The Subtle Side of Stigma: Understanding and Reducing Mental Illness Stigma from a Contemporary Prejudice Perspective

Data from Project Implicit were analyzed to explore trends in ableism. Over 300,000 U.S. residents with and without disabilities completed the Disability Implicit Association Test and two measures of explicit prejudice. The most consistent predictors of bias across types of prejudice were gender and contact with individuals with disabilities: Women and those who had contact were less prejudiced. Temporal analyses indicated that mean implicit prejudice increased over time (2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)), yet explicit bias showed a decline over the same period. Among people with disabilities, implicit and explicit prejudice were related to lower contact with others who shared one's disability, as well as to perceptions that one's disorder affects few activities and/or is primarily mental or emotional. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Demographic, Experiential, and Temporal Variation in Ableism

Harder

Keller

Chopik

2019

“…On a more hopeful note, two essays address solidarities and structural interventions designed to prevent/minimize ableism. Ostrove, Kornfeld, and Ibrahim () reveal features of “effective” nondisabled allies, as appreciated by disabled informants, whereas Young, Goldberg, Struthers, McCann, and Phills () offer evidence on an educational intervention to reduce ableism.…”

Section: Prevention Transformation and Alliesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Disability Studies: Looking Back and Forward

Fine

2019

This epilogue is written in three voices. I reflect back, in conversation with Adrienne Asch, on the history of critical disability studies in psychology; then I thank Kathleen R. Bogart and Dana S. Dunn as I review the magnificent set of articles in the volume centering the construct ableism, and finally I write to the next generation of dis/crit scholars on how we might democratize, decolonize, and curate psychological inquiries on ableism and in solidarity with disability justice. Drafted as a love letter to the late Adrienne Asch, the essay considers where we have come, and where we have yet to go, as a field that takes seriously and takes to task the role that professional psychology has played in constructing, and segregating, disabled persons. The essay ends with ethical and epistemological musings about our obligation to animate a radically engaged, intersectional, critical, participatory, and provocative assemblage of research that is at once anti-ableist and crafted toward disability justice.

“…Importantly, these conversations are not new; defining disability has been a longstanding theoretical and methodological challenge in many fields (for a broad overview of this issue, see Fujiura & Rutkowski‐Kmitta, ). This issue has also had implications for conversations about incarceration, particularly on mental health and historical conceptions of “normalcy” (Ben‐Moshe, ) as well as stigma around mental health conditions (Young, Goldberg, Struthers, McCann, & Phills, ). These differences are important not just for comparing the reports but because of the questions they raise about how definitions shape our conversations and analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disability: Missing from the Conversation of Violence

Mueller

Forber‐Pratt

Sriken

2019

The data on violence against disabled people are scarce. The data on prevalence that does exist is staggering, however: disabled people make up one third to one half of all people killed by law enforcement and experience twice the rate of violence that others do. To study the relationships among ableism, violence, and disability as an intersectional identity, we use a DisCrit theoretical framework to conduct a selective review of three reports: a Bureau of Justice Statistics (2017) report on violence and disability, a Ruderman Foundation white paper on media coverage of police violence and disability (Perry and Carter-Long), and a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) investigating the mass incarceration of people with disabilities in the United States (Vallas). The authors examine ways the available data tell a particular story about disability and violence and identify crucial missing conversations. The findings from these analyses suggest that to combat ableism and the violence it causes, oppressive systems must be named, the voices of disabled individuals must be included, and data on disability must be more systematically gathered in all national efforts related to violence and violence prevention. We also present the implications of this work for social policy, psychologists, and larger contributions to the literature on victimization.Violence, broadly defined, has rightly become a target of public reckoning in the United States. Although disability activists (disabled activists of color in particular) have been identifying the effects of violence on the disability community for a decade or more (Harriett Tubman Collective, 2018), research, policy, and publicly available data have just begun acknowledging and exploring this problem and its relationship to disability and ableism. In this article, we engage with scholarly and activist work that defines many aspects of violence and its relationship