Investigating the efficacy of prescribed labeling practices: Conceptualizing persons with disabilities

Abstract

Advocates for the use of specific labels to describe persons with disabilities presume that these labels fundamentally shape lay conceptions of persons with disabilities, and are thus critical targets for intervention. In two studies ( N = 285) we test this presumption, by presenting participants with descriptions of persons with disabilities that use either person-first labels or condition-first labels; disability diagnoses were either made at birth or during the teenage years. For each description, participants judged how essential (consistent, deeply-rooted, broadly-ramifying) physical, sensory, or cognitive disability symptoms (Study 1) or diagnoses (Study 2) are to that person. Across both studies, participants judged disabilities to be equally essential to persons regardless of how they were labeled; this was robust whether diagnoses were made earlier or later in life. Although there may be other points of influence, these labels, which are primary targets of advocacy groups, do not seem to influence psychological essentialism of disabilities.