Disability Discrimination

Abstract

Disability discrimination, commonly called ableism, is prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed at people because they have a disability. The Medical Subject Headings vocabulary files it under both prejudice and social discrimination, grouping it with the other category-based biases. Two framings compete for what the concept names: a medical model that locates the problem in the individual’s impairment, and a social model that locates it in the disabling barriers a society builds. Research in social psychology has mapped people with disabilities onto the warmth-competence space, where they draw pity rather than respect; distinguished hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent forms of ableism; shown that implicit disability stereotypes persist even where explicit attitudes are warmly positive; and documented the measurable cost of experienced discrimination to health and well-being.

Keywords: disability discrimination, ableism, disability stereotypes, social model of disability

Disability is the one marginalised category almost anyone may enter without warning—through illness, injury, or age—which gives disability discrimination a structure unlike prejudice by race or sex: its boundary is permeable, and the line between the discriminating majority and the targeted minority is a single accident wide. The Medical Subject Headings vocabulary files the concept under both prejudice and social discrimination, and the research literature most often calls it ableism: stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression directed at people with disabilities (Bogart & Dunn, 2019). What sets the field apart from the study of other prejudices is a prior argument about what disability even is.

That argument is the contest between two models. The medical model treats disability as a property of the individual—an impairment to be diagnosed, treated, or cured—so that any disadvantage follows from the body. The social model, which the British sociologist Mike Oliver did more than anyone to establish, reframes disability as the product of a society organised around non-disabled bodies: stairs rather than ramps, print rather than speech, attitudes rather than access (Oliver, 2013). On this reading, disability discrimination is not an unfortunate response to impairment but the mechanism that converts impairment into disadvantage. The sections below take the construct in turn—placing it among the forms of prejudice, developing its stereotype-content signature, the forms ableism takes, the measures built for attitudes and experience, and the identity and stigma processes through which discrimination reaches the person it targets.

What Disability Discrimination Is

Disability discrimination is, most generally, the differential evaluation and treatment of people on the basis of disability. MeSH places the descriptor under prejudice and social discrimination, grouping it with the other category-based biases while marking that its target is defined by disability rather than race, sex, or age. In the research literature the near-synonym ableism is standard: Kathleen Bogart and Dana Dunn define it as stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression toward people with disabilities, and note that it operates at individual, institutional, and cultural levels at once (Bogart & Dunn, 2019). As with any prejudice, the construct carries the three components psychologists ascribe to an attitude: beliefs about disabled people (the cognitive component, or stereotype), feelings toward them (the affective component), and differential treatment of them (the behavioural component, or discrimination).

What is distinctive about disability as a category is the prior dispute over its nature, and that dispute determines where the discrimination is thought to lie. Under the medical model, disability is an individual deficit: a condition housed in a person’s body or mind, to be assessed and remedied, so that whatever disadvantage follows is a direct consequence of the impairment. Under the social model, impairment and disability come apart—impairment is a feature of the body, but disability is the exclusion a society imposes on people with impairments by the way it builds its environments, institutions, and expectations. Mike Oliver, writing thirty years after he first articulated it, defended the social model not as a complete theory of disability but as a practical tool that shifts attention from the broken body to the barriers that disable it (Oliver, 2013). The two models are not merely academic: they assign the problem to opposite places. The medical model makes disability discrimination a well-meaning accommodation of deficit; the social model makes it the very process that produces the disadvantage.

A third framing sits alongside both and is the subject of most of this article’s empirical sections: disability as a stigmatised identity. Patrick Corrigan’s analysis of stigma, developed for mental illness but general in its structure, separates public stigma—the stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination a society directs at a group—from self-stigma, the same beliefs turned inward by members of the group against themselves (Corrigan, 2004). This distinction runs through everything that follows: the stereotype content others hold, the forms their ableism takes, the attitudes measurement captures, and the toll both public stigma and its internalisation take on health.

Dimensions of Disability-Discrimination Research

No single field owns disability discrimination. It is studied as a problem in the social psychology of stereotyping, as a question about the forms prejudice takes, as a measurement problem in attitudes and experience, and as a determinant of health and identity. Each supplies a different question and a different method, and the most useful treatments keep them apart rather than collapsing them into a single complaint about “bias against disabled people.” Table 1 summarises the dimensions, and the sections that follow develop each in turn. Figure 1 shows the warmth-competence space of social perception, from which the distinctive pity directed at people with disabilities is derived.

Table 1

Dimensions of Disability-Discrimination Research

Stereotype Content and Disability

The cognitive component of disability discrimination is a stereotype, and the most influential account of its shape comes from the Stereotype Content Model. Susan Fiske and colleagues showed that social groups are perceived along two near-universal dimensions—warmth (are they friendly, well-intentioned?) and competence (are they capable, effective?)—and that people with disabilities occupy a strikingly consistent position: high in warmth, low in competence. This is the combination the model calls paternalistic, and it elicits pity and sympathy rather than either admiration or contempt (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002). The danger of a pity stereotype is that its warmth disguises its harm: the same low-competence belief that prompts a helpful hand also justifies exclusion from employment, education, and consequential decisions.

Amy Cuddy, Fiske, and Peter Glick traced what that perception produces in behaviour. Their BIAS map links each warmth-competence cell to a pair of behavioural tendencies, and the pity cluster that contains disability draws active facilitation—help, protection, care—together with passive harm: neglect, exclusion, being overlooked. People with disabilities are thus helped and ignored at once, assisted in the moment and left out of the structures that matter (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Michelle Nario-Redmond established how consensual this stereotype is: across samples, respondents agreed closely on the cultural content of the disability stereotype—dependent, incompetent, asexual, and object of pity—and that consensus, not mere individual bias, is what makes the stereotype a cultural fact rather than a private prejudice (Nario-Redmond, 2010). Figure 1 shows the warmth-competence space, and Demo 1 lets the reader move a group through it and read off the emotion its coordinates predict.

Demo 1 · The warmth × competence space

The Stereotype Content Model places every group on two crossed dimensions and reads a distinct emotion from each quadrant. Set competence and warmth; the group is placed among the four emotional-prototype corners by membership weight w = e^−3d. The disability stereotype is high-warmth, low-competence — the pity cell.

At C = 0.30, W = 0.75 the disability stereotype is 0.39 from the pity corner and about 56% pity — warm but seen as incapable, a region of a continuous space rather than a box.

The Forms of Ableism

If the disability stereotype is pity, then its characteristic discrimination will not always look like hostility. Nario-Redmond, Alexia Kemerling, and Arielle Silverman imported the structure of ambivalent sexism into disability, distinguishing three forms. Hostile ableism is the overt kind: contempt, avoidance, the belief that disabled people are a burden or a threat. Benevolent ableism is subtler and, in its way, more pervasive: unsolicited help, inspirational praise for ordinary acts, speaking to a companion rather than the disabled person, infantilising care—all of it experienced by the giver as kindness and by the recipient as a denial of competence and autonomy. Ambivalent ableism holds the two together, pairing warmth with the presumption of incapacity (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019). The key claim, counter-intuitive on its surface, is that benevolence is not the absence of ableism but one of its forms: help that is not asked for, and cannot be refused, asserts that the recipient could not have managed alone.

The point generalises beyond interpersonal encounters to institutions. Thomas Hehir’s analysis of ableism in education described how schools, acting from apparent good intentions, organise themselves around the assumption that it is better to do things the way non-disabled children do them—to walk rather than roll, to read print rather than Braille, to speak rather than sign—and in doing so devalue the adaptations disabled students actually need (Hehir, 2002). This is benevolent ableism built into a system: a well-meaning preference for normalcy that imposes real costs. Demo 2 lets the reader set the hostility and benevolence of an attitude and see which of the three forms it represents, and why both axes matter.

Demo 2 · The forms of ableism

Ableism is not only open hostility. Treat hostility h and benevolence b as two independent dimensions, each 0 to 1 with a median split at 0.5. The pair names the form: high h alone is hostile, high b alone is benevolent, high on both is ambivalent, low on both is minimal. The ambivalence index min(h, b) measures how much both are present at once.

At h = 0.70, b = 0.60 the attitude is ambivalent, index 0.60 — a person who believes disabled people are a burden yet also showers them with protective, unasked-for help. Benevolence is a dimension of ableism in its own right, not its absence.

Measuring Attitudes, Explicit and Implicit

If disability discrimination has components that dissociate, each needs its own measure, and the enduring problem is that the most important dissociation is between what people say and what they automatically associate. Richard Antonak and Hanoch Livneh surveyed the instruments built to measure attitudes toward people with disabilities and drew the central methodological distinction: direct methods—self-report scales—are easy to administer but transparent, so respondents can present themselves as more accepting than they are, while indirect methods try to capture attitudes the respondent cannot or will not report (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). The warning was prescient. As overt expressions of disability prejudice became socially unacceptable, explicit scales drifted toward uniformly positive responses, and the action moved to implicit measures.

Those measures tell a different story. Marie Caslin Wilson and Katrina Scior used the Implicit Association Test to probe attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities and found implicit bias that was, at best, weakly related to the warmly positive attitudes the same respondents reported explicitly (Wilson & Scior, 2015). Odile Rohmer and Eva Louvet sharpened the finding: on explicit measures, people with disabilities are rated high on warmth-related traits, but implicit tests reveal a persistent automatic association with incompetence that the positive explicit picture conceals (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018). Louvet’s earlier experimental work had already shown the practical edge of this dissociation: job applicants with disabilities were judged high on warmth but low on the competence dimension that actually drives hiring, so sympathy coexisted with disadvantage in exactly the setting where competence is decisive (Louvet, 2007). The gap between explicit warmth and implicit low-competence is not noise; it is the modern signature of disability discrimination.

Identity, Stigma, and Well-Being

The sharpest question is what disability discrimination does to the people who experience it, and here the stigma framework does the organising work. Corrigan’s distinction between public stigma and self-stigma explains why discrimination can harm even when it is never overtly expressed: a person who absorbs the culture’s low-competence stereotype may apply it to themselves, with consequences for self-esteem, help-seeking, and the sense of what is worth attempting (Corrigan, 2004). Christopher Branco, Miguel Ramos, and Miles Hewstone put a number on the public-stigma side, comparing the health and well-being cost of perceived ableism against other forms of discrimination and finding that disability discrimination was associated with poorer health and lower well-being, with effects comparable to—and in some respects exceeding—those of the better-studied “isms” (Branco, Ramos & Hewstone, 2019).

Against that cost stands a protective factor. Dunn and Shane Burcaw, analysing the narratives of people with disabilities, described a positive disability identity—an account of the self that incorporates disability without shame, often embracing it as a source of community, pride, and meaning rather than a deficit to be minimised. A secure disability identity, they argued, buffers the self against the stereotypes the culture supplies, converting a stigmatised attribute into an owned one (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013). This is the social model made personal: if disability is produced by barriers rather than bodies, then refusing the deficit framing is itself a form of resistance. Demo 3 lets the reader vary how much discrimination a person experiences and how central a positive disability identity is to them, and watch identity blunt the well-being cost.

Demo 3 · Discrimination, identity, and the cost

Perceived discrimination predicts worse health and well-being, and a positive disability identity buffers some of the harm. Set experienced discrimination d (0 to 1) and the centrality of a positive disability identity m (0 to 1); the well-being decrement on a 0 to 10 scale is 10d(1 − 0.5m), so a central identity can offset up to half the cost.

At d = 0.60, m = 0 the decrement is 6.0 points; the same discrimination with a central disability identity (m = 0.80) costs 3.6 points. The identity absorbs 40% of the toll — the direction, not the linear form, is what the data support.

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations. The numbers are illustrative—they capture the qualitative shape of the published findings rather than reproducing any single reported statistic.

Locating the disability stereotype in the warmth-competence space. Score warmth W and competence C each on a 0-to-1 scale, with a median split at 0.5 dividing “high” from “low.” The disability stereotype sits at roughly W = 0.75, C = 0.30—high warmth, low competence, the pity cell. To express how clearly a group belongs to each emotional quadrant, take its distance to each of the four corner prototypes—admiration (1,1), pity (0,1), envy (1,0), contempt (0,0)—and convert distance to a membership weight with w = e^−3d, normalised to sum to one. This group lands 0.39 from the pity corner, 0.74 from admiration, 0.81 from contempt, and 1.03 from envy, giving memberships of about 56% pity, 20% admiration, 16% contempt, and 8% envy. The point is that the pity stereotype is a region of a continuous space, not a box: people with disabilities are seen as mostly warm-but-incapable, shading toward admiration as perceived competence rises (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002). Demo 1 lets the reader move W and C and read off the emotion.

Classifying a form of ableism. Represent an attitude by two independent scores, hostility h and benevolence b, each from 0 to 1, with 0.5 the threshold for “high.” The three forms fall out of the pair: high h with low b is hostile ableism; low h with high b is benevolent ableism; high on both is ambivalent ableism; low on both is minimal. A useful index of ambivalence is the amount of the weaker component present, min(h, b), since ambivalence requires both at once. An attitude at h = 0.70, b = 0.60 is ambivalent, with an ambivalence index of 0.60—a person who believes disabled people are a burden yet also showers them with protective, unasked-for help. The lesson is that benevolence is a dimension of ableism in its own right, not its absence (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019). Demo 2 lets the reader set h and b and read off the form.

Discrimination, identity, and the well-being cost. Represent experienced discrimination as a frequency d from 0 to 1 and the centrality of a positive disability identity as m from 0 (peripheral) to 1 (central), and model a well-being decrement on a 0-to-10 scale as decrement = 10 × d × (1 − 0.5m), so that a strong identity can offset up to half the cost. A person facing discrimination at d = 0.60 with no protective identity (m = 0) suffers a decrement of 10 × 0.60 × 1 = 6.0 points; the same person with a central disability identity (m = 0.80) suffers 10 × 0.60 × (1 − 0.40) = 3.6 points. The discrimination is identical; the identity absorbs 40% of its toll (Branco, Ramos & Hewstone, 2019; Dunn & Burcaw, 2013). The linear buffer is a convenience; what the data support is the direction—discrimination harms, and a positive identity protects. Demo 3 lets the reader set d and m and read off the cost.

Discussion

Read together, the strands of disability-discrimination research make a single point that the everyday meaning of the word misses: the discrimination is not mainly a matter of open hostility, and treating it as such leaves most of it untouched. The stereotype-content work locates the disability stereotype in the pity cell of the warmth-competence space, where warmth is real and does its own damage: the BIAS map shows that pity produces help and neglect at once, so people with disabilities are assisted in the moment and excluded from the structures that matter (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). The forms-of-ableism framework draws the moral explicitly: benevolence is a dimension of ableism, not its opposite, and the unsolicited help that feels like kindness asserts an incapacity the recipient may not have (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019).

The measurement literature explains why progress is hard to see. As explicit disability attitudes became uniformly positive, the discrimination did not vanish; it went implicit, surfacing as an automatic low-competence association that self-report cannot catch and that shapes consequential judgments such as hiring (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018; Louvet, 2007; Antonak & Livneh, 2000). And the identity-and-stigma work supplies both the cost and the response: perceived discrimination predicts worse health and well-being, on a scale comparable to the better-known prejudices, while a positive disability identity buffers some of that harm (Branco, Ramos & Hewstone, 2019; Corrigan, 2004; Dunn & Burcaw, 2013). Behind all of it stands Oliver’s social model, which reframes the whole phenomenon: if disability is the product of disabling barriers rather than of impairment, then disability discrimination is not a response to disability but its cause (Oliver, 2013). The through-line is that disability discrimination, properly analysed, is a structured and consequential variable—never a simple matter of whether one feels sympathy for disabled people.

Current Directions

The most active recent work has moved disability discrimination out of the shadow of the better-studied prejudices and given it a vocabulary of its own. The 2019 special issue that Bogart and Dunn introduced marked the arrival of ableism as a mature research topic in social and clinical psychology, with its own construct definitions, measures, and research agenda rather than borrowed ones (Bogart & Dunn, 2019). The import of the ambivalent-sexism structure into disability—hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent ableism—has been the most generative move, giving researchers a way to study the subtle, warmth-clad discrimination that explicit-attitude scales had been missing (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019).

A second thread is comparative and quantitative. Branco and colleagues’ placement of ableism alongside racism, sexism, and ageism in a single well-being framework lets the field ask not merely whether disability discrimination harms but how its costs compare, and under what conditions (Branco, Ramos & Hewstone, 2019). Running through both threads is the implicit-measurement programme: as explicit attitudes saturate at the positive end, the research frontier is the automatic, low-competence association that direct measures cannot reach and that predicts behaviour the respondent would disavow (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018; Wilson & Scior, 2015). The shared horizon is a model of disability discrimination that is specific rather than borrowed, implicit as well as explicit, and health-relevant rather than merely attitudinal.

Common Misconceptions

Disability discrimination means open hostility toward disabled people.

Most of it does not look hostile. The characteristic disability stereotype is pity, not contempt, and the characteristic discrimination is benevolent ableism—unsolicited help, inspirational praise, infantilising care—which feels like kindness while denying competence and autonomy (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002).

Warmth and sympathy toward disabled people rule out ableism.

They do not. People with disabilities are rated high on warmth precisely while being rated low on competence, and the BIAS map shows that this pity combination produces active help and passive neglect together—exclusion dressed as care (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007).

Positive survey responses show that disability prejudice is largely gone.

Explicit attitudes have become uniformly positive, but implicit measures still register an automatic association of disability with incompetence, and that implicit bias predicts consequential judgments such as hiring (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018; Louvet, 2007).

Disability is simply a medical fact, so any disadvantage follows from the impairment.

The social model distinguishes impairment (a feature of the body) from disability (the exclusion a society imposes through its barriers and attitudes). On this account much of the disadvantage is produced by discrimination, not by the impairment itself (Oliver, 2013).

Glossary

Ableism.

Stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression directed at people with disabilities, operating at individual, institutional, and cultural levels; the near-synonym for disability discrimination used in the research literature.

Ambivalent ableism.

An attitude toward disabled people that combines hostility and benevolence at once, pairing warmth and protectiveness with the presumption of incompetence.

Benevolent ableism.

Discrimination that presents as kindness—unsolicited help, inspirational praise, infantilising care—and denies competence and autonomy while feeling, to the giver, like compassion.

BIAS map.

Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick’s model linking each warmth-competence combination to behaviour; the pity cluster that contains disability draws active facilitation together with passive harm.

Competence.

One of the two dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model: whether a group is perceived as capable and effective. People with disabilities are stereotyped as low on this dimension.

Disability discrimination.

Prejudice, stereotyping, and differential treatment of people on the basis of disability; filed by MeSH under prejudice and social discrimination.

Disability identity.

An account of the self that incorporates disability without shame, often as a source of community and pride; a positive disability identity buffers the self against cultural stereotypes.

Hostile ableism.

The overt form of disability discrimination: contempt, avoidance, and the belief that disabled people are a burden or a threat.

Implicit attitude.

An automatic, often unreported evaluation captured by indirect measures such as the Implicit Association Test; implicit disability attitudes register low-competence associations that positive explicit reports conceal.

Medical model of disability.

The view that disability is an individual impairment to be diagnosed, treated, or cured, so that any disadvantage follows directly from the body.

Public stigma.

The stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination a society directs at a stigmatised group, as distinct from the self-stigma that follows when members turn those beliefs inward.

Self-stigma.

The internalisation of public stigma by members of a stigmatised group, with consequences for self-esteem, help-seeking, and the sense of what is worth attempting.

Social model of disability.

The view, established by Mike Oliver, that distinguishes impairment (a feature of the body) from disability (the exclusion a society imposes through barriers and attitudes), locating the disadvantage in the environment rather than the person.

Stereotype content model.

Fiske and colleagues’ framework in which groups are perceived along warmth and competence, with each combination eliciting a distinct emotion; it places people with disabilities in the high-warmth, low-competence pity cell.

Warmth.

One of the two dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model: whether a group is perceived as friendly and well-intentioned. People with disabilities are stereotyped as high on this dimension.

Key Researchers

Kathleen R. Bogart

(Professor of Psychology, Oregon State University). Studies disability and rare disorders and the psychology of stigma; co-edited the Journal of Social Issues special issue that established ableism as a mature research topic. ORCID

Dana S. Dunn

(Professor of Psychology and Chair, Moravian University). A rehabilitation and disability-identity researcher; co-edited the ableism special issue and analysed the narratives through which people construct a positive disability identity. ORCID

Susan T. Fiske

(Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Emerita, Princeton University). Co-originated the Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS map, which locate people with disabilities in the high-warmth, low-competence pity quadrant of social perception. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Eva Louvet

(Professor of Social Psychology, University of Strasbourg). Studies social judgment of people with disabilities, including the experimental demonstration that disabled job applicants are judged high on warmth but low on the competence that drives hiring.

Michelle R. Nario-Redmond

(Professor of Psychology and Biomedical Humanities, Hiram College). A leading researcher on disability prejudice; documented the cultural consensus of the disability stereotype and, with colleagues, developed the hostile-benevolent-ambivalent framework of ableism. ORCID · Wikidata

Mike Oliver

(1945-2019; Emeritus Professor of Disability Studies, University of Greenwich). The world’s first professor of disability studies; originated the social model of disability, which reframes disability as the product of disabling social barriers rather than individual impairment. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Odile Rohmer

(Professor of Social Psychology, University of Strasbourg). Studies the implicit stereotyping of disability, showing that automatic low-competence associations persist even where explicit attitudes are warmly positive.

Katrina Scior

(Professor of Clinical Psychology and Stigma Studies, University College London). Studies stigma and attitudes toward intellectual disability; used the Implicit Association Test to probe the gap between implicit and explicit disability attitudes. ORCID

Frequently Asked Questions

What is disability discrimination?

Disability discrimination, commonly called ableism, is prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination directed at people because they have a disability. It operates at individual, institutional, and cultural levels, and MeSH files it under prejudice and social discrimination (Bogart & Dunn, 2019).

What is the difference between the medical and social models of disability?

The medical model treats disability as an individual impairment to be diagnosed or cured, so disadvantage follows from the body. The social model, established by Mike Oliver, distinguishes impairment from disability and locates the disadvantage in the barriers and attitudes a society builds around non-disabled bodies (Oliver, 2013).

How are people with disabilities stereotyped?

The Stereotype Content Model finds people with disabilities perceived as high in warmth but low in competence—seen as kindly but incapable. This combination elicits pity, a condescending affection that can justify exclusion from work, education, and decisions as readily as open hostility would (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu, 2002).

What is benevolent ableism?

Benevolent ableism is discrimination that presents as kindness: unsolicited help, inspirational praise for ordinary acts, infantilising care. It feels compassionate to the giver while denying the recipient’s competence and autonomy, which is why it is understood as a form of ableism rather than its absence (Nario-Redmond, Kemerling & Silverman, 2019).

Why do explicit and implicit disability attitudes diverge?

As overt disability prejudice became socially unacceptable, self-report scales drifted toward uniformly positive responses. Implicit measures such as the Implicit Association Test still register an automatic association of disability with incompetence that the positive explicit picture conceals (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018; Wilson & Scior, 2015).

Does disability discrimination affect health?

Yes. Perceived disability discrimination is associated with poorer health and lower well-being, with effects comparable to—and in some respects exceeding—those of other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism (Branco, Ramos & Hewstone, 2019).

Can a positive disability identity protect against discrimination?

It can buffer some of the harm. A positive disability identity—one that incorporates disability without shame, often as a source of community and pride—helps the self resist the culture’s low-competence stereotypes and the self-stigma they can produce (Dunn & Burcaw, 2013; Corrigan, 2004).

Is pity a harmless response to disability?

No. Pity is the signature of the disability stereotype, and the BIAS map shows it produces active help and passive neglect at once, so people with disabilities are assisted in the moment and excluded from the structures that matter—exclusion dressed as care (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007).

References

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(5), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/096382800296782

Bogart, K. R., & Dunn, D. S. (2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12354

Branco, C., Ramos, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (2019). The association of group-based discrimination with health and well-being: A comparison of ableism with other “isms.” Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 814–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12340

Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring narrative accounts of disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031691

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(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.1.03866528702g2105

Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.3.297

Nario-Redmond, M. R. (2010). Cultural stereotypes of disabled and non-disabled men and women: Consensus for global category representations and diagnostic domains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609x468411

Nario-Redmond, M. R., Kemerling, A. A., & Silverman, A. (2019). Hostile, benevolent, and ambivalent ableism: Contemporary manifestations. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 726–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12337

Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773

Rohmer, O., & Louvet, E. (2018). Implicit stereotyping against people with disability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216638536

Wilson, M. C., & Scior, K. (2015). Implicit attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities: Their relationship with explicit attitudes, social distance, emotions and contact. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0137902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137902