The authors conducted 2 studies to develop and test measures that assess beliefs about what constitutes a disability, affective reactions to working with individuals with disabilities, and beliefs about the reasonableness of workplace accommodations, in general and within the context of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The results of these 2 studies showed substantial differences in what was considered to be a disability. In general, more physical and sensory-motor conditions were considered disabilities than were psychological conditions. Furthermore, the conditions believed to be disabilities did not necessarily match what is covered by the ADA. Gender and experience with individuals who are disabled were also found to predict affective reactions and the reasonableness of accommodations. Implications for organizations are discussed.

Quantitative and content analyses were performed to test the hypothesis that the lack-of-fit model (Heilman, 1983) could provide the needed theoretical framework for organizational obesity discrimination. A computer morphing program allowed for the same stimulus applicant to be used in both the average-weight and the overweight conditions. Results of the quantitative analysis show that undergraduate participants perceived overweight (vs. average-weight) applicants as having more negative work-related attributes, but did not discriminate against them in the hiring process. A content analysis provided some evidence for the lack-of-fit model (Heilman, 1983) as an explanatory model for obesity discrimination.

The authors conducted this study among U.S. students to determine whether expectations of job success are related to the degree of match between the masculinity or femininity of men's or women's names and the stereotypic masculinity or femininity of planned occupations. Results confirmed the predictions: The greater the match among (a) the gender of names, (b) the participants' ratings of the masculinity or femininity of those names, and (c) the masculinity or femininity of planned occupations, the greater the expected likelihood of job success.

660 male and 660 female names were evaluated using a five-point rating scale on the dimensions of active–passive, masculine–feminine, and like–dislike by 478 undergraduate students. Twenty groups of approximately 24 participants each were formed (14 women and 10 men), and each group rated either 66 male or 66 female names. These ratings were compared with name ratings made 27 years ago by undergraduate students tested by Buchanan and Bruning in 1971. The top 25 names on each dimension are presented and changes in their connotative meanings over the 27 years are noted.

No abstract