Via a series of experiments van der Sluis and colleagues probed the repercussions of different ways of thinking about disability. Their “research identifies and provides evidence of a disability preference stereotype whereby observers infer that disabled consumers prefer utilitarian products more than nondisabled consumers, and prefer hedonic products less than nondisabled consumers. . . . this stereotype occurs because of societal associations between physical disability and pity. Pity elicits a multidimensional response such that considering the interests of a disabled person increases feelings of personal discomfort, driving both an inclination to help (help-giving orientation) and a tendency to assess the perceived misfortune (misfortune appraisal) in parallel. . . . the help-giving orientation increases focus on functional (utilitarian) goods, while the misfortune appraisal decreases focus on pleasurable (hedonic) goods. . . . Representation of empowered disabled individuals in media can dampen the help-giving orientation, reducing inferred utilitarian preferences, while representation of disabled people partaking in daily pleasures through increased accessibility can reduce misfortune perceptions, increasing inferred hedonic preferences.”
Helen van der Sluis, Adriana Samper, Kirk Kristofferson, and Terri Hlava. “How Do Physical Disability Cues Influence Assumptions About Consumer Tastes? Unpacking the Disability Preference Stereotype.” Journal of Consumer Research, in press, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucae031