In 2019 in France, among the working age population, 2.8 million people were considered disabled and about 18% of them were unemployed, which is twice the national average (Agefiph, 2019). In France, the Defender of Rights is an institution that protects people from all kinds of discrimination and helps victims claim their rights. Disability is the most frequent cause for discrimination reported to the Defender of Rights. It accounts for 21.2% of complaints before ethnicity with 13.3% (Défenseur des droits, 2020). These legal complaints concern discriminative behaviors in any context, including the workplace.
To improve inclusion of people with disabilities especially in the work environment, all organizations and companies with 20 or more employees must respect a 6% quota of disabled persons in their workforce (Labor Code, art. L. 5212-1 to L. 5212-17, 2008). If this requirement is not met, they must pay a financial contribution. These funds are used to improve the inclusion of disabled workers, notably by financing job accommodations or professional training. The percentage of disabled workers has increased after this law was enacted, but unfortunately it has remained steady the last few years at 3.5%, far from the objective of 6% (Dares, 2021).
Several definitions are used for the term disability. The French law of February 11, 2005, stipulates that “disability is understood as any limitation of activity or restriction of participation in life in society suffered in its environment by a person due to a substantial, lasting or definitive deterioration of one or more physical, sensory, mental, cognitive or psychic, multi-disability, or disabling health disorder”. But aside from legal aspects, disability is considered more frequently nowadays as the result of an interaction between the environment and a person with differences or incapacities (Fougeyrollas, 2002). Being in a wheelchair only becomes a disability when faced with stairs. This social model perceives the consequences of disability based on factors that are not only medical but also sociocultural (Patton, 2022). Cultural aspects and specific stereotypes about an illness are fundamental to understand how people with this illness are perceived: is this illness considered a disability or can it be contested (Conrad & Barker, 2010)? This definition shows that progress has been made and that the emphasis is now placed on creating an inclusive world in order to erase difficulties encountered by disabled people.
1.1 Disability or disabilities
It is important to not consider disability as a single construct as it is a very broad term (Patton, 2022). First, because all disabilities do not have the same consequences and accessibility obstacles can be extremely different (Sartawi, AlMuhairy, & Abdat, 2011; Werner, 2015). But besides this, disabilities are perceived by others differently and generate different forms of discriminative attitudes and behaviors (Johnson & Schminke, 2019; Lyons, Volpone, Wessel, & Alonso, 2017; Vartanian, Thomas, & Vanman, 2013).
The first element that can modulate how a disability is perceived is its visibility. The general image that we have when we think of a disabled person is someone in a wheelchair. This stereotypical image is detrimental because it oversimplifies how a disabled person can look and, moreover, it is not representative of the majority of disabilities: only 3% of disabled people are wheelchair users (Tisserant, 2012). While only 20% of disabilities are visible, more than 90% of the population overestimates this ratio and imagines that a disability is most of the time visible (Agefiph & Ifop, 2021).
Compared to visible disabilities, workers with invisible disabilities need to decide whether they want to disclose their disability, to whom, how and when (Norstedt, 2019). While passing as an able-worker can be an advantage to avoid discrimination in the hiring process for example, it makes it complicated to obtain the appropriate working conditions and therefore increases the risk of losing the job (Lindsay, Cagliostro, & Carafa, 2018).
Because the general population thinks that it is possible to judge whether someone is disabled or not by looking at the person, someone with an invisible disability is often perceived as an able person faking a disability (Colella, 2001; Paetzold et al., 2008). Colleagues can imagine that the person is pretending to be disabled to obtain a job accommodation such as flexible hours or remote working (Florey & Harrison, 2000; Paetzold et al., 2008). This is especially true with accommodations that are seen as valuable, facilitate performance, or that make the job easier (Colella, 2001; Paetzold et al., 2008). This mistrust regarding those who claim to be disabled but have an invisible disability is heightened by the fact that no one besides the occupational doctor is supposed to know the details about the disability and factors requiring accommodations.
The supposed responsibility for a deficiency can also influence how the disability is perceived. An observer can assume that a disability is self-caused, meaning the person is responsible for their condition (Stone & Colella, 1996) or for remaining disabled (Laberon, Scordato, & Corbière, 2017). This idea is associated with several disabilities such as obesity (Johnson & Schminke, 2019), HIV (Lyons et al., 2017) or mental disorders in general (Laberon et al., 2017). When a person’s disability is seen as self-caused, it is perceived as an indicator of the person’s personality: if a person has contracted HIV from a sexual encounter it can be an indication of recklessness, whereas HIV caused by a blood transfer does not give any clue about the person’s traits (Lyons et al., 2017).
When a person is perceived as accountable for their disability, people have more negative reactions toward them (Stone & Colella, 1996) often linked to anger (Florey & Harrison, 2000), whereas non-self-caused disabilities more often cause reactions of pity (Corrigan, Markowitz, Watson, Rowan, & Kubiak, 2003). Others (e.g. colleagues) may also be less likely to provide help (Johnson & Schminke, 2019). In terms of social integration, people with disabilities supposed to be controllable are more likely to activate negative emotional reactions (Patton, 2022) and less sympathy (Broomhead, 2019), to be avoided and therefore excluded from the work team (Patton, 2022; Stone & Colella, 1996).
In addition to visibility and responsibility, the kind of disability can have an impact on others’ perceptions. For example, mental and intellectual disabilities are associated with specific stereotypes (Werner, 2015), and the individuals who suffer from them are therefore more excluded. Because individuals with mental disorders are seen as disruptive and dangerous (Stone & Colella, 1996), they are less likely to be hired (Corrigan et al., 2003; Laberon et al., 2017). Individuals are more likely to avoid contact (Corrigan et al., 2003) with those who have mental disorders, which are seen as having more impact on social interactions (Colella, Paetzold, & Belliveau, 2004). Job applicants with mental disorders are discriminated against as much when applying for a high-complexity job (e.g. phone operator) as a low-complexity job (e.g. janitorial job), whereas other kinds of disabilities are discriminated against only when applying for high-complexity jobs (Gouvier, Sytsma-Jordan, & Mayville, 2003). People with mental disorders are perceived as having a low employability meaning that any attempts to fit in at work tend to fail because they are not expected to have a capacity for adaptation (Laberon, 2014).
1.2 Categorization, stereotypes, and models of judgments
Categorization and stereotypes
Discrimination begins with a process of categorization, by defining the differences between groups and more particularly between ingroups and outgroups: “What makes us different from them” (Tajfel, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). Categories lead to social comparison where people try to decide which group has the better characteristics. This comparison is often based on social status. The search for what distinguishes two groups of people implicitly confirms that there is a high-status group, a “better” group (Finlay & Lyons, 2000). With disability, this perspective of a better group is obvious as people are either able or dis-able, thus only defined by the lack of something.
Categorization is based mostly on visible characteristics. It occurs early when meeting someone and guides first impressions. When individuals are assigned to a category, they are associated with all the stereotypes attached to this group (Pohl & Klein, 2014). Stereotypes are shared beliefs, inferred qualities, and characteristics of a category of people (Rothbart & Taylor, 1992; Schadron, 2006). They were first described by Lippmann (1922) as patterns and mental images that provide an illustration of someone in a given group. Stereotypes, although harmful, serve the following purpose: they simplify reality and guide first impressions. They provide preconceived knowledge and serve to anticipate the future behaviors of a person we know nothing about (Schuhl, Chatard, & Lambert, 2020; ter Stal, Tabak, op den Akker, Beinema, & Hermens, 2020).
Stereotypes have a descriptive dimension (e.g., “disabled people are brave”) but also a prescriptive dimension (e.g., “disabled people must be brave”). In other words, people from a social group must behave stereotypically and respect social beliefs about them, or they risk backlash and are perceived negatively (Bosak, Kulich, Rudman, & Kinahan, 2018). For example, a woman leader is perceived as too assertive and authoritarian and is therefore considered a bad leader. Backlash is defined as the consequences a person can suffer when violating stereotypes associated with that person’s social group (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). These consequences can involve social and financial aspects (e.g., social eviction, less chances of obtaining a promotion). People who engage in counterstereotypical behaviors transgress their given social role and therefore are seen as deviant (Bosak et al., 2018; Phelan & Rudman, 2010). Backlash in the work context has largely been studied as regards gender discrimination (Bosak et al., 2018; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004) and racial discrimination (Phelan & Rudman, 2010) but to our knowledge not regarding disability. However, backlash could happen with disabled workers if they do not fulfill people’s expectations and transgress stereotypes (e.g., being friendly but incompetent). Disabled people with counterstereotypical traits could also be considered as threats to the self-esteem of able people, especially if the disabled colleague outperforms them (Paetzold et al., 2008; Parks-Stamm, Heilman, & Hearns, 2008).
This is particularly important in a recruitment interview because the first behaviors and interactions have an impact on all the subsequent interactions (Snyder, 1984). Recruiters act differently with candidates based on what they already know about the stereotypes attached to the candidate’s group. Recruiters behave in a way that reflects their preconceived opinion (Pohl & Klein, 2014). For example, if a recruiter assumes that a disabled candidate is less capable of working, the recruiter may speak to the candidate with pity (Lyons et al., 2017) and as a result, the candidate will not feel empowered and will be less likely to prove the recruiter wrong and demonstrate competitiveness. In this example, the applicant simply demonstrated behavioral confirmation: the applicant’s behavior confirmed the recruiter’s stereotypes (Snyder, Decker Tanke, & Berscheid, 2019).
Main models of social judgment based on the Big Two
Previous research has shown that traits we attribute to others or ourselves are based on two dimensions: the first includes competence, abilities, and accomplishments while the second is based on social interactions and relationships (Bruckmüller & Abele, 2013). Depending on the models and authors, there can be some differences in how these two dimensions are named, and their definitions can be subtly different. For example, Oosterhof and Todorov (2008) propose that when evaluating faces, the two dimensions are trustworthiness and dominance. Trustworthiness is the lack of the intention of causing harm, whereas dominance refers to the ability to cause harm (Walker & Vetter, 2014).
Abele and Wojciszke (2007) posited a two-dimensional model based on one’s decision to act in order to achieve a goal (i.e., agency) or to behave to serve others’ interests or maintain good relationships (i.e., communion). Communion seems to have more impact than agency as people described themselves and others with communal traits more than agency traits and that overall people based their attitudes more on communal clues (Bruckmüller & Abele, 2013).
Moreover, Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu (2002) developed the Stereotype Content Model that defines the two dimensions as warmth and competence. This model has been tested with disabled perception and has shown in several studies after this initial one that disabled people are perceived as warm but incompetent (Louvet, 2007; Louvet, Rohmer, & Dubois, 2009; Rohmer & Louvet, 2018; Schuhl et al., 2020). To score high on one dimension and low on the other can be the consequence of a compensation strategy (Owuamalam, Wong, & Rubin, 2016) where the person is overrated on one dimension to compensate for a poor evaluation on the other in order to respect politeness norms. This compensation does not occur with every group, as intermediate status groups for example do not benefit from this kind of strategy (Owuamalam et al., 2016). Fiske et al. (2002) showed that homeless people, for example, are perceived low in both competence and warmth.
More recently however these two-dimensional models have been challenged and improved (Abele & Hauke, 2020) because they might have been a little too simplistic (Carrier, Louvet, & Rohmer, 2014). According to Carrier, Louvet, and Rohmer (2014), competence from Fiske et al.’s model (2002) and agency from Abele & Wojciszke’s model (2007) are two distinct sub-dimensions of the vertical dimension of judgment that do not totally overlap. Indeed, if competence includes abilities (e.g., efficient), agency reflects more the use of abilities to achieve one’s goal (e.g., competitive). Other authors chose to distinguish “facets” of the original dimensions as in the agency-communion model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007) where the facets are agency-assertiveness, agency-competence, communion-morality and communion-warmth (Abele & Hauke, 2020). The facets of agency distinguish competence (i.e., abilities) from assertiveness (i.e., motivation, willingness) whereas the facets of communion differentiate warmth (e.g., friendly) and the morality component, trustworthiness (e.g., reliable).
Across all of these models and various definitions, stereotypes are not only negative or flaws but also have a positive component. Can this also be detrimental for disabled candidates? The answer is yes. In a work context, perceived competence slightly increases calls for job interviews while warmth does not (Veit, Arnu, Di Stasio, Yemane, & Coenders, 2022). Pietraszkiewicz et al. (2019) analyzed job advertisements and found that for typically female jobs, descriptions contained more communal words and for typically male jobs descriptions contained more agentic words. A fundamental factor in hiring decisions is the good fit between the ideal candidate imagined by the recruiter (Gouvier, Steiner, Jackson, Schlater, & Rain, 1991) and the actual candidate. Studies like Pietraszkiewicz et al. (2019) made it obvious that a man will be perceived as a better fit for certain jobs compared to women (i.e. the minority group) without any objective evidence. The same should apply to disabled candidates who, like women, are attributed more communal than agentic traits.
Specific stereotypes about disability at work
As this study’s aim was to test stereotypes attributed to persons with disabilities, the most relevant model was Fiske et al. (2002)’s model of warmth and competence because it was built to measure stereotype perceptions. However, it was not specifically built for disabled people. Several specialized studies have put forward other issues that concern disabled workers. To widen and enhance our understanding about the perception of disabled people, this study used 21 stereotypes found in several sources (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Fiske et al., 2002; Laberon et al., 2017; Nieuwenhuijsen, Noordik, Van Dijk, & Van Der Klink, 2013; Stone & Colella, 1996). The 21 stereotypes are defined more precisely and illustrated below.
In the original warmth and competence model (Fiske et al., 2002), participants had to estimate to which extent a disabled worker was competent, capable, intelligent, warm, friendly, and sincere. These traits were expected to measure competence and warmth perceptions.
In a French study about disabled people in a work context, Louvet and Rohmer (2016) tested social judgement, and they distinguished competence and effort perceptions. Like competence, effort is considered a component of social utility. Effort was measured using the following traits: motivated, persevering, and determined. Effort indicates the will to use one’s competence to achieve a goal, which is particularly important in a recruitment process (Cohen, Darnon, & Mollaret, 2017; Rohmer & Louvet, 2022). Distinguishing competence and effort is important because even if disabled workers are perceived incompetent, their motivation is often overrated. However, academic success is perceived to be linked with competence more than with effort (Rohmer & Louvet, 2022).
The author of the original model based on traits of competence and warmth (Fiske et al., 2002) recently added the stereotype efficient to his model (Fiske, 2018). This stereotype apparently relates more to the competence aspects than the effort aspects of the other models (Louvet & Rohmer, 2016; Rohmer & Louvet, 2022). Efficient may also be an indicator of agency and is used as such in some models (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007). Because the trait efficient is used frequently in perceptions of disabled people and in a work context while the measure associated with it seems to vary, it is important to consider it without a preconstructed model.
One aspect of disability that could have consequences on the entire work team is the autonomy of the disabled worker. Autonomy is a key aspect in return-to-work efficiency (Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2013) and can influence the overall dynamics of a work team if the tasks must be split or reorganized. A dependent worker is the recurrent fear of managers when hiring a disabled worker (Laberon et al., 2017). Conversely, with some disabilities, employers can be reluctant to allow too much autonomy if the worker is seen as dangerous or unreliable (Stone & Colella, 1996): employers want to stay in control of the employee’s behavior.
Work engagement is a fundamental issue in work psychology and is an important criteria for managers when recruiting a disabled worker (Laberon et al., 2017). Managers can fear or imagine that a disabled worker would be less involved than an able worker. The term involved was retained to measure this stereotype because it is more understandable for non-psychologists. This trait may be linked to effort perception as someone not involved would probably not make much effort.
The perception of weaker involvement can be associated with less ambition (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018). The trait ambitious has been used in agency measures as an indicator of the will to expand oneself (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Bruckmüller & Abele, 2013; Cohen et al., 2017). Ambition has also been used in some cases to measure competence when studying compensation strategies (Cambon & Yzerbyt, 2018). It could be a complementary indicator of motivational aspects, as being motivated does not necessary mean being extremely ambitious, but perhaps only reflects the desire to perform as well as able-bodied workers.
Studies run in multiple work contexts (Laberon et al., 2017; Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2013; Sylvain & Durand, 2017; Zhang, McLeod, & Koehoorn, 2016) have shown that managers worry about the successful inclusion of a disabled worker in an organization, because they fear sick leave and return-to-work difficulties. Chronic health conditions can effectively have a significant impact on work productivity loss (Zhang et al., 2016). A study based on employer interviews (Laberon et al., 2017) has shown that frequent absences are a concern when employing someone with a mental disorder, and this is considered an indicator of contextual performance. The belief that disabled workers are more frequently absent is also used as an indicator in the Employers’ Stigmatizing Attitudes toward People with Disabilities Scale (Bezyak, Iwanaga, Moser, & Chan, 2021) which aims to identify factors that contribute to discrimination against disabled workers.
Directly linked to the fear of absence is the fear of lateness. Punctuality is an important indicator managers use in their hiring decisions (Laberon et al., 2017). Being disabled can increase the risk of being late because of medical appointments, medication, transportation accessibility, etc. Disabled workers can also legitimately be allowed to arrive at work later than their colleagues, as a job accommodation to help them start the day (Colella et al., 2004). All disabilities may not be concerned by this stereotype. Workers with intellectual disabilities, for example people with Down syndrome, are perceived as very punctual workers (Kumar, Srivastava, & Singh, 2019).
Why would a disabled worker be perceived as being more likely to be absent or punctual even if there is no objective reason? Some disabilities are associated with the stereotype of laziness. This is particularly true for disabilities such as dyslexia (Riddick, 2001) or obesity (Agerström & Rooth, 2011; Johnson & Schminke, 2019) where people with such disabilities are considered more often to be lazy than disabled. This perception of laziness has a great impact on managers’ acceptance of job accommodations, because laziness may be the reason why someone would fake or exaggerate a disability to obtain a job accommodation without needing it (Colella, 2001; Paetzold et al., 2008).
Some disabilities, especially mental disabilities, are perceived as dangerous (Stone & Colella, 1996). This dangerousness can have different consequences, the first is to consider the worker unreliable (Laberon et al., 2017) and the second to perceive the disabled worker as untrustworthy (Stone & Colella, 1996). Dangerousness and unreliability are sometimes perceived as the consequence of the potentially unpredictable behavior of disabled workers (Laberon et al., 2017). As being reliable and unpredictable are two distinct concepts, they were both included in this study. In the same register, a study based on crucial flaws in the disabled recruitment process used the term unstable (Rohmer & Louvet, 2006). The choice of keeping both unstable and unpredictable was motivated by the complementarity of the two dimensions, even if a worker perceived as unstable is logically also unpredictable. All these traits are problematic, in particular when they have an impact on work colleagues. This aspect was measured by the term disruptive, as perceived disruptiveness has been an important component of disability perception for several years (Laberon et al., 2017; Stone & Colella, 1996).
Research question 1. Considering the 21 stereotypes selected for this study, which are more specific to disability perception, can judgment still be summarized in only two factors?
Research question 2. When exploring each factor of the exploratory factor analysis of stereotypes, will differences appear between disabilities?