Person-first disability language: a pilot analysis of public perceptions

Journal of Rehabilitation, April-June, 1994 by Ruth Torkelson Lynch, Kelli Thuli, Laurie Groombridge

One of the most prominent guidelines for writing about people with disabilities is to emphasize people rather than their disability (e.g., people 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 "person" or "people" before the disability (Hadley & Brodwin, 1988; Kailes, 1987; Manus, 1975). A focus on people 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., people 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 people with disabilities, (b) uses nouns instead of adjectives to describe people with disabilities, or (c) uses demeaning or outdated words or phrases in reference to persons with disabilities (Patterson & Witten, 1987).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 people 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 people with disabilities. Attitudes towards people 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.g., an individual with an amputation), the way in which the individual was presented (i.e., label, description, or labeled description) had little or no impact on attitudes.

Schmelkin (1985) concluded that perceptions of disabilities are multidimensional including (a) dimensions contrasting the physical, behavioral-emotional, and/or cognitive nature of disabilities; (b) a dimension highlighting the extent of their visibility; and (c) dimension dealing with the specificity of disabilities. This latter dimension suggests that the "spread effect" that disabilities evoke (Wright, 1960) is present in disability labels. Some disability labels (e.g., "mental retardation", "brain injury", "cerebral palsy") evoked this spread phenomenon more than others (e.g., "stuttering", "communication disorders", "speed disorders") (Schmelkin, 1985).

Many of the studies which refer to disability-related language and labels in the title of the article are actually studies on attitudes towards different disability groups by general descriptors (e.g., mental retardation, mentally retarded person) (Dooley & Gliner, 1989; Hannah & Midlarsky, 1987; Schmelkin, 1985). Such studies have not actually addressed the perceptions of using person-first versus disability-first language and, in fact, have used "disabling" language. This is reflective of a still prevalent use of disability-first rather than person-first language, in spite of editorial efforts to modify language usage regarding people with disabilities. Evidence can still be found, not only in the public press, but also in professional contexts such as journal articles, textbooks and rehabilitation case reports written by rehabilitation professionals. LaForge (1991) reported that preferred language was used about half the time in specific rehabilitation journals over a one year period (note: preferred language was defined as "language relating to recognizable disability which put the person or people first and disability second"). One of the questions regarding language usage which has not been addressed is whether individuals who are not integrally involved with rehabilitation and working with people with disabilities, even notice a difference between disability-first and person-first language usage and whether such language usage influences perceptions about the individual's personal qualities. This type of recognition may be important if rehabilitation professionals expect to make widespread changes in reference to people with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to examine whether adults who are not involved in rehabilitation service delivery can detect any difference and/or have a preference for these two types of language usage referring to people with disabilities. The study also examined whether the same subject group attributed any different adjectives to an individual with a physical disability who is applying for a job after reading one of two scenarios: a scenario which described the individual using person-first language or a scenario which describes the individual using disabling language.