Classical and modern prejudice: attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities.
Prejudice toward people with intellectual disabilities hides in two forms—open and subtle—and you can now measure both with one quick scale.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Akrami et al. (2006) built a short survey that splits prejudice against people with intellectual disabilities into two layers. One layer is old-style, open prejudice. The other is polite, subtle prejudice.
They ran two separate checks with different adult groups. Both times the stats showed the same two-layer pattern.
What they found
The survey worked. It captured both blunt rejection and quiet discomfort in one tool.
The two factors were linked but still distinct, like two branches on the same tree.
How this fits with other research
Moss et al. (2009) meta-analysis looked at how to train staff who serve the same population. They found coaching on the floor plus quick feedback cuts biased behavior. Nazar gives you the yardstick; J et al. shows how to move the needle.
Dodd et al. (1977) proved that a five-minute modeling clip can lift staff praise right away. Nazar’s tool lets you check if that praise bump also lowers quiet prejudice scores.
Duker et al. (1996) showed money and staff ratio do not predict better lives for residents. Nazar’s scales help you test whether staff attitudes—not just numbers—link to quality outcomes.
Why it matters
You now have a quick two-factor scale that catches both loud and quiet bias. Give it to new hires before and after your next in-service plus coaching cycle. If modern prejudice scores drop while praise rates rise, you know your training is hitting the hidden stuff, not just the obvious words.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the two-factor prejudice scale to your pre-post staff training packet and track if scores fall after you add on-the-job coaching.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In two studies, Study 1 and Study 2, we examine whether attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities, like sexism and racism, consist of two forms-a classical and a modern, where the classical is overt and blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert. Self-report scales tapping these two forms were developed in Study 1. Based on confirmatory factor analyses, the results in Study 1 supported our hypothesis and revealed that the modern and classical forms are correlated but distinguishable. This outcome was replicated in Study 2. Construct and discriminatory validations of the scales provided further support for the distinction. The theoretical and practical importance of the results is discussed in relation to previous research on attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities and other social outgroups.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2006 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2005.07.003