Hostile, benevolent and ambivalent ableism: contemporary manifestations
Abstract
Disabled people experience ableism in many forms from the seemingly benevolent to the blatantly hostile, and more ambivalent or mixed forms (e.g., paternalistic/condescending and jealous/envy). Rooted in historic and contemporary frameworks, this study explores the experiences of an international sample of disabled people (N =185) using six open‐ended questions to assess some of the manifestations of ableism documented in the literature. We found that experiences with paternalistic forms of ableism were among the most pervasive followed by inspirational, 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 conditions. Implications for policies related to hate crimes, health care, and media representations are discussed along with directions for future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Visibly disabled people were more likely to have their privacy invaded, be infantilized or overprotected by their families, and be confronted by harassment and abuse in public.
“Visibly disabled people-blind or quadriplegic people, for example-were more likely to have their privacy invaded, be infantilized or overprotected by their families and confronted by harassment and abuse in public.”
From Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers? (2022) · cites this paper as Nario-Redmond, Kemerling and Silverman 2019
Cites
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211 · see citing works
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zaks, Z. (2024) · Disability & Society · doi:10.1080/09687599.2023.2255926 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Can a MacIntyrian Care about Severely Disabled Strangers?
McCracken, G. (2022) · The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.1093/jmp/jhac029
- Authors
- Nario‐Redmond, M. R., Kemerling, A. A., & Silverman, A.
- Affiliations
- Hiram College (US)
- Disability Wisdom
- Corresponding author
- Nario‐Redmond, Michelle R.
- Venue
- Journal of Social Issues
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-06-10
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 726-756
- ISSN
- 0022-4537 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4560
- OpenAlex
- W2950329192
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 24.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Social Issues (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- ableism, people with disabilities, envy and jealousy, dehumanization, infantilization, privacy violations, invalidation, fear of disability, hate crimes, health care, media representation, disability stigma
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review