Ressources Et Vulnérabilités Des Adultes Présentant Une Déficience Intellectuelle Face Aux Risques Numériques

Abstract

Les technologies de l'information et de la communication (TIC) offrent de nombreuses possibilités de participation sociale. Cependant, elles exposent les personnes qui les utilisent à des risques (p. ex., le harcèlement en ligne, les abus financiers). Cette étude vise à évaluer les ressources et les vulnérabilités d'adultes présentant une déficience intellectuelle (DI) face aux risques liés à l'utilisation des TIC. Des entretiens structurés avec 51 adultes présentant une DI ont été réalisés. Les résultats de l'analyse thématique du contenu montrent que la plupart des participants connaissent des stratégies autodéterminées pour gérer ces risques. Ces résultats soulignent l'intérêt d'une vision positive de la prise de risque pour améliorer la participation sociale en ligne et hors ligne de ce public.

The role of familiarity with the experimenter on cognitive performance, metacognition, pro-social behaviors, and the well-being of adults with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities

“…It is thus possible that when participants feel sufficiently safe in their pre-established relationship with the familiar experimenter, it is easier for them to draw on their cognitive resources (facilitator role) without interference from other behaviors or attitudes that may be generated by an unknown professional (curiosity, seduction, observation, search for social interaction, etc. ), as found by Fortin and Carrier (1994) and Vlasceanu et al (2018). Our results also confirm that the performance of people with intellectual disabilities depends on the socio-emotional context, which is in line with Lelièvre’s (2005) view that people with intellectual disabilities have an “ intellectual inefficiency ” (intellectual inhibition), which could be remedied, rather than an intellectual disability alone, which implies that their deficits are permanent.…”

“…high expression of joy, little anxiety during the task, little frustration). However, these socially expected emotional expressions (social convenience) can be costly in terms of emotional regulation, particularly for people with intellectual disabilities due to their difficulties in communication and social interactions (Beirne-Smith et al, 2006; Njardvik et al, 1999; Sukhodolsky and Butter, 2007); focusing resources on affects reduces the resources allocated to the task, leading to lower performance (Fortin and Carrier, 1994; Wijne-Tuffrey and McEnhill, 2008).…”

“…This is the case in the present study, because the participant is in a low hierarchical position in relation to the experimenter (Julien-Gauthier et al, 2009), with the risk of infantilization or stigmatization, leading to a loss of self-confidence and inappropriate responses (Tassé et al, 2009). This tendency is particularly strong in people with intellectual disabilities who have low self-esteem (Atkinson, 1988;Fortin and Carrier, 1994;Sigelman et al, 1981) and are prone to anxiety and discouragement (Perron, 1991). Moreover, these people often experience social rejection (Atkinson, 1988;Fortin and Carrier, 1994;Sigerlman, 1983), either implicit or explicit, by their teacher or peer group, a situation that is exacerbated by their poor academic performance (Parent and Gonnet, 1965).…”

“…This tendency is particularly strong in people with intellectual disabilities who have low self-esteem (Atkinson, 1988;Fortin and Carrier, 1994;Sigelman et al, 1981) and are prone to anxiety and discouragement (Perron, 1991). Moreover, these people often experience social rejection (Atkinson, 1988;Fortin and Carrier, 1994;Sigerlman, 1983), either implicit or explicit, by their teacher or peer group, a situation that is exacerbated by their poor academic performance (Parent and Gonnet, 1965). They thus tend to seek positive relationships through approval of others (Harter, 1982).…”

Preventing maltreatment of adults with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities

“…Once the test is performed, the assessor qualitatively analyzes the respondent's spontaneous answers given (Part A) on "Sheet A". The scoring of spontaneous answers from part A provides a first -qualitative -picture of the person's abilities and/or limitations in recognizing the risk present in the situation and their ability to propose strategies to mitigate the risk (for more details about Part A, see Tabin, 2020). The answers given can be categorized in two major categories: either the respondent identifies and handles the risk (1) or s/he does not (2).…”