Understanding influential factors to neighbouring for people with ID may shed light on the processes involved in social integration of people with ID at a neighbourhood level. This paper contributes to understanding the opinions of people with ID on satisfactory neighbourhood relationships, and explores opportunities to improve them.

Although people with intellectual disabilities (ID) are increasingly expected to relocate from traditional institutional care to 'regular' neighbourhood housing facilities and socially integrate in these neighbourhoods, little is known about how they are perceived and appreciated as neighbours. This paper reports on interviews carried out with 30 neighbours without ID who were neighbours of small-scale care facilities for people with ID. Interviews addressed the neighbours' everyday experiences of neighbouring in general, and neighbouring people with ID in particular. Neighbouring, for these informants, called for a fine balance between friendliness without over-involvement. While they were generally positive about their interactions with their neighbours with ID, it emerged that the formal nature of the care facility and the interaction style of some of the neighbours with ID often contravened informants' assumptions about neighbouring. Informants expressed concern about a possible lack of appropriate distance, reciprocity and accountability among their neighbours with ID. The nature of the care facility, with paid staff, often group activities, formal means of achieving the everyday small tasks which neighbours sometimes do for each other, and a high turnover of residents, all undermined the possibility of a typical neighbourly relationship. In conclusion, we suggest that integration of people with ID into everyday neighbouring relationships raises complex challenges for care organizations that need to find a balance between supporting the needs of people with ID they care for, adequate support and mediation for other neighbours when necessary, and all the while avoid becoming overly involved in neighbouring as a formal partner.

Dutch adults from a nationwide Internet panel (N = 426) were asked to imagine that their next-door neighbours would move out and that people with intellectual disability would move in. Severity of disability and group size were varied to manipulate intergroup threat. These two factors independently influenced social acceptance and a variety of emotional and behavioural measures. In particular, it was found that a large group with severe disability aroused the strongest negative response, whereas a small group with mild disability aroused the weakest negative response. Small groups with a severe disability and large groups with a mild disability aroused similar and intermediate negative responses. Results are discussed in terms of theories of intergroup threat and stigmatisation. Practical implications for predicting the success of de-institutionalisation and social integration of groups with special needs are addressed.

To examine why people are reluctant to engage in intergroup contact, the present study asked members of a nationwide online panel (N = 555) to imagine that they would get individuals of a particular social group as next-door neighbors. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of five different social groups hypothesized to differ in emotion-arousing potential: elderly people, people with mild or severe intellectual disability, economic refugees, and young offenders. It was found that differences in acceptance between these groups could be well explained by emotions aroused while anticipating contact yet less well by differences in previous contact with these groups. Furthermore, emotions appeared to be uniquely related to preferred interpersonal relationships. It is concluded that research on how to reduce prejudice through intergroup contact should be complemented with a better understanding of why people are reluctant to engage in such contact in the first place.

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: