Special Needs Is an Ineffective Euphemism

Abstract

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.

Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers

“…Thus, ideologies evidenced in everyday and institutional discourse are assumed to both establish and maintain power relationships. 42 Disrupting dominant discourses about autism, primarily controlled by those in positions of power, is therefore necessary to change 99 Areas of interest or areas of expertise, focused, intense, or passionate interests Special needs 98,100,101 Description of specific needs and disabilities Challenging behavior/disruptive behavior/problem behavior 7,37,102,103 Meltdown (when uncontrollable behavior), stimming (when relevant), specific description of the behavior (e.g., selfinjurious or aggressive behavior) Person-first language (to refer to autism) 8,17,65,72,[104][105][106][107] Identity-first language; ''on the autism spectrum'' Medicalized/deficit-based language High/low functioning; high/low severity or support needs 9,17,84,85 Describe specific strengths and needs, and acknowledgment that the level of support needs likely varies across domains (e.g., requires substantial support to participate in unstructured recreation activities, but minimal support to complete academic work) ''At risk'' for ASD 73 Increased likelihood/chance of autism Burden of/suffering from autism 108 Impact, effect Co-morbid 109,110 Co-occurring Autism symptoms 17 Specific autistic characteristics, features, or traits Treatment Support, services, educational strategies (when applicable) Healthy controls/normative sample 111,112 Nonautistic (if determined via screening), neurotypical (if determined via extensive screening ruling out most forms of neurodivergence), comparison group (with description of relevant group characteristics) Psychopathology 98 Neurodevelopmental conditions, neuropsychiatric conditions, developmental disabilities, mental illnesses (or specific mental health condition) Ableist discourses: ways of discussing autism not relegated to the use of particular terms, that reflect and/or contribute to dehumanization, oppression, or mar...…”

Hostile, Benevolent, and Ambivalent Ableism: Contemporary Manifestations

“…For example, recent headlines depict disabled people as manipulative scammers for filing lawsuits against businesses that fail to comply with the ADA, or as imposters if they don't appear disabled enough (Grimoldby, ). As a consequence, disabled people continue to struggle to justify needs for accommodation in school and work, especially when these are described as “special needs” or “privileges” instead of civil rights (Gernsbacher, Raimond, Balinghasay, & Boston, ). To date, little research has examined the specific conditions where disabled people might elicit envy, resentful admiration, and distain.…”

Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Special Need Education to Promote Inclusive Pedagogy

“…People with Disabilities are also referred as People with special needs [6]. Over the past few years, the term special needs have been popularly used as a synonym for disability [7].…”