such as language or maths,
with the help of specialized instructors in small groups or
individually, but they do not substitute the mainstream
classroom where these children belong. Children with
moderate or severe disabilities attend independent
special schools – there are some separate special
schools that accommodate a specific type of disability,
but not in all prefectures (Agorastou et al. 2009). In
the academic year 2005–2006, there were 11 094
children with disabilities in primary education (1.9%
of the total primary schoolchildren) – almost one-fifth
(21.7%) attended normal or inclusion primary classes,
while the rest (78.3%) were in special primary schools.
The total number of students with intellectual
disabilities was 2389 (19.1% of all children with
disabilities) in pre-school and primary education
(Ministry of Education 2008).
The limited evidence suggests that in Greece, people
with intellectual disabilities seem to face many social
disapproval and numerous barriers to social participation.
It has been suggested that many Greeks tend to believe
that the birth of an individual with intellectual
disabilities may be a divine sign that the parents did
something bad (Room et al. 2001). Another study
conducted on attitudes towards disabilities in a
multicultural society found that members of the Greek-
Australian community were among the least receptive
of people with disabilities, especially those with
intellectual disabilities (Westbrook et al. 1993). Given the
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

impact of culture in shaping views, attitudes and
understanding of difference and disability (Vlachou
1997; Tang et al. 2000), the present study aims to explore
the attitudes of typically developing children towards
peers with intellectual disabilities in Greece after the
implementation of the most recent inclusion law. The
effect of type of school (inclusive or non-inclusive setting)
on attitude formation towards peers with intellectual
disabilities will be examined, as well as the effect of
gender or previous experience with an individual with
intellectual disabilities.
Previous studies have used exclusively questionnaires
or adjective lists to explore the attitudes of children
towards their peers with intellectual disabilities. We
wanted to compliment the data that they derived from
using these traditional means and to avoid imposing
adult-centred meaning on children’s perceptions (Sapkota
& Sharma 1996). So, we asked the typically developing
children to draw a child with intellectual disabilities and
to write something about their drawings, to avoid the
difficult situation of asking them what their drawing was
about (Punch 2002). The use of this ‘draw and write
technique’ will be used to supplement and enrich the
data collected through the questionnaire and the adjective
list.
Materials and methods
Participants
The sample of the present study consisted of a total of 256
typically developing children (135 boys and 152 girls)
aged 9–10 years old attending third (56.3%) and fourth
(43.8%) grade. Approximately half of these children
(52.7%) were in inclusive settings, while the remain-
ing 47.3% were in non-inclusive settings. Typically
developing children in inclusive settings attended
mainstream schools where an inclusion classroom was
operating, but they were not in the same class with a
student with intellectual disabilities. Children with
intellectual disabilities spent some time in the inclusion
classrooms, but the majority of their day they attended
their mainstream classrooms. Children with intellectual
disabilities participated in school and classroom activities
together with their typically developing peers. Typically
developing children in non-inclusive settings attended
mainstream schools where no inclusion classroom or any
other form of special education or inclusion practice was
taking place and there was no diagnosed student with
intellectual disabilities in their classroom or in their
school.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 533
The majority of the participants, who were recruited
from primary schools in the wider area of Crete in
Greece, had previous experience with an individual
with intellectual disabilities (64.5%). Crete is the biggest
island of Greece with a population of approximately
600 000 (6% of the Greek population). There are 40
primary schools with inclusion classes and 12 primary
special schools in a total of 1523 primary schools in the
whole island. The researchers drew first a list of the 40
primary schools with inclusion classes in Crete
(inclusive setting) and randomly selected one from each
of the four prefectures of the island. The next step was
to draw separate lists with the primary schools in each
prefecture that did not have inclusion classes or any
other form of special education (non-inclusive setting)
and to select one from each. Then, a class from the third
and the fourth grade was randomly picked from each
school, and the students were given informed consent
for their parents to fill out, to authorize their
participation. Of the 300 children who were initially
identified, the parents of 261 children consented to their
participation. The attrition was small (13%) and the
return rate satisfactory.
Materials
The participants were asked to complete the Gash (1993)
questionnaire on attitudes towards inclusion that
consists of three parts. It has been used with children
from other European countries to evaluate attitudes
towards intellectual disabilities (Gash et al. 2000) and
with children from Greece to evaluate attitudes towards
physical disabilities (Nikolaraizi & DeReybekiel 2001;
Kalyva & Agaliotis 2009). The first part of the
questionnaire started with the hypothetical scenario that
a new student with intellectual disabilities would come
to their class: ‘I would like you to pretend that a new
child (it could be a boy or a girl) came to your class. He
or she has mental retardation (MR). Here are some
questions for you to answer; there are no right or wrong
answers’. Consequently, based on this scenario, they
completed the questionnaire that contained 16 questions
relating to the sociability (10 items) and the schooling
(6 items) of children with MR. The schoolchildren had
to state their agreement by choosing one option on a
4-point Likert scale, where 1 = definitely yes and
4 = definitely no. In the second part of the questionnaire,
they were asked to describe the new student with MR to
a friend choosing among a list of 34 adjectives that are
either positively (e.g. clever) or negatively (e.g. stupid)
rated according to Gash (1993). They rated each adjective
534 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

as 1 = not representative, 2 = quite representative and by two independent researchers specialized in

3 = very representative. Then, the participants had to
state whether there were any children with MR in their
school and whether they knew someone who had MR.
The first question helped the researchers to cross-check
that the participants were aware of the operation of the
inclusion classroom in their school. The second question
measured the experience/inexperience of the partici-
pants with individuals with MR. Although the term
intellectual disabilities has replaced the term MR
(Schalock et al. 2007), the researchers chose to use the
term MR when addressing the typically the participants,
because this is the term most typically used in Greece.
Finally, the ‘draw and write technique’, which is
widely employed to explore children’s beliefs about
health (Pridmore & Bendelow 1995; Bradding &
Horstman 1999), was also used in the present study.
Participants were given an A4 sheet of paper and a
pencil and were instructed to draw a child with MR
and to write a comment about the drawing that they
made. The advantage of using drawings is not only that
they are fun and creative, but also that children have
the necessary time to think about the theme that they
want to portray. They also have the time that they need
to make any changes and additions to produce the
desirable drawing (Shaver et al. 1993). In this study, the
researchers used drawings in an exploratory manner to
discover how children portray children with intellectual
disabilities. The drawings of the children were analysed
interpreting children’s drawings. The categorization
of the drawings resulted in four themes (semantic
categories), which were formed after a systematic process
of coding the verbal and non-verbal data: those connected
with the physical appearance (monsters, disfigurement,
Down syndrome), those showing problems in rela-
tionships and in activities (relationships), the size of the
figure (small figures) and those showing unpleasant
faces (unhappy). Once the categories were drawn,
each was rated on a dichotomous yes/no according to
whether it possessed a certain characteristic or not.
Inter-rater reliability was very high for all four
themes – between 0.95 and 0.96. Two representative
drawings with accompanying comments are shown in
Figure 1A and B.
Procedure
The researchers went into the schools and gave out the
questionnaires and the paper and pencils. Then, they
read out loud the instructions to the students and
reminded them that they had the right to withdraw
from the study without any penalty. They asked for
their oral assent before starting the study, and five
children who did not want to participate were
excluded, leaving thus a sample of 256 students. The
order of administration of the measures was counter-
balanced. So, half of the children filled in the

(A) (B)

Figure 1 (A) Boy 9 years old, attends a non-inclusive school. He wrote: ‘This child would be very upset with himself. He would not
be very good with lessons, but I would not make fun of him. We will take care of this child and look after him’ and (B) Boy 10.5
years old, attends an inclusive school. He wrote: “Children with mental retardation, we must not consider them stupid, because we
all know that they have a knot in their brain. This child (in the drawing) tries to run away from school and to run away from the
children who hit him”.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 535

questionnaire and then did the drawing, while the other Table 1 Standardized loadings for three-factor confirmatory
half drew first and then completed the questionnaire. model of attitudes towards peers with intellectual disabilities
The whole procedure lasted approximately 40–45 min for typically developing peers (n = 256)
and took place in the classroom and in the presence of
the researchers. Factor Factor Factor
Items 1 2 3

Results Factor 1: Social attitudes

Would you invite him/her to your 0.76
All the typically developing children who participated house to play in the evenings?
in this study expressed overall neutral attitudes towards Would you invite him/her to your 0.77
their peers with intellectual disabilities (M = 26.32, birthday party with your other
SD = 6.65). The scores are interpreted on a continuum friends?
with 14 representing extremely positive attitudes and 56 Would you make him/her your 0.74
representing extremely negative attitudes. Therefore, the best friend?
mean obtained in the study is close to the middle of this Would you ask him/her to sit 0.73
beside you?
continuum and represents neutral attitudes (Gash 1993;
Would you chat to him/her at 0.73
Gash et al. 2000; Kalyva & Agaliotis 2009). Moreover, all
break time?
the typically developing children attending inclusion
Do you think children with MR 0.60
settings (N = 135) were aware that there were children should be taught in the same
with intellectual disabilities in their school. classroom as you?
The factorability of the 16 items of the questionnaire Would you pick him/her on your 0.59
on attitudes towards the inclusion of students with team in a competition?
intellectual disabilities questionnaire was examined. Do children with MR prefer other 0.57
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was children with MR as friends?
0.82, which is very good and Bartlett’s test of sphericity Factor 2: Educational attitudes
was significant (v278 = 765.97, P = 0.000). Finally, the Should children with MR have 0.74
their own special school where
communalities were all above 0.3, further confirming
all the children have MR?
that each item shared common variance with other
Should children with MR have 0.68
items. Given these overall indicators, factor analysis was
their own special classroom in
conducted with all 16 items. your school?
Principal component analysis was used because the Do you think that he/she would 0.62
primary purpose was to identify and compute composing have the same hobbies as the
characteristics for the factors underlying the attitudes other children in the class?
questionnaire. The initial eigenvalues showed that the Factor 3: Emotional attitudes
first factor explained 28.7% of the variance, the second Would you feel angry if he/she 0.71
factor 12.8% of the variance and the third factor 10.8% of did not keep the rules of your
the variance. Two and three-factor solutions were games at play time?
Would you care if other children 0.70
examined, using both varimax and oblimin rotations of
made fun of the child with MR?
the factor loading matrix. The three-factor solution was
Would you feel afraid of him/her 0.62
preferred, although it was not consistent with Gash’s
because they had MR?
(1993) subscales, because of the ‘levelling off’ of
eigenvalues and the clear theoretical distinction between
the three factors. During several steps, two items ‘Would loading matrix for this final solution is presented in
you smile at him/her on the first day?’ and ‘Later on, Table 1.
would you tell him/her secrets that you usually keep for Internal consistency for each of the scales was
your friends?’ were eliminated because they did not examined using Cronbach’s alpha, and the results are as
contribute to a simple factor structure and failed to meet a follows: Factor 1 – social attitudes towards students
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of with intellectual disabilities (8 items) = 0.83; Factor 2 –
0.4 or above. So, a principal components factor analysis educational attitudes towards students with intellectual
was conducted on the remaining 14 items, with the three disabilities (3 items) = 0.72; Factor 3 – emotional
factors explaining 52.3% of the variance. The factor attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

536 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

(3 items) = 0.68; and whole scale (14 items) = 0.78. No attitudes (F1,254 = 0.09, P = 0.766) towards students with
substantial changes in alpha for any of the scales could intellectual disabilities.
have been achieved by eliminating more items. The factorability of the 34 adjectives that typically
Composite scores were created for each of the three developing children could choose to describe students
factors, based on the mean of the items, which had their with intellectual disabilities questionnaire was examined.
loadings on each factor. Higher scores indicated less Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was
positive attitudes towards students with intellectual 0.86, which is very good and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
disabilities. was significant (v2351 = 2401.15, P < 0.001). Finally, the
Attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities communalities were all above 0.3, further confirming that
were regressed on gender, type of school and previous each item shared common variance with other items.
experience with an individual with intellectual Given these overall indicators, factor analysis was
disabilities. These three predictors accounted for almost a conducted with all 34 items.
quarter of the variance in attitudes towards students with Principal component analysis was used because the
intellectual disabilities (R2 = 0.28). Type of school primary purpose was to identify and compute
(b = 0.18, P = 0.004) demonstrated significant effects on composing characteristics for the factors underlying the
attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities, adjectives chosen to describe a child with intellectual
while gender and previous experience with an individual disabilities. The initial eigenvalues showed that the first
with intellectual disabilities did not have an effect on factor explained 24.4% of the variance and the second
attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities factor 19% of the variance. Two, three and four factor
(b = 0.05, P = 0.447) and (b = 0.08, P = 0.210), respec- solutions were examined, using both varimax and
tively. MANOVA was carried out to determine differences in oblimin rotations of the factor loading matrix. The two-
the three factors that were considered important for the factor solution was preferred because of its theoretical
attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities support, the ‘levelling off’ of eigenvalues and the clear
according to typically developing children from inclusive theoretical distinction between the two factors. During
and non-inclusive settings, as shown in Table 2. MANOVA several steps, seven adjectives were eliminated (spa,
showed that schoolchildren attending inclusive settings twit, different, shy, sloppy, sad, ashamed and shy)
expressed more positive social attitudes (F1,254 = 8.37, because they did not contribute to a simple factor
P = 0.004) and overall attitudes (F1,254 = 8.29, P = 0.004) structure and failed to meet a minimum criterion of
towards students with intellectual disabilities than having a primary factor loading of 0.4 or above. So, a
schoolchildren attending non-inclusive settings. There principal components factor analysis was conducted on
was no difference between schoolchildren attending the remaining 27 items, with the two factors explaining
inclusive and non-inclusive settings in their educational 43.4% of the variance. The factor loading matrix for this
attitudes (F1,254 = 2.05, P = 0.154) and in their emotional final solution is presented in Table 3.
Internal consistency for each of the scales was
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of attitudes of examined using Cronbach’s alpha, and the results are as
typically developing primary schoolchildren towards peers follows: Factor 1 – negative adjectives (17 items) = 0.77
with intellectual disabilities according to the type of school and Factor 2 – positive adjectives (10 items) = 0.68. No
substantial changes in alpha for any of the scales could
Non- have been achieved by eliminating more items.
Inclusive inclusive Total Composite scores were created for each of the two
Attitudes M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F1,254 factors, based on the mean of the items, which had their
loadings on each factor.
Social1 12.55 (4.67) 14.2 (4.48) 13.42 (4.69) 8.37*
The number of negative adjectives chosen to
Educational2 7.19 (2.49) 7.62 (2.33) 7.42 (2.42) 2.05
describe a child with intellectual disabilities was
Emotional2 5.45 (1.91) 5.53 (2.23) 5.49 (2.06) 0.09
Overall 25.26 (5.99) 27.27 (5.17) 26.32 (5.65) 8.29* regressed on gender, type of school, previous experience
attitudes2 with an individual with intellectual disabilities, social,
educational, emotional and overall attitudes towards
Lower scores indicate more positive attitudes. students with intellectual disabilities. These seven
*P < 0.005. predictors accounted for more than a third of the
1
Score range: 8–32. variance in the number of negative adjectives chosen to
2
Score range: 4–16. describe a child with intellectual disabilities (R2 = 0.41).

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 537

Table 3 Standardized loadings for two-factor confirmatory inclusive settings chose less negative adjectives (M =
model of adjectives chosen to describe children with intellectual 28.18, SD = 2.48) to describe students with intellectual
disabilities by typically developing peers (n = 256) disabilities (t1,254 = 5.94, P = 0.015) than schoolchil-
dren attending non-inclusive settings (M = 28.18,
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 SD = 2.48).
The number of positive adjectives chosen to describe
Factor 1: Negative adjectives
a child with intellectual disabilities was regressed on
Dumb 0.78
Untidy 0.77 gender, type of school, previous experience with an
Dirty 0.75 individual with intellectual disabilities, social,
Idiot 0.74 educational, emotional and overall attitudes towards
Thick 0.73 students with intellectual disabilities. These seven
Rough 0.71 predictors accounted for approximately one third of the
Stupid 0.70 variance in the number of positive adjectives chosen to
Crazy 0.68 describe a child with intellectual disabilities (R2 = 0.34).
Moron 0.62 Emotional attitudes (b = 0.36, P = 0.000), overall
Scary 0.59
attitudes (b = 0.28, P = 0.000) and social attitudes
Retarded 0.58
(b = 0.15, P = 0.026) towards students with intellectual
Bold 0.57
disabilities demonstrated significant effects on the
Simple 0.56
Freak 0.56 number of positive adjectives chosen to describe a child
Nerd 0.49 with intellectual disabilities, while gender, type of
Geek 0.48 school, previous experience with an individual with
Dork 0.47 intellectual disabilities and educational attitudes
Factor 2: Positive adjectives towards students with intellectual disabilities did not
Friendly 0.72 have an effect on the number of positive adjectives
Kind 0.68 chosen to describe a child with intellectual disabilities
Careful 0.67 (b = 0.03, P = 0.653), (b = 0.12, P = 0.052),
Special 0.63
(b = 0.09, P = 0.165) and (b = 0.05, P = 0.190),
Tender 0.57
respectively. More specifically children who expressed
Lovable 0.48
more positive social, emotional and overall attitudes
Neat 0.47
Clever 0.45 towards students with intellectual disabilities tended to
Happy 0.43 choose more positive adjectives to describe students
Nice 0.42 with intellectual disabilities.
Analysis with chi square showed that there were
differences in the drawings of the participants
according to the type of school that they attended, but
Gender (b = 0.17, P = 0.007) and type of school not according to their gender or previous experience
(b = 0.15, P = 0.020) demonstrated significant effects with an individual with intellectual disabilities
on the number of negative adjectives chosen to describe (Table 4). Schoolchildren attending inclusive settings
a child with intellectual disabilities, while previous drew a child with intellectual disabilities as less
experience with an individual with intellectual similar to a monster (v2 = 5.55, d.f. = 1, P = 0.018) and
disabilities, social, educational, emotional and overall as more similar to a child with Down syndrome
attitudes towards students with intellectual disabilities (v2 = 19.47, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001) than their peers
did not have an effect on the number of negative attending non-inclusive settings. Finally, analysis with
adjectives chosen to describe a child with intellectual chi square showed that there were no differences in
disabilities (b = 0.01, P = 0.965), (b = 0.03, P = 0.756), the comments of the drawings of the participants
(b = 0.02, P = 0.810), (b = 0.07, P = 0.386) and (b = 0.01, according to the type of school that they attended. It
P = 0.960), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed that should be noted that the comments that children
(i) boys chose more negative adjectives (M = 29.15, made about their drawings revolved around
SD = 2.12) to describe students with intellectual emotional, social and academic themes, while in the
disabilities (t1,254 = 3.03, P = 0.003) than girls comment of Drawing B, there is some evidence of
(M = 28.20, SD = 2.79); and (ii) schoolchildren attending bullying.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

538 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Table 4 Percentages of drawings and comments made for a disabilities have been generalized to other settings and
child with intellectual disabilities by typically developing actually practiced – that is, whether children would
primary schoolchildren according to their type of school actually interact with peers with intellectual disabilities in
and out of school and consider them as their friends
Type of school (Magiati et al. 2002).
The type of school (inclusive versus non-inclusive
Inclusive (%) Non-inclusive (%) v2
setting) was found to differentiate typically developing
Drawings children’s attitudes towards peers with intellectual
Monsters 13.5 25.2 5.55* disabilities. More specifically, it was found that children
Disfigurement 72.9 66.4 1.28 from inclusive settings tend to hold overall more
Small figures 27.1 32.8 0.98 positive attitudes towards their peers with intellectual
Down syndrome 36.8 12.6 19.47* disabilities than children from non-inclusive settings.
Unhappy 25.6 34.5 2.37 This finding is supported also by studies on a range of
Comments disabilities (Diamond & Carpenter 2000; Favazza et al.
Love 45.9 43.7 0.12
2000; Krajewski & Hyde 2000). It could be partly
Unhappy 11.3 17.6 2.11
explained by the fact that children from inclusive
Special school 26.3 19.3 1.73
settings in the current study were in the same school
Relationships 19.5 11.8 2.85
Negative 17.3 10.9 2.08 with peers with mild intellectual disabilities attending
Feel sorry 6.8 10.1 0.91 inclusion classes, who tend to receive more positive
Different 7.5 10.9 1.94 social feedback than children with more severe
intellectual disabilities (Calhoun & Elliott 1977; Casey
*P < 0.05. et al. 1988; Manetti et al. 2001).
Typically developing children attending inclusive
settings expressed more positive social attitudes
towards their peers with intellectual disabilities in
Discussion
comparison with children from non-inclusive settings,
The aim of the present study was to explore typically while no differences were observed in educational or
developing children’s attitudes towards their peers with emotional attitudes. This finding is really important
intellectual disabilities and to identify any differences given the documented social rejection experienced by
according to the type of school that they attended children with intellectual disabilities (Siperstein et al.
(inclusive versus non-inclusive setting), as well as their 2007a,b). Previous experience with an individual with
gender and previous experience with an individual with intellectual disabilities did not have any significant
intellectual disabilities. It was found that typically effect on the attitudes or the choice of adjectives as was
developing children expressed overall neutral attitudes the case in other studies (Gash 1993; Manetti et al. 2001).
towards their peers with intellectual disabilities. This This could be attributed to methodological limitations
finding is contradictory to this of Siperstein et al.’s (1988, resulting from measuring contact with just one question
2007a,b) who reported that typically developing children and might be resolved in future studies with the use of
tend to express negative attitudes towards their peers more elaborate measures of type or frequency of
with intellectual disabilities. It is also quite surprising previous experience (Avramidis & Kalyva 2006). Gender
given the reported negative general perception of did not have an effect on attitudes towards students
individuals with intellectual disabilities in Greece (Room with intellectual disabilities, but girls chose more
et al. 2001). It could be attributed, although, to the fact positive adjectives to describe a child with intellectual
that Greek teachers express similar attitudes towards disabilities and this is in line with studies suggesting
students with intellectual disabilities (Avramidis & that girls are more favourable (Gash 1993; Antonak &
Kalyva 2007) and teachers’ attitudes tend to influence Harth 1994).
their students’ (McDougall et al. 2004). It is also likely that Although it cannot be argued that the mere placement
as many of these children had some contact with an of children with and without disabilities in the same
individual with intellectual disabilities, they held less school can automatically foster positive social interactions
negative attitudes (Siperstein et al. 2007a,b). However, (Dore et al. 2002; Gash et al. 2004), it is possible to
there is no indication as to which extent the attitudes that decrease negative sociability that may be caused by
were expressed towards children with intellectual ignorance, fear of the unknown or feelings of insecurity

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541


(Ward et al. 1994). Siperstein et al. (2007a,b) actually
reported that typically developing youths’ perceptions of
the abilities of children with intellectual disabilities
significantly influence their willingness to interact with these
peers. This speculation is further supported by another
finding of this study – namely that children attending
inclusive settings chose less negative adjectives to
describe their peers with intellectual disabilities than
children from non-inclusive settings. The stronger
evidence in favour of Siperstein et al.’s (2007a,b) claim is
that students who expressed positive, social, emotional
and overall attitudes towards students with intellectual
disabilities were more likely to choose positive adjectives
to describe students with intellectual disabilities.
However, the choice of positive adjectives is not
necessarily translated into positive behaviour towards
children with intellectual disabilities in real life. In fact,
the comment that was made by a child in inclusive
setting and is presented in Drawing B indicates
potential bullying behaviour against children with
intellectual disabilities, and it draws attention to the
discrepancy between reported attitudes and actual
behaviours. It also stresses the need to implement
triangulation methods and more projective techniques to
measure attitudes, especially with children who are
more prone to offer socially desirable answers
(Avramidis & Kalyva 2006). Manetti et al. (2001) who
compared expressed attitudes to sociometric measures
found significant discrepancies between the two. To
partly overcome this limitation, the researchers in this
study asked the typically developing children to draw a
child with intellectual disabilities and to write a
comment about their drawing, but further studies
should use more indirect measures of attitudes.
Children’s drawings were analysed in terms of the
themes that arose (their size, facial expression and
similarity to a monster, a disfigured person or a
person with Down syndrome). It is important to note
that these categories derived from the children’s
drawings without any intervention or guidance from
the researchers. It was found that children from
inclusive settings depicted the child with intellectual
disabilities as more similar to a child with Down
syndrome and as less likely to a monster than
children from non-inclusive settings. Children in
inclusive settings in this study were as previously
mentioned in contact with peers with mild intellectual
disabilities, and this could have made their portrayal
less frightening. Moreover, the use of the label ‘child
with Down syndrome’ used by teaching staff to
describe actual students with intellectual disabilities in
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 539
the particular inclusive settings may have influenced
the drawing of the children attending them (Siperstein
et al. 2007a,b).
The comments that children made about their
drawings revolved around emotional, social and
academic themes, matching closely the three categories
that derived from the factor analysis of the questionnaire
that they answered. This finding is very interesting
keeping in mind that half of the participants completed
this task before actually filling in the questionnaire. It
could lend further support to the notion that attitudes
towards peers with intellectual disabilities do not refer
only to academic skills, but also to emotional and social
dimensions (Antonak & Harth 1994) and that the nature
of interactions between students with and without
disabilities depends on several factors, such as the
instructional format, the proximity of general and special
educators, and curricular areas (Carter et al. 2008). No
differences were detected in children’s comments
according to the type of school that they attended.
It is important to remember that it is positive and
not neutral attitudes that foster peer inclusion and
acceptance, but positive attitudes are taught through
planned social contact between the students and
appropriate teacher training and are not achieved by
random placement (Zielger 2001). Moreover, it should
be noted that the extent to which contact is voluntary or
imposed might affect the formation of attitudes towards
peers with intellectual disabilities, while an unpleasant
experience with a person with intellectual disabilities,
especially in childhood, is strongly associated with
negative attitudes in adulthood (Tachibana 2005). These
are factors that could be further explored in future
studies and should be taken into consideration when
contemplating this study’s findings,
The present study explores the attitudes of typically
developing children towards their peers with intellectual
disabilities in a context where inclusion practices were
recently introduced and enforced, while there is also a
stigmatizing tendency towards individuals with
intellectual disabilities. It was found that typically
developing children express overall neutral attitudes
towards their peers with intellectual disabilities, with
children from inclusive settings being more accepting
than children from non-inclusive settings. Girls chose
more positive adjectives to describe students with
intellectual disabilities than boys, and students who
expressed positive, social, emotional and overall attitudes
towards students with intellectual disabilities were more
likely to choose positive adjectives to describe students
with intellectual disabilities.
540 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Efrosini
Kalyva, City College, 24 Proxenou Koromila Street, 546 22,
Thessaloniki, Greece (e-mail: kalyva@city.academic.gr).
References
Agorastou M., Kalyva E., Kaderoglou E. & Stefanidis F.
(2009) Attitudes towards inclusion in primary education in
Greece. In: Disabilities: Insights from Across Fields and Around
the World, Vol. 1. (eds C. A. Marshall, E. Kendall, M.
Banks & R. M. S Gover), pp. 316–352. Praeger Press,
Westport, CT.
Antonak R. F. & Harth R. (1994) Psychometric analysis and
revision of the Mental Retardation Attitude Inventory. Mental
Retardation 32, 272–280.
Antonak R. F. & Livneh H. (1991) Survey research on attitudes. In:
Handbook of Mental Retardation, 2nd edn (eds J. L. Matson & J. A.
Mulick), pp. 552–568. Pergamon Press, New York.
Avramidis E. & Kalyva E. (2006) Methodi erevnas stin idiki agogi:
Theoria ke praksi [Research methods in special needs education:
Theory and practice]. Papazisis, Athens.
Avramidis E. & Kalyva E. (2007) The influence of teaching
experience and professional development on Greek teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs
Education 22, 367–389.
Blamires M. (1999) Universal design for learning: Re-establishing
differentiation as part of the inclusion agenda. Support for
Learning 14, 158–163.
Bradding A. & Horstman M. (1999) Using the draw and writer
technique with children. European Journal on Oncology Nursing
3, 170–175.
Calhoun G. & Elliott R. N. (1977) Self-concept and academic
achievement of educable retarded and emotionally disturbed
pupils. Exceptional Children 43, 279–380.
Carter E. W., Sisco L. G., Brown L., Brickham D. & Al-Khabbaz
Z. A. (2008) Peer interactions and academic engagement of
youth with developmental disabilities in inclusive middle
and high school classrooms. American Journal on Mental
Retardation 113, 479–494.
Casey W., Jones D., Kugler B. & Watkins B. (1988)
Integration of Down’s Syndrome children in the primary
school: a longitudinal study of cognitive development and
academic attainments. British Journal of Educational Psychology
38, 279–286.
Diamond K. & Carpenter C. (2000) The influence of inclusive
preschool programs on children’s sensitivity to the needs of
others. Journal of Early Intervention 23, 81–91.
Dore R., Dion E., Wagner S. & Brunet J.-P. (2002) Highschool
inclusion of adolescents with mental retardation: a multiple
case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities 37, 253–261.
Downs P. & Williams T. (1994) Student attitudes toward
integration of people with disabilities in activity settings: a
European comparison. Adaptive Physical Activity Quarterly 11,
32–43.
Favazza P. C., Phillipsen L. & Kumar P. (2000) Measuring and
promoting acceptance of young children with disabilities.
Exceptional Children 66, 491–508.
Furnham A. & Gibbs M. (1984) School children’s attitudes
towards the handicapped. Journal of Adolescence 7, 99–117.
Gash H. (1993) A constructivist attempt to change attitudes
towards children with special needs. European Journal of
Special Needs Education 8, 106–125.
Gash H. & Coffey D. (1995) Influences on attitudes towards
children with mental handicap. European Journal of Special
Needs Education 10, 1–16.
Gash H., Gonzales G., Pires M. & Rault C. (2000) Attitudes towards
Down Syndrome: a national comparative study: france, Ireland,
Portugal, and Spain. Irish Journal of Psychology 21, 203–214.
Gash H., Illán Romeu N. & López Pina N. (2004) A Qualitative
Approach to Perception of Down Syndrome in Ireland and Spain.
Available at: http://www.riverbendds.org/index.htm?page=
perception.html (accessed on 27 January 2012).
Georgiadi M. (2002) Attitudes of primary school students (fifth
and sixth grade) towards children with chronic illnesses.
Education Sciences 3, 59–76.
Gollnick P. & Chinn P. (2002) Multicultural Education in a
Pluralistic Society. Merril Prentice Hall, Columbus, OH.
Hay D. F., Payne A. & Chadwick A. (2004) Peer relations in
childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 84–108.
Henry D., Keys C., Jopp D. & Balcazar F. (1996) The Community
Living Attitudes Scale, Mental Retardation Form: development,
and psychometric properties. Mental Retardation 34, 149–158.
Kalyva E. & Agaliotis I. (2009) Can contact affect Greek
children’s understanding of and attitudes towards peers with
physical disabilities? European Journal of Special Needs
Education 24, 213–220.
Kendall P. C. (2000) Child & Adolescent Therapy: Cognitive-
Behavioural Procedures, 2nd edn. Guilford, New York.
Krajewski J. J. & Hyde M. S. (2000) Comparison of teen
attitudes toward individuals with mental retardation between
1987 and 1998: has inclusion made a difference? Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities 35, 284–293.
Leffert J. S., Siperstein G. N. & Widaman K. F. (2010) Social
perception in children with intellectual disabilities: the
interpretation of insincere benign intentions. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research 54, 168–180.
Lewis A. (1995) Children’s Understanding of Disabilities. David
Fulton, London.
Magiati I., Dockrell J. E. & Logotheti A. E. (2002) Young
children’s understanding of disabilities: the influence of
development, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 23, 409–430.
Manetti M., Schneider B. H. & Siperstein G. (2001) Social
acceptance of children with mental retardation: testing the
contact hypothesis with an Italian sample. International
Journal of Behavioural Development 25, 279–286.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541

McDougall J., Dewit D. J., King G., Miller L T. & Killip S.
(2004) High school-aged youth’s attitudes toward their peers
with disabilities: the role of school and student interpersonal
factors. International Journal of Disability, Development, and
Education 51, 287–313.
McLeskey J. & Waldron N. (2007) Making differences ordinary
in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic 42,
162–168.
Ministry of Education (2001) Special Needs Education in Greece.
Available at: http://www.ypepth.gr (accessed on 31 January
2012).
Ministry of Education (2008) Revised Law on Special Needs
Education in Greece. Available at: http://www.ypepth.gr
(accessed on 31 January 2012).
Nabuzoka D. & Ronning J. A. (1997) Social acceptance of
children with intellectual disabilities in a school setting in
Zambia: a pilot study. International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education 44, 105–115.
Nikolaraizi M. & DeReybekiel N. (2001) A comparative study of
children’s attitudes towards deaf children, children with
wheelchairs and blind children in Greece and in the UK.
European Journal of Special Needs Education 16, 167–182.
Pearl R. & Donahue M. (2004) Peer relationships and
learning disabilities. In: Learning about Learning Disabilities, 3rd
edn (ed. B. Wong), pp. 133–156. Academic Press, San Diego.
Pridmore P. & Bendelow G. (1995) Images of health: exploring
children’s beliefs using the draw and write technique. Health
Education Journal 54, 473–488.
Punch S. (2002) Research with children: the same or different
from research with adults? Childhood 9, 321–341.
Roberts C. & Zubrick S. (1992) Factors influencing the social
status of children with mild academic disabilities in regular
classrooms. Exceptional Children 59, 192–202.
Room R., Rehm J., Trotter R. T., Paglia A. & Ustun T. B. (2001)
Cross-cultural views on stigma, valuation, parity, and societal
values towards disability. In: Disability and Culture: Universalism
and Diversity (eds T. Ustun, B. S. Chatterji, J. E. Bickenbach, R. T.
Trotter, R. Room, J. Rehm & S. Saxena), pp. 247–292. Hogrefe
and Huber Publishers, Seattle.
Sale P. & Carey D. M. (1995) The sociometric status of children
with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children
59, 192–202.
Sapkota P. & Sharma J. (1996) Participatory Interactions with
Children in Nepal. PLA Notes Number 25. International
Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Schalock R. L., Luckasson R. A., Shogren K. A., Borthwick-
Duffy S., Bradley V., Buntinx W. H. E. & Yeager M. H. (2007)
The renaming of Mental Retardation: understanding the
change to the term Intellectual Disability. Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities 45, 116–124.
Shaver T., Francis V. & Barnett L. (1993) Drawing as Dialogue: A
Qualitative Approach to Needs Assessment for Health Education
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 25, 531–541
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 541
Planning. ERG Technical Notes series No.2. Liverpool School
of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool.
Siperstein G. N., Bak J. J. & O’Keefe P. (1988) Relationship
between children’s attitudes toward and their social
acceptance of mentally retarded peers. American Journal on
Mental Retardation 93, 24–27.
Siperstein G. N., Norins J. & Mohler A. (2007a) Social acceptance
and attitude change: Fifty years of research. In: Handbook of
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (eds J. W. Jacobson & J.
A. Mulick), pp. 133–154. Kluewer/Plenum, New York.
Siperstein G. N., Parker R. C., Bardon J. N. & Widaman K. F.
(2007b) A national study of youth attitudes toward the
inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional
Children 73, 435–455.
Siperstein G. N., Parker R. C., Norins J. & Widaman K. F.
(2011) A national study of Chinese youths’ attitudes towards
students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research 5, 370–384.
Smith P. & O’Brien J. (2007) Have we made any progress?
Including students with intellectual disabilities in regular
education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
45, 297–309.
Tachibana T. (2005) Attitudes of Japanese adults toward
persons with intellectual disability: an exploratory analysis of
respondents’ experiences and opinions. Education and Training
in Developmental Disabilities 40, 352–359.
Tang C. S., Davis C., Wu A. & Oliver C. (2000) Chinese
children’s attitudes toward mental retardation. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities 12, 73–87.
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.
Van Kraayenoord C. (2003) The task of professional
development. International Journal of Disability, Development,
and Education 50, 363–365.
Vaughn S. & Elbaum B. (1999) The self-concept and friendships
of students with learning disabilities: A developmental
perspective. In: Developmental Perspectives on Children with
High-Incidence Disabilities (eds R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer,
D. MacMillan, D. Speece & S. Vaughn), pp. 81–107. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Vlachou A. (1997) Struggles for Inclusive Education. Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Ward D. J., Center Y. & Bochner S. (1994) A question of
attitudes: integrating children with disabilities into regular
classrooms? British Journal of Special Education 21, 34–39.
Westbrook M. T., Legge V. & Pennay M. (1993) Attitudes
towards disabilities in a multicultural society. Social Science
and Medicine 36, 615–623.
Zielger R. J. (2001) A critical analysis of the literature surrounding
attitudes toward people with disabilities. Unpublished Master
Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin.