Ali Alkeraida- Department of Special Education, College of Education, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Background: The persistent stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities, particularly exhibited by students without disabilities, continues to pose a barrier to fostering participation. Thus, many university students with visible or invisible disabilities have expressed a preference not to be identified as having a disability. Limited efforts to address this issue at the university level in this regard. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the differences across demographic variables that may influence university students’ perceptions on stigma related to students with intellectual disabilities.
Method: The study employed a quantitative descriptive design, using the Goratu Questionnaire as the primary instrument to explore the phenomenon. Data were collected using simple random sampling, comprising of 159 university students in Saudi Arabia.
Results: The analysis considered several variables, including sex, level of education, contact with individuals with disabilities, and academic major. The study results not only reveal significant differences in students’ perceptions based on their sex and level of education but also indicate that female students expressed significantly less stigma than did male students while undergraduate students demonstrated more stigma than did postgraduates.
Conclusion: The findings of the study highlight the need to implement anti-stigma interventions and systematically measure their impact. Future research may benefit from adopting a longitudinal approach to track changes in perceptions over time.
1 Introduction
Higher education institutions have been enhancing their inclusive policies and practices to ensure the meaningful and effective integration of individuals with disabilities, driven by an increasing recognition of their equal rights (Brewer et al., 2025; Moriña, 2019). Such institutions have increasingly prioritised equality, diversity, and inclusion, resulting in a growing number of students with disabilities attending universities (Kubiak et al., 2021). This progress was largely attributed to the establishment of laws and policies aimed at promoting inclusive education, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (Assembly, 2006). Notably, one objective for their inclusion is to foster their social and academic participation (Alkeraida, 2021). Saudi Arabia has embraced this commitment by emphasising the need for practical measures to support students with disabilities (Al-Mousa, 2010). As of 2021, the number of students with disabilities, including those intellectual disabilities, at Saudi’s university level comprised 4,130 students of which 52.1% were male and 47.9% were female (About APD, 2024). Their enrolment in higher education has enhanced the learning process by promoting greater diversity within the student body, creating advantages for all students (Jones et al., 2016).
The perceptions of students without disabilities towards students with disabilities plays a vital role in realising effective inclusion in higher education. Research has revealed that peer perceptions significantly influence the academic and social participation success of students with disabilities (Moriña and Biagiotti, 2022; Lombardi et al., 2014), with related studies noting that the successful participation of students with disabilities is enhanced when they form relationships with peers, engage in campus life, and have access to organised social activities. Participation in universities and campus events play a crucial role in helping students with intellectual disabilities develop their social skills and build meaningful friendships. Similarly, involvement in sports teams or recreational groups such as tabletop activities facilitate authentic connections and provide emotional support (Bailey et al., 2019). Social participation not only contributes to students’ personal well-being but also supports achievement by promoting collaboration and reinforcing learning through peer interactions (Goegan and Daniels, 2020).
However, despite the increasing number of students with disabilities enrolled in universities, students with intellectual disabilities often encounter unique barriers to participation in higher education (Kubiak et al., 2021). For example, stigma hinders their ability to participate in campus life and interact meaningfully with others. To ensure their meaningful participation in society, such existing barriers should be addressed to enhance inclusion. What influences university students’ perceptions towards students with intellectual disabilities can be better understood through psychological processes. Therefore, addressing these issues is essential to identify areas in need of improvement and to inform the development of effective anti-stigma interventions aimed at reducing negative perceptions. Accordingly, this paper aims to explore the variables that influence university students’ perceptions on the stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities.
The remainder of this paper is organised into six sections. The first section presents the conceptual framework of the study, followed by a review of relevant literature. The second section outlines the research problem with a discussion that highlights the research gap and questions. The third section describes the methodology employed. The fourth section presents the results of the statistical analysis. The fifth section discusses the findings in relation to the existing literature. Finally, the sixth section addresses the conclusions, outlines the study’s limitations, and offers recommendations for future research and practice.
1.1 Theoretical framework
In the early 1960s, Goffman (1963) emerged as one of the most prominent scholars dedicated to understanding and conceptualising stigma, describing this phenomenon as an ‘attribute that is deeply discrediting reducing the bearer from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one’ (p. 3). Building on this foundation, several social psychologists define stigma as constituting cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components corresponding to stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, respectively (Corrigan et al., 2000; Corrigan and Watson, 2002). Stereotypes are collective knowledge structures or shared beliefs widely recognised within a social group (Hilton and Von Hippel, 1996) that enable individuals to form quicker impressions and expectations of others who belong to the stereotyped group, making social interactions more efficient (Hamilton and Sherman, 1996). However, these generalised beliefs can lead to prejudice, which involves an evaluative, emotional and often negative response towards members of the stereotyped group (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Prejudice, in turn, drives discriminatory behaviors, such as avoidance, increased social distance (Corrigan and Watson, 2002), hostility (Weiner, 1995), and withholding support or assistance (Crocker et al., 1998). A prominent type of stigma is public stigma, which focuses on perceptions of the general population towards stigmatised individuals (Phelan et al., 1998).
Understanding how stigma emerges is complex and can be explained through the lens of social identity theory (Turner et al., 1979), according to which, individuals tend to categorise others into one of two groups: the in-group (‘we’) and the out-group (‘others’). Sadly, this categorisation often leads to the development of biases and negative attitudes towards those perceived as out-group members (Ahmed, 2007; Howard and Rothbart, 1980). Individuals with disabilities are frequently viewed as part of the out-group, labelled as ‘others’ owing to their impairments (Green et al., 2005). Consequently, perceptions of this group tend to be broadly negative, overly simplistic, and discriminatory (Dovidio et al., 2010). Such perceptions are shaped by social categories, as individuals do not respond to noticeable stimuli in isolation. Instead, they instinctively and automatically interpret stimuli as belonging to a specific group or category. Identifying someone as part of a specific category often leads to social judgments aligned with the stereotypes associated with that category (Baron et al., 1995; Jones, 1990; as cited in Manna and Mullick, 2023). For example, in the context of this study, some perceptions are shaped by students’ exposure to and personal experiences with disability, as well as their level of knowledge. Positive exposure, accurate information, and meaningful participation are associated with the development of empathetic and accepting attitudes (Scior and Werner, 2015). This interconnected framework illustrates how cognitive biases lead to emotional reactions and, ultimately, behavioral consequences, perpetuating exclusion and disadvantage for stigmatised individuals with disabilities.
Earlier studies have investigated the perception of students without disabilities by examining their attitudes towards their peers with disabilities. Research by, Al Qaryouti and Al Shukaili (2015), and Phillips et al. (2019), for instance, has investigated university and college students’ perspectives, offering important insights into how attitudes mirror broader social perceptions and contribute to the systemic discrimination experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, to fully grasp the complexity of stigma, recognising that it extends beyond attitudes alone is essential. Stigma operates as a sequence beginning with a stigmatising attribute, moving through attitude structures, and culminating in discriminatory behavior. Thus, while attitudes are a critical aspect of stigma, they represent only one part of a broader, more intricate process (Werner et al., 2012).
This study is grounded in the social model of disability, which views disability as a socially constructed condition rather than an inherent characteristic of the individual (Levitt, 2017; Barney, 2012). According to this model, the key challenge lies in addressing the interaction between the individual and an unaccommodating social environment. Individuals with disabilities may face exclusion from daily activities (Bingham et al., 2013), primarily owing to societal stigmatisation and limited efforts to remove environmental barriers that hinder their participation (Palmer and Harley, 2012). Against this background of the social model perspective on disability, it becomes evident that perceptions opposing this model pose a significant threat to the realisation of true inclusion for individuals with disabilities. In this sense, stigmatisation not only impacts the social participation of students with intellectual disabilities but also their academic participation in higher education settings.
2 Review of related literature
Research attention to the stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities in higher education institutions has increased in recent years. A recent study by Mampaso Desbrow et al. (2024) examined how key variables-gender and stakeholder role-influence perceptions of stigma toward individuals with intellectual disabilities in a university setting. Conducted at a Spanish university with a sample of 306 participants, the study found that gender was a significant variable, with women reporting lower levels of perceived stigma than men. Furthermore, differences emerged across stakeholder groups, indicating that perceptions of stigma vary depending on one’s role within the university. These results highlight the presence of stigma along with stigma awareness by students with disabilities, which may hinder their inclusion into society. Despite ongoing efforts to promote inclusion in higher education, further research is needed to examine the perceptions of peers towards students with disabilities in the same context but across different countries.
Similarly, Moraleda Ruano and Galán-Casado (2024) examined societal stigma towards individuals with intellectual disabilities, focusing on sex differences and the influence of contact with individuals with disabilities. The study employed a non-experimental design, surveying 572 Spanish post graduate students using the Goratu questionnaires to assess stigma levels. Participants were categorised based on the frequency of their interactions with individuals with disabilities. The findings revealed that while sex did not significantly influence stigma, greater contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities or severe mental disorders was associated with more positive attitudes and lower stigma. Notably, closer relationships led to more favourable perceptions of intellectual disability and reduced stigma towards severe mental disorders. This study highlights the pervasive nature of stigma among postgraduate students.
Moreover, Akin and Huang (2019) examined college students’ perceptions of students with disabilities and how they varied based on disability type. The study involved 149 undergraduate students from the University of California who were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: physical (visible) disability, cognitive (non-visible) disability, or psychiatric (non-visible) disability. Participants were asked to assess the perceived sociability, academic abilities, and classroom behavior of students with the assigned disability type, as well as their expectations regarding academic accommodations and the individual’s ability to manage their disability. The findings indicated that students with visible disabilities were not only generally perceived as more sociable and academically capable than were those with non-visible disabilities but also viewed as more likely to engage in disruptive classroom behaviors. Additionally, differences were observed between perceptions of the two disability groups, suggesting nuanced distinctions in how students view peers with different types of disabilities. Interestingly, another study revealed that university students with non-visible disabilities have reported a preference for not disclosing their disabilities (Prowse, 2009), which is often driven by the belief that maintaining a perception of ‘normality’ helps to avoid or reduce the experience of stigma (Hong, 2015). This highlights the complexity of stigma and how the preference of not disclosing disabilities is perceived to facilitate social acceptance by peers without disabilities.
Pelleboer-Gunnink et al. (2019) conducted a study within the Dutch population to examine the prevalent stereotypes among the general public associated with individuals with intellectual disabilities. The study also explored the relationship among stereotypes, discriminatory intentions, and familiarity with intellectual disabilities. Using a mixed-method cross-sectional survey, data were gathered from 892 participants. The findings revealed significant insights into the stereotypes commonly attributed to this group. Four key stereotypes were identified: ‘friendly’, ‘in need of help’, ‘unintelligent’, and ‘nuisance’. Among these, the ‘nuisance’ stereotype appeared to hold minimal significance owing to its infrequent mention in responses to open-ended questions. Conversely, ‘friendly’, ‘in need of help’, and ‘unintelligent’ emerged as prominent stereotypes of individuals with intellectual disabilities, given their frequent reporting. While these stereotypes were not directly associated with high levels of explicit discrimination, their mixed positive and negative connotations suggest the potential for subtle forms of discrimination that could manifest in limited opportunities for choice and self-determination.
Phillips et al. (2018) conducted a study to examine the social perceptions of American college students towards individuals with intellectual disabilities. Specifically, the study aimed to describe these perceptions, identify their influencing factors, and assess whether perceptions vary based on the level of functioning of individuals with intellectual disabilities. The sample comprised 186 American college students who completed the questionnaire. The results indicated that students generally held positive perceptions across most factors, with the exception of sensibility/tenderness, which revealed more negative attitudes. Notably, students with greater knowledge about intellectual disabilities and those who reported more frequent and positive interactions with individuals with intellectual disabilities demonstrated more favourable social perceptions. However, perceptions were significantly less positive towards individuals with lower levels of functioning compared to those with higher functioning.
3 Research problem
Peer interactions play a crucial role in supporting the participation of individuals with intellectual disabilities in university life. Although such interactions facilitate the development of essential social skills, engagement in group activities, relationship-building, and an understanding of social norms (Carter and Hughes, 2005), the presence of stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities, particularly from peers without disabilities, continues to pose a significant barrier to fostering social and academic participation (Moraleda Ruano and Galán-Casado, 2024; Kubiak et al., 2021). This, in turn, hinders their participation in campus life. Stigmatisation not only deprives these students of the opportunity to benefit from peer interactions but also contributes to diminished self-confidence and reduced academic participation (Akin and Huang, 2019; Philips et al., 2019). Negative experiences including feelings of isolation, self-consciousness, fear of being stigmatised, bullying, and social rejection (Brewer et al., 2023) are often compounded by unfavourable attitudes and exclusionary behaviors from peers without disabilities (Grimes et al., 2019; Marshak et al., 2010). These experiences restrict social acceptance on campus and reinforce the broader societal marginalisation of individuals with intellectual disabilities (Jahoda and Markova, 2004). For example, stigma not only affects individuals with intellectual disabilities but also often extends to their families, contributing to broader social exclusion as indicated by Çaynak et al. (2022). Consequently, many university students, whether they have visible or non-visible disabilities, often prefer not to be identified as having a disability (Barnes, 2007) to avoid or minimise the experiences of stigma (Lourens and Swartz, 2016).
Researchers have revealed that unfamiliarity with intellectual disabilities influences the degree of stereotype endorsement, pointing to a complex relationship between social proximity, stereotype formation, and discriminatory attitudes (Pelleboer-Gunnink et al., 2019; Phillips et al., 2018). A study by Scior et al. (2013) explored the relationship between stigma and awareness of intellectual disabilities, finding that a lack of accurate knowledge can lead to the misattribution of intellectual disability thereby reinforcing and exacerbating stigma. This limited understanding not only perpetuates negative stereotypes but also fosters discriminatory attitudes that contribute to the social exclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities, further leading to reduced opportunities for engagement, hindered social interaction, and a decline in self-esteem among individuals with disabilities (Manna and Mullick, 2023). One of the most influential sources shaping public perceptions of intellectual disabilities is the media. Social media representations have the potential to increase awareness and promote understanding. Vincent and Ralston (2019) found that although access to information via social media can enhance knowledge and awareness of intellectual disabilities, it can also perpetuate misinformation and reinforce stereotypes. For example, individuals with intellectual disabilities are frequently linked to societal representations of incapacity, which can lead to diminished self-image (Paterson et al., 2012) and restricted autonomy (Reis et al., 2019). They are often subjected to stigmatising stereotypes that portray them as aggressive, childlike, dependent, and limited in terms of both social and academic participation (Werner and Scior, 2022). In this sense, few can disagree that media plays a critical role in shaping public perceptions, as highlighted by Patel and Rose (2014). These inaccurate depictions may contribute to the persistence of stigma, influencing how society views and interacts with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, social perception is a complex process through which individuals attempt to understand and make sense of others. Accurately perceiving others can be challenging, as it requires cognitive skills, interpretive abilities, and an understanding of contextual factors (Manna and Mullick, 2023).
Despite the critical role that stigma plays in shaping the experience of individuals with intellectual disabilities, research on stigma within the educational contexts—particularly in higher education remains limited. Very few studies Mampaso Desbrow et al. (2024), Moraleda Ruano and Galán-Casado (2024) have addressed this issue. The existing gap in the literature underscores the need for further research to examine students’ social perceptions and the underlying contributors to stigma in higher education (Roca-Hurtuna and Sanz-Ponce, 2023; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2024). Building on previous studies, a recent study by Ruano et al. (2025) implemented anti-stigma interventions targeting university students in Spain, which resulted in an improvement in students’ perception towards their peers with disabilities. However, the limited number of studies emphasises the importance of examining stigma across diverse national and cultural contexts to identify context-specific barriers and guide future research in developing more effective, locally relevant, anti-stigma interventions in higher education. Therefore, this present study may be considered among the first to explore this phenomenon in the Saudi context at the university level.
4 The aim of the study
To advance our understanding of social perceptions, this study aims to explore the differences across demographic variables that may influence university students’ perceptions of stigma surrounding individuals with intellectual disabilities. Accordingly, the study seeks to answer the following research question:
• Are there statistically significant differences among the students’ perceptions of stigma surrounding individuals with intellectual disabilities based on sex, level of education, contact with individuals with disabilities, and students’ major?
5 Materials and methods
5.1 Research design
This study implemented a quantitative descriptive design to explore the differences across demographic variables that may influence university students’ perceptions on stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities. To achieve this objective, a questionnaire was used as the primary tool for data collection and analysis.
5.2 Sampling technique
A random sampling technique was applied in this study. The study sample comprised 159 students from a university in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Table 1 depicts the demographic characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 159).
5.3 Instrument
The perceptions of university students were measured using the Goratu Questionnaire (Cabezas et al., 2022), which specifically focuses on the perceptions, ideas, and beliefs (cognitive dimension) regarding individuals with intellectual disability. It includes 15 statements rated on a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong agreement and 4 indicating strong disagreement. Therefore, higher scores imply less bias against individuals with intellectual disability except for items 2, 3, 7, 9, and 15, which are reverse-scored (Cabezas et al., 2022; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2024).
The instrument comprises five dimensions, which are also reflected in the overall score for the participants:
Dimension 1. Competencies: ideas related to immature state and lack of personal competencies (items 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14).
Dimension 2. Emotional satisfaction and wellbeing: ideas related to emotional state, self-perception, and personal wellbeing (items 2, 3, and 9).
Dimension 3. Social segregation/inclusion: ideas related to social status and interest in participating in inclusive rather than segregated scenarios (items 1 and 6).
Dimension 4. Interpersonal relationships/socialisation: ideas related to interpersonal relationships (items 7, 12, and 15).
Dimension 5. Self-sufficiency: ideas related to the capacity for self-sufficiency (items 4 and 5).
5.4 Reliability and validation
The instrument used in this study, the Goratu Questionnaire ‘Percepciones sobre las personas con discapacidad inte lectual’ (Cabezas et al., 2022) is the Spanish version. The researcher employed several measures to ensure the quality, validity and reliability of the translated instruments.
Back-translation. To ensure the accuracy and cultural relevance of the instrument, the back-translation method was used. First, a professional translator converted the original Spanish version into Arabic. Then, a different translator—who had not seen the original Spanish text—translated the Arabic version back into Spanish, which helped confirm the linguistic equivalence of the instrument across both languages and ensured that the meaning of the items was preserved during translation.
Content validity of the Arabic version of the instrument was established through a review by several academic faculty members who evaluated the clarity and relevance of the items and instructions. Based on their feedback, minor revisions were made to improve the wording of certain items. The revised version of the questionnaire was then resubmitted to the faculty for final evaluation. They then confirmed that the scale was appropriate and aligned with the research objectives.
Pilot study. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the clarity of language, overall length of the questionnaire, and cultural relevance of the items in the Arabic version. Feedback from participants was carefully reviewed, and all logical suggestions were incorporated into the final version of the instrument. The pilot study was administered to a group of 32 university students, none of whom participated in the main study, to avoid any potential sensitisation effects (Crano and Brewer, 2002).
The reliability of the Arabic version of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded a coefficient of 0.752, indicating an acceptable reliability (George and Mallery, 2019).
5.5 Data collection
Following ethical approval from the University’s Deanship of Scientific Research and the Standing Committee for Scientific Ethics (Approval No. 638780111079052510), the study was conducted at one of the universities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected through a digital survey administered via Google Forms—a platform chosen for its practical advantages such as efficient data collection, ease of access, and convenience for participants (Nayak and Narayan, 2019). The survey link was distributed across the university, and it had three sections. The first section includes a detailed information about the study’s purpose, objectives, and procedures. Importantly, the first section also includes an informed consent that is obtained from participants prior to their participation in the survey. The second section gathers participants’ demographic data, such sex, level of education, contact with individuals with disabilities, and major. The last section included 15 statements to measure students’ perceptions regarding individuals with intellectual disability. To enhance participation in the survey, reminder messages were sent weekly to the administrative coordinators of relevant student groups via WhatsApp over a two-month period, resulting in a final sample of 159 students participated in the study.
5.6 Data analysis
To analyse the responses of the questionnaire, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was used, which encompasses multiple statistical techniques. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test assessed whether the data met the assumption of normality prior to analysis. According to the result, two nonparametric statistical tests were performed: The Mann–Whitney U test explored the differences in university students’ perceptions based on sex, level of education, and contact with individuals with disabilities, while The Kruskal–Wallis test determined whether significant differences in perceptions existed based on students’ major.
6 Results
6.1 Demographic comparisons
6.1.1 Sex
Table 2 displays the results of the Mann–Whitney U test, which was conducted to examine sex-based differences in university students’ perceptions of students with intellectual disabilities across five conceptual dimensions and the overall score. The results reveal statistically significant differences in several dimensions, with female students consistently showing less stigmatising than were male students. In Dimension 1 (ideas related to students’ immature state and lack of personal competencies), a significant difference was found, with females (mean rank = 94.49) scoring higher than males (mean rank = 67.39, U = 2073.000, Z = −3.726, p < 0.001). A similar pattern was observed in Dimension 4 (ideas related to interpersonal relationships), where females (mean rank = 88.31) again exhibited less stigma than did males (mean rank = 72.76, U = 2530.000, Z = −2.168, p = 0.030). In Dimension 5 (ideas related to the capacity for self-sufficiency), the difference was also significant, with females (mean rank = 92.05) ranking higher than males (mean rank = 69.51, U = 2253.500, Z = −3.145, p = 0.002). On the other hand, no significant differences were observed in Dimensions 2 (ideas related to emotional state and personal well-being, p = 0.212) and 3 (ideas related to social status and inclusive participation, p = 0.094), although females still had higher mean ranks in both. Importantly, the overall score revealed a statistically significant difference, where female students (mean rank = 95.89) demonstrated less stigma than did male students (mean rank = 66.17, U = 1969.500, Z = −4.065, p < 0.001).
Table 2. Results of the Mann–Whitney U test comparing dimensions according to sex.
6.1.2 Level of education
Table 3 depicts the results from the Mann–Whitney U test, which was conducted to assess differences in university students’ perceptions of students with intellectual disabilities based on their level of education (undergraduate vs. postgraduate). The analysis covered five conceptual dimensions and the overall score. The results revealed statistically significant differences in two dimensions and the overall score. In Dimension 1 (ideas related to immature state and lack of personal competencies), postgraduate students reported significantly lower stigma levels (mean rank = 88.89) than did undergraduate students (mean rank = 72.26, U = 2487.000, Z = −2.287, p = 0.022). Moreover, in Dimension 5 (ideas related to the capacity for self-sufficiency), postgraduate students also demonstrated more favourable perceptions (mean rank = 89.07) than did undergraduates (mean rank = 72.11, U = 2474.000, Z = −2.367, p = 0.018). While the remaining dimensions did not reach statistical significance, postgraduate students consistently demonstrated higher mean ranks across all areas, suggesting lower levels of stigma among students at higher levels of education. Importantly, the overall stigma score revealed a highly significant difference, with postgraduate students scoring significantly higher (mean rank = 90.87) than did undergraduates (mean rank = 70.54, U = 2340.500, Z = −2.782, p = 0.005).
Table 3. Results of the Mann–Whitney U test comparing dimensions according to level of education.
6.1.3 Contact with individuals with disabilities
A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to examine whether university students’ contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities influenced their perceptions across five conceptual dimensions and the overall score. The analysis revealed that only one dimension showed a statistically significant difference. In Dimension 2 (ideas related to emotional state, self-perception, and personal wellbeing), students who had experience with individuals with disabilities reported significantly less stigma (mean rank = 96.63) than did those who had no experience (mean rank = 71.92, U = 1917.000, Z = −3.218, p = 0.001). Although the remaining dimensions did not reach statistical significance, the following observations were noted. In Dimension 4 (interpersonal relationships), the result approached significance (p = 0.058), with higher mean ranks (89.73) among students with contact with individuals with disabilities than among those without (75.27). Other dimensions, including Dimension 1 (p = 0.187), Dimension 3 (p = 0.415), and Dimension 5 (p = 0.158), did not demonstrate statistically significant differences. The overall score indicated that students who reported having contact with individuals with disabilities (mean rank = 89.26) scored higher than did those with no contact (mean rank = 75.60), suggesting less stigma compared to those with no personal exposure. However, the difference did not reach statistical significance at the conventional level (U = 2300.500, Z = −1.770, p = 0.077).
6.1.4 Students’ major
University students’ responses were compared based on their major to determine whether it had any significant effect on their perceptions on students with intellectual disabilities across five conceptual dimensions and the overall score. A Kruskal–Wallis H test was conducted to examine the difference based on their academic major (scientific, theoretical, and humanities). Among the individual dimensions, only Dimension 1 (ideas related to immature state and lack of personal competencies) demonstrated a statistically significant difference among majors (H = 6.216, p = 0.045), with theoretical students showing less stigma than students pursuing other majors. However, the analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in the overall score (H = 3.503, p = 0.173), indicating that, overall, students’ major did not significantly impact their general perceptions of stigma. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the mean ranks revealed that students pursuing theoretical majors (92.61) tended to have less stigma than did those pursuing scientific (73.40) and humanities (78.59) majors.
7 Discussion
This study sought to explore the differences across demographic variables influencing university students’ perceptions of stigma toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. The analysis considered several variables, including sex, level of education, contact with individuals with disabilities, and academic major. The results reveal a statistically significant difference in university students’ perceptions based on their sex and level of education. Regarding the outcomes observed in relation to sex, statistically significant differences were observed in students’ perceptions of stigma towards individuals with intellectual disabilities, with female students having higher mean ranks compared to male students, demonstrating less stigma perceptions among female than among male peers in three specific areas—Dimensions 1, 4, and 5—and the overall score. While these findings contradict the finding of a previous researches by Moraleda Ruano and Galán-Casado (2024) and Ruano et al. (2025), which showed that sex does not significantly influence stigma, it is consistent with the findings of Mampaso Desbrow et al. (2024), who reported that female participants expressed significantly less stigma than did male participants, particularly in two dimensions (ideas related to immature state and lack of personal competencies and ideas related to their capacity for self-sufficiency). The presents study builds on their finding by further highlighting that female student expressed less stigma in Dimension 4 (ideas related to interpersonal relationships), suggesting that sex plays a broader role in shaping perceptions about individuals with intellectual disabilities. Given that sex emerged as a significant variable. A possible explanation is that female students may display greater empathy and sensitivity toward students with intellectual disabilities. It can be linked to gender-related differences in communication styles, caregiving responsibilities, and cultural expectations may further account for these outcomes. Along these lines and in light of the existing literature on attitudes, this finding aligns with the theoretical notion that stigma operates as a sequence, beginning with a stigmatizing attribute and progressing through attitudinal structures (Werner et al., 2012). These findings mirror those of Alnahdi et al. (2020), in a study conducted in the Arab world, and Vera Noriega et al. (2022) found that sex significantly predicted attitudes towards people with disabilities, with female student demonstrating more positive attitudes than did males. Together, these finding may suggest that sex plays a role in shaping stigma, which in turns influences attitudes, thereby highlighting how these constructs may function in a sequential manner.
Regarding the level of education, it is noteworthy that significant differences were observed between the groups (undergraduate vs. postgraduate). The findings of this study reveal that undergraduate students have lower mean ranks than do postgraduate students, indicating that the former demonstrates more stigma than do the latter in Dimensions 1 and 5 and in the overall scores. This result can be explained by the lack of disability awareness among undergraduate students. A study conducted on 449 new graduate students from various universities across Saudi Arabia found that they demonstrated lack of knowledge about disabilities (Madhesh, 2022). This finding is also supported by scholars such Scior et al. (2013) who examined the relationship between stigma and awareness of intellectual disabilities, concluding that limited or inaccurate knowledge often results in misattributions about individuals with intellectual disabilities, thereby reinforcing stigma. The stigma evident among students in this study may explain why many university students, regardless of whether they have visible or non-visible disabilities, often prefer not to be identified as having a disability (Barnes, 2007) to avoid or minimise the experiences of stigma (Lourens and Swartz, 2016).
Contact with individuals with disabilities was not found to produce significant differences in university students’ perceptions. In contrast, the findings from previous studies by Moraleda Ruano and Galán-Casado (2024) revealed that quantity of contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities was associated with lower stigma and more positive attitudes. This contradiction may be explained by a study by Alnahdi et al. (2020), which emphasised on the importance of quality rather than frequency of contact, suggesting that quality interactions were linked to more positive attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. These results suggest that not all contact is equally impactful. While quantity may matter to some extent, it is the quality of the interaction that are most influential. Hence, interaction with students with disabilities within the university context should be accompanied with quality contact to reduce stigma.
Regarding the findings related to students’ academic majors, this study revealed no statistically significant differences in students’ perceptions of stigma surrounding individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, previous research has shown that students’ knowledge about disability can play role in the academic discipline they pursue. For example, a study by Madhesh (2022) reported statistically significant differences in disability awareness based on university students’ majors, with higher levels of awareness observed among students in theoretical disciplines. Despite the importance of knowledge, this discrepancy suggests that knowledge about disabilities alone may not necessarily lead to reduced stigma. Giving the previous discussion concerning the quality of contact, one can state that reducing stigma may require more than teaching content. In this sense, it should additionally be accompanied with practical knowledge that emerge from quality contact with individuals with intellectual disabilities. Such real participation with individuals with disabilities would break down barriers and promote further inclusion.
Nonetheless, this study has several limitations. The sample was limited to 159 students from one of the universities in Saudi Arabia, restricting the generalisability of the findings. Moreover, the analysis was confined to specific variables—sex, education level, contact with individuals with disabilities, and academic major. Future research should explore in greater depth the reasons why sex appears to play a role in shaping stigma towards individuals with disabilities, as well as how the educational background shapes perception towards individuals with disabilities. Additionally, future studies may consider expanding the sample size and geography to provide more comprehensive insights. Importantly, this study’s findings are expected to positively impact university practices by highlighting the need to implement anti-stigma interventions and systematically measuring progress. Future research may benefit from adopting a longitudinal approach to track changes in perceptions over time. Reducing stigma requires more than simply teaching content about disabilities; it also involves providing practical knowledge and fostering meaningful participation with individuals with disabilities.
8 Conclusion
This study was conducted in Saudi Arabia with a sample of 159 university students to explore the differences across demographic variables may influence students’ perceptions on stigma related to students with intellectual disabilities. The results reveal a significant difference in students’ perceptions based on their sex and level of education, indicated that female students exhibited significantly less stigma than did male students. Similarly, postgraduate students demonstrated less stigma than did undergraduates. However, no statistically significant differences were found in stigma levels based on students’ academic majors or prior contact with individuals with disabilities.
While previous research has primarily focused on students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities, stigma is a multifaceted construct that extends beyond attitudes alone. Despite its critical role in shaping the experiences of individuals with intellectual disabilities, research on stigma within educational contexts, particularly in higher education, remains limited, emphasising the importance of examining stigma across diverse national and cultural contexts. Doing so can help identify context-specific barriers and guide future research in developing more effective, locally relevant, anti-stigma interventions in higher education. Addressing this gap is essential for informing effective interventions. The present study constitutes a valuable foundation for future research on this topic by examining how key variables may influence stigma at the university level, offering insights that are relevant both locally and globally. Additionally, it links theoretical perspectives with practical application, enhancing our understanding of stigma, attitudes and knowledge towards individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the author, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethical approval from the University’s Deanship of Scientific Research and the Standing Committee for Scientific Ethics (Approval No. 638780111079052510). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
AA: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (grant number IMSIU-DDRSP2502).
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
About APD. Authority for the care of people with disabilities. (2024). Available online at: https://apd.gov.sa/en/about-us (Accessed March 25, 2025).
Ahmed, S. (2007). ‘You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing’: Diversity, race equality and the politics of documentation. Ethnic and racial studies, 30, 590–609.
Akin, D., and Huang, L. M. (2019). Perceptions of college students with disabilities. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 32, 21–33.
Al Qaryouti, I., and Al Shukaili, J. (2015). Sultan Qaboos University students’ attitudes towards inclusion of their peers with disabilities. J. Educ. Psychol. Stud. 9, 262–274. doi: 10.53543/jeps.vol9iss2pp262-274
Alkeraida, A. (2021). Understanding teaching practices for inclusive participation of students with autism in Saudi Arabian primary schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 27, 1559–1575. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1904015
Al-Mousa, N. A. (2010). The experience of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in mainstreaming students with special educational needs in public schools Riyadh The Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States. Available online at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000191663
Alnahdi, G. H., Elhadi, A., and Schwab, S. (2020). The positive impact of knowledge and quality of contact on university students’ attitudes towards people with intellectual disability in the Arab world. Res. Dev. Disabil. 106:103765. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103765,
Bailey, K. M., Frost, K. M., Casagrande, K., and Ingersoll, B. (2019). The relationship between social experience and subjective well-being in autistic college students: a mixed methods study. Autism 24, 1081–1092. doi: 10.1177/1362361319892457,
Barnes, C. (2007). Disability, higher education and the inclusive society. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 28, 135–145. doi: 10.1080/01425690600996832
Barney, K. (2012). Disability simulations: using the social model of disability to update an experiential educational practice imprint. Schole 27, 1–11.
Baron, R. M., Albright, L., and Malloy, T. E. (1995). Effects of behavioral and social class information on social judgment. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 308–315. doi: 10.1177/0146167295214001
Bingham, C., Clarke, L., Michielsens, E., and Van De Meer, M. (2013). Towards a social model approach? British and Dutch disability policies in the health sector compared. Pers. Rev. 42, 613–637. doi: 10.1108/PR-08-2011-0120
Brewer, G., Urwin, E., and Witham, B. (2023). Disabled student experiences of higher education. Disabil. Soc. 40, 108–127. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2023.2263633
Brewer, G., Urwin, E., and Witham, B. (2025). Disabled student experiences of Higher Education. Disability & Society, 40, 108–127. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2023.2263633
Cabezas, D., Gerolín, M., Canto, A., and Vidorreta, I. (2022). Percepciones de jóvenes de educación secundaria obliga toria y bachillerato sobre la discapacidad intelectual. Síndrome de Down: Vida Adulta 41, 1–17.
Carter, E. W., and Hughes, C. (2005). Increasing social interaction among adolescents with intellectual disabilities and their general education peers: effective interventions. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 30, 179–193. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.30.4.179
Çaynak, S., Özer, Z., and Keser, İ. (2022). Stigma for disabled individuals and their family: a systematic review. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 58, 1190–1199. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12893,
Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Lundin, R. K, Wasowski, K. U., Campion, J., Mathisen, J., et al. (2000). Stigmatizing attributions about mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 91–102.
Corrigan, P. W., and Watson, A. C. (2002). Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World psychiatry. 1:16.
Costea-Barlut xiu, C., and Rusu, A. S. (2015). A preliminary investigation of Romanian university teachers’ attitudes towards disabilities—a premise for inclusive interaction with stu dents with disabilities. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 209, 572–579.
Crano, W. D., and Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research. 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crocker, J., Major, B., and Steele, C. (1998). “Social Stigma” in The handbook of social psychology. eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, vol. 2. 4th ed (New York: Academic Press), 504–553.
Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, W., Glick, P., and Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination, 12, 3–28.
Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Ferreira, C., Vieira, M. J., and Vidal, J. (2014). Sistema de indi cadores sobre el apoyo a los estudiantes con discapacidad en las universidades españolas. Rev. Educ. 363, 412–444.
George, D., and Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: a simple guide and reference : Routledge.
Goegan, L. D., and Daniels, L. M. (2020). Students with LD at postsecondary: supporting success and the role of student characteristics and integration. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 35, 45–56. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12212
Green, S., Davis, C., Karshmer, E., Marsh, P., and Straight, B. (2005). Living stigma: The impact of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination in the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families. Sociological inquiry, 75, 197–215.
Grimes, S., Southgate, E., Scevak, J., and Buchanan, R. (2019). University student perspectives on institutional non-disclosure of disability and learning challenges: reasons for staying invisible. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 23, 639–655. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1442507
Hamilton, D. L., and Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological review, 103:336.
Hilton, J. L., and Von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47, 237–271. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237,
Hong, B. S. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experiences in higher education. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 56, 209–226. doi: 10.1353/csd.2015.0032
Howard, J. W., and Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 38:301.
Jahoda, A., and Markova, I. (2004). Coping with social stigma: people with intellectual disabilities moving from institutions and family home. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 48, 719–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2003.00561.x,
Jones, M. M., Harrison, B., Harp, B., and Sheppard-Jones, K. (2016). Teaching college students with intellectual disability: what faculty members say about the experience. Inc 4, 89–108. doi: 10.1352/2326-6988-4.2.89
Kubiak, J., Aston, D., Devitt, M., and Ringwood, B. (2021). University students with intellectual disabilities: empowerment through voice. Educ. Sci. 11:571. doi: 10.3390/educsci11100571
Levitt, J. M. (2017). Exploring how the social model of disability can be re-invigorated: in response to Mike Oliver. Disabil. Soc. 32, 589–594. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2017.1300390
Lombardi, A., Murray, C., and Kowitt, J. (2014). Social support and academic success for college students with disabilities: do relationship types matter? J. Vocat. Rehabil. 44, 1–13.
Lourens, H., and Swartz, L. (2016). Experiences of visually impaired students in higher education: Bodily perspectives on inclusive education. Disability & society. 31, 240–251.
Madhesh, A. (2022). Awareness of disability among Saudi university graduates. Heliyon 8:e11647. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11647,
Mampaso Desbrow, J., Moraleda Ruano, Á., Galán-Casado, D., and Ruiz-Vicente, D. (2024). Stigmatising young people with intellectual disability: perceptions of the main stakeholders at a Spanish university. J. Intellect. Develop. Disabil. 49, 342–352. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2023.2295244,
Manna, K., and Mullick, S. (2023). Perception of students without disability towards students with disability (SWD): a qualitative exploration
Marshak, L., Van Wieren, T., Ferrell, D. R., Swiss, L., and Dugan, C. (2010). Exploring barriers to college student use of disability services and accommodations. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 22, 151–165.
McConkey, R., Slater, P. F., Dubois, L., Shellard, A., and Smith, A. (2021). An international study of public contact with people who have an intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 65, 272–282. doi: 10.1111/jir.12809,
McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., and Hamilton, D. L. (1994). On-line and memory-based aspects of individual and group target judgments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 173–185. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.173,
Moraleda Ruano, A., and Galán-Casado, D. (2024). Stigma toward individuals with intellectual disabilities and severe mental disorders: analysis of postgraduate university students’ perceptions. Adv. Ment. Health Intellect. Disabil. 18, 125–139. doi: 10.1108/AMHID-04-2024-0012
Moraleda Ruano, Á., Ruiz Vicente, D., Mampaso Desbrow, J., and Galán-Casado, D. (2025). Inclusive education for university students with and without intellectual disabilities: effectiveness of an anti-stigma intervention. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 38:e70012. doi: 10.1111/jar.70012,
Morin, D., Rivard, M. C. A. G., Crocker, A. G., Boursier, C. P., and Caron, J. (2013). Public attitudes towards intellectual disability: a multidimensional perspective. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 57, 279–292. doi: 10.1111/jir.12008,
Moriña, A. (2019). “Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities” in Postsecondary educational opportunities for students with special education needs, 3–17.
Moriña, A., and Biagiotti, G. (2022). Academic success factors in university students with disabilities: a systematic review. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 37, 729–746. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1940007
Nayak, M., and Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and weakness of online surveys, J. Humanit. Soc. Sci, 24, 31–38. doi: 10.9790/08372405053138
Palmer, M., and Harley, D. (2012). Models and measurement in disability: an international review. Health Policy Plan. 27, 357–364. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr047,
Patel, M., and Rose, J. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards individuals with an intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Disabil. 18, 90–103. doi: 10.1177/1744629513511355,
Paterson, L., McKenzie, K., and Lindsay, B. (2012). Stigma, social comparison and self-esteem in adults with an intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 25, 166–176.
Pelleboer-Gunnink, H. A., Van Weeghel, J., and Embregts, P. J. (2019). Public stigmatisation of people with intellectual disabilities: a mixed-method population survey into stereotypes and their relationship with familiarity and discrimination. Disabil. Rehabil. 43, 489–497. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1630678,
Phelan, J. C., Bromet, E. J., and Link, B. G. (1998). Psychiatric illness and family stigma. Schizophr. Bull. 24, 115–126. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033304,
Phillips, B. A., Fortney, S., and Swafford, L. (2018). College Students’ Social Perceptions Toward Individuals With Intellectual Disability. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 30, 3–1. doi: 10.1177/1044207318788891 (Original work published 2019)
Phillips, B. A., Fortney, S., and Swafford, L. (2019). College students’ social perceptions toward individuals with intellectual disability. J. Disabil. Policy Stud. 30, 3–10. doi: 10.1177/1044207318788891
Reis, J. G., Araújo, S. M., and Glat, R. (2019). Autopercepção de pessoas com deficiência intelectual sobre deficiência, estigma e preconceito. Rev. Educ. Espec. 32, 1–16.
Roca-Hurtuna, M., and Sanz-Ponce, R. (2023). The perception of university students towards people with disabilities and their labor insertion. Educ. Sci. 13:79. doi: 10.3390/educsci13010079
Rosero-Calderón, M., Delgado, D. M., Ruano, M. A., and Criollo-Castro, C. H. (2021). Actitud docente frente a la educación inclusiva de estudiantes con discapacidad inte lectual. Rev. Unimar 39, 96–106.
Ruano, M., Ruiz Vicente, D., Mampaso Desbrow, J., and Galán‐Casado, D. (2025). Inclusive Education for University Students with and without Intellectual Disabilities: Effectiveness of an Anti‐Stigma Intervention. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 38:e70012.
Scior, K., Addai-Davis, J., Kenyon, M., and Sheridan, J. C. (2013). Stigma, public awareness about intellectual disability and attitudes to inclusion among different ethnic groups. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 57, 1014–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01597.x,
Scior, K., and Werner, S. (2015). Changing attitudes to a learning disability. Posjećeno 20, 2016–2008.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., and Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9:187–204. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420090207
Vera Noriega, J. A., Burruel Valencia, M. A., and Sainz Palafox, M. A. (2022). Actitudes hacia la discapacidad y su influen cia en la percepción de inclusión n estudiantes de educación superior. Rev. Nac. Int. Educ. Incl. 15, 45–62.
Vincent, J., and Ralston, K. (2019). Trainee teachers’ knowledge of autism: implications for understanding and inclusive practice. Oxford Review of Education, 46, 202–221. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2019.1645651,
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: a foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.
Werner, S., Corrigan, P., Ditchman, N., and Sokol, K. (2012). Stigma and intellectual disability: a review of related measures and future directions. Res. Dev. Disabil. 33, 748–765. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.10.009,
Keywords: university students, perception, stigma, student with intellectual disability, participation
Citation: Alkeraida A (2025) Examining university students’ perceptions on stigma surrounding students with intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Front. Educ. 10:1706425. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1706425
Edited by:
Weifeng Han, Flinders University, AustraliaReviewed by:
Konstantinos M. Ntinas, Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, GreeceCélia Sousa, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Portugal
Copyright © 2025 Alkeraida. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ali Alkeraida, YWFhbGtlcmFpZGFAaW1hbXUuZWR1LnNh