“Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism

被引:27
作者
Gernsbacher M.A. [1 ]
Raimond A.R. [2 ]
Balinghasay M.T. [1 ]
Boston J.S. [1 ]
机构
[1] University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
[2] University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
关键词
Down Syndrome; Free Association; Intellectual Disability; Personal Connection; Psychiatric Disability;
D O I
10.1186/s41235-016-0025-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Although euphemisms are intended to put a more positive spin on the words they replace, some euphemisms are ineffective. Our study examined the effectiveness of a popular euphemism for persons with disabilities, special needs. Most style guides prescribe against using the euphemism special needs and recommend instead using the non-euphemized term disability; disability advocates argue adamantly against the euphemism special needs, which they find offensive. In contrast, many parents of children with disabilities prefer to use special needs rather than disability. But no empirical study has examined whether special needs is more or less positive than the term it replaces. Therefore, we gathered a sample of adult participants from the general population (N = 530) and created a set of vignettes that allowed us to measure how positively children, college students, and middle-age adults are viewed when they are described as having special needs, having a disability, having a certain disability (e.g., is blind, has Down syndrome), or with no label at all. We predicted and observed that persons are viewed more negatively when described as having special needs than when described as having a disability or having a certain disability, indicating that special needs is an ineffective euphemism. Even for members of the general population who have a personal connection to disability (e.g., as parents of children with disabilities), the euphemism special needs is no more effective than the non-euphemized term disability. We also collected free associations to the terms special needs and disability and found that special needs is associated with more negativity; special needs conjures up more associations with developmental disabilities (such as intellectual disability) whereas disability is associated with a more inclusive set of disabilities; and special needs evokes more unanswered questions. These findings recommend against using the euphemism special needs. © 2016, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]  
Adams R.M., Soft soap and the nitty-gritty, Fair of speech, pp. 44-55, (1985)
[2]  
Allan K., Burridge K., Euphemism and dysphemism, (1991)
[3]  
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (2010)
[4]  
Annan-Prah E.C., Basic business and administrative communication, (2015)
[5]  
Appleton L., Flynn M., Searching for the new normal: Exploring the role of language and metaphors in becoming a cancer survivor, European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18, pp. 378-384, (2014)
[6]  
New Senator speaks out for disabled, ABC News Online, (2007)
[7]  
Ballard K., Inclusion, paradigms, power and participation, Towards inclusive schools?, pp. 1-14, (1995)
[8]  
Barnes C., Sheldon A., ‘Emancipatory’ disability research and special educational needs, The Sage handbook of special education, pp. 233-246, (2007)
[9]  
Baron R.S., Burgess M.L., Kao C.F., Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected?, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, pp. 115-123, (1991)
[10]  
Berger R.J., Introducing disability studies, (2013)