Capacitismo Ambivalente
Capacitismo Ambivalente
Capacitismo Ambivalente
1--31
doi: 10.1111/josi.12337
This article is part of the Special Issue “Ableism,” Kathleen R. Bogart and
Dana S. Dunn (Special Issue Editors). For a full listing of Special Issue
papers, see: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.2019.75.issue-3/
issuetoc.
Arielle Silverman
Disability Wisdom
Disabled people experience ableism in many forms from the seemingly benevolent
to the blatantly hostile, and more ambivalent or mixed forms (e.g., paternalis-
tic/condescending and jealous/envy). Rooted in historic and contemporary frame-
works, this study explores the experiences of an international sample of disabled
people (N = 185) using six open-ended questions to assess some of the manifes-
tations of ableism documented in the literature. We found that experiences with
paternalistic forms of ableism were among the most pervasive followed by inspira-
tional, hostile, envious, and dehumanizing forms while fears of becoming disabled
or “catching” disability were less commonly reported. Furthermore, some forms
of ableism (e.g., infantilization, unwanted help, and invasions of privacy) were
more common among those with visible impairments whereas invalidation and
accusations of fraud were more common among those with less apparent con-
ditions. Implications for policies related to hate crimes, health care, and media
representations are discussed along with directions for future research.
If I tell someone I don’t like their pitying behavior or point out that their kind intent had a
harmful impact, they become hostile, usually accusing me of being ungrateful or disabled
people like me as “too sensitive” (Person with multiple disabilities, 2015).
People go from pity party, you’re so inspirational to you’re an ungrateful bitch really fast
when I turn down help. (Person with multiple disabilities, 2015).
basis of group membership. And like other prejudices, ableism is not only about
negative evaluations and emotions; it has a benevolent side that often manifests
as sympathetic pity, protection, or charitable praise.1 Ableism can also be distin-
guished from other prejudices in ways that qualify generalizations from studies
of sexism, racism, and ageism. For example, similar to transgender and sexual
minorities, people with disabilities are often (but not always) the only member of
the family with a disability (Olkin, 1999). This means they may grow up more
isolated from a cultural community of role models who can offer coping strategies
for the ableism they confront. Without exposure to alternative narratives about dis-
ability as a common human condition or a positive cultural identity, people with
disabilities may come to accept that their lives are tragic, and that their bodies
and brains are defective, and in need of cure. Indeed, disabled people may also
hold negative implicit attitudes toward people with disabilities (Harder, Keller,
& Chopik, in press). Such pathologized worldviews have broad implications for
psychological well-being, self-advocacy, and social change for disability rights
(Bogart, 2014; 2015; Dirth & Branscombe, 2017; Nario-Redmond, Noel, & Fern,
2013; Nario-Redmond & Oleson, 2016).
Though many studies have examined disability attitudes and impairment-
specific stigmas (Dunn, 2015; Gervais, 2011; Goffman, 1963; Thomas, 2000),
few are theoretically driven, and fewer ask disabled people about their varied
experiences with ableism situated in different contexts, and subject to multiple
interpretations. Our goal was to examine the prevalence of alternative manifes-
tations of disability prejudice based on narratives from an international sample
of disabled people using an open-ended methodology. Specifically, this article
provides an initial exploration of the disparate forms that ableism can take ranging
from the familiar, fear-based avoidance and active exclusion to the often misun-
derstood, sympathy and well-intentioned, favorability biases. We first describe
historic research and contemporary frameworks used to study negative, positive,
and ambivalent prejudices against disabled people. We then present some original
data describing disabled people’s encounters with hostile, benevolent, and more
ambiguous forms of ableism. We discuss how these results inform current frame-
works articulating why social groups are often the targets of differential forms of
prejudice depending on their perceived status, level of intergroup cooperation, and
1
Due to the variety of ways in which ableism can manifest, we adhere to the broad definition:
“Ableism is stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression toward people with disabil-
ities” (Bogart & Dunn, in press). Our study also employed a more specific definitional prompt which
read: “Disability prejudice can be defined as the disrespectful treatment of disabled people simply
based on their disability status. Sometimes referred to as ableism, disability prejudice promotes the un-
equal treatment of disabled people by others, and includes but is not limited to being excluded, ignored,
misunderstood, rejected, dismissed, avoided, pitied, envied, objectified, dehumanized, manipulated,
shamed, mocked, stereotyped, overprotected, condescended to, and/or provided with unwanted help.”
Experiences of Ableism 3
Negative forms of ableism have been well documented, and include sham-
ing language (Coombs, Chopra, Schenk, & Yutan, 1993), gestures of disgust
(Kouznetsova, Stevenson, Oaten, & Case, 2012), avoidance (Shiloh, Heruti, &
Berkovitz, 2011), and outright aggression that manifests as brutality from care-
givers, and hate crimes that target people because of their disabilities (Sherry,
2016). In fact, degradation, humiliation, and hostile punishments are often justi-
fied as necessary to defend against those whose human status can be questioned
because they fail to walk upright, appear bereft of self-reflection, drool, or leak
urine and feces (Haslam & Loughnan, 2012). When confronted with those who
remind us of our animalistic natures, some people recoil, and work to reaffirm
their superior status by denying the humanity of others: restraining, or otherwise
taming disabled people as if they are subhuman (Sherry, 2016).
Explanations for some of these more hostile forms of ableism have focused on
fears of death and the body’s vulnerability to damage and decline, as disability is
a category that anyone can join. According to the existential accounts of disability
prejudice, one reason people mock and attack disabled people is because they
serve as unwanted reminders of life’s frailties and the body’s vulnerability to
decline, dismemberment, and deterioration (Goldenberg, Pyszczynski, Greenberg,
& Solomon, 2000). Evidence supports that reminders of one’s own death contribute
to the ridicule and condemnation of several outgroups, including disabled people—
whose very presence can provoke death-related thoughts (Hirschberger, Florian,
& Mikulincer, 2005). Thoughts of death also lead people to express more disgust
over bodily fluids, and to prefer stories about how humans are unique from other
animals (Goldenberg et al., 2001).
Other explanations of ableism have invoked an evolutionary perspective
that attributes disability avoidance, ostracism, and segregation to an overgen-
eralized fear of contagion that extends beyond diseases to noninfectious condi-
tions. Evidence of this false-alarm reaction comes from studies of people who
maintain a greater distance from those with noncontagious conditions including
burns, birthmarks, facial disfigurements, amputations, cancer and mental illnesses
(Kouznetsova et al., 2012). People even express disgust and avoid objects touched
by those with chronic conditions and disability (Oaten, Stevenson, & Case 2009).
While disabled people have a long history of being quarantined and shunned
from communal events, avoidance behaviors are not universally distributed across
cultures. In fact, some forms of disability prejudice contradict the fear-based
accounts—particularly the sympathetic reactions that reflect intentions to help,
offer guardianship, and express concern, curiosity, and even amazement.
4 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
Like other prejudices, ableism also has a benevolent side that can manifest as
pity, paternalistic protection, and unprovoked praise for everyday activities. Re-
search shows that when asked to evaluate others’ achievements, people consistently
exaggerate the favorability of people with disabilities over those without—even
when the credentials of both groups are equivalent (Pruett & Chan, 2006). Nor-
mative pressures seem to dictate the extension of charitable kindness to disabled
people as among society’s legitimate dependents, which also include women,
children, and older adults (Glick & Fiske, 2001). This “positivity” bias does not
necessarily equate to truly positive appraisals. Sometimes, low expectations for
a group drive perceptions of astonishment toward members for simply accom-
plishing routine events like driving, shopping, going to work, or getting a college
education (Lynch & Finkelstein, 2015; Nario-Redmond & Anderson, 2014).
The tendency to admire disabled people perceived to have “overcome” their
limitations by daring to appear in public (or become romantically involved) has
transformed into a modern form of ableism known as inspiration porn (Grue,
2016). Inspiration porn describes the objectification of disabled people portrayed
as specimens of wonder and amazement—perhaps as a way to motivate those with-
out disabilities to self-improve. For example, social media often depicts visibly
disabled people engaged in sporting or recreational events with the caption, “So
what is your excuse?” (Haller & Preston, 2016; Pulrang, 2013). The criticism is
not that disabled people are never deserving of respect and admiration—but when
ordinary activities of daily living are portrayed as heroic, and used to motivate
appreciation among those with more privileged lives, frustration and misunder-
standing can result. Other forms of prejudice relate to the fatherly or paternalistic
tendencies that contribute to the overprotectiveness, patronization, and infantiliza-
tion common to women, older adults and disabled people alike (Cuddy, Fiske, &
Glick, 2008). For example, disabled people are frequently the targets of unwanted
help that can be perceived as condescending, demeaning and dismissive (Wang,
Silverman, Gwinn, & Dovidio, 2015; Wang, Walker, Pietri, & Ashburn-Nardo, in
press).
Pity is a deceptive emotion. When people pity a person or a group of people, it may seem like
they care about them and are interested in improving their lives. But beneath this seeming
benevolence actually lies rejection, fear, discomfort, and a strong sense of the inferiority of
the person who is pitied (Presley, 2008).
More often than not, ableism involves a mixture of both positive and nega-
tive sentiments, and can shift from one to the other depending on the situation,
goals, needs, and characteristics of those involved. For example, some people are
Experiences of Ableism 5
enamored by hearing aids that are small and discreet, but feel uncomfortable in-
teracting with those wearing more visibly intrusive and robotic cochlear implants.
Similarly, many have come to expect older adults to use mobility devices, but are
saddened by the sight of a toddler using a walker or a wheelchair—despite the
liberation and exhilaration such equipment can provide.
According to ambivalence amplification theory, people simultaneously hold
conflicting beliefs about disability: they acknowledge that disabled people should
be treated with kindness and compassion, but may feel anxious and uncomfortable
in their presence (Katz, Hass, & Bailey, 1988). Thus, people may unknowingly
display nervousness (e.g., sweat, twitch, and use more vocal fillers like “um”)
while actively trying to present themselves as friendly and helpful. Given these
conflicting feelings, which reaction surfaces may depend, in part, on what people
are expected to do: privately evaluate or publicly interact? Are people motivated
to appear nonprejudiced or to fit in with ableist peers? Positive (e.g., affirming,
empathetic) and negative (e.g., insensitive, cruel) reactions should also depend on
the characteristics of those involved: are impairments more visibly identifiable
or less apparent unless disclosed? Another factor relates to whether the disabled
person appears to be confirming stereotypical expectations or violating them. In a
classic study, Katz, Farber, Glass, Lucido, and Emswiller (1978) found that college
students’ attitudes differed dramatically when interacting with a disabled person
who appeared friendly and achievement-oriented compared to when she acted
aloof and ill-tempered. Ironically, students were three times more willing to help a
woman in a wheelchair when she appeared to be in a bad mood—consistent with
disability stereotypes—than when she acted friendly and outgoing. According to
several early theorists (Goffman, 1963; Katz et al., 1988), nondisabled people may
want disabled people to suffer to convince themselves that their own physical and
mental abilities are essential to well-being. When disabled people appear to be
suffering, others are more likely to feel pity, and to want to help them—particularly
when they are portrayed as stereotypically vulnerable (Dijker, 2001). On the other
hand, when disabled people appear well-adjusted and accomplished, they can
even incite anger among those who expect them to be miserable (Katz et al.,
1978). In fact, other studies have shown that both pity and anger can be jointly
aroused when someone behaves in a way that subverts another person’s need to
assist (Dijker, 2001). For example, when disabled people confront a person who
is offering unwanted help, they are perceived as rude (Wang et al., 2015; Wang
et al., in press).
“Hostility and anger usually arise when I spurn people’s condescending help” (Person with
a sensory disability, 2015).
“Sometimes, when I objected, the other person would act as if I was unreasonably angry
when they were ‘only trying to help’ or ‘doing what was best’ for me” (Person with multiple
disabilities, 2015).
6 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
Fig. 1. The stereotype content model (SCM). Status and competitiveness dimensions are represented
by the columns and rows, respectively. Within each quadrant, warmth and competence stereotypes
are indicated by the initials ST, emotions by FEEL, and behavioral tendencies by BEH, along with
example target groups, WHO.
Yet, the SCM makes room for the idea that disabled people may not always
be stereotyped as warm and incompetent—especially if they are thought to be
intentionally competing for resources or roles associated with higher status groups.
As the social position of disabled people changes, so should the stereotypes
that come to dominate the cultural imagination. The SCM also makes specific
predictions (see Figure 1) about how people will feel and behave depending on
a target group’s social position and perceived intentions to cooperate or compete
with others (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007).
Pity for the incompetent but warm. Consistent with model predictions,
groups ambivalently stereotyped as both incompetent and warm do elicit feelings
of pity, sympathy, and other forms of paternalistic prejudice (Cuddy et al., 2008). In
studies comparing 25 different social groups, pity ratings were consistently highest
for “disabled,” “blind,” “retarded,” and “elderly” people (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske
et al., 2002). Pity itself is a mixture of both tenderness and distress—feelings that
are often in conflict, which may undercut inclinations to help (Dijker, 2001). People
who feel sorry for others sometimes try to avoid or distance themselves from their
suffering (Schimel, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, O’Mahen, & Arndt, 2000). However,
at lower levels of suffering, pity may trigger a desire to protect those perceived
as vulnerable to harm—especially those with traits that signal dependency or lack
8 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
of control; impaired senses and unstable movements are often associated with
toddlers, older adults, and people with disabilities (Dijker, 2001).
When asked to describe times when they have felt pity toward others, people
primarily refer to those with physical disabilities, victims of catastrophes, and those
living in poverty through no fault of their own (Weiner, Graham, & Chandler,
1982). Pity is more likely to be evoked for those with impairments caused by
undeserved circumstances (Weiner et al., 1982). By contrast, those considered
responsible for their fate (e.g., people with psychiatric impairments, HIV/AIDS)
are pitied less (Weiner, 1995). Pity also increases toward those with uncontrollable
or more permanent conditions compared to the more temporary variety (Weiner
et al., 1982). In general, pity and sympathetic concern seem to be reserved for
people who “can’t seem to help it,” who are otherwise submissive, and who would
overcome their condition—if only they could.
Furthermore, pity is associated with patronizing speech, which is often dis-
respectful and condescending like: “Aww. Bless your heart, poor sweet baby, you
are just too pretty to be blind/deaf/paralyzed.” Nonverbal correlates of these pitiful
expressions include head tilting, eye wincing, and lower lip protrusions. Studies of
patronizing speech have shown that students use much higher-pitched voices when
speaking to adults assumed to be disabled compared to adults without disabilities
(Liesener & Mills, 1999). Similar infantilizing, repetitive speech patterns have
been observed on college campuses (Gouvier, Coon, Todd, & Fuller, 1994), and
among medical students when interacting with visibly impaired others (Eddey,
Robey, & McConnell, 1998). Furthermore, people with disabilities consistently
report being the targets of unsolicited, inappropriate, and unwanted assistance
for which they are expected to be grateful (Braithwaite & Eckstein, 2003). Such
patronizing behaviors—a form of paternalistic prejudice—are sometimes difficult
to recognize, perhaps because they so often appear to be expressions of care and
concern. In fact, good intentions may or may not be what motivates patronizing
treatment when it comes to subordinate groups. When help is unsolicited, over-
bearing or imposed, recipients are presumed to be inferior (Steele, 1992) and
incompetent (Becker, Glick, Ilic, & Bohner, 2011).
To explain some of these behavioral manifestations of ambivalent prejudice,
the SCM has been extended to include a behavioral map that incorporates both
intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions to either help or harm (Cuddy
et al., 2008; Fiske, 2011). The “Behavior from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes”
(BIAS) map, makes the prediction that helping behaviors are more actively im-
posed on groups stereotyped as warm (i.e., those that are cooperative and don’t
compete). Certainly, both disabled people and older adults receive a lot of un-
wanted help, imposed overprotection, patronizing speech, and charitable handouts
(Ryan, Anas & Gruneir, 2006). However, because these groups are simultaneously
stereotyped as incompetent subordinates, they are also more likely to be passively
neglected and ignored. This can translate into friends not inviting them to parties,
Experiences of Ableism 9
employers dismissing the legitimacy of their requests, and student-life staff failing
to plan for accessibility on college campuses. At an institutional level, warehous-
ing people in nursing homes and other segregated facilities combines both active
helping and passive neglect, consistent with BIASM/SCM predictions. Feelings
of pity are also directly linked to active helping behaviors like volunteering time
and donating to charitable causes (Cooper, Corrigan, & Watson, 2003; Cuddy
et al., 2008). This may explain why disabled people are often exploited as objects
of suffering in order to raise charitable funds, and are generally neglected when
organizations fail to plan for their arrival.
Envy for the competent but cold. A second form of ambivalent prejudice
reflects a mixture of begrudging admiration, jealousy, and resentment that charac-
terizes groups stereotyped as competent, but cold because they occupy positions
of relative (or increasing) power (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske, 2011). Those who are
targets of envious and resentful prejudices may have previously been among the
lower status minorities whose circumstances have since improved; their upward
mobility may threaten those who currently occupy positions of power. According
to the BIASM/SCM, feelings of envy or jealousy contribute to behaviors that
reflect passive tolerance, or that “go along to get along” when interacting with
outgroups presumed to be competent. However, if groups are considered compet-
itive and, therefore cold, they can become targets of active harm and harassment.
During economic crises, envied groups, stereotyped as competent but cold com-
petitors, are more likely to be treated as scapegoats and blamed for widespread
social problems (Glick, 2005). During the holocaust, disabled people were among
the first rounded up by the Nazis for extermination, and like the Jews, were scape-
goated as responsible for the degeneration of society, attributed to their genetic
inferiority (Burleigh, 1994).
Today, as disabled people are increasingly recognized as the largest minor-
ity group in the United States, their public visibility has substantially improved.
Ableism in the form of backlash against disability-rights protections has resulted.
For example, recent headlines depict disabled people as manipulative scammers
for filing lawsuits against businesses that fail to comply with the ADA, or as im-
posters if they don’t appear disabled enough (Grimoldby, 2016). As a consequence,
disabled people continue to struggle to justify needs for accommodation in school
and work, especially when these are described as “special needs” or “privileges”
instead of civil rights (Gernsbacher, Raimond, Balinghasay, & Boston, 2016). To
date, little research has examined the specific conditions where disabled people
might elicit envy, resentful admiration, and distain. However, recent news reports
document resentment toward students with disabilities who receive extra time on
tests or other “special” privileges (e.g., note takers, larger bathroom stalls, shorter
waiting lines) that nondisabled people would like access to as well (Thompson,
2013).
10 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
In a culture that dehumanizes disabled people by portraying them as benefit fraudsters, liars
and leeches, it’s little wonder they are targets of abuse . . . . Research shows that disabled
people are more likely to experience “particularly sadistic” treatment: sustained attacks
that involve dehumanising humiliation, torture, and degradation. Listen to disabled people
describing the everyday abuse they face in public and it becomes difficult to tell them it
is not because of their disability: be it a woman who had her crutches pushed from under
her in a supermarket as she was called a “scrounger,” . . . . this focus on alleged fraud and
“overclaiming” of disability benefits was causing an increase in abuse directed at disabled
people (Ryan, 2015).
Admiration for the competent and warm. Finally, very few studies have
examined when disabled people are admired—an emotion associated with groups
considered both warm and competent. The BIASM/SCM predicts pride and ad-
miration, deference and respect for groups with high status who are viewed as
cooperative (e.g., ingroups, students). Disabled people are not typically stereo-
typed among these groups. Interestingly however, the vast majority of people
responding to national surveys (92%) said they felt admiration whenever they en-
countered a person with a serious disability whereas 74% said they felt pity (Taylor
et al., 1991). A recent video study found that positive portrayals of disabled peo-
ple achieving success in various contexts were judged to be inspirational—stirring
feelings of both surprise and awe (Nario-Redmond & Anderson, 2014). Specifi-
cally, after viewing a video of young adults with physical and sensory impairments
in school or working, college students reported feeling more interested, ambitious,
and personally inspired compared to baseline levels. Furthermore, after viewing
the “inspiring” disability role models, students most frequently reported setting
future goals related to self-improvement, making a difference in the world, and
helping others. Not only did they report feeling more positive overall, but feel-
ings of fear, frustration, and hostility were all significantly reduced. Following
the video, people with disabilities as a group were considered less scary, tragic,
or complaining. Unfortunately, these spontaneous descriptions of awe, content-
ment, and gratitude did not translate into a greater willingness to volunteer for
a campus accessibility project. We know of no other studies examining genuine
benevolence toward disabled people that have attempted to tease apart feelings
of inspiration from feelings of surprise on the basis of low expectations. Well-
intentioned compliments and the deferential posturing that occurs alongside ner-
vous, nonverbal behaviors may contribute to much of the awkwardness found
in research on “mixed-ability” interactions (Hebl, Tickle, & Heatherton, 2000).
Awkward interactions and biased intergroup perceptions and attributions also
12 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
depend on the nature of the stigmatizing condition, particularly its relative visibil-
ity to the observer.
Impairment Visibility
and derogatory speech by those unaware that they are deriding the very people
with whom they are communicating (Wahl, 1999).
By contrast, as previously reviewed, people with more visible (less conceal-
able) impairments seem to confront other forms of prejudice, including being
the targets of implicit biases and automatic disability stereotypes as well as ob-
jectification and unsolicited forms of helping. Some researchers have even re-
ferred to visible disability markers—such as the presence of a white cane or a
wheelchair—as “implied petitions for aid” (Cahill & Eggleston, 1995). Negoti-
ating these interactions constitutes a perpetual challenge for people with more
visible impairments.
Method
Participants
Between 2015 and 2016, as part of an upcoming book project on the causes
and consequences of disability prejudice (Nario-Redmond, 2019), this exploratory
study employed an anonymous web-based data-collection system through a secure
service that hosts professional surveys in compliance with traditional confiden-
tiality standards. Recruitment notices were sent to over 60 disability-based news
blogs, social media feeds, and international advocacy sites referring people to an
accessible survey link to provide their input on how people with disabilities have
experienced prejudice. Respondents had the option of providing an anonymous
e-mail address if they wanted to be entered into a lottery for a chance to win a $20
gift certificate, but this was not required to participate. The open-ended survey
was pilot tested by five individuals who experienced physical, sensory, learning,
and/or psychiatric disabilities, and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.
Following demographic questions, participants were provided with the follow-
ing instructions: “Disability prejudice can be defined as the disrespectful treatment
of disabled people simply based on their disability status. Sometimes referred to
as ableism, disability prejudice promotes the unequal treatment of disabled people
by others, and includes but is not limited to being excluded, ignored, misunder-
stood, rejected, dismissed, avoided, pitied, envied, objectified, dehumanized, ma-
nipulated, shamed, mocked, stereotyped, overprotected, condescended to, and/or
provided with unwanted help. We recognize that people may have had many ex-
periences with disability prejudice over their lifetimes, and these experiences may
depend on interpretation and viewpoint. We ask that you respond to each question
on the basis of those personal experiences that readily come to mind as clear
examples of what you consider to be an instance of disability prejudice against
you.”
Based on Niemann, Jennings, Rozelle, Baxter, and Sullivan’s (1994) free-
response methodology, participants were asked a series of open-ended questions,
each corresponding to a particular form of ableism identified in previous re-
search. Three questions focused on the more “positive” forms of ableism including:
Experiences of Ableism 15
Data Organization
2
Additional questions assessing language biases and stereotypical beliefs are not reported here.
16 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
what it’s inspiring them to do. Is it inspiring them to view disabled people as real
human beings? Maybe. They never quite say.”).
Five themes emerged to reflect responses to the paternalistic or condescending
ableism prompt including: general pity (e.g., “Any time I go to church, multiple
people tell me how they are ‘praying for me to walk again’ or how much they ‘hate
to see me in a wheelchair’”); unwanted help (e.g., “I can’t go out in public long
without unwanted help offers.” “Unwanted help I get when people perceive me as
too slow. Then they grab me or my bag to speed things up”); infantilization (e.g.,
“Strangers bend down to speak to me and address me in saccharine tones. I am often
referred to as ‘sweetie’ or ‘hon’ even by people significantly younger than me”);
family overprotection (e.g., “At age nineteen, my parents and therapist coerced
me into applying for SSI because they considered me incapable of working. I had
never had a chance to try to work, so how would they know”); and invalidation
(e.g., “People frequently think they understand what I need better than I do”).
In terms of the jealous or envious ableism prompt, three primary themes
emerged that related to nondisabled persons’ resentment over material disability
accommodations (e.g., “I have been told on multiple occasions by strangers that
my parking placard is enviable”); perceived disability privileges (e.g., “People
often remark how it must be so nice not to have to go to school or work”); and
accusations of benefit exploitation (e.g., “I have been told I am lazy, exploiting
people, and even stealing from the government”).
For questions prompting experiences with the negative forms of ableism, three
themes emerged in response to the prompt about experiences with hostile or angry
ableism. The hostility themes included: verbal abuse (e.g., “My dad would call
me names like freak, maniac, lunatic, or psycho”); physical/sexual abuse (e.g.,
“I’ve experienced sexual abuse, too. I’m not sure everything I experienced, except
the physical abuse, was really coming from a place of hostility towards me”); and
general harassment (e.g., “On a crowded sidewalk in NYC where everyone was
moving slowly out of necessity, a man behind me yelled loudly ‘you’re blocking
traffic.’ He and the woman he was with followed me down 2 blocks; he was threat-
ening to dump me out of the chair”). To describe responses to the dehumanization
prompt, four themes were identified focusing on: depersonalization (e.g., “I have
at times been described as ‘a wheelchair’ as in a train conductor saying ‘I have
to get a wheelchair off the train’”); abandonment (e.g., “As I was on the ground
struggling for breath and they looked at me and kept going. I was shocked and hurt
that they could see me suffering and just stood there watching me as if I was some
sort of zoo exhibit”); physical invasion (e.g., “I am often touched, patted, grabbed
or pulled by random strangers who seem to have no idea that their behavior is inap-
propriate . . . treating me like an animal or a piece of luggage”); and delegitimized
(e.g., “I’m told on a very regular basis that I can’t have a TBI [traumatic brain
injury] because I appear so normal”). Finally, three themes emerged in response
to the prompt about others’ fears about disability including: the unworthiness of
Experiences of Ableism 17
life with disability (e.g., “I have had people tell [me] that if they ever become as ill
and disabled as I am, they would probably kill themselves and kudos to me for not
killing myself”); contagion and heritability (e.g., “Students didn’t want to sit by
me, they asked to be moved out of my class because they thought they could catch
blindness”); and general avoidance reactions (e.g., “I have had people avoid me
and even have their children avoid my son after learning about a disability”).
Following the generation of themes categories, responses to each of the six
ableism prompts were then coded by student assistants into one of the theme
categories previously defined for that prompt. While some responses incorporated
more than one theme, students were instructed to assign the one theme that best
captured the overall response. Responses to each prompt were then coded indepen-
dently by two separate raters, and interclass correlations were computed to assess
degree of agreement between the two raters. These correlations ranged from .71
to .99. Based on established guidelines (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981), five out of
six coefficients were in the excellent range (between .91 and .99), and one was in
the good range (between .60 and .74).
Results
I have had experiences where someone offers to show me something on a computer. When
I explain I am blind and have difficulty seeing it, they will not allow me to find a solution
but will instead try to change it in a way that they have decided will help me. They usually
do not listen to any specific needs I explain to them and will not let me help myself when I
know exactly how to set up the display for my needs. I feel anxious in these situations and
generally fear that it will escalate to them getting angry at me, usually I just pretend I can
see it after a minute or two (Person with multiple impairments, 2015).
Among those who described experiences with “inspiration porn,” many noted
the specific contexts in which these reactions occurred. Twenty-five percent of the
sample described being approached by strangers who felt compelled to tell them
how inspiring they were for being out in public. Others (23.2%) recalled incidents
of being told they were inspirational for participating in the workforce or going to
school; fewer (12.5%) reported these experiences in medical contexts, or of being
the target of online stories about the heroic supercrip (5.0%) used to characterize
disabled people more generally (Schalk, 2016).
I have probably been told I am inspirational on at least a weekly basis. In one memorable
instance, a creepy guy at the gym came up and told me that I inspired him to go exercise.
He explained that he has some kind of knee discomfort and often feels unmotivated to go
to the gym, but then when he remembers seeing me at the gym, it gives him the push he
needs to get up and go. Besides being creeped out by his general demeanor, the comment
(and others like it) make me feel, for lack of a better word, small. I feel as if I am being
compared unfavorably to them. People feel inspired by me because they see me as weak and
then they see themselves as stronger when they compare themselves to me. It feels insulting
to be compared to people who are in completely different situations. Also, after receiving
so many of these types of comments, it is difficult for me to recognize and accept genuine
compliments from others (Person with a sensory impairment, 2015).
Across participants, verbal abuse and ridicule (67.3%) were more commonly
reported than physical or sexual assaults (30.6%), or instances of general harass-
ment (20.4%). While physical hostility did not vary by impairment visibility, those
with more visibly identifiable conditions tended to report more experiences of ha-
rassment (60%) and verbal abuse (57.6%) than those with less apparent conditions
(40% and 42.4%, respectively).
Among those who reported incidents of others’ expressed fears about dis-
ability, three consistent themes emerged. The first focused on existential concerns
20 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
that life would be over, or that they would rather be dead if they became disabled
(42.1%).
I have had people tell that if they ever become as ill and disabled as I am, they would
probably kill themselves and kudos to me for not killing myself. Though thankfully that
doesn’t happen too often. When it does, I just look at them like “what?” because the lack
of common sense always takes me back a bit (Person with multiple impairments, 2015).
Discussion
While studies of disability prejudice are now emerging that extend beyond
negative attitudes and impairment-specific stigmas, few have documented the per-
sonal experiences of ableism that confront disabled people as a minority group.
This study is among the first to describe the varied ways ableism manifests from
the perspective of people with both visible and less apparent disabilities. Across
our diverse, international sample, people from all impairment groups reported
experiences with hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent forms of prejudice. Among
the most pervasively reported type of ableism related to paternalistic prejudice,
and particularly experiences of imposed or presumptive help. Furthermore, family
overprotection, infantilization, and unwanted help were all more common among
people with visible impairments, who were also more likely to be the targets of
privacy invasions without their consent. Objectification in the form of inspira-
tion porn was also more frequently reported by those with more visible disability
markers—simply for appearing in public. Those with more identifiable impair-
ments were also more frequently confronted by public harassment and verbal abuse
than their less recognizable counterparts. Finally, those with visible impairments
reported more experiences with envious forms of ableism—primarily because
they were receiving material accommodations in order to participate at work or
school.
For those with more concealable disabilities, ableism was more likely to
manifest as discounting the legitimacy of their embodied experiences in ad-
dition to invalidating their status as disabled, which felt dehumanizing. Those
with less apparent conditions were also more likely to be accused of exploit-
ing the welfare system and taking advantage of “special privileges,” including
Experiences of Ableism 21
time off work. Reports of others’ fears, particularly about catching disability or
devaluing the lives of disabled people were also more commonly recalled among
those with less apparent conditions. This result is inconsistent with previous the-
orizing about the presumed importance of visible markers to contagion fears;
however, some research has documented that overgeneralized fears of contamina-
tion extend to those with less visible conditions including cancer and psychiatric
disability (Kouznetsova et al., 2012). While speculative, the lower prevalence of
fear-based forms of ableism found in this study overall may reflect how subtle,
nonverbal avoidance reactions may be encoded more implicitly, making them less
accessible to explicit recollection (Ackerman et al., 2009; Hovdestad & Kris-
tiansen, 1996).
This exploratory study is not without its limitations. First and foremost, our
sample, while diverse was collected by convenience as part of a larger project on
the causes and consequences of disability prejudice (Nario-Redmond, 2019). Our
results therefore, are not representative of the population of people with disabilities
in the United States or abroad and may not generalize. Future research should
examine the prevalence of specific experiences with ableism using more concurrent
methodologies, including diary methods to avoid problems with retrospective
memory. Furthermore, while participants with visible and less apparent conditions
included multiple impairment groups, we did not have sufficient sample sizes to
analyze the data by impairment type or other demographic classifications, nor to
compute nonparametric statistics.
Nevertheless, this work illustrates how the SCM can apply to many forms
of ableism. Consistent with model predictions (Fiske, 2012), disabled people de-
scribed many experiences with paternalistic forms of prejudice often associated
with groups stereotyped as warm and incompetent. This manifested in experiences
of condescension, unwanted help, and invalidation. Patronizing speech and sym-
pathetic gestures are often masked as well-intended. That is, the person expressing
this type of prejudice often does not realize the harmful effects of pity or over-
helping (Fehr & Sassenberg, 2009; Wang et al., 2015). Though well–intended,
unsolicited, or “assumptive help” can be psychologically threatening because it
implies that the recipient lacks the competence or skills to complete tasks in-
dependently (Gilbert & Silvera, 1996). Consistent with early research, some of
our respondents reported instigating anger among those whose imposed help they
rebuffed (Katz et al., 1978). Paternalistic prejudice also works to maintain the
inferior status of its targets because it only appears to be prosocial. Yet, people
fail to recognize its harmfulness to the integrity, autonomy, and authority of dis-
abled subjects, which perpetuates awkward interactions between well–intentioned
others and those who seek to be treated as fully human citizens and reciprocal
friends.
On the individual target level, the negative impacts of overhelping are well-
documented and range from lowered self-esteem to assistive equipment damage
22 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
(Braithwaite & Eckstein, 2003; Schneider, Major, Luhtanen, & Crocker, 1996).
On a policy level, paternalistic beliefs can be used to justify practices limiting
autonomy, such as the forced medication or the institutionalization of people with
psychiatric disabilities; policies allowing forced guardianship of adults deemed
decisionally incompetent (Sherry, 2016); or cutbacks to programs that protect
independent living (e.g., the Home and Community Based Supports (HCBS)
waiver program). Pitying beliefs also lead to misguided acts of charity, such as
those that search for “cures,” rather than support accommodations. In addition,
the invalidation of invisible disabilities contributes to a culture wherein doctors
and other professionals are expected to act as gatekeepers, controlling access to
disability-related resources, rather than allowing individuals with disabilities to
present as the experts on their own needs.
Our study also extends the SCM by documenting forms of ambivalent ableism
that manifest as jealous envy toward groups increasing in social status. Groups who
are envied are generally viewed as competent but cold—likely to compete unfairly
for scarce resources. When disability-related access needs are misunderstood as
special privileges rather than civil rights, antipathy can result. One of our survey
respondents reported that a boss once denied her a reasonable accommodation
at work on the basis that, “everyone will want it.” On the policy level, practices
favoring the rights of businesses over the rights of disabled customers may also
emerge from a belief that disabled people are trying to scam the system. For
example, the recently proposed ADA Reform and Education Act would make
it substantially more difficult for a disabled person to file an access complaint
against a business. Given the diversity of human needs and capabilities—which
are not always the same (e.g., sometimes a wheelchair user chooses to use their
crutches)—jealous reactions may contribute to ongoing misunderstandings and
perpetuate inequality.
Perhaps the forms of ableism most well documented in previous research are
the clearly negative experiences that include dehumanization, anger, and avoid-
ance. Consistent with the BIASM/SCM, some of the prejudices we documented
reflected both contempt and disgust toward those typically stereotyped as cold and
incompetent—groups at risk of being denied humanity. Contempt toward disabled
people also manifests in the form of disability hate crimes, an underreported, but
significant social problem. According to the FBI, there were 128 disability-related
hate crimes reported in 2017, up from 76 in 2016 (Heasley, 2018; McKinney,
2018). The very fact that many of these crimes go unreported to law enforcement,
and are not covered by the media, reflects society’s indifference. Clearly, perpetra-
tors target those whose conditions are difficult to conceal—although experiences
of abuse by members of the family or service providers are also well-documented
across impairment groups once people become aware of others’ disability status
(Sherry, 2016).
Experiences of Ableism 23
Healthcare policies can also be influenced by the beliefs that a disabled life is
less worthy than a nondisabled life. For example, in some states, disabled people
have been denied organ transplants or placed in line behind nondisabled recipi-
ents (Ne’eman, Kapp, & Narby, 2018). In 2016, one terminally ill woman found
that California’s End of Life Option Act made it easier for her to end her life
than to continue it (insurance covered a suicide drug, but not treatment). In 2018,
the act was overturned, but affording treatment remains a persistent difficulty for
many disabled people. Moreover, several survey respondents reported experienc-
ing dehumanization in medical settings (e.g., being referred to as “an interesting
case,” rather than a real, human patient). These attitudes negatively affect disabled
people’s quality of care and sense of self-worth, and many respondents reported
feeling ashamed of their disability in these situations. Contempt or disgust felt
toward disabled people may also contribute to reduced funding or support of es-
sential disability programs, like inclusive education, rehabilitation, and in home
personal care.
Contemporary forms of eugenics now aim to improve the human species
using genetic technologies to eradicate disability if not before birth then after-
wards through assisted suicide or other “merciful” practices designed to eliminate
those considered defective or causing burdensome, unnecessary suffering. Future
research is needed to disentangle the motivations driving these distinct forms of
hostile ableism. For example, the high incidence of rape and sexual assault of
people with disabilities (Sherry, 2016) may be driven more by fears of becom-
ing disabled and dehumanizing ideologies than by fears of contagion. Believing
that humans are superior to animals is a strong predictor of intergroup anxieties
and avoidance. This begs the question of whether a promising avenue for future
research involves cultivating an appreciation of our essential creatureliness as a
pathway toward humanizing others: recognizing the self as an equal member of
the animal family (Taylor, 2017).
Finally, among the least researched forms of disability prejudice is the type
that seems to reflect genuine interest and benevolent admiration (Fiske et al., 2007).
Survey respondents reported that this form of ableism most often occurs in public
and from strangers. Many nondisabled people remain unaware of the messages
behind their benevolent comments—like the implication that disabled lives are
tragic, so simply living them is admirable. When disabled people are viewed
as inspirational for participating in mundane activities like grocery shopping,
the implication is that society’s disability expectations are discouragingly low.
If others hold lower expectations of disabled compared to nondisabled people,
they may not view them as capable of the same academic or career opportunities.
Furthermore, in the disability context—admiration is often extended only to some
individuals like those actively trying to overcome their disabilities. For example,
some benefit programs reward disabled people for not working and penalize those
who do. Alternatively, admiration may be contingent on certain behaviors (e.g.,
24 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
admiring those who excel at a sport). An implication is that only some disabled
people are deserving of equal treatment—as if there is a right and wrong way
to be disabled. Furthermore, inspirational comments are often triggered by those
portrayed as having a "positive attitude," which can be dangerous if, as a result,
policymakers assume that disabled people do not need accommodations if they
could just try a little harder and smile more.
At the interpersonal level, Hebl et al. (2000) noted that both disabled and
nondisabled people approach interactions with caution, and misinterpret one an-
other when “admiring” intentions result in intrusive inquiries and overcompensa-
tion that make neither party feel particularly understood. It isn’t surprising that so
much research has been done investigating the awkwardness of “mixed-ability in-
teractions” that communicate confusion, mistrust, and a sense of mistaken identity
(Hebl et al., 2000). More research is needed to tease apart how low perceiver ex-
pectations coupled with the anticipation of stigma from targets (Pachankis, 2007)
combine to perpetuate myths that disabled lives are always tragic and suffering
instead of satisfying and worthwhile.
In fact, those who view disabled people as tragic or deserving of pity usually
harbor feelings of superiority contributing to neglect, exclusion, and exploitation.
Adopting the slogan, “Piss on Pity,” many disability advocates condemn using
people with disabilities as objects of pity to raise money for charitable campaigns
(Cole & Johnson, 1994). Why would employers want to recruit and hire those
they pity? Employers clearly need more information based on research show-
ing that once hired, disabled people are considered highly reliable, valued, and
recommended to other employers (Dixon, Kruse, & Van Horn, 2003; Graffam,
Shinkfield, Smith, & Plozin, 2002).
Alternatively, those who envy disabled people for their success may attribute
their progress to “special privileges” that contribute to feelings of resentment,
and justify retaliatory actions to rectify what appears to be an unfair advantage
(Brown, 1997; Sherry, 2016). When disabled people are viewed with contempt
and disgust, dehumanizing actions can follow, along with justifications for hate,
segregation, and harassment on the basis of their illegitimate or less than human
status (Baynton, 2013). By contrast, when disabled people are viewed as admirable,
are these feelings driven by genuine inspiration that motivate active facilitation
and aspirations for self-improvement? Perhaps feelings of awe simply reflect the
experience of surprise whenever low expectations for the group are exceeded,
which may undermine the recognition of valid achievements and the awareness of
discriminatory barriers. These questions remain unanswered.
Future research is also needed to examine how distinct forms of ableism
impact different target groups, and how these impacts affect target reactions and
their outcomes. This is important both to understand the impacts of different
responses to ableism on disabled people, and to learn how to mitigate and address
ableism on individual and institutional levels.
Experiences of Ableism 25
Our study reveals that individual experiences of prejudice both reflect and con-
tribute to ongoing disparities that likely accrue to institutional forms of ableism
and policies that discriminate. Improving and addressing disability rights through
legislation is certainly one step toward addressing those disparities. For example,
the Disability Integration Act of 2017 seeks to protect the civil rights of disabled
people by providing them with better at-home care, when needed. Many activist
groups are addressing ableism by advocating for increased accessibility. Project
Visitability, which is hosted by the National Council on Independent Living, is
working to ensure that new homes are built with physical accessibility in mind
(visitiability.org). However, if we want to see real progress in addressing housing,
employment, and income disparities, a widespread shift of culture and attitudes
toward disability is necessary. Changing the culture means better and more accu-
rate representation of disability in the media (giving platforms to disabled writers,
actors, and artists), considering disability when discussing diversity, and promot-
ing the inclusion of disability history and culture in academic curriculums (both
higher education and K–12 education). These solutions extend to disability in-
clusion and intercultural competency training in workplaces, and especially for
healthcare professionals and police officers.
Disabled people are often at a disadvantage, not because of their impairments,
but because of the way society views them. We know surprisingly little about how
to most effectively shift the public narrative about the social determinants of
disability. Yet the normative window of change is opening to the reconsideration
of what should qualify as ableism: what insults, what harms, what failures of
policy are now being called into question as ableist that used to be considered
acceptable? Just a few years ago, psychologists were not asking questions about
ableism because we were guided by faulty assumptions about impairment as the
primary cause of disabling conditions. We have also failed to recognize disabled
people as a minority group subject to many of the same (and some distinct)
prejudices as other groups. What is exciting is that we can now bring more social
scientific theory and multimethod approaches to bear to better understand the
complexity of ableist phenomena and to provide more nuanced solutions.
References
Ackerman, J. M., Becker, D. V., Mortensen, C. R., Sasaki, T., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D.
T. (2009). A pox on the mind: Disjunction of attention and memory in the process-
ing of physical disfigurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 478–485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.008
Baynton, D. C. (2013). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. The Disability
Studies Reader, 17, 57-5.
Becker, J. C., Glick, P., Ilic, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t:
Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the female target and male
actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.823
26 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
Ben-Moshe, L., Carey, A. C., & Chapman C. (Eds.) (2014). Disability incarcerated: Imprisonment
and disability in the United States and Canada. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blanck, P. (2011). Disability and aging: Historical and contemporary views. In R. L. Wiener & S. L.
Willborn (Eds.), Disability and aging discrimination: Perspectives in law and psychology (pp.
49–70). New York, NY: Springer.
Braithwaite, D. O., & Eckstein, N. J. (2003). How people with disabilities communicatively manage as-
sistance: Helping as instrumental social support. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
31, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880305374
Bogart, K. R. (2014). The role of disability self-concept in adaptation to congenital or acquired
disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035800
Bogart, K. R. (2015). Disability identity predicts lower anxiety and depression in multiple sclerosis.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 60, 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000029
Bogart K. R., & Dunn, D. S. (in press). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues.
Bogart, K. R., Lund, E. M., & Rottenstein, A. (2018). Disability pride protects self-
esteem through the rejection-identification model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63, 155.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000166
Brown, S. E. (1997). ‘Oh, don’t you envy us our privileged lives?’ A review
of the disability culture movement. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19, 339–349.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638289709166548
Burleigh, M. (1994). Return to the planet of the apes? History Today, 44(10), 6–8.
Cahill, S. E., & Eggleston, R. (1995). Reconsidering the stigma of physical disabil-
ity: Wheelchair use and public kindness. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 681–698.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00460.x
Chaudoir, S. R., & Quinn, D. M. (2010). Revealing concealable stigmatized identi-
ties: The impact of disclosure motivations and positive first-disclosure experiences
on fear of disclosure and well-being. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 570–584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01663.x
Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. S. (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of
specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 86, 127–37.
Cole, J. S., & Johnson, M. (1994). Time to grow up. In B. Shaw (Ed.), The ragged edge: The disability
experience from the pages of the first fifteen years of “The Disability Rag,” (pp. 131–136).
Louisville, KY: Advocado Press.
Cook, B. G., Gerber, M. M., & Murphy, J. (2000). Backlash against the inclusion of students with
learning disabilities in higher education: Implications for transition from post-secondary envi-
ronments to work. Work, 14(1), 31–40.
Cook, J. E., Germano, A. L., & Stadler, G. (2016). An exploratory investigation of social stigma and
concealment in patients with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 18, 78–84.
https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2015-021
Coombs, R. H., Chopra, S., Schenk, D. R., & Yutan, E. (1993). Medical slang and its functions. Social
Science & Medicine, 36(8), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90116-l
Cooper, A. E., Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2003). Mental illness stigma
and care seeking. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 339–341.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000066157.47101.22
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of
social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0
Dijker, A. J. (2001). The influence of perceived suffering and vulnerability on the experience of pity.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 659–676 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.54
Dirth, T. P., & Branscombe, N. R. (2017). Disability models affect disability policy support
through awareness of structural discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 413–442.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12224
Dixon, K. A., Kruse, D., & Van Horn, C. E. (2003). Restricted access: A survey of employers about
people with disabilities and lowering barriers to work. John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce
Development, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Experiences of Ableism 27
Dorfman, D. (forthcoming). The fear of disability con. Law & Society Review.
Dorfman, D. (2017). Re-claiming disability: Identity, procedural justice, and the disability determina-
tion process. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(1), 195–231.
Dunn, D. S. (2015). The social psychology of disability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eddey, G. E., Robey, K. L., & McConnell, J. A. (1998). Increasing medical student’s self-
perceived skill and comfort in examining persons with severe developmental disabilities:
The use of standardized patients who are nonverbal due to cerebral palsy. Academic
Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 73(10 Suppl), S106.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199810000-00061.
Fehr, J., & Sassenberg, K. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of internal motivation to
behave nonprejudiced: The case of benevolent discrimination. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.620
Fitzgerald, M. H., & Paterson, K. A. (1995). The hidden disability dilemma for the preser-
vation of self. Journal of Occupational Science, 2(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14427591.1995.9686392
Fiske, S. T. (2011). Envy up, scorn down: How status divides us. Russell Sage Foundation.
Fiske, S. T. (2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: The smart-but-cold, and the warm-but-dumb
stereotypes. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639, 33–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002716211418444
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.
6.878
Gernsbacher, M. A., Raimond, A. R., Balinghasay, M. T., & Boston, J. S. (2016). “Special needs”
is an ineffective euphemism. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1(1), 29.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0025-4
Gervais, S. J. (2011). A social psychological perspective of disability prejudice. In R. L. Wiener, & S.
L. Willborn (Eds.), Disability and aging discrimination: Perspectives in law and psychology
(pp. 249–262). New York, NY: Springer.
Gilbert, D. T., & Silvera, D. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 678–690. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.678
Glick, P. (2005). Choice of scapegoats. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the
nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 244–261). Malden: Blackwell.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
complementary justifications for gender equality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.2.109
Goldberg, S. G., Killeen, M. B., & O’Day, B. (2005). The disclosure conundrum: How people with
psychiatric disabilities navigate employment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 463.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.463
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2000). Fleeing the body: A ter-
ror management perspective on the problem of human corporeality. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4, 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_1
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Kluck, B., & Cornwell, R. (2001). I
am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust, and the denial of human creatureliness. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 427. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.
3.427
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and
Shuster.
Gouvier, W. D., Coon, R. C., Todd, M. E., & Fuller, K. H. (1994). Verbal interactions with individ-
uals presenting with and without physical disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 39, 263–268.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.39.4.263
28 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A., Smith, K., & Polzin, U. (2002). Factors that influence employer decisions
in hiring and retaining an employee with a disability. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 17,
175–181.
Grimoldby, S. N. (2016, April 6). Easy Access: Chicago shops large & small latest targets of
growing trend of ADA Title III accessibility lawsuits. CookCountyRecord. Retrieved from:
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510708140-easy-access-chicago-shops-large-small-
latest-targets-of-growing-trend-of-ada-title-iii-accessibility-lawsuits
Grue, J. (2016). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique.
Disability & Society, 31, 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473
Haller, B., & Preston, J. (2016). Confirming normalcy: ‘Inspiration porn’ and the construction of the
disabled subject? In K. Ellis & M. Kent (Eds.), Disability and social media: Global perspectives
(pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.
Hahn, H. D., & Belt, T. L. (2004). Disability identity and attitudes toward cure in a
sample of disabled activists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 453–464.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500407
Harder, J. A., Keller, V. N., & Chopik, W. J. (in press). Demographic, temporal, and experiential
variation in ableism. Journal of Social Issues.
Taylor, H., Wurf, N., Harris, L., & Associates (1991). Public attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Washington, DC: National Organization on Disability.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Prejudice and dehumanization. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.),
Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change
(pp. 89–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heasley, S. (2018, November 14). FBI records spike in disability-related hate crimes. Disability scoop.
Retrieved from https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2018/11/14/fbi-spike-hate-crimes/25730/
Hebl, M. R., Tickle, J., & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions between
nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. Hebl, & J.
Hull, J. (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 275–306). New York: Guilford.
Hirschberger, G., Florian, V., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Fear and compassion: A terror management
analysis of emotional reactions to physical disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 246–257.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.50.3.246
Hovdestad, W. E., & Kristiansen, C. M. (1996). Mind meets body: On the nature of recovered memories
of trauma. Women & Therapy, 19(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/j015v19n01_04
Liesener, J. J., & Mills, J. (1999). An experimental study of disability spread: Talking to an
adult in a wheelchair like a child. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2083–2092.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02296.x
Lynch, J. E., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). An experimental investigation into judgment
and behavioral implications of disability-based stereotypes in simulated work decisions:
Evidence of shifting standards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 613–628.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12324
Katz, I., Hass, R. G., & Bailey, J. (1988). Attitudinal ambivalence and behavior toward people with
disabilities. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 47–57). New
York: Springer.
Katz, I., Farber, J., Glass, D. C., Lucido, D., & Emswiller, T. (1978). When courtesy offends: Effects
of positive and negative behavior by the physically disabled on altruism and anger in normals.
Journal of Personality, 46, 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb01014.x
Kouznetsova, D., Stevenson, R. J., Oaten, M. J., & Case, T. I. (2012). Disease-avoidant be-
haviour and its consequences. Psychology & Health, 27, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08870446.2011.603424
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action
tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.602
McKinney, D. (2018, August 05). The invisible hate crime: Violence against people with dis-
abilities is more widespread than you think. Intelligence Report: Confronting Hate, 165,
23–31. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-
hate/intelligence-report/2018/invisible-hate-crime
Experiences of Ableism 29
McCurry, J. (2016, July 26). Japan care home attack: Picture emerges of modest man
with horrifying vision. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/japan-
care-home-attack-satoshi-uematsu-horrifying-vision-disabled-people
Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2019). Ableism: The causes and consequences of disability prejudice. Con-
temporary Social Issues Series, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2010). Cultural stereotypes of disabled and nondisabled men and women:
Consensus for global category representations and diagnostic domains. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 49, 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609x468411
Nario-Redmond, M. R., & Anderson, J. (2014, June). Disability as inspiration porn: Guilt, pity and
self-improvement strivings. Presentation to the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for
Disability Studies, Minneapolis, MN.
Nario-Redmond, M. R., Noel, J. G., & Fern, E. (2013). Redefining disability, reimagining the self:
Disability identification predicts self-esteem and strategic responses to stigma. Self and Identity,
12, 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.681118
Nario-Redmond, M. R., & Oleson, K. C. (2016). Disability group identification and disability-rights
advocacy: Contingencies among emerging and other adults. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 207–218.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815579830
Ne’eman, A., Kapp, S., & Narby, C. (2018, March). Organ transplantation and people with I/DD:
A review of research, policy and next steps. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved
from https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ASAN-Organ-Transplantation-
Policy-Brief_3.18.13.pdf
Niemann, Y. F., Jennings, L., Rozelle, R. M., Baxter, J. C., & Sullivan, E. (1994). Use of free responses
and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294204005
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 135, 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014823
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting
qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89, 1245–1251.
https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388
Olkin, R. (1999). What psychotherapists should know about disability? New York: Guilford Press.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-
affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328–345. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.133.2.328
Presley, G. (2008). Seven wheelchairs: A life beyond polio. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.
Pruett, S. R., & Chan, F. (2006). The development and psychometric validation of the disability
attitude implicit association test. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 202–213. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0090-5550.51.3.202
Pulrang, A. (2013, October 30). Reconsidering inspiration porn. Disability Thinking. Retrieved from
http://disabilitythinking.com/disabilitythinking/2013/10/reconsidering-inspiration-porn.html
Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of
anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015815
Ryan, F. (2015, June 10). Lee Irving’s murder is a chilling reminder that disability hate crime is
rising. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/
10/lee-irving-murder-disability-
hate-crime-increase
Ryan, E. B., Anas, A. P., & Gruneir, A. J. (2006). Evaluations of overhelping and underhelping
communication: Do old age and physical disability matter? Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 25, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X05284485
Schalk, S. (2016). Reevaluating the supercrip. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 10,
71–86. https://doi.org/10.3828/jlcds.2016.5
Schneider, M. E., Major, B., Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1996). Social stigma and the poten-
tial costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 201–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222009
30 Nario-Redmond, Kemerling, and Silverman
Schweik, S. M. (2009). The ugly laws: Disability in public. New York: NYU Press
Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity, and difference. In C. Barnes & C. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring
the divide (pp. 94–113). Leeds: The Disability Press.
Sherry, M. (2016). Disability hate crimes: Does anyone really hate disabled people? New York:
Routledge.
Shiloh, S., Heruti, I., & Berkovitz, T. (2011). Attitudes toward people with disabilities caused by illness
or injury: Beyond physical impairment. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 34,
321–329. https://doi.org/10.1097/mrr.0b013e32834d2048
Schimel, J., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., O’Mahen, H., & Arndt, J. (2000). Running from
the shadow: Psychological distancing from others to deny characteristics people fear in
themselves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 446–462. https://doi.org/10.
1037//0022-3514.78.3.446
Steele, C. M. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 269, 68–78.
Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of burden: Animal and disability liberation. New York: The New Press.
Thomas, A. (2000). Stability of Tringo’s hierarchy of preference toward disability groups: 30 years
later. Psychological Reports, 86, 1155–1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/003329410008600315.2
Thompson, D. (2013, May 14). Well, this is just awful: ‘Renting’ disabled people to skip lines at Dis-
ney World. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/
05/well-this-is-just-awful-renting-disabled-people-to-skip-lines-at-disney-world/275840/
Wahl, O. F. (1999). Mental health consumers’ experience of stigma. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25, 467–
478. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033394
Wang, K., Silverman, A. M., Gwinn, J. D., & Dovidio, J. (2015). Independent or ungrateful? Con-
sequences of confronting patronizing treatment for people with disabilities. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 18, 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214550345
Wang, K., Walker, K., Pietri, E., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (in press). Consequences of confronting
patronizing help for people with disabilities: Do target gender and disability type matter?
Journal of Social Issues.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York:
Guilford Press.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167282082007
and disability rights activism. She works as a research assistant for Dr. Michelle
Nario-Redmond and has presented alongside her at the Society for the Psychologi-
cal Study of Social Issues international conference in Albuquerque, N.M. “Hostile
and Benevolent Forms of Ableism: Fear, Pity, Dehumanization, Jealousy.” Alexia
has published writing about her own disability experiences in The Mighty and Ya-
hoo Lifestyle. She serves on the board for the Hiram Farm, a nonprofit organization
that employs developmentally disabled adults. Alexia is also leading an initiative
to improve the disability services and accessibility of her college campus.