Public stigma in intellectual disability: do direct versus indirect questions make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Stigma may negatively impact individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, most studies in the field have been based on the use of direct measurement methods for assessing stigma. This study examined public stigma towards individuals with ID within a representative sample of the Israeli public by comparing direct versus indirect questioning. METHODS: Vignette methodology was utilised with two questionnaire versions. In the direct questionnaire (n = 306), the participants were asked how they would think, feel and behave if a man with ID asked them a question in a public place. In the indirect questionnaire (n = 301), the participants were asked to report how a hypothetical 'other man' would think, feel and behave in the same situation. RESULTS: Higher levels of stigma were reported among participants that answered the indirect questionnaire version. Furthermore, among those participants that answered the indirect questionnaire version, subjective knowledge of ID was a less important correlate of stigma than for those participants that answered the direct questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Several explanations are suggested for the finding that indirect questioning elicits more negative stigmatic attitudes. Among others, indirect questioning may be a more appropriate methodology for eliciting immediate beliefs. Furthermore, the results call for implementing a comprehensive, multi-level programme to change stigma.