↓ Skip to main content

“Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 373)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
403 X users
facebook
21 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
“Special needs” is an ineffective euphemism
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0025-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Adam R. Raimond, M. Theresa Balinghasay, Jilana S. Boston

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 403 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 28 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 16%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Linguistics 7 8%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 523. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2024.
All research outputs
#49,032
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#10
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,040
of 424,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.