Precedential rulings in recent capital murder trials may, in some cases, leave it up to a jury to determine whether or not an individual meets criteria for an intellectual disability (ID) and should be spared from the death penalty. Despite the potential for misconceptions about ID to bias decisions, few empirical studies have examined the public's conceptualizations of individuals with ID. This study sought to examine 890 college students’ conceptualizations of the deficits involved in mild ID. Students were asked to respond to two online surveys about the cognitive and adaptive behavior deficits that people with mild ID may experience. While most students were correct about basic facts, such as ID is not contagious and not curable, there was no clear consensus regarding beliefs about individuals with ID getting married, having children, or engaging in other mainstream activities of adult living. Students’ responses are examined in light of results of studies that identify and examine bona fide deficits and areas of successful mainstreaming among persons with ID. Implications of misconceptions are discussed.
In 2002, a ruling on the case of Atkins v. Virginia deemed the death penalty to be a cruel and unusual punishment, and thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment, for individuals diagnosed with intellectual disability (ID; Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Most states that enforce the death penalty have elected to resolve the issue of a defendant's Atkins claim via a pre-trial bench hearing in which a judge rules whether or not the defendant has ID ( Ellis, 2003). However, the Constitutionality of this issue has been questioned ( Ring v. Arizona, 2002). It has been argued that having a judge determine whether or not the defendant has ID violates that individual's Sixth Amendment rights and that the issue should be brought before a jury ( Bauerman, 2005 and Ellis, 2003). The determination of ID may ultimately be decided by 12 lay people who are often provided with contradictory expert testimony. Individuals’ preconceived notions about what mental retardation “looks like” could possibly bias opinions.
Few studies to date have examined individuals’ understandings of deficits involved in ID. Caruso and Hodapp (1988) surveyed college undergraduates to assess their perceptions of intellectual disability and mental illness and found that college undergraduates tended to associate intellectual disability with physical stigmata and cognitive deficiencies, and the students unanimously reported that intellectual disability was caused by brain damage or genetics rather than environmental stimuli.
More recently, McCaughey and Strohmer (2005) asked college students to list 10 attributes of persons with varying disabilities, including ID. Two core prototypes were: needs help/dependent on others and slow learner/comprehension problems. Secondary prototypes listed included: speech impairment, impaired motor skills/wheelchair use, childlike, looks physically different, special education, condition at birth, and happy/loving. Tertiary prototypes identified were cannot function normally in society/work and brain dysfunction.
Taken together, these two studies indicate that many individuals in the public may not have a clear understanding of mild ID (MID). Moreover, these studies suggest that many college students conceptualize MID as more severe and easily identifiable than is often the case, suggesting that people may have difficulty making informed decisions about ID diagnoses in the presence of such misconceptions. While numerous studies have examined college students’ perceptions and attitudes towards persons with intellectual disabilities (Akrami et al., 2006, Corrigan et al., 2000, Meyer et al., 2001 and Panek and Junger, 2008), to date, no studies have broadly surveyed public perceptions of the possible adaptive behavior deficits found in MID. Thus, the current study sought to address this gap in the literature by investigating college students’ understanding of intellectual and adaptive behavior deficits involved in MID.
In the present study, college students’ perceptions of individuals with MID discussed in light of empirical research findings. While college students indicated correctly that MID cannot be cured and is not contagious, there was a lot of uncertainty and nonconcordance about rates of marriage, having children, holding jobs, and even more uncertainty regarding these individuals’ specific adaptive behavior deficits. Overall, this study highlights the need for better education of the general public about misconceptions of intellectual disability. In addition to perpetuating stigma of intellectual disability, such misconceptions could have serious implications if they influence juror's decisions about diagnoses of mild intellectual disability.
