Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros19-3Research Papers / Articles scient...Women with disabilities

Research Papers / Articles scientifiques

Women with disabilities

Impact of double categorization on stereotypes
Femmes avec handicap. L’impact de la double catégorisation sur les stéréotypes
Sabine De Bosscher et Gérald Delelis
p. 75-94

Résumés

Les stéréotypes sur les femmes et les personnes en situation de handicap peuvent être une source de discrimination. Les modèles récents de jugements sociaux distinguent deux dimensions principales des stéréotypes: la chaleur (la sociabilité, la moralité) et la compétence (la motivation, la capacité à atteindre des objectifs). Dans cette étude, nous avons utilisé le paradigme de Louvet et Rohmer (2010) pour tester l’effet du croisement du genre et du handicap sur les jugements de chaleur, de compétence et de courage. Les participants ont jugé des hommes, des femmes ou des personnes ayant ou non un handicap physique. Les résultats ont montré que les hommes avec handicap et les femmes (avec ou sans handicap) étaient considérés comme moins compétents mais plus chaleureux que les hommes sans handicap. De plus, le courage était une dimension essentielle des jugements des cibles avec handicap, qui ont été jugées plus courageuses que les cibles sans handicap. Nous discutons ces résultats à la lumière d’études antérieures sur les stéréotypes et sur le statut social des groupes discriminés. Percevoir les femmes et les personnes avec handicap comme courageuses mais non compétentes est une façon de justifier la discrimination sociale, y compris la discrimination au travail.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1Disability and gender, along with skin colour and age, are criteria that people primarily and automatically process when categorizing others (De Bosscher et al., 2010; Louvet & Rohmer, 2006; Miles, Nishida & Forber-Pratt, 2017). A person’s gender, which is often the first characteristic others notice, appears to trigger automatic processes relating to other descriptors (e.g., physical attractiveness). Therefore, people more immediately and more frequently refer to gender when describing a woman than when describing a man (De Bosscher & Durand-Delvigne, 2002; De Bosscher et al., 2010). Disability appears to be an even more prominent category than gender and skin color (Louvet & Rohmer, 2006; Rohmer & Louvet, 2009) and can be considered a primary category, as it is immediately perceptible, it is not chosen, and it durably or permanently affects some of an individual’s characteristics (Louvet & Rohmer, 2006). Stereotypes of people with disabilities and of women underly many types of discrimination, including in the professional world. Despite legislation against discrimination and the introduction of incentives promoting equality, workplace discrimination against people with disabilities and against women remains rife. Progress in gender equality has been observed: the female labor force participation rate continues to rise, and women now make up 49% of the working population (INSEE, 2025). However, gender disparities persist in several areas, including pay, working hours, opportunities for promotion (the “glass ceiling”), and sectoral distribution (Joshi, Son & Roh, 2015). In France, the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is significantly higher than that of the general population (12% vs. 7.3%), and their employment rate is notably lower: 38% compared to 68.1% (INSEE, 2023, 2024). Among individuals aged 25-54 who report having at least one disability (9.6% of the population in this age group), 23% state that they have experienced discrimination related to health or disability, compared with 4% of those without a reported disability. The most common forms of discrimination include mockery, ostracism, unfair treatment, or denial of rights. Additionally, disability remains the leading basis for discrimination complaints filed with the “Défenseur des Droits” (“Human Rights Defender”), accounting for 21% of cases in 2023, primarily linked to employment issues (37%). How can we explain the persistence of such workplace discrimination despite the implementation of various laws and numerous incentives aimed at encouraging companies to foster equality?

2The present study aimed to improve understanding of the processes that lead to discrimination against women and people with disabilities, and whether they result in cumulative effects, a double penalty, for people who combine these two categorical affiliations, notably the warmth, competence, and courage dimensions of these stereotypes.

1.1. Stereotype content

3Stereotypes are the result of a social categorization process by which people constitute sets of beliefs about the characteristics of members of a social group. Stereotypes influence people’s relationships with others and affect their judgments and behaviors towards them. Fiske et al. (2002) proposed the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) to explain prejudice and discrimination against social groups. This model is composed of two dimensions: warmth, related to positive or negative behaviors, and competence, related to the ability to enact them. Furthermore, although some groups are stereotyped as warm and competent and others are stereotyped as incompetent and cold (such as homeless people), most groups are subject to mixed stereotypes, that is, they are perceived as warm but incompetent (notably older adults, people with disabilities, and young children) or as cold but competent (businessmen) (Fiske, 2015; Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2006).

4These stereotyped judgments of a group’s warmth and competence impact people’s emotional and behavioral responses to members of that group. Groups perceived as warm and competent elicit pride, admiration and requests for alliances, for example; groups perceived as cold and incompetent elicit contempt, disgust and attitudes of rejection, stigmatisation and exclusion; groups perceived as cold but competent elicit envy, jealousy and rivalry or competition; and groups perceived as warm but incompetent elicit pity and sympathy, as well as help, condescending support and charity (Fiske, 2015, 2018). Furthermore, people appear to apply a standard of justice according to which everyone has some good qualities and occupies their rightful place in the system, this motivation being linked, at least in part, their desire to see the system as justified (Fiske et al., 2002). According to system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), individuals tend to justify the status quo and perceive the current system as fair and legitimate (Kay et al., 2007). By attributing a mix of weaknesses and strengths to both advantaged and disadvantaged groups, stereotypes reinforce the perception that the system is balanced, fair, and justified (Schmitz & Yzerbyt, 2022). Consequently, stereotypes not only describe and explain social hierarchies, they also allow people to justify them and to accept their position, whether dominant or subordinate, within them (Jost & Banaji, 2004). They also legitimise antipathy toward other groups (Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2006) and justify discrimination, including in the workplace.

1.2. Stereotypes about women and people with disabilities

5Sexism has been widely studied (e.g., Bosak, Sczesny & Eagly, 2008; Eagly, 1987; Ellemers, 2018). Characteristics typically associated with men include competence-related traits, such as dominance and self-confidence, which are linked to social utility – namely, a person’s ability to meet the primary demands of the society they inhabit and achieve high status within it (Rohmer & Louvet, 2012). These traits are also commonly associated with high-status positions (see Carrier et al., 2014). In contrast, characteristics typically associated with women include warmth traits, such as affectionate and supportive, linked to social desirability, which reflects people’s true worth – their ability to meet others’ needs and elicit positive responses from them (Rohmer & Louvet, 2012). Gender stereotypes are ambivalent, with women being seen as warm but not competent and men being seen as competent but not warm. According to Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987), gender stereotypes are rooted in the division of labor: stereotypes of men highlight competence traits because men have a much longer history of being paid for their labour and have long dominated command roles. Conversely, women’s domestic responsibilities and frequent employment in service roles may have led to the idea that they inherently possess warmth characteristics (see Eagly & Mladinic, 1989) that are seen as inconsistent with the attributes (competences) needed for key organizational positions (Heilman & Eagly, 2008). However, a meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (2020) indicates that these stereotypes can evolve over time and across contexts, particularly in response to the increasing participation of women in the professional sphere.

6Ableism involves prejudices, stereotypes, discrimination, and social oppression of people with disabilities (Bogart & Dunn, 2019; Santuzzi & Cook, 2020). Although people with disabilities arouse sympathy, they also trigger negative judgments, discrimination, and ostracism. As a result, attitudes toward people with disabilities are often ambiguous. While respondents highlight a perceived lack of skills among individuals with disabilities, they also acknowledge that these individuals are victims of discrimination (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018a). These ambivalent attitudes make social interactions a source of anxiety for people with disabilities (Brown & Moloney, 2019; Dovidio, Pagotto & Hebl, 2011). In work contexts, people with disabilities are perceived as dependent, incompetent, passive, unemployable, weak, and less intelligent than people without disabilities, but they are also described as, hardworking, persevering, honest, friendly, warm, and courageous (Fiske et al., 2002; Nario-Redmond, 2010; Novak, Feyes & Christensen, 2011; Rohmer & Louvet, 2016, 2018b). Hence, they are seen as less competent but warmer and more courageous than people without disabilities (Rohmer & Louvet, 2011). In other words, stereotypes of people with disabilities involve not only the Big Two dimensions, but also a third dimension combining courage and perseverance. This third dimension describes another form of social utility in addition to competence, which reflects only a group’s immediate economic value (Rohmer & Louvet, 2012). Courage is widely regarded as one of the most admired virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), particularly in the workplace. Moreover, behavioral courage has been shown to positively correlate with job performance (Tkachenko et al., 2018). Attributing courage to people with disabilities may be interpreted as a favorable evaluation, compensating for their devaluation on the competence dimension. This attribution could also serve as a strategy for individuals making such favorable judgments to enhance their own self-image (Rohmer & Louvet, 2018a).

1.3. Stereotypes toward women with disabilities

7Women with disabilities are especially vulnerable to socio-economic disadvantages (Kavanagh et al., 2015), higher rates of harassment (both psychological and sexual), more frequent workplace discrimination, and lower wages compared to both women without disabilities and men, whether disabled or not (Bend & Priola, 2018). Gender and disability indirectly affect well-being through their association with lower job prestige, reduced pay, more stressful working conditions, limited job autonomy, and decreased opportunities for creativity (Brown & Moloney, 2019).

8How does the interaction between these two discriminated categories influence the stereotypes associated with individuals belonging to both – namely, women with disabilities? According to Coleman, Brunell & Haugen (2015), women with physical disabilities do not align with the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype and are consequently judged more negatively than other women. Women with disabilities are often stereotyped as incompetent, unfit for parenthood (see also Santuzzi & Cook, 2020), vulnerable, socially excluded, and impoverished. Meanwhile, men with disabilities are stereotyped as angry, inferior, and lazy. Interestingly, stereotypes about women with disabilities resemble those about men with disabilities. However, stereotypes about women without disabilities differ significantly from those about men without disabilities (Nario-Redmond, 2010). Despite this similarity, judgments about women with disabilities are likely harsher because they belong to two stigmatized groups – a phenomenon referred to as “double discrimination” (Lloyd, 1992). The combined effects of sexism and ableism can significantly impact their well-being, particularly in the workplace (Brown & Moloney, 2019).

1.4. Objectives and hypotheses

9The present study’s objectives were (1) to verify the results of previous research on stereotypes of people with disabilities and of women, and (2) to determine how crossing disability with gender affects these stereotypes.

10In the light of Louvet & Rohmer (2010), Rohmer & Louvet (2011), Bosak, Sczesny & Eagly (2008), Coleman, Brunell & Haugen (2015), Eagly & Mladinic (1989), and Fiske, Cuddy & Glick (2006), we expected participants’ stereotypes of people in a work context to differ according to whether the target had a disability and according to the target’s gender. We tested three hypotheses. We expected participants to perceive women without disabilities as less competent but warmer than men without disabilities (Hypothesis 1). We expected participants to perceive people (of unspecified gender) who use wheelchairs because of a disability as less competent but warmer and more courageous than people (of unspecified gender) without disabilities (Hypothesis 2). We expected participants to perceive people belonging to two stigmatized groups (i.e., women in wheelchairs), as less competent but warmer and more courageous than people belonging to a single stigmatized group (i.e., men or people in wheelchairs, women without disabilities). The latter, in turn, would be perceived as less competent but warmer and more courageous than individuals who belong to neither of the two discriminated groups (i.e., men without disabilities) (Hypothesis 3).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

11We invited approximately 300 participants in total. After excluding 68 incomplete or non-evaluable contributions (i.e., questionnaires that were not fully completed), the final sample consisted of 232 first-year students (from psychology, humanities, sociology, or biology). The participants were aged between 18 and 26 years (M = 21.7, SD = 4.0), with 120 women and 112 men. All participants were volunteers who received no compensation, and none exhibited any visible physical disabilities.

12The design is a 2*3*3 experimental design, with two between-subjects variables: target situation (in a wheelchair due to a disability or no reference to a disability, considered as without disabilities in our analyses) and gender (men, women, or people of unspecified gender), and one repeated measure: stereotype dimension (competence, warmth, and courage). The test of hypothesis 1 is based on the 3*3 plane (gender*dimension of the stereotype), that of hypothesis 2 on the 2*3 plane (situation*dimension of the stereotype), and that of hypothesis 3 on the 2*3*3 plane.

13The number of participants solicited was based on an expected 30 to 40 participants per between-subjects condition (gender*target situation), corresponding to a range of 180 to 240 participants.

2.2. Material and procedure

14A naïve experimenter introduced the study to participants either at the end of a class or in the university library. After obtaining their consent, participants completed a questionnaire based on the one developed by Louvet & Rohmer (2010). The questionnaire included three traits for each of the three stereotype dimensions: warmth (warm, open, and nice), competence (competitive, efficient, and productive), and courage (courageous, deserving, and persevering). Scores for each dimension were calculated as the mean of the responses for its three constituent traits.

15We created six versions of the questionnaire by varying the target’s situation (in a wheelchair due to a disability or no reference to a disability, considered as without disabilities in our analyses) and gender (men, women, or people of unspecified gender). Each participant completed one version, allocated randomly. They rated the traits on five-point scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Completely).

16We chose to present targets with disabilities as being in wheelchairs because being in a wheelchair is a central element in representations of disability. Consequently, perceptions of the broader “people with disabilities” category were linked to the “people with physical disabilities” sub-category, which was further connected to the “people in wheelchairs” sub-category (Rohmer & Louvet, 2011).

17To minimize social desirability bias, participants were instructed to imagine how most people would respond to the items rather than expressing their own opinions (Louvet & Rohmer, 2006). The items asked participants to indicate, “How are (target group) generally perceived in the professional world?” The target groups were men, women, people of unspecified gender (hereafter referred to as “people”), men in wheelchairs due to a physical disability, women in wheelchairs due to a physical disability, and people in wheelchairs due to a physical disability.

3. Results

18The analyses were carried out using Jamovi – Version 2.3.12.0 software.

3.1. Preliminary analyses

19A principal component analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation and with the nine personality traits as active variables clearly indicated a three-factor structure (Test Bartlett, X236=518, p < .001; KMO between .566 - Persevering - and .709 - Deserving), explaining 65% of the total variance (Table 1). This structure is consistent with findings reported by Louvet & Rohmer (2006). Internal consistencies were satisfactory (respectively α = .73 for competence, α = .73 for warmth, and α = .68 for courage).

Table 1. Principal components analysis (Oblimin Rotation) with the nine personality traits as active variables

Competence

Warmth

Courage

Productive

.861

Sucessful

.806

Competitive

.765

Nice

.862

Warm

.843

Open

.685

Courageous

.825

Deserving

.793

Persevering

.698

20We then examined potential differences in ratings based on participants’ gender. No significant main effect of participants’ gender was found for any of the stereotype dimensions (warmth: F(1, 220) = 2.95, p = .09; competence: F(1, 220) = 2.82, p = .09, courage: F(1, 220) <1) or any interaction effects with target gender (respectively F(2, 220) <1; F(2, 220) <1; F(2, 220) = 1.90, p = .15), target situation (respectively F(1, 220) = 1.72, p = .19; F(1, 220) <1; F(1, 220) = 1.11, p = .29), or target gender and situation (respectively F(2, 220) = 2.47, p = .09; F(2, 220) <1; F(2, 220) <1).

3.2. Combined effect of gender and disability

21Our third hypothesis was that individuals belonging to two stigmatized groups (e.g., women in wheelchairs) would be perceived as less competent but warmer and more courageous than those in a single stigmatized group (e.g., men in wheelchairs or women without disabilities), who would themselves be perceived as less competent but warmer and more courageous than people who do not belong to either discriminated group (men without disabilities). The interaction between the three variables was significant, F(4, 452) = 7.41, p < .001, η2 = .013 and results partially confirmed our hypothesis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Mean competence, courage, and warmth judgments as a function of target situation and gender

Figure 1. Mean competence, courage, and warmth judgments as a function of target situation and gender

22Warmth

Participants perceiveid women, men, and people with disabilities as equally warm (all ps > .05). However, more nuanced comparisons revealed some interesting differences. Firstly, about having a disability, women with disabilities are perceived as equally warm as women without disabilities (p > .05), but warmer than men (t226 = 3.96, p < .001) and people without disabilities (t226 = 6.62, p < .001), men with disabilities are perceived warmer than men (t226 = 3.56, p < .001) and people without disabilities (t226 = 6.24, p < .001), and people with disabilities are perceived warmer than men (t226 = 2.24, p = .026) and people without disabilities (t226 = 4.93, p < .001).

23Secondly, concerning the targets without disabilities, women without disabilities are perceived as equally warm as men or people with disabilities (p > .05), but warmer than men (t226 = 2.59, p = .01) or people without disabilities (t226 = 5.32, p < .001), and men without disabilities are perceived warmer than people without disabilities (t226 = 2.73, p = .007).

24Summary for warmth:

Participants rated women with disabilities as the warmest group, followed by men with disabilities, people with disabilities, and women without disabilities, all of whom being perceived as warmer than men without disabilities and people without disabilities.

25Competence

Participants judged women, men and people with disabilities as equally competent (all ps > .05). However, once again, some interesting differences appear for both targets with disabilities and targets without. While women with disabilities are perceived as being equally competent as women without disabilities are (p > .05), they are perceived as less competent than men (t226 = -8.14, p < .001) and people without disabilities (t226 = -5.26, p < .001). Men with disabilities are perceived less competent than men (t226 = -7.38, p < .001) and people without disabilities and (t226 = -4.49, p < .001). People with disabilities are perceived less competent than men (t226 = -8.55, p = .026) and people without disabilities (t226 = -5.65, p < .001). Furthermore, women without disabilities are perceived as equally competent as men with disabilities (p > .05), but more competent than people with disabilities (t226 = 2.20, p = .029), and less competent than men (t226 = -6.43, p = .01) and people without disabilities (t226 = -3.51, p < .001). Men without disabilities are perceived as more competent than people without disabilities (t226 = 2.88, p = .004).

26Summary for competence:

Participants rated men without disabilities as the most competent individuals, followed by people without disabilities, then women without disabilities. People with disabilities (regardless of gender) were rated as the least competent targets.

27Courage

Finally, participants judged women, men and people with disabilities as equally courageous (all ps > .05) and the same result is true for women, men and people without disabilities (all ps > .05). But detailed comparisons revealed local differences. Thus, individuals with disabilities are perceived more courageous that all other individuals: women with disabilities are perceived as more courageous than women (t226 = 5.16, p < .001), men (t226 = 5.46, p < .001), and people without disabilities (t226 = 6.98, p < .001); men with disabilities are perceived more courageous than women (t226 = 5.66, p < .001), men (t226 = 5.96, p < .001), and people without disabilities (t226 = 7.49, p < .001); people with disabilities are perceived more courageous than women (t226 = 6.04, p < .001), men (t226 = 6.34, p = .026), and people without disabilities (t226 = 7.86, p < .001).

28Summary for courage:

Participants consistently perceived individuals with disabilities (regardless of gender) as more courageous than non-disabled individuals.

29Summary of profiles

Discriminated groups (women with or without disabilities, men and people with disabilities) are described by participants as warmer than non-discriminated groups (men or people without disabilities). A similar pattern appeared for the description in terms of competence, except in the case of women without disabilities, who are described as more competent than individuals with disabilities – though in the opposite direction. Courage seemed to be particularly salient when describing individuals with disabilities and less so when describing individuals without disabilities. Individuals with disabilities were perceived as more courageous than those without disabilities (see Hypothesis 2).

30In summary, across groups, distinctive profiles of stereotypes emerged. Men and people without disabilities are perceived primarily as competent, followed by courageous, and then warm. Conversely, participants described individuals with disabilities (regardless of gender) as most courageous, then warm, and lastly competent. Women without disabilities are perceived as equally warm and courageous, though somewhat less competent (See Appendix 1 for details).

3.3. Effect of target gender on stereotype content

31For this analysis, only the results for the non-disabled target group were considered to allow comparison with previous studies (n = 119).

32The target gender x judgment dimensions on participants’ responses was significant, F(4, 232) = 19, p < .001, η2 = .132. In line with our hypothesis, participants rated women as less competent but warmer than men (see Table 2 in Appendix 2). Thus, women are perceived warmer than men, t116 = 2,49, p = .014, and than people of unspecified gender, t116 = 5.11, p < .001. They are also judged less competent than men, t116 = 7.41, p < .001, and people of unspecified gender, t116 = 4.04, p < .001. The participants reported that men are more competent, t116 = 3.32, p = .001, and warmer, t116 = 2.63, p = .010, than people of unspecified gender. No significant differences in courage were observed across gender groups.

33Summary of profiles

Women are perceived as warm and courageous, with competence following, while men and people of unspecified gender are described as first competent, then courageous, and finally warm (See Appendix 1 for details).

3.4. Effect of disability on stereotype content

34For this analysis, only the results for the two group of people of unspecified gender were considered so that they can be compared with those of previous studies (n = 77).

35The interaction (target situation x judgment dimensions on participants’ responses) was significant, F(2,150) = 54.6, p < .001, η2 = .248.

36Results supported our hypothesis (Tables 3 & 4 in Appendix 2). In the descriptions, people with disabilities are less competent, t75 = 5.49, p < .001, but they are warmer, t75 = 4.52, p < .001, and more courageous, t75 = 9.48, p < .001, than people without disabilities.

37Summary of profiles

People without disabilities are perceived as first competent, then courageous, and finally warm, while they described people with disabilities as first courageous, then warm, and finally competent (See Appendix 1 for details).

4. Discussion

38The present study investigated stereotypes of two discriminated groups – people with disabilities and women. Participants reported their perceptions of the warmth, competence, and courage of people belonging to one, both or neither of these categories (women with or without disabilities, men with or without disabilities, people with or without disabilities). Stereotype contents differed according to the category of people considered.

4.1. Gender and stereotype content

39In line with Hypothesis 1, men were seen as paragons of competence compared with women and even compared with people in general, and women were viewed as warmer than men and warmer than people in general. Thus, in a professional context, women are primarily perceived through the lens of their gender group membership (De Bosscher & Durand-Delvigne, 2002), rather than in terms of individual abilities, leading to perceptions of warmth but limited competence while men and people of unspecified gender are perceived as more competent than warm. This finding is consistent with the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) and the concept of mixed stereotypes (Fiske, 2015). Regarding courage, women are perceived as equally courageous and warm, while men and people in general are rated moderately on courage – between warmth and competence. Additionally, although average ratings differed, descriptions of men and unspecified-gender individuals followed similar patterns, reinforcing the status of men as the normative human reference. It is worth noting that the results may have differed if the context had been more specific (e.g., a female-typed profession, a family setting, or a male-typed job), rather than a generic work environment

40Thus, according to Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987), power differences between women and men (the sexual hierarchy) reinforce gender stereotypes because the competence traits associated with work are also traits of high status and power. Differentiating between roles and statuses not only creates stereotypes, it creates a corresponding reality (Glick & Fiske, 2007). When a society is built on the division of labour between different groups, stereotypes are as much prescriptive as descriptive because efficient social functioning requires individuals to possess and exhibit the traits required to perform their assigned social role. In other words, they must be competent, but they do not need to be particularly warm.

4.2. Disability and stereotype content

41As expected (Hypothesis 2), participants viewed people with disabilities as more courageous and warmer than people without disabilities. This result is consistent with the findings of Louvet & Rohmer (2010), Rohmer & Louvet (2011), and Coleman, Brunell & Haugen (2015). Whereas stereotypes of people without disabilities highlight competence, stereotypes of people with disabilities highlight courage. Although, viewing people with disabilities as courageous may seem positive, this view is associated with low performance expectations (Santuzzi & Cook, 2020). As is the case for women, these low performance expectations influence recruitment decisions (ibid.). Warmth is the second most prominent dimension of stereotypes of people with disabilities, but being warm at work is not enough, and crediting people with disabilities’ successes to courage and effort, rather than to skill, amounts to considering them in a way that justifies the current social system. In addition to the fact that members of minority groups tend to be attributed negative traits, even the apparently positive traits assigned to them may, in fact, reflect a demeaning assessment.

4.3. Combined effect of gender and disability on stereotype content

42Results for the traits participants attributed to the discriminated groups of people – women without disabilities, women with disabilities, men with disabilities and people with disabilities (Hypothesis 3) – revealed several key insights. Participants rated these targets as equally warm – and warmer than men and individuals without disabilities. However, they also rated these groups as equally competent, yet less competent than men and individuals without disabilities. This suggests that warmth and competence are key dimensions in differentiating individuals who belong to one or more marginalized groups from those who belong to dominant groups, typically seen as the human prototype (De Bosscher & Durand-Delvigne, 2002; Nario-Redmond, 2010). Nicolas & Fiske (2023) discuss models of information integration that help explain how stereotypes combine across categories. Some models suggest that a target’s evaluation is based on the average perceptions of each group taken separately (Anderson, 1965). In this case, if a target is positively evaluated in both categories, its final evaluation will be positive. If one group evaluates it positively and the other negatively, the evaluation will be neutral. Other models emphasize the effect of extreme traits on the evaluation process (Fiske, 1980; Mende-Siedlecki, Baron & Todorov, 2013), while yet others suggest that new traits or emergent properties may arise when social categories intersect (Kunda, Miller & Claire, 1990). However, most studies in these models focus on intersections of categories that are perceived as incongruent or distinct in terms of competence or warmth, which is not the case in our study. Our results seem to align more with average models, with no cumulative effects at play.

43Finally, courage differentiates the stereotypes of women, men and, people with disabilities from those of women, men and, individuals without disabilities, as people with disabilities are perceived as more courageous than individuals without disabilities, regardless of their gender (Rohmer & Louvet, 2011).

4.4. Relationships between stereotype contents of gender and disability

44Our results are consistent with the model of mixed stereotype content (Fiske et al., 2002): people with disabilities are perceived as courageous and warm but incompetent; women are viewed as warm but less competent; and men as competent but less warm (Bosak, Sczesny & Eagly, 2008; Rohmer & Louvet, 2011). Studies focusing on the motivations of perceivers have also identified this type of compensatory benevolence towards discriminated groups, which may be due to politeness norms (Owuamalam, Wong & Rubin, 2016) influencing judgments of stigmatized groups. Thus, in addition to system justification mechanisms (Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004) and the desire to preserve the status quo (Judd et al., 2005), other norms may influence the descriptions of members of discriminated groups.

45The inclusion of a control condition (people of unspecified gender) in our study provided valuable insights into the relationships between different stereotypes. When individuals do not have a disability, the three “genders” are perceived differently, except in terms of courage. People of unspecified gender are perceived as less competent and less warm than men, but more competent and less warm than women. This result raises the following question: does using the term “person” without specifying gender lead participants to make an “average” assessment between a woman and a man?

46When individuals have a disability, the three categories of people – women, men, and people without specified gender – are perceived in an equivalent way. According to Rohmer & Louvet (2009), disability is a supraordinate category. This finding is consistent with the view that disability, as an identity, can “trump” gender, as noted by Hunt et al. (2018) and Banks (2010). All categorical systems include structural asymmetry, and categorical salience is stronger for lower status targets, such as people with disabilities or women, than for higher status targets. The lower the status of a category within a hierarchy, the greater its power to organize social perceptions. Because people with disabilities belong to a socially devalued minority group, they are often judged primarily based on their membership in this group. This can be seen in our results, which showed that all three targets with disabilities (women, men, and people of unspecified gender) were attributed similar levels of courage, regardless of their gender. Disability also appears to function as a supraordinate category with respect to attributions of competence and warmth: all three targets with disabilities were attributed similar amounts of competence and warmth. Whereas the level of competence attributed to targets without disabilities depended on their gender (men were perceived as more competent than people of unspecified gender, who in turn were perceived as more competent than women). Conversely, all three targets with disabilities were attributed similar amounts of warmth, but the amount of warmth attributed to the targets without disabilities depended on their gender: women are perceived as warmer than men and people, who are perceived as equally warm. Thus, gender is a differentiating characteristic for people without disabilities but not for people with disabilities (Nario-Redmond, 2010). In other words, disability is a more prominent category than gender (Louvet & Rohmer, 2006; Rohmer & Louvet, 2009).

47In contrast to previous findings (e.g., Brown & Moloney, 2019), our results did not provide evidence for women with disabilities being doubly disadvantaged (Lloyd, 1992), as our participants’ perceptions of women with disabilities were similar to their perceptions of men with disabilities and of people with disabilities. The reductionist view of disability (Louvet & Rohmer, 2016a), in which people are viewed primarily in terms of their impairment, regardless of their gender, results in them being judged on the basis of their group membership, rather than on their individual qualities. This may explain the discrimination people with disabilities experience, especially at work. Perceiving people with disabilities as lacking competence allows perceivers to explain and justify discriminating against them (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Rohmer & Louvet, 2016). At the same time, attributing courage is a way of compensating for negative competence judgments and of explaining people with disabilities’ successes. However, this image also influences the representations people with disabilities have both of themselves and of their performance (Ginsberg, Rohmer & Louvet, 2012).

48Policies promoting the social inclusion of people with disabilities rarely take into account psychosocial factors or the weight of contexts, stereotypes, and prejudices (Louvet & Rohmer, 2016a). According to the social model of disability (Shakespeare, 2006), institutional practices and policies contribute to the persistent problems faced by people who differ from the norm (Nario-Redmond, 2010). For people with disabilities, it is not their mental or physical impairment that is disabling but the effects of a society in which ability is the norm. In other words, disability is socially created (Lloyd, 1992). Ableism or validism comprises beliefs, processes, and practices that help create a body norm and define the only way to be perfect, species-typical, and, ultimately, fully human (Bogart & Dunn, 2019; Santuzzi & Cook, 2020). Ableism considers people without disabilities to be the norm (as men are the paradigm with respect to gender) and views disability as an altered form of humanity (Campbell, 2001).

4.5. Limitations

49It is worth noting that this study has several limitations. The effect sizes are close to or even slightly larger than in the study by Louvet & Rohmer (2016b). Nevertheless, the sample size is small, given the questionnaires that could not be used. Moreover, our study had a number of limitations that mean our findings must be interpreted with caution. First, our sample consisted of first-year students in a narrow range of subjects (psychology, the humanities, sociology, or biology) and who had a similar level of education. Given their young age, these participants had only limited experience of the professional world and of workplace discrimination against certain groups. Second, we did not measure participants’ knowledge of disability, their awareness of the stigmatization of people with disabilities, or the amount of contact they have with people with disabilities.

4.6. Future prospects

50Given these limitations, further studies are needed to replicate our results. Future research should incorporate a broader range of trait descriptors, particularly those related to morality, which is increasingly recognised as a distinct and significant component of social perception. Morality can be conceptualised as a sub-dimension of the broader dimension of warmth – along with sociability – reflecting traits such as honesty, fairness and reliability (Fiske, 2018; Nicolas & Fiske, 2023). Thus, individuals would not only evaluate others based on their friendly or likeable appearance (sociability), but also based on their perception of them as ethical or principled (morality). Therefore, the inclusion of moral descriptors could offer a more nuanced understanding of the content of stereotypes and intergroup perceptions. In our study, this dimension was not measured because we strictly followed the methodology of Louvet & Rohmer (2010), which did not include it. Additionally, the effect of different types of disability should be explored. We have focused on physical disability, specifically wheelchair use, in line with Rohmer and Louvet’s research (2011). However, other disabilities, both visible and invisible, may affect women or men differently, with different prevalences depending on the type of disability and different institutional recognition (Ravaud & Ville, 2003). Future studies could also incorporate implicit measures, to avoid a possible social desirability bias, and involve more varied samples of participants with different levels of awareness of disability and the stigmatization faced by people with disabilities. Furthermore, including people in work and/or recruiters as participants would throw further light on the processes underlying judgments of others. For example, are judgments modulated by the context in which they are made or by expectations linked to the context (so a recruiter might have different expectations to any individual)? Finally, further research is needed to assess the potentially cumulative effect of belonging to several categories (e.g., disability, sex, age) on people’s experiences at work or in everyday life, on their health, or on whether they suffer violence (Calderón, Sánchez & Pérez, 2020). Casani et al. (2021) highlight the importance of adopting an intersectional approach to study how multiple minority affiliations intersect and create effects that extend beyond simple addition. Although the benefits of this approach are now widely recognized in psychology, few studies have implemented it. Integrating intersectionality would allow for a deeper exploration of the mechanisms that contribute to the creation and maintenance of inequalities. Using an intersectional approach to investigate the effects of belonging to several categories will shed light on the difficulties faced by people subject to multiple types of discrimination, such as women with disabilities. Thus, women with disabilities often experience a dual form of stigma: on the one hand, because of their gender, and on the other, because of their disability. These women face specific stereotypes linked to their social affiliations (women and disabled). Adopting an intersectional perspective might help us better understand why these stereotypes do not just overlap, but intersect to create unique and specific experiences of discrimination. For example, a woman in a wheelchair may be perceived differently from a man in a wheelchair due to differentiated social expectations regarding femininity, sexuality, and women’s autonomy. This intersection can lead to further marginalization, where the stigma linked to her gender and her disability reinforce each other. Furthermore, the concept of intersectional invisibility, introduced by Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach (2008), suggests that individuals with multiple stigmatized identities are often perceived as less prototypical of their respective groups, which can lead to a form of psychological invisibility (Rosette & Livingston, 2012; Smith et al., 2019). However, women with disabilities often experience a double invisibility: on the one hand, their disability is minimized or misunderstood in contexts where disabilities are stereotypically perceived as only affecting men, and on the other hand, they are often reduced to a stereotypical image of the “fragile woman” or the “victim.” This invisibility can manifest itself in various ways, including the lack of media or political representation of these women, or a tendency to assign them a passive place in social, professional, and political relations. Another concept that can help us better understand the situation experienced by women with disabilities is that of perceived identity incongruity (Sternberg et al., 2024). When they are perceived as “incongruent” (for example, a disabled woman who succeeds in a dominant profession), their competence may be questioned. There is a tension between social expectations for women (who must be “beautiful,” “well-groomed,” “high-performing”) and those for people with disabilities (who are often perceived as being limited in their physical or intellectual abilities). This incongruity can affect how they are perceived and treated in social contexts, such as the workplace or interpersonal relationships. As a result, they may face cognitive invisibility or undervaluation of their skills and contributions. Thus, applying intersectionality and the concept of intersectional invisibility to the discrimination faced by women with disabilities allows us to better understand the unique challenges they face. These concepts provide a framework for analyzing how systems of domination (sexism, ableism) intersect and reinforce each other, and how they specifically influence the perception and treatment of these women in different aspects of their social and professional life. Studying these phenomena can also help design public policies or prevention strategies that are more inclusive and adapted to their needs and realities.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Anderson Norman H. 1965. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4): 394-400.

Banks Martha E. 2010. Feminist psychology and women with disabilities: An emerging alliance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4): 431-42.

Bend Gemma L. & Vincenza Priola. 2018. What about a career? The intersection of gender and disability. In Adelina M. Broadbridge & Sandra L. Fielden (eds). Research handbook of diversity and careers: 193-208. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

Bogart Kathleen R. & Dana S. Dunn. 2019. Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3): 650-64.

Bosak Janine, Sczesny Sabine & Alice H. Eagly. 2008. Communion and agency judgments of women and men as a function of role information and response format. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7): 1148-55.

Brown Robin Lewis & Eastin Mairead Moloney. 2019. Intersectionality, work, and well-being: The effects of gender and disability. Gender and Society, 33(1): 94-122.

Calderón Miguel Ángel Karam, Sánchez Yazmín Castillo & Pablo Moreno Pérez. 2020. Disability and gender inequality, the disadvantage for women. Social Medicine, 13(1): 21-6.

Campbell Fiona Kumari. 2001. Inciting legal fictions: “Disability’s” date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1): 42-62. Online: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/items/a8717f67-39a4-53e5-9fbd-67eb3432334d.

Carrier Antonin, Louvet Eva, Chauvin Bruno & Odile Rohmer. 2014. The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. Social Psychology, 45(5): 347-56.

Casini Annalisa, Roskam Isabelle & Vincent Yzerbyt. 2021. Conclusion générale. Genre et psychologies: enjeux historiques, épistémologiques et méthodologiques. In Vincent Yzerbyt, Isabelle Roskam & Annalisa Casini (eds). Les psychologies du genre. Regards croisés sur le développement, l’éducation, la santé mentale et la société: 291-313. Bruxelles: Mardaga.

Coleman Jill M., Brunell Amy B. & Ingrid M. Haugen. 2015. Multiple forms of prejudice: How gender and disability stereotypes influence judgments of disabled women and men. Current Psychology, 34: 177-89.

De Bosscher Sabine & Annick Durand-Delvigne. 2002. Asymétrie sociale et asymétrie cognitive: étude de l’opérativité des catégories de sexe. L’Orientation Scolaire et Professionnelle, 31(1): 57-74. Online: https://osp.revues.org/4848.

De Bosscher Sabine, Durand-Delvigne Annick, Przygodzki-Lionet Nathalie & Ludovic Remy. 2010. Comment les enfants utilisent-ils les catégories de sexe? European Review of Applied Psychology, 60(3): 189-99.

Défenseur des Droits. 2023. Rapport annuel 2024. Publié le 24 avril 2024. Consulté en octobre 2024 sur https://www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/sites/default/files/2024-04/ddd_rapport-annuel-activite-2023_20240426.pdf.

Dovidio John F., Pagotto Lisa & Michelle R. Hebl. 2011. Implicit attitudes and discrimination against people with physical disabilities. In Richard L. Wiener & Steven L. Willborn (eds). Disability and aging discrimination: Perspectives in law and psychology: 157-83. New York: Springer.

Eagly Alice H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eagly Alice H. & Antonio Mladinic. 1989. Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4): 543-58.

Eagly Alice H., Nater Christa, Miller David I., Kaufmann Michèle & Sabine Sczesny. 2020. Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American psychologist, 75(3): 301-15.

Ellemers Naomi. 2018. Gender stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 69(1): 275-98.

Fiske Susan T. 1980. Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6): 889-906.

Fiske Susan T. 2015. Intergroup biases: A focus on stereotype content. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3: 45-50.

Fiske Susan T. 2018. Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current directions in psychological science, 27(2): 67-73.

Fiske Susan T., Cuddy Amy J. C., Glick Peter & Jun Xu. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6): 878-902.

Fiske Susan T., Cuddy Amy J. C. & Peter Glick. 2006. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2): 77-83.

Ginsberg Frederik, Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2012. Disability and elderly stereotype priming influence on motor performance: Similar or specific effects? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114(2): 397-406.

Glick Peter & Susan T. Fiske. 2007. Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In Faye J. Crosby, Margaret S. Stockale & S. Ann Ropp (eds). Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives: 155-87. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Heilman Madeline E. & Alice H. Eagly. 2008. Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 393-8.

Hunt Xanthe, Swartz Leslie, Rohleder Poul, Carew Mark & Stine Hellum Braathen. 2018. Withdrawn, strong, kind, but de-gendered: Non-disabled South Africans’ stereotypes concerning persons with physical disabilities. Disability & Society, 33(10): 1579-600.

INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques). 2023. Emploi, chômage, revenus du travail édition 2023. Publié le 29 juin 2023. Consulté en septembre 2024 sur https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/7456905?sommaire=7456956.

INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques). 2024. L’essentiel sur le chômage. Paru le 08 août 2024. Consulté en septembre 2024 sur https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4805248.

INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques). 2025. Part des femmes dans la population active en Union Européenne. Paru le 8 avril 2025. Consulté en juin 2025 sur https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5350628.

Joshi Aparna, Son Jooyeon & Hyuntak Roh. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1516-45.

Jost John T. & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1): 1-27.

Jost John T., Banaji Mahzarin R. & Bryan A. Nosek. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6): 881-919.

Judd Charles M., James-Hawkins Laurie, Yzerbyt Vincent & Yoshihisa Kashima. 2005. Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6): 899-913.

Kavanagh Ann M., Krnjacki Lauren, Aitken Zoe, Lamontagne Anthony D., Beer Andrew, Baker Emma, et al. 2015. Intersections between disability, type of impairment, gender and socio-economic disadvantage in a nationally representative sample of 33 101 working-aged Australians. Disability and Health Journal, 8(2): 191-9.

Kay Aaron C., Jost John T., Mandisodza Anesu N., Sherman Steven J., Petrocelli John V. & Amy L. Johnson. 2007. Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39: 305-58.

Kunda Ziva, Miller Dale T. & Theresa Claire. 1990. Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14(4): 551-77.

Lloyd Margaret. 1992. Does she boil eggs? Toward a feminist model of disability. Disability Handicap and Society, 7(3): 207-21.

Louvet Eva & Odile Rohmer. 2006. Le handicap physique: une catégorie de base? Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 19(3): 215-35. En ligne: https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2006-3-page-215.htm.

Louvet Eva & Odile Rohmer. 2010. Les travailleurs handicapés sont-ils perçus comme des travailleurs compétents? Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 16(1): 47-62.

Louvet Eva & Odile Rohmer. 2016a. Comprendre les difficultés d’intégration des personnes en situation de handicap sur le marché du travail. In Jean-Luc Bernaud, Pascale Desrumaux & Dominique Guédon (eds). Psychologie de la bientraitance professionnelle: 167-79. Malakoff: Dunod.

Louvet Eva & Odile Rohmer. 2016b. Évaluation des personnes en situation de handicap en milieu éducatif et professionnel: approche expérimentale. La Nouvelle Revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 2: 159-69.

Mende-Siedlecki Peter, Baron Sean G. & Alexander Todorov. 2013. Diagnostic value underlies asymmetric updating of impressions in the morality and ability domains. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(50): 19406-15.

Miles Angel L., Nishida Akemi & Anjali J. Forber-Pratt. 2017. An open letter to White disability studies and ableist institutions of higher education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(3). Online: https://dsq-sds.org/article/id/1546/.

Nario-Redmond Michelle R. 2010. Cultural stereotypes of disabled and non-disabled men and women: Consensus for global category representations and diagnostic domains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3): 471-88.

Nicolas Gandalf & Susan T. Fiske. 2023. Valence biases and emergence in the stereotype content of intersecting social categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(9): 2520-43.

Novak Jeanne, Feyes Kelsey J. & Kimberly A. Christensen. 2011. Application of intergroup contact theory to the integrated workplace: Setting the stage for inclusion. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35(3): 211-26.

Owuamalam Chuma Kevin, Wong Kang Xin & Mark Rubin. 2016. Chubby but cheerful? Investigating the compensatory judgments of high, medium, and low status weight groups in Malaysia. Cogent Psychology, 3(1).

Peterson Christopher & Martin E. P. Seligman. 2004. Character strengths and virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Purdie-Vaughns Valerie & Richard P. Eibach. 2008. Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex roles, 59: 377-91.

Ravaud Jean-François & Isabelle Ville. 2003. Les disparités de genre dans le repérage et la prise en charge des situations de handicap. Revue française des affaires sociales, 1: 225-53.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2009. Describing persons with disability: Salience of disability, gender, and ethnicity. Rehabilitation Psychology, 54(1): 76-82.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2011. Le stéréotype des personnes handicapées en fonction de la nature de la déficience. Une application des modèles de la bidimensionnalité du jugement social. L’Année Psychologique, 111(1): 69-85.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2012. Utilité sociale et réussite universitaire d’étudiants ayant ou non des incapacités motrices: rôles respectifs de la compétence et de l’effort. Revue Développement humain, 20(3): 65-76.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2016. On dit qu’on les apprécie mais sommes-nous prêts à les côtoyer? Le cas particulier des personnes en situation de handicap. Psichologia Socială, 38: 17-34.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2018a. On dit les apprécier, alors pourquoi les personnes en situation de handicap sont-elles discriminées? In Klea Faniko, David Bourguignon, Oriane Sarrasin & Serge Guimond (eds). Psychologie de la discrimination et des préjugés. De la théorie à la pratique: 187-200. Louvain-La-Neuve: De Boeck.

Rohmer Odile & Eva Louvet. 2018b. Implicit stereotyping against people with disability. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 21(1): 127-40.

Rosette Ashleigh Shelby & Robert W. Livingston. 2012. Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of experimental social psychology, 48(5): 1162-7.

Santuzzi Alecia M. & Lawanda Cook. 2020. Stereotypes about people with disabilities. In Joel T. Nadler & Elora C. Voyles (eds). Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of bias: 243-63. Santa Barbara California: ABC-CLIO.

Shakespeare Tom. 2006. The social model of disability. In Lennard J. Davis (ed.). The disability studies reader (2nd ed.): 197-204. London: Routledge.

Schmitz Mathias & Vincent Yzerbyt. 2022. Direct and indirect dimensional compensation: Is there a difference between observers and group members? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2): 335-53.

Smith Alexis Nicole, Watkins Marla Baskerville, Ladge Jamie J. & Pamela Carlton. 2019. Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6): 1705-34.

Sternber Béatrice, Badea Constantina, Sesko Amanda K. & Mark Rubin. 2024. Intersectional invisibility: The moderating impact of perceived incongruence between stigmatized identities. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(8): 1960-77.

Tkachenko Oleksandr, Quast Louis N., Song Wei & Soebin Jang. 2020. Courage in the workplace: The effects of organizational level and gender on the relationship between behavioral courage and job performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(5): 899-915.

Haut de page

Annexe

Appendix 1. Intragroupes profiles

Combined Effect of Gender and Disability

In the descriptions provided, men without disabilities were more competent than courageous, t226 = 5.77, p < .001, and more courageous than warm, t226 = 2.76, p = .006. Similarly, people without disabilities were more competent than courageous, t226 = 3.64, p < .001, and more courageous than warm, t226 = 4.38, p < .001. However, women without disabilities were seen as warm and courageous, t226 < 1, but warmer and courageous than competent, respectively t226 = 2.69, p = .008 and t226 = 3.59, p < .001.

Moreover, women with disabilities were more courageous than warm, t226 = 3.37, p < .001 and warmer than competent, t226 = 6.02, p = .006. Similarly, men with disabilities were more courageous than warm, t226 = 4.37, p < .001, and warmer than competent, t226 = 4.78, p < .001. Likewise, people with disabilities were more courageous than warm, t226 = 6.28, p < .001, and warmer than competent, t226 = 4.55, p < .001.

Effect of Target Gender on Stereotype Content

Women are as warm as courageous (t<1), but not particularly competent (t116 warm-competent = 2.68, p = .009, t116 courageous-competent = 4.06, p < .001).

Men are more competent than courageous, t116 = 6.51, p < .001, and more competent, t116 = 6.86, p < .001, and more courageous, t116 = 2.47, p = .015, than warm. Similarly, people of unspecified gender are more competent than courageous, t116 = 4.11, p < .001, and warm, t116 = 6.78, p < .001, and more courageous than warm, t116 = 3.91, p < .001.

Effect of Disability on Stereotype Content

People with disabilities are more courageous than warm, t75 = 6.04, p < .001, then warmer than competent, t75 = 3.97, p < .001 (and more courageous than competent, t75 = 14.13, p < .001).

People without disabilities are more competent than courageous, t75 = 3.70, p < .001, then more courageous than warm, t75 = 4.21, p < .001 (and more competent than warm, t75 = 5.95, p < .001).

Appendix 2

Table 2. Means (standard deviations) for each judgment dimension as a function of target gender

Target gender

N

Competence

Courage

Warmth

Woman

40

3.08 (0.75)

3.48 (0.70)

3.48 (0.82)

Man

40

4.08 (0.52)

3.44 (0.73)

3.06 (0.59)

People of unspecified gender

39

3.63 (0.52)

3.22 (0.55)

2.61 (0.86)

Table 3. Means (standard deviations) for each judgment dimension as a function of target situation

N

Competence

Courage

Warmth

People with disabilities

38

2.74 (0.87)

4.32 (0.62)

3.43 (0.76)

People without disabilities

39

3.63 (0.52)

3.22 (0.55)

2.61 (0.86)

Table 4. Means (standard deviations) for each judgment dimension as a function of target gender and situation

Judgment Dimension

Competence

Courage

Warmth

Women with disabilities

2.79 (0.77)

4.21 (0.65)

3.72 (0.68)

Men with disabilities

2.92 (0.69)

4.27 (0.55)

3.65 (0.68)

People with disabilities

2.74 (0.87)

4.32 (0.46)

3.43 (0.73)

Women without disabilities

3.08 (0.75)

3.48 (0.69)

3.48 (0.82)

Men without disabilities

4.08 (0.52)

3.44 (0.73)

3.06 (0.59)

People without disabilities

3.63 (0.52)

3.22 (0.55)

2.61 (0.86)

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Mean competence, courage, and warmth judgments as a function of target situation and gender
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alterjdr/docannexe/image/14013/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 26k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alterjdr/docannexe/image/14013/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 26k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/alterjdr/docannexe/image/14013/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 26k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sabine De Bosscher et Gérald Delelis, « Women with disabilities »Alter, 19-3 | 2025, 75-94.

Référence électronique

Sabine De Bosscher et Gérald Delelis, « Women with disabilities »Alter [En ligne], 19-3 | 2025, mis en ligne le 25 septembre 2025, consulté le 13 janvier 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/alterjdr/14013 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14qxk

Haut de page

Auteurs

Sabine De Bosscher

Univ. Lille, ULR 4072 – PSITEC – Psychologie: Interactions, Temps, Émotions, Cognition
sabine.de-bosscher[at]univ-lille.fr

Gérald Delelis

SCALab, CNRS UMR 9193, Univ. Lille
gerald.delelis[at]univ-lille.fr

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search