Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

Effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions

of persons with mental retardation
Paul E. Panek *, Melissa K. Jungers
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University at Newark, University Drive, Newark, OH 43055, United States
Received 15 January 2007; accepted 22 January 2007

Abstract
The present study examined the effects of age, gender, and causality on the perceptions of persons with
mental retardation. Participants rated individuals with mental retardation using a semantic differential scale
with three factors: activity, evaluation, and potency. Target individuals in each scenario varied on the
variables of age (8, 20, 45), gender (male, female), and causality of mental retardation (genetic, selfinflicted, inflicted by others). Perceptions differed significantly according to causality, with those with
mental retardation due to inheritance/genetics (Down Syndrome) evaluated most positively and those whose
mental retardation was self-inflicted viewed most negatively (brain damage due to drinking cleaning fluid).
Female participants gave higher ratings than male participants for target subjects on evaluation and potency
factors. Implications of findings for persons with mental retardation are discussed.
# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Causality; Mental retardation; Perceptions

Within a society, individuals hold ideas of what it means to be normal (Towler & Schneider,
2005). When individuals deviate from those expectations or norms in terms of a particular
attribute, such as persons with mental illness, the obese, and the homeless, they are often
stigmatized (Goffman, 1963; Towler & Schneider, 2005). One particularly stigmatized group are
persons with mental retardation (Gray, 1993; Towler & Schneider, 2005).
Extensive research in psychology and other disciplines suggests that there is a preponderance
of negative stereotypes associated with persons with disabilities both in the United States and in
other countries (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1993; Gartner, Lipsky, & Turnbull, 1991; Nelson, 1994;
Tang, Davis, Wu, & Oliver, 2000). In fact, for several decades, rehabilitation researchers and
social scientists have investigated peoples willingness to interact with members of potentially
* Tel.: +1 740 366 3321; fax: +1 740 366 5047.
E-mail address: panek.1@osu.edu (P.E. Panek).
0891-4222/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2007.01.002

126

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

stigmatized groups such as people with disabilities, diseases, psychological disorders, or

divergent values and lifestyles (Sigelman, 1991). Although societys attitude toward persons with
disabilities has been predominantly negative, these attitudes appear to be multi-faceted and vary
as a function of many factors such as culture, demographics, type of disability, age of the
evaluator, and gender of both the individual with the disability and the person evaluating the
individual with a disability and factors intrinsic to the specific disability/impairment such as
locus and visibility (Deal, 2003; Gething, 1991).
Consequently, the literature reveals a hierarchy of disabilities, with mental retardation
consistently ranking at or near the bottom (most negative, least accepted) compared to other
disabilities (e.g., Tringo, 1970; Yuker, 1988). Further, attitudes toward persons with disabilities
follows a developmental trend as reactions to disability increase in favorability from early
childhood to adolescence, decrease in late adolescence, and increase again in young adulthood
through late adulthood (e.g., Harper & Peterson, 2001; Smith, Flexer, & Sigelman, 1980;
Weiserbs & Gottlieb, 1995). Also, females are generally more accepting of peers with disabilities
than are males (e.g., Panek & Smith, 2005; Werner & Davidson, 2004). However, research
suggests that women with disabilities are viewed more negatively than men with disabilities, both
in self-perceptions and the perceptions of others (Fine & Asch, 1985; Gartner et al., 1991).
Additionally, other researchers suggest that women with disabilities such as mental retardation
can be viewed as having two handicaps or stigmatizing conditions, being a woman and having a
disability (e.g., Hanna & Rogovsky, 1991; Lloyd, 1992).
Furthermore, research suggests that the cause of the disability/condition may influence views
of the individual with that disability/condition. Thus, according to Weiners (1985), Weiner and
Graham (1984) attribution theory, affective responses to other people are more positive when the
cause of their problems or failings is perceived as uncontrollable then when it is perceived as
controllable. That is, to what extent is the person responsible for a specific disability as opposed
to outside forces, such as the environment or biological factors, causing the disability (Corrigan
et al., 2000). Disabilities or conditions that are self-induced (e.g., alcoholism, cocaine addiction),
are generally viewed more negatively than when the condition was not self-induced (e.g.,
physical disability, cancer) (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2000; St. Claire, 1993; Towler & Schneider,
2005; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). In fact, in a study
of 54 stigmatized groups, controllability was found to be a particularly important dimension by
which the stigmatized are differentiated (Towler & Schneider, 2005).
Although both the age and the gender of the evaluator have been the focus of research, the
effect of the target persons age and gender has not been extensively investigated. Past research
has typically excluded the age and gender of a person with a disability, such as mental retardation,
who is being perceived/evaluated by the participants (e.g., Ahlborn et al., 2008; Smith et al.,
1980; Weiserbs & Gottlieb, 1995). However, these factors may be potentially relevant to
determining an evaluators perceptions of individuals with mental retardation.
Although there is extensive research indicating that individuals express different attitudes/
perceptions toward different categories of disabilities such as mental, behavioral,
physical, relatively little research has focused on investigating attitudes toward different
disabilities within a specific disability category. Available research suggests that individuals
manifest different attitudes/perceptions toward individuals with different conditions within a
particular disability category. For example, Corrigan et al. (2000) found that raters differentially
evaluated among four psychiatric groups (cocaine addiction, depression, psychosis, mental
retardation) and two physical health groups (cancer, AIDS), and these differences were attributed
to the controllability and stability (i.e., how relatively permanent) of the investigated conditions.

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

127

The current study investigated college students perceptions of persons with mental
retardation of three different ages arising from one of three different causes, by using the
semantic differential scales (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). The semantic differential
scales has been an extensively used method of assessing attitudes/perceptions of persons with a
variety of disabilities such as mental retardation in the literature (see Antonak & Livneh, 2000).
The three causes of mental retardation investigated were the result of inheritance/genetics (Down
Syndrome), the actions of others (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), and self-inflicted (brain damage due
to drinking cleaning fluid). Although brain damage could be caused by a variety of factors, in the
present investigation it was presented as being self-inflicted: the result of drinking cleaning fluid.
Specifically, the primary purpose of the current investigation was to examine the effects of age
(8, 20, 45-years), gender (male, female) and causality (genetic, self-inflicted, inflicted by others)
on the perceptions of persons with mental retardation.
Based on the literature, we hypothesized that persons with mental retardation which was the
result of self-inflicted causes would be perceived, on the evaluation factor, more negatively by
both male and female raters than persons with mental retardation attributed to inheritance/
genetics or the actions of others. On the other hand, persons with mental retardation which can be
attributed to inheritance/genetics would be perceived more positively than persons with mental
retardation attributed to other causes. Also, we hypothesized that there would be a U-shaped
function in which perceptions of the 8-year and 45-year old target persons would receive the most
positive evaluations and the 20-year old would receive the most negative evaluations, on the
evaluation factor, by both male and female raters. Third, we hypothesized that females with
mental retardation at each target age level and cause of mental retardation would be perceived
more negatively on the evaluation factor than males. Finally, we hypothesized that female raters
would give more positive ratings on the evaluation factor than male raters for all causes of mental
retardation. No a priori hypotheses were made for the potency and activity factors.
1. Method
1.1. Participants
Participants were 116 undergraduate students (N = 42 males; N = 74 females) ranging in age
from 18 to 41 years (M = 19.5; S.D. = 3.44) at a regional campus of a Midwestern State
University. These participants were enrolled in sections of Introductory Psychology, were
volunteers and received research credit for participation in the study.
1.2. Procedure
Participants received a packet containing a description of three (see Fig. 1) target persons who
differed on the variables of gender (male, female), age (8-years, 20-years, 45-years), and cause of
mental retardation (genetic, self-inflicted, inflicted by others). The description of the Down
Syndrome target person is presented in Fig. 1. The description of the brain damage target was
______ is a ____-year old man (woman) with mental retardation. His (her) mental retardation is
attributed to brain damage caused by drinking household cleaning fluid when he (she) was 6 years
old. Although the cleaning fluid bottle was stored in a locked cabinet, he (she) was able to break
the lock, open the bottle, and drink the fluid. The description for the Fetal Alcohol target person
was _____ is a ____ -year old man (woman) with mental retardation. His (Her) mental
retardation is attributed to being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which is the result of her

128

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

Fig. 1. Example of target person with mental retardation presented to participants.

(his) mothers alcohol abuse while she was pregnant. Thus, there were 18 different
combinations of target persons. A Latin-square design was used so that participants each received
three target persons, but only one target person from a particular age or causal category.
Participants evaluated the target persons on the semantic differential scales (Osgood et al., 1957)
using standard instructions and procedures. The semantic differential scale assesses attitudes on
three factors: evaluation, potency, and activity (Ahlborn et al., in 2008; Antonak and Livneh,
2000; Osgood et al., 1957). The bi-polar adjective pairs for each of the three factors (see Fig. 1)
were: Evaluation (GoodBad, WorthlessValuable, UnpleasantPleasant, FairUnfair); Potency
(WeakStrong, HighLow, LightHeavy, YoungOld); and, Activity (FastSlow, Passive
Active, RelaxedTense, AgitatedCalm). Participants were also asked (see Fig. 1): How
responsible is the target person for his/her mental retardation? and Could this mental
retardation have been prevented?
1.3. Scoring
In line with standard scoring procedures for the semantic differential technique, each of the 12
adjective pairs was rated on a seven-point scale for each concept, and means and standard
deviations were computed for items associated with each factor: Evaluation, Potency, Activity

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

129

(see Osgood et al., 1957 for a discussion of these factors). Final values for these factors ranged
from 1 (extremely positive rating) to 7 (extremely negative rating). Positive ratings are indicated
by a score of less than 3, ratings greater than 4 indicate negative ratings, and ratings of 4 is
considered a neutral rating. Incomplete responses by a subject for one of the three target
combinations resulted in the removal of the subjects data for that target combination from the
final analysis. Incomplete responses were found in 3.6% of the data.
2. Results
There were several significant differences regarding the scenario of the target person. An
ANOVA examining scores on the three semantic differential factors by the three causal scenarios
revealed significant differences among the causal scenarios on the evaluative factor (F(2,
336) = 4.41; p < .05), but not on the potency or activity factors. According to the evaluative
factor means, individuals in the Down Syndrome scenario were viewed most positively (lower
score) and individuals in the Brain Damage scenario were viewed most negatively (higher score)
(Fig. 2). Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons show a significant difference in evaluation judgments
between individuals in the self-inflicted (Brain Damage) and genetic (Down Syndrome)
scenarios.
The responsibility aspect also differed significantly by scenario (F(2,336) = 193.38, p < .05),
with target persons with Brain Damage due to drinking cleaning fluid being viewed as most
responsible for their condition. Dunnetts C post hoc analyses revealed significant differences
among the Brain DamageDown Syndrome pair and the Brain DamageFetal Alcohol Syndrome
pair. There was no difference in judgment of responsibility for target individuals in the Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome and the Down Syndrome scenarios. (Dunnetts C was used as a more
conservative test to control for unequal variance.) Similarly, there were significant differences by
scenario for preventability (F(2, 336) = 675.85, p < .05), with Down Syndrome seen as least

Fig. 2. Evaluation means by causal condition. Note that a lower score is a more positive evaluation.

130

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

Table 1
Mean judgments (and standard deviations) of responsibility and preventability as a function of causal scenario
Causal scenario
Self-inflicted (Brain Damage)
Genetic (Down Syndrome)
Inflicted by others (Fetal Alcohol Sydrome)

Responsible
*

3.71 (1.82)
6.72 (1.02)
6.83 (0.66)

Preventable
1.70* (1.27)
6.35* (1.20)
1.11* (0.39)

1 = most responsible/most preventable; 7 = least responsible/least preventable.

*
Significantly differs from other scenarios.

preventable. Follow-up analyses show all pairwise comparisons for preventability were
significant, with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome judged as most preventable and Down Syndrome
judged as least preventable. See Table 1 for a chart of responsibility and preventability judgments
by scenario.
There were no significant differences by gender or age of the target person on the three factors
of the semantic differential scale or in the preventability of the condition or responsibility for the
condition. Finally, in terms of the gender of the raters, there were significant differences in
judgments made by male and female paticipants for evaluation (F (1, 115) = 7.41, p < .05) and
potency (F(1,115) = 6.47, p < .05) factors, with female raters giving lower (more positive)
ratings than male raters.
3. Discussion
These results have a number of implications for current perceptions of persons with mental
retardation (intellectual disabilties). First, we hypothesized that persons with mental retardation
as a result of self-inflicted causes (brain damage) would be perceived more negatively by both
male and female raters than persons with mental retardation attributed to other causes and
persons with mental retardation due to genetics would be perceived more positively. Our data
support this hypothesis and were consistent with previous research (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2000; St.
Claire, 1993; Towler & Schneider, 2005; Weiner et al., 1982, 1988). Disabilities or conditions
that were self-induced (self-inflicted brain damage), were perceived more negatively than when
the same condition/disability (mental retardation) was not self-induced (e.g., Down Syndrome).
Thus, the current study supports previous research suggesting that causality of the disability
influences the opinions others have of a person with a disability. This aligns with Weiners
attribution theory (Weiner, 1985; Weiner & Graham, 1984). That is, affective responses to other
people were more positive when the cause of their disability was uncontrollable (i.e., Down
Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) than when it was controllable (self-inflicted brain damage).
Affective responses towards individuals also depended on how much responsibility the person
had for his or her own disability/condition (self-inflicted brain damage), as opposed to outside
forces, i.e., environment or biological factors, being responsible (Down Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome).
The results of the preventability and responsibility questions provided further support for this
interpretation. Individuals with Down Syndrome were viewed more positively than those in the
brain damage scenario. Evaluators perceived both that their disability was not preventable and
that they were not responsible for their disability/condition. Alternatively, individuals with
mental retardation which was attributed to self-infliction (brain damage) were evaluated quite
negatively. Evaluators perceived both that these individuals were responsible for their disability/
condition and that the disability could have been prevented.

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

131

In terms of age of the target person with mental retardation, we hypothesized that there would
be a U-shaped function in which perceptions of the 8-year and 45-year old target persons would
receive the most positive evaluations and the 20-year old would receive the most negative
evaluations by both male and female raters. This pattern was not observed in the data. We propose
that raters in the current study focused on the causality of the disability/condition and ignored the
ages of the target persons in the scenarios. Perhaps the condition/disability overshadowed the age
of the target person on the evaluation factor.
Third, we hypothesized that females with mental retardation at each age level and cause of
mental retardation would be perceived more negatively than males. This hypothesis was not
supported by the results of the current investigation. Specifically, there were no significant
differences by gender of the target person on the three factors of the semantic differential scale or
in the preventability of the condition or responsibility for the condition. We were surprised by this
finding since previous research has indicated that women with disabilities are viewed more
negatively than men with disabilities, both in self-perceptions and the perceptions of others (e.g.,
Fine & Asch, 1985; Gartner et al., 1991). Although the exact explanation for this discrepancy
cannot be determined by the current data, we suggest several potential explanations. First,
societys attitudes toward women have improved recently and women with mental retardation/
intellectual disabilities are no longer evaluated more negatively than men with mental
retardation. Alternatively, the condition of mental retardation in and of itself may be perceived by
the raters as the most significant and/or salient trait or characteristic of the target person, thus
potentially negating all other characteristics of the individual such as gender and age.
Finally, we hypothesized that female participants would give more positive ratings than male
participants for all causes of mental retardation. More positive ratings of individuals were observed
across the three causes for the evaluation and potency factors. This result was in line with previous
research that indicates females are generally more accepting of persons with disabilities such as
mental retardation compared to males (e.g., Panek & Smith, 2005; Werner & Davidson, 2004).
However, our findings were not without limitations. For example, we only tested college
students. Thus, our findings might not be generalizable to members of the community at large.
Further, our findings were limited in that the data was collected in one geographical area
(Midwest of the United States). Thus, it is possible that our results would potentially be different
if collected in another geographical area or other sample populations, e.g., special education
teachers, high school students, etc. Finally, there was no comparison of target persons with
mental retardation to individuals without mental retardation or to individuals with other
disabilities, e.g., orthopedic impairments, physical impairments.
Future research should examine whether similar findings would be observed with non-college
student populations such as individuals at-large in the community. Further research is needed to
determine if causality and preventabilty would similarly influence attitudes toward persons with
other disabilities such as orthopedic impairments or mental illness. Finally, it would be
interesting to observe if similar findings in terms of causality and preventability would be
observed in other counties and/or cultures. For example, further research could compare
collectivist cultures/countries to individualistic cultures/countries.
References
Ahlborn, L. J., Panek, P. E., & Jungers, M. K. (2008). College students perceptions of persons with intellectual disability
at three different age levels. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 6169.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 22, 211224.

132

P.E. Panek, M.K. Jungers / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 125132

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, D. (1993). Handicapism. In M. Negler (Ed.), Perspectives of disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 6976). Palo
Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.
Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Ludin, R. K., Wasowski, K. U., Campion, J., Mathisen, J., Goldstein, H., Bergman, M., &
Gagnon, C. (2000). Stigmatizing attributions about mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 91102.
Deal, M. (2003). Disabled peoples attitudes toward other impairment groups: A hierarchy of impairments. Disability &
Society, 18, 897910.
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1985). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.),
Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. K., & Turnbull, A. P. (1991). Supporting families with a child with a disability: An international
outlook. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Gething, L. (1991). Generality vs. specifity of attitudes towards people with disabilities. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 64, 5564.
Gray, D. E. (1993). Perceptions of stigma: The parents of autistic children. Sociology of Health & Illness, 15, 102120.
Goffman, I. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hanna, W. J., & Rogovsky, B. (1991). Women with disabilities: Two handicaps plus. Disability, Handicap & Society, 6,
4963.
Harper, D. C., & Peterson, D. B. (2001). Children in the Philippines: Attitudes toward visible physical impairment. Cleft
Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 38(6), 566576.
Lloyd, M. (1992). Does she boil eggs? Towards a feminist model of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7, 207221.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Nelson, J. A. (1994). Broken images: Protrayals of those with disabilities in American media. In J. A. Nelson (Ed.), The
disabled, the media, and the information age (pp. 124). Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Panek, P. E., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Assessment of terms to describe mental retardation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 26, 565576.
Sigelman, C. K. (1991). Social distance from stigmatized groups: False consensus and false uniqueness effects on
responding. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36, 139151.
Smith, T. E., Flexer, R. W., & Sigelman, C. K. (1980). Attitudes of secondary principals toward the learning disabled, the
mentally retarded, and work-study programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 1113.
St. Claire, L. (1993). Does medics social identification increase handicap for mentally retarded patients? Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 183195.
Tang, C. S., Davis, C., Wu, A., & Oliver, C. (2000). Chinese childrens attitudes toward mental retardation. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 12, 7387.
Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preferences toward disability groups. Journal of Special Education, 4, 295306.
Towler, A. J., & Schneider, D. J. (2005). Distinctions among stigmatized groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
35, 114.
Werner, P., & Davidson, M. (2004). Emotional reactions of lay persons to someone with alzheimers disease. International
Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 391397.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548573.
Weiner, B., & Graham, S. (1984). An attributional approach to emotional development. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B.
Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 16672191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226.232.
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 738748.
Weiserbs, B., & Gottlieb, J. (1995). The perception of risk over time as a factor influencing attitudes toward children with
physical disabilities. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 689699.
Yuker, H. E. (1988). Perceptions of severely and multiply disabled persons. Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1,
516.