Originally published here.

Using ratings of hypothetical job applicants with and without a disability obtained from both fulltime workers (n = 88) and undergraduates (n = 98), we examined the effects of disability (paraplegia, epilepsy, clinical depression, or non-disabled), gender, and nature of the job (supervisory or non-supervisory) on five job-relevant dependent measures. Contrary to our hypothesis, applicants with a disability were rated significantly higher in activity and potency than applicants without a disability. Further, also contrary to our predictions, gender and job type did not moderate the relationship between disability and applicant ratings.

Post-hoc analyses revealed a significant gender by job type interaction; female applicants were viewed as more qualified than male applicants for the non-supervisory position, but the male applicants were viewed as more qualified than female applicants for the supervisory position. We use the flexible correction model (Wegener & Petty, 1997) to explicate the findings. Limitations and implications for future research on attitudes toward individuals with disabilities are discussed.

You can read the complete article here.

Or you can listen to it on Spotify.