CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 343Disability Rights and RepresentationInclusion and Disability in Education and SportAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preferences for identity-first versus person-first language in a US sample of autism stakeholders

Taboas, Amanda, Doepke, Karla, Zimmerman, Corinne·2023·Autism
DOI 10.1177/13623613221130845
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although person-first language is commonly used in many professional settings, this practice has received criticism from self-advocates and scholars who believe that identity-defining features, such as autism, cannot be separated from the individual. Arguments have been made that person-first language may perpetuate stigma by drawing attention to a disability through unconventional language. Increasingly, disability advocates have expressed preferences for identity-first language. We surveyed US autism stakeholders ( n = 728) about their usage of and preferences for person-first language and identity-first language. Preference and use of terms varied across stakeholder groups (adults with autism, parents of autistic children, professionals, family members/friends, and a comparison group of people with little to no experience with the autism community). Autistic adults preferred to self-identify using identity-first language (87%); however, a sizable minority of adults with autism prefer to self-identify with person-first language (13%). Professionals were more likely to use, like, and choose person-first language terms, which is consistent with current guidelines for usage in professional settings and prescribed by style guides for written communication. As the language we use shapes our conscious and unconscious perceptions and beliefs of individuals with autism, it is critical to identify the terminology that is preferred by individuals within the community. Lay abstract: There is currently disagreement among professionals (such as teachers, therapists, researchers, and clinicians) about the most appropriate and respectful way to refer to individuals with disabilities in general, and those with autism, in particular. Supporters of person-first language feel that it is important to emphasize the person rather than the disorder or disability, and promote the use of terms such as, “person with autism” or “a person with ASD.” The goal is to reduce stereotypes and discrimination and emphasize the person’s individuality rather than their disability. However, some people within the autism community have questioned the use of person-first terms because they are awkward and use an unconventional style of language that draws attention to the disability. Moreover, autistic individuals and their families are beginning to support the use of identity-first language that embraces all aspects of one’s identity. Surveys in the United Kingdom and Australia support the idea that both types of language are preferred by different groups of autism stakeholder groups. In our study, we surveyed autism stakeholders in the United States. Overwhelmingly, autistic adults ( n = 299) preferred identity-first language terms to refer to themselves or others with autism. Professionals who work in the autism community ( n = 207) were more likely to support and use person-first language. Language is dynamic and our findings support the need for open communication among autism professionals about how we communicate with and about autistic individuals and their families.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/13623613221130845

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Andrews E. E., 2019, Disability as diversity: Developing cultural competence
  2. Sinclair J. (2013). Why I dislike “person first” language. Autonomy, the Critical Journal of Interdisciplinary Autism Studies, 1(2). http://www.larry-arnold.net/Autonomy/index.php/autonomy/article/view/OP1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–343 of 343

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Taboas, A., Doepke, K., & Zimmerman, C.
Affiliations
Illinois State University (US)
Corresponding author
Zimmerman, Corinne
ORCID
Zimmerman, Corinne
Venue
Autism
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-10-13
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
565-570
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
DOI
10.1177/13623613221130845
OpenAlex
W4306157884
Cited by
343
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 88 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 47
FWCI
73.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
identity-first language, person-first language, autism terminology, autism stigma, autistic adults, parents of autistic children, disability advocacy, language and stigma
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Adult, Autistic Disorder, Emotions, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Humans, Language, United States

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