Search

Research has drawn attention to the stigma and high rates of victimization among people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and an overlap between bias and non-bias victimization. However, studies of bias events or hate crime involving persons with ID are scarce. Using a self-report measure, we analyze lifetime bias victimization in a sample of 260 adults diagnosed with ID (age M = 41.7, SD = 12.0; 59.2% men), of whom 92 experienced bias victimization (age M = 41.2, SD = 11.9; 54.3% men), and compare the number of different types of victimization and the poly-victimization status between bias and non-bias victims. We also examine the following features: the victim, offender(s), victim–offender relationship, and location. Results show that bias victims experience a higher number of different types of victimization than non-bias victims (M = 7.74 and 4.96, respectively; p <.001, r rb=.37, ξ =.42) and are four times more likely to be poly-victims than non-bias victims (odds ratio [ OR ] = 4.37; 95% CI, p <.001). Most of the victims experienced a number of bias victimization episodes (89.1%; n = 82), and more than a quarter were injured (27.2%, n = 25) as a result of the victimization. All the bias victimizations by strangers were carried out in public places, as were most of the bias victimizations by acquaintances. Schoolmates and work colleagues perpetrated attacks at school and in the workplace, respectively. More than half of the victims, 63% (n = 58), spoke of the experience with someone, but only one reported it to the authorities. The paper provides a valuable descriptive and bivariate analysis of bias victimization of people with ID. The findings will help to understand bias violence against this population, highlighting the need for targeted and effective interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The criteria that researchers use to classify aggressive behaviour as bullying are ‘repetition’, ‘power imbalance’, and ‘intent to hurt’. However, studies that have analyzed adolescents’ perceptions of bullying find that most adolescents do not simultaneously consider these three criteria. This paper examines adolescents’ perceptions of bullying and of the different forms it takes, and whether these perceptions vary according to the teen’s role of victim, aggressor, or witness in a bullying situation. The data acquisition instrument was a questionnaire applied to a sample of 2295 teenagers. The results show that none of these three groups considered the criterion of repetition to be important to define bullying. A further conclusion was that both aggressors and witnesses used the criteria of ‘power imbalance’ and ‘intent to hurt’ to identify a situation of bullying, although the aggressors placed especial emphasis on the superiority of power over the victim, while the witnesses emphasized the intent to hurt the victim. One noteworthy finding was that victims do not consider the factor ‘power imbalance’. The factor that determined their perceptions was the ‘intent to hurt’. Finally, some modes of bullying were seen as forms of typical teen social interactions, and the perception depended significantly on the adolescent’s role as aggressor, victim, or witness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]