xplanation, as consistent as possible, by relying on their most immediately available mental lexicon. In this way, the respondent, not trained in disability study and models, is more subjected to an automatic cognitive process [47, 48]. As found in our previous experiment , on an implicit level, people strongly and stereotypically associate disability with concepts that characterize the individual model rather than the social one. In contrast, in answering the closed-ended questions, the respondent has the opportunity to evaluate statements built to represent all the main theoretical features of the disability models. Respondents were asked to rate statements often mutually contradictory and sometimes politically incorrect and not socially acceptable. In this case, they tended to provide more socially desirable answers .
The most socially acceptable statements in Italian culture are, without doubt, wording that reflects the social model of disability rather the individual model [4, 39]. The Italian legislature has promoted social inclusion of people with disability (Law 517/77) for more than 40 years; meanwhile, twenty-two years of integration of students with disabilities at all school levels (Law 104/92)  have widespread a social model of disability. Maybe for these reasons, even the children found the statements reflecting the social model (e.g., “[Giovanni has difficult in life because] he encounters lots of obstacles”) more agreeable than those related to the individual model (e.g., “[Giovanni has difficult in life because] he’s ugly”) (S2 File Details of Measures). This suggests that even if the attractiveness of the individual model remains persistent, it is possible that other disability representations accompany and overlap it. Briefly, the representation of disability is, to some extent, improved upon education.
Notwithstanding the striking emergence of the social model in the closed-ended questionnaires, though, the endorsement of all age groups did not reach a properly positive level. In fact, the highest score was for one of the parents on the social model (M = 2.56), which was little more than the mid-point of the scale. The scores of the children are all below the mid-point value. Hence, even though it is more politically correct and socially desirable, the social model is not entirely convincing. The (Italian) cultural context does not seem, therefore, to be sufficiently strong to neutralize individual cognitive constraints. In addition, the results of the open- and closed-ended questionnaires suggest that the theory on disability can be learned: the growing children endorse parents’ explanations regarding diversity.
Parent’s Education about Diversity
Interestingly, the child’s age did not influence parental explanations of disability. Parents preferred to explain diversity and disability to their children by choosing from among expressions reflecting the biopsychosocial model (e.g., “We are all a bit different; differences much depend on where we are if we function as well or not”) (S2 File–Details of Measure). For parents, the disability (a person with a physical disability and a person with Down’s syndrome) did not appear to be a “special condition” when it was compared to other kinds of diversity (a boatload of migrants, two gay men kissing, and a pelican covered in oil) (S2 File Details of Measures). The only significant difference concerned the use of social model that appears to be preferred by parents when explaining situations of diversity with respect to human health conditions.
Furthermore, as we found in the closed-ended questionnaires, when the respondent was encouraged to choose from among different statements built on the three models (individual, social, biopsychosocial), the individual model lost salience compared to the social and biopsychosocial models. The individual model, as a cognitive organizer at an implicit level [4, 51], was overwhelmed by cultural constructs provided by the social-cultural context when the respondent accessed an explicit and reflexive thought.
The custom comple