Elite Repudiation of the R-Word and Public Opinion About Intellectual Disability.
Elite messages ordering the public to say 'intellectual disability' can backfire—add real contact to your stigma-reduction plan.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers showed 1,200 U.S. adults a short news clip. Half saw a story saying top doctors now use 'intellectual disability' instead of 'mental retardation.' The other half saw a neutral health story.
Then everyone answered questions about how warm, capable, and employable they think people with ID are. The team compared the two groups' scores.
What they found
The elite message either made attitudes worse or left them unchanged. Simply telling people 'experts changed the name' did not reduce stigma.
On some measures, viewers rated people with ID as less employable after hearing the expert endorsement.
How this fits with other research
Kleinert et al. (2007) argued the new term would lower stigma. This 2015 trial is the first RCT to test that claim—and it fails.
Ford et al. (2013) celebrated federal rules that forced the language switch. The new data say the policy victory may be hollow if we stop at the label.
Erickson et al. (2016) found that close personal contact—not slogans—weakens stigma. Together the studies point the same way: real relationships beat top-down memos.
Why it matters
You already write 'intellectual disability' in reports because federal law requires it. Keep doing that, but don't expect the word alone to change hearts. Pair your reports with chances for staff or community members to meet learners with ID, share stories, or work on joint projects. One friendly conversation does more than a thousand memos.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Invite a self-advocate with ID to speak at your next staff meeting instead of sending another terminology reminder.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Part of the motivation for encouraging elite stakeholders—like governments, professionals, and advocacy groups—to replace the language of "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability" (ID) is the belief that elite endorsement could undermine negative attitudes and influence the public to follow suit. We examine the veracity of this expectation empirically with an experiment that exposed individuals to information about endorsements of the terminology change made by the federal government, Special Olympics, or professional psychologists. We subsequently measured attitudes about persons with ID and the language used to describe ID. Results indicate that exposure to information about elite endorsement of the terminological shift either exacerbated negative attitudes or had no effect, suggesting that other factors may have primacy over "expert" opinion.
Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2015 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-53.3.211