Person-First Disability Language: A Pilot Analysis of Public Perceptions

Abstract

One of the most prominent guidelines for writing about with disabilities is to emphasize rather than their disability (e.g., with disabilities, rather than disabled people). (Journal of Rehabilitation, 1993; Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 1993; Rehabilitation Psychology, 1993; Research and Training Center on Independent Living, 1987). Non-disabling language is referred to as presenting the or people before the disability (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1987; Manus, 1975). A focus on first puts the focus on the individual, not on the particular functional limitation. Therefore, the use of people-first language has been promoted as the preferred terminology (Research and Training Center on Independent Living, 1987). The Guidelines for Reporting and Writing about People With Disabilities released by the Research and Training Center on Independent Living (1987) have been shared with representatives of the media and also reflect the basic editorial guidelines for contributors to rehabilitation journals. As an example, the Rehabilitation Psychology Guidelines for Contributors (1993) encourage person-first language so that authors do not unwittingly contribute to myths about disability in the conduct of research, interpretation of data, and use of terms. These editorial guidelines clarify that the use of preferred language preserves the integrity of the person and does not equate the person with the condition they have (e.g., with disabilities as opposed to disabled people, individuals with epilepsy as opposed to epileptics). Language usage and attitudes Disabling language has been defined as language that (a) perpetuates myths and stereotypes about with disabilities, (b) uses nouns instead of adjectives to describe with disabilities, or (c) uses demeaning or outdated words or phrases in reference to persons with disabilities (Patterson & Witten, 1987). In response, the use of person-first language has been proposed as more than a matter of semantics and in fact as a method to improve attitudes towards with disabilities (La Forge, 1991). However, there is a lack of research evidence to support that language usage alone has a direct or immediate effect on attitudes. Patterson and Witten (1987), for example, found no significant difference in attitudes, as measured by the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP), when groups of undergraduate students were administered different versions of the scale (e.g., with standard word descriptors, disabling word descriptors, or non-disabling word descriptors). The use of person-first language may not have a dramatic or immediate effect on changing attitudes towards with disabilities. Attitudes towards with disabilities are after all, very complex, and some disabilities seem to be consistently evaluated positively, whereas others tend to be evaluated negatively depending on the situational context (Cook, 1992). Studies on attitudes toward specific disabilities have suggested that there is a stable order of preference toward disabilities, based on the public perception of the acceptability of various conditions (Abroms & Kodera, 1979; Panda & Bartel, 1972; Richardson, Ronald & Kleck, 1974). In those studies. individuals with physical disabilities were preferred over individuals with mental disabilities. Hannah and Midlarsky (1987) found that respondents reacted differently to labels, descriptions, and labeled descriptions of persons with disabilities depending on the stigmatization associated with certain groups. Their research suggested that for certain disabilities which are highly stigmatized (e.g., alcoholism, psychosis), it may be preferable to use a label rather than a description or a labeled description if the goal is to promote acceptance of persons with these conditions. In contrast, for individuals who are assumed by the general public to have minimal variation in the major characteristics of the condition (e. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.