Journal of Applied Psychology

Disclosing a Disability: Do Strategy Type and Onset

Controllability Make a Difference?
Brent J. Lyons, Sabrina D. Volpone, Jennifer L. Wessel, and Natalya M. Alonso
Online First Publication, April 17, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000230

CITATION
Lyons, B. J., Volpone, S. D., Wessel, J. L., & Alonso, N. M. (2017, April 17). Disclosing a Disability:
Do Strategy Type and Onset Controllability Make a Difference?. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000230
 Journal of Applied Psychology 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000230

RESEARCH REPORT

Disclosing a Disability: Do Strategy Type and Onset Controllability

Make a Difference?

Brent J. Lyons Sabrina D. Volpone

Simon Fraser University University of New Mexico
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Jennifer L. Wessel Natalya M. Alonso

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

University of Maryland University of British Columbia

In hiring contexts, individuals with concealable disabilities make decisions about how they should
disclose their disability to overcome observers biases. Previous research has investigated the effective-
ness of binary disclosure decisionsthat is, to disclose or conceal a disability but we know little about
how, why, or under what conditions different types of disclosure strategies impact observers hiring
intentions. In this article, we examine disability onset controllability (i.e., whether the applicant is seen
as responsible for their disability onset) as a boundary condition for how disclosure strategy type
influences the affective reactions (i.e., pity, admiration) that underlie observers hiring intentions. Across
2 experiments, we found that when applicants are seen as responsible for their disability, strategies that
de-emphasize the disability (rather than embrace it) lower observers hiring intentions by elevating their
pity reactions. Thus, the effectiveness of different types of disability disclosure strategies differs as a
function of onset controllability. We discuss implications for theory and practice for individuals with
disabilities and organizations.

Keywords: stigma, disclosure, concealable identities, disability, selection

Individuals with disabilities face biases and if these biases
manifest in hiring contexts they can limit individuals ability to
gain employment (Stone & Colella, 1996). For example, indi-
viduals with a variety of disabilities can be stereotyped as
helpless, submissive, and incompetent and thus viewed as vic-
tims of their inabilities (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002;
Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). As a result, observers
often react with pity, sorrow, and feelings of compassion that
invoke a desire to help (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007) and,
simultaneously, lowered performance expectations for individ-
uals with disabilities (Colella, DeNisi, & Varma, 1997). Previ-
Brent J. Lyons, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University;
Sabrina D. Volpone, Anderson School of Management, University of New
Mexico; Jennifer L. Wessel, Department of Psychology, University of
Maryland; Natalya M. Alonso, Sauder School of Business, University of
British Columbia.
We thank Michelle Duffy for her feedback throughout the review
process. We also thank Simon Pek for his comments on an earlier version
of this article. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 31st
and 32nd Annual Meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology in Anaheim, CA.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brent J.
Lyons, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia V5A 1S6 Canada. E-mail: blyons@sfu.ca
ous research has suggested that individuals with nonvisible
disabilities can potentially mitigate such biases by concealing
their disability (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005; Goffman,
1963; Ragins, 2008). However, by doing so they face the
burden of keeping a secret (K. J. Jones & King, 2014; Pachan-
kis, 2007; Smart & Wegner, 1999) and they might fail to
receive necessary accommodations (Baldridge & Swift, 2013;
Baldridge & Veiga, 2001). Extant research does not adequately
address how individuals with concealable disabilities can stra-
tegically disclose their disability in a way that mitigates poten-
tially harmful bias.
Disclosing a stigma (i.e., a contextually devalued attribute;
Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998) can take different forms.
Research on the employment experiences of individuals with
disabilities has revealed two commonly adopted strategies.
Some individuals recommend discussing the disability as
though it is a personal source of strength (e.g., an ability to
overcome obstacles), while others suggest downplaying the
disability as noncentral and instead emphasizing other personal
strengths (Jans, Kaye, & Jones, 2012; Taub, McLorg, & Fanf-
lik, 2004). In her theory of social identity impression manage-
ment, L. M. Roberts (2005) identified two strategies that en-
capsulate the above approaches: Integration (i.e., emphasizing
positive aspects of a disability) and de-categorization (i.e.,
de-emphasizing the disability and emphasizing individuating
information). We build off this theoretical work and investigate

1
 2 LYONS, VOLPONE, WESSEL, AND ALONSO
how these disclosure strategies might function differently in
influencing observers hiring intentions.
Observer impressions of the competence (i.e., the perceived
capacity to perform effectively; Weiner, 2005) of individuals with
disabilities can be bolstered by effective impression management
(Lyons et al., 2016; L. M. Roberts, 2005; Shih, Young, & Bucher,
2013). According to research on intergroup bias (Cuddy et al.,
2007; Fiske et al., 2002), by favorably managing impressions of
competence individuals with disabilities may be able to counteract
pity reactions and instead invoke observers awe and admiration
(Cuddy et al., 2007) which, in turn, can bolster observers hiring
intentions. We examine observers affective reactions (i.e., pity,
admiration) as an underlying mechanism that can explain observ-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ers differential hiring intentions in response to integration and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
decategorization disclosure strategies.
How disclosure influences observers impressions of individuals
with disabilities competence is influenced by characteristics of the
disability itself (Stone & Colella, 1996). One such characteristic is
onset controllability, which is defined as the degree to which a
target is seen as responsible for the onset of their condition (E.
Jones et al., 1984). Individuals with disabilities (i.e., targets) who
are seen as responsible for their condition (i.e., high onset respon-
sibility; such as HIV from a sexual encounter) are attributed to
have some flawed character (e.g., reckless). This, in turn, informs
the extent to which the target is viewed as competent. When targets
are viewed as not responsible for their disability (i.e., low onset
responsibility; such as HIV from accidental blood transfusion)
they are viewed as victims to some unfortunate circumstance and
their disability is less likely to be seen as indicative of their
character (E. Jones et al., 1984). Onset controllability influences
how observers form impressions of a targets character and we
thus expect that onset controllability will be a boundary condition
that helps explain the relationship between disclosure strategies
and hiring intentions (see Figure 1).
To this end, we offer two key contributions to research and
theory about the impression management of stigma. First, although
theories have identified a number of stigma impression manage-
ment strategies, extant quantitative research has typically investi-
gated the effectiveness of binary strategiesthat is, to be open or
avoid talking about the disability (e.g., Dalgin & Bellini, 2008;
Hebl & Kleck, 2002; Hebl & Skorinko, 2005; L. L. Roberts &
Macan, 2006). We examine the effectiveness of different disclo-
sure strategies and test an underlying mechanism that explains why
they might differ in effectiveness. Second, although research has
shown that onset controllability influences observers impressions
(Bordieri & Drehmer, 1986; Florey & Harrison, 2000; McLaughlin
et al., 2004), onset controllability and impression management
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
have been treated as independent factors in observers impression
formation of targets. We contribute to understanding the proposed
benefits/costs of stigma impression management by showing that
disclosure strategies with the same intended effect can differ
markedly in effectiveness depending on onset controllability. In
the sections that follow, we draw on social cognitive theories of
intergroup impression formation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) and bias
(Cuddy et al., 2007) to develop hypotheses about how disability
disclosure and onset controllability impact observers affective
reactions and hiring intentions.
Theory and Hypotheses
Disclosure and Impression Formation
According to Fiske and Neubergs (1990) social cognitive
model of impression formation, observers integrate both a targets
social group information (e.g., disability) and additional informa-
tion (e.g., communicative acts) to form impressions of a target.
Disability disclosure evokes an automatic initial categorization
based on accessible social category information, including typical
disability stereotypes and associated affect. The initial categoriza-
tion dominates impression formation until additional information
is deemed personally relevant to observers. In hiring contexts,
where observers are likely to be concerned about a targets capac-
ity to perform, additional information (such as disclosure strategy)
will further inform observers impressions of the target. Integrating
this additional information, observers reformulate their initial cat-
egorization of the target, which can include assigning targets to a
new group or redefining the meaning of their social group (Fiske
& Neuberg, 1990). Observers impressions of a target go on to
influence their behavioral intentions toward the target.
Cuddy and colleagues (2007) BIAS map suggests that stereo-
types of social groups are connected to behavioral intentions (e.g.,
hiring intentions) via affective reactions (i.e., action tendencies).
Individuals with disabilities are often stereotyped paternalistically:
As low in competence (i.e., dependent, submissive) and high in
warmth (i.e., not competitive, cooperative; Fiske et al., 2002).
Paternalistic stereotypes encourage a downward assimilative social
comparison that elicits pity and is associated with low performance
expectations (Stone & Colella, 1996; Weiner et al., 1988). To
combat paternalistic stereotypes, individuals with disabilities can
elevate impressions of competence with effective disclosure (L. M.
Roberts, 2005). The BIAS map predicts that the result of elevated
competence perceptions is an upward assimilative social compar-
ison that evokes the affective reaction of admiration (i.e., high
warmth and competence). For example, by framing disability as a
source of personal strength targets might impress observers and
elicit admiration.
In line with theory, both integration and decategorization are
expected to bolster competence perceptions, but in different ways
(L. M. Roberts, 2005). Integration involves creating a positive
meaning for the disability by making a claim that it is valuable,
while also challenging observers stereotypes of incompetence.
Through integration, targets directly counteract initial disability
categorizations. Unlike integration, decategorization does not aim
to bolster impressions of competence by addressing disability-
related concerns; instead, decategorization involves bolstering
competence by de-emphasizing the disability and encourages clas-
 DISCLOSING DISABILITIES
sification in terms of some other valued individuating information
(e.g., membership to a prestigious organization). By presenting
individuating information, individuals aim to create a richer pic-
ture of the self that transcends categorization and stereotyping
(L. M. Roberts, 2005, p. 695). In this research, we compare the
effectiveness of integration and decategorization disclosure strat-
egies with simple disclosure, that is, disclosing a disability with no
additional impression management information. If effective, we
expect the following:
Hypothesis 1: Integration, as compared to simple disclosure,
will relate to pity negatively (H1a) and to admiration positively
(H1b).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hypothesis 2: Decategorization, as compared to simple dis-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
closure, will relate to pity negatively (H2a) and to admiration
positively (H2b).
Disclosure and Onset Controllability
We expect the effect of disability disclosure on impression
formation to be dependent on onset controllability. When a dis-
ability has low-onset controllability, observers attribute the cause
of the disability to situational circumstance and not a character
flaw. In this case, observers impressions of a target are likely
more easily influenced by additional information (E. Jones et al.,
1984), including disclosure strategy. Thus, when onset controlla-
bility is low, observers are receptive to integration and decatego-
rization strategies when forming impressions.
However, when a disability has high-onset controllability, inte-
gration and decategorization are expected to work differently. This
is because the characterization of the target as flawed obscures
how additional information is integrated into the forming impres-
sion. By directly addressing the source of the targets perceived
incompetence (i.e., the disability and its effects), integration coun-
teracts observers concerns about the targets character flaw (Ly-
ons et al., 2016). In line with Fiske and Neuberg (1990), observers
will reformulate and bolster their impressions of the targets com-
petence if integration is incongruent with the initial impression. In
contrast, decategorization does not encourage observers to refor-
mulate the initial categorization and the cause of the targets plight
(e.g., perceived recklessness) remains an important component of
impression formation. As such, through decategorization, the
source of the targets incompetence remains unaddressed and
leaves observers with little ameliorative information about the
character flaw. Observers will likely view the target as lacking
control of, or be incompetent in managing, their disability (E.
Jones et al., 1984). This reaction results in anticipation that the
target will experience hardship, embarrassment, or humiliation that
in turn, elevates pity and reduces admiration. Overall, we expect
the following:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between integration and pity
(H3a) and integration and admiration (H3b) will be moderated
by onset controllability such that when onset controllability is
low, integration will relate to pity negatively and relate to
admiration positively and more strongly than when onset
controllability is high.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between decategorization and
pity (H4a) and decategorization and admiration (H4b) will be
3
moderated by onset controllability such that when onset con-
trollability is low, decategorization will relate to pity nega-
tively and relate to admiration positively, and when onset
controllability is high, decategorization will relate of pity
positively and relate to admiration negatively.
Hiring Intentions
Affective reactions (i.e., pity, admiration) reflect action tenden-
cies associated with behavioral intentions (Cuddy et al., 2007).
When the target is viewed as incompetent and in need of help, pity
elicits disrespect and dismissiveness. Admiration elicits positive
approach behaviors, including a willingness to want to develop and
interact more with the target (Cuddy et al., 2007). When observers
react with pity, they are less likely to aim to facilitate the targets
membership to the organization, whereas if they react with admi-
ration they will be more likely to aim to facilitate the targets
membership to the organization. We therefore expect the follow-
ing:
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between the Integration
Onset Controllability interaction and hiring intentions will be
mediated by pity (H5a) and admiration (H5b).
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between the Decategoriza-
tion Onset Controllability interaction and hiring intentions
will be mediated by pity (H6a) and admiration (H6b).
Pilot Study
We conducted a pilot study to ensure that (a) our focal disability
was viewed as a disability, (b) our focal disability could realisti-
cally be seen as having both internal and external causes, (c) our
manipulation of onset controllability differed in perceived onset
controllability, and (d) that other stigma characteristics were not
confounded with our onset controllability manipulation. We ad-
dressed these queries in a survey with a sample of 98 working
adults from the United States (mean age 32.66 years, SD
10.3; 53% female; 80% White, mean work experience 12.95
years, SD 10.34) recruited from Amazons Mechanical Turk.1
We chose six concealable conditions to include in our pilot
study. Of the six concealable conditions we presented (i.e., HIV,
lung cancer, hearing impairment, back pain, epilepsy, brain
trauma), hearing impairment best met our criteria: 93% of partic-
ipants indicated that they thought permanent hearing impairment
was a disability and participants were significantly more likely (on
a Likert scale ranging from 1 not at all to 5 extremely likely)
to say that hearing impairment could be caused by both internal or
external causes (M 3.61, SD 1.23) than solely internal (M
2.39, SD 1.16) or external (M 2.74, SD 1.19), t(95) 4.23,
p .05. We therefore decided to choose permanent hearing impair-
ment as our focal disability.
To verify that our manipulation (i.e., hearing impairment) for
disability onset controllability differed on perceived onset control-
lability and no other stigma-related characteristics, we asked par-
ticipants to indicate the degree to which they felt the onset of each
1
The data collection was approved by the institutional review board at
the University of New Mexico (Protocol 666880-3).
 4 LYONS, VOLPONE, WESSEL, AND ALONSO
manipulation was the targets fault (Likert scale ranging from 1
strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree; McLaughlin et al., 2004).
The high-onset controllability manipulation for hearing impair-
ment was rated significantly higher in perceived responsibility
(M 4.33, SD 0.82) than the low-onset manipulation (M
1.66, SD .82), t(96) 21.37, p .05. Furthermore, participants
perceptions of other stigma dimensions (i.e., perceived unattrac-
tiveness, disruptiveness, course; E. Jones et al., 1984) did not differ
significantly across manipulations. However, perceived peril (i.e.,
perceived danger posed by the target; McLaughlin et al., 2004)
was significantly higher for the high-onset (M 3.23, SD 1.17)
than the low-onset manipulation (M 3.00, SD 1.25), t(95)
2.53, p .05. This is expected, as individuals with high-onset
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
controllable stigmata are often presumed to have threatening char-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
acter flaws (E. Jones et al., 1984). We thus used these manipula-
tions in the experimental stimuli adopted in both Studies 1 and 2.
Study 1 Method
Experimental Procedures
Participants were told that the premise of the study was that
students (targets) at a university were taking a business class and
their final project included raising money for their teams business
idea. The study instructed participants to hire students based on
their capacity to effectively sell themselves and raise money for a
start-up. Specifically, they were told they were randomly assigned
two of the students in the class and to evaluate each based on their
responses to questions on a personal statement. One question on
the personal statement asked, Is there is anything you would like
us to know about you? One of the two students answer to this
question contained the experimental manipulation. The other stu-
dent provided neutral information and did not disclose a disability.
Experimental manipulation. In the responses to the focal
question, we created six answers to represent the six experimental
conditions: 3 (disclosure: integration, decategorization, simple dis-
closure) 2 (onset controllability: low, high). See the Appendix
for the manipulations. For hypotheses testing, we dummy-coded
each factor by assigning simple disclosure and low-onset control-
lability as the comparison conditions (dummy code 0).
Social desirability. The scenario was presented so that par-
ticipants believed their hiring intention had real consequences for
them. This intended to attenuate potential social desirability effects
(see Colella et al., 1998). Specifically, participants were told they
would earn additional money if they hired the student who did, in
fact, raise more money after the class ended in 6 weeks. In reality,
all participants received the same reward.
Measures
We used three items (informed by Cuddy et al., 2007) to assess
participants pity reactions: To what extent does this person make
you feel . . . pity, sorrow, and sympathy. Similarly, we used
three items to assess participants admiration reactions (Cuddy et
al., 2007): To what extent does this person make you feel . . .
admiration, proud, and fond. Hiring intention was assessed
with four items (e.g., I would recommend this person to be
hired).
Study 1 Results
We recruited participants from Amazons Mechanical Turk.2
We excluded data from 21 participants because they either failed
an attention check or had missing data on one or more focal
variables. The final sample included 336 participants who were
employed and lived in the United States (mean age 35.99 years,
SD 11.84; 49% female; 83% White, 6% Hispanic). In total, 54%
of participants had experience making hiring decisions. Descrip-
tive statistics, correlations, and reliability estimates for Study 1
variables are in Table 1.
Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in-
dicated a significant multivariate main effect for integration,
Wilkss .962, F(2, 333) 6.51, p .05, but not for
decategorization, Wilkss .988, F(2, 333) 2.03, p .05.
Moreover, the univariate main effects revealed that integration did
not relate significantly to pity, F(1, 334) 0.52, p .05, but did
relate positively and significantly to admiration, F(1, 334)
10.44, p .05, failing to support H1a but lending support to H1b.
Decategorization did not relate to pity, F(1, 334) 0.01, ns, and
was marginally related to admiration, F(1, 334) 3.66, p .08.
H2a was not supported and H2b was partially supported.
Next, to test the remaining hypotheses, we used the PROCESS
moderated mediation macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2014; see Table 2).
The Integration Onset Controllability interaction did not relate
significantly to pity (b .23, p .05) or admiration (b .12, p
.05). Thus, H3a and H3b were not supported. However, the De-
categorization Onset Controllability interaction related signifi-
cantly to pity (b .78, p .05) but not to admiration (b .25,
p .05). Simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) indicated
that for decategorization, onset controllability related significantly
and positively to pity (b .36, p .05) and for simple disclosure,
onset controllability related significantly and negatively to pity
(b .41, p .05). These results are depicted in Figure 2.
Therefore, H3a, H3b, and H4b were not supported, but H4a was
supported.
As the Integration Onset Controllability interactions did not
relate significantly to pity or admiration, H5a and H5b (moderated
mediation) were not supported. However, the Decategorization
Onset Controllability interaction significantly related to pity but
not to admiration. Thus, H6b was not supported. In regards to the
mediating role of pity (indirect effect .16, 95% confidence
interval [CI] [.29, .06]), the Decategorization Onset Con-
trollability interaction did relate significantly to pity (b .78, p
.05) and pity related significantly to hiring intentions (b .24,
p .05). Thus, H6a was supported.
Finally, we conducted a manipulation check for the disclosure
strategy and onset controllability manipulations utilized in Study 1
(and also in Study 2 below) to determine if they are interpreted as
we expect. In a survey of 99 working adults from the United States
(mean age 33.36 years, SD 10.90; 55% female; 73% White,
mean work experience 13.22 years, SD 10.83) from Ama-
zons Mechanical Turk, participants were randomly assigned to
one of the six experimental conditions and were shown the exper-
2
The data collection was approved by the institutional review board at
the University of New Mexico (Protocol 679163-5).
 DISCLOSING DISABILITIES 5

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Study 1

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Integration .35 .48

2. Decategorization .33 .47 .52
3. Simple disclosure .32 .47 .50 .48
4. Onset controllability .52 .50 .06 .00 .06
5. Pity 2.11 .84 .04 .02 .03 .04 (.77)
6. Admiration 2.95 1.05 .14 .02 .16 .10 .25 (.87)
7. Hiring intentions 3.44 .84 .19 .11 .08 .13 .09 .56 (.93)
Note. N 336. Integration, decategorization, simple disclosure, and onset controllability variables are dummy
coded (1 integration, 1 decategorization, 1 simple disclosure, and 1 high-onset controllability). Scale
reliabilities are in diagonal parentheses.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

p .05.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

imental stimuli as video interviews (described in Study 2).3 Par-
ticipants rated (on a Likert scale ranging from 1 not at all to 5
extremely) the high-onset controllability applicant (M 3.78,
SD 1.15) as more responsible for their condition than the
low-onset controllability applicant (M 1.24, SD 0.67),
F(97) 187.69, p .05. Participants rated integration disclosure
(M 3.84, SD 0.85) as emphasizing positive aspects of having
a permanent hearing impairment more so than decategorization
(M 2.31, SD 1.31) and the control (M 1.54, SD 1.04),
F(2, 96) 39.01, p .05. Decategorization disclosure (M 3.81,
Table 2
Effects of Disclosure Strategy on Hiring Intentions, as
Moderated by Disability Onset Controllability and Mediated by
Pity and Admiration in Study 1
SD 1.09) was rated as de-emphasizing having a permanent
hearing impairment and embracing other aspects of oneself more
so than integration (M 3.00, SD 1.24) and the control (M
2.62, SD 1.18), F(2, 95) 8.84, p .05. The results are thus
supportive of our manipulations.
Additionally, a potential limitation of our manipulation for
disclosure strategies is that their phrasing might confound with
observers affective reactions and hiring intentions. Integration
(made me better at dealing with stressful situations) might
reflect confidence rather than simply embracing positive aspects of
the disability. We, however, found evidence that phrasing did not
confound with observers affective reactions and hiring intentions:
In the manipulation check, participants rated their perceptions of
the targets confidence and we found no significant differences
across the disclosure conditions, F(2, 96) 0.18, p .05.

Outcome b SE t
a
Study 2
Pity

Constant 2.38 .12 19.56 We designed Study 2 to address limitations in Study 1. First, an
Integration .22 .16 1.38
Decategorization .43 .17 2.60
important question is whether the results generalize to managers
Onset controllability .42 .16 2.55 with hiring experience who may be less susceptible to nonjob
Integration Onset controllability .23 .22 1.01 related applicant information. Second, information about the target
Decategorization Onset controllability .78 .23 3.42 was presented in the form of a written personal statement, which
Admirationb
Constant 2.89 .15 19.11 may not be representative of hiring contexts where the applicant is
Integration .36 .20 1.82 visible to observers (e.g., job interviews). Third, some of the
Decategorization .12 .21 .61 results of Study 1 were inconsistent with our expectations; as such,
Onset controllability .32 .20 1.59
we sought to inform the robustness of these results. Thus, in Study
Integration Onset controllability .12 .28 .44
Decategorization Onset controllability .25 .28 .89 2 we replicate Study 1 using a sample of hiring managers with a
Hiring intentionc design that mimics a job interview.
Constant 2.69 .16 16.73
Pity .24 .05 5.41
Admiration .49 .04 13.50 Method
Integration .04 .13 .33
Decategorization .27 .13 2.07 Experimental procedures and measures were identical to that of
Onset controllability .27 .13 2.08
Integration Onset controllability .22 .18 1.23 Study 1 with one modification: Participants observed video inter-
Decategorization Onset controllability .19 .18 1.03 views to reflect an employment interview. To elaborate, we filmed
Note. N 336. Integration, decategorization, and onset controllability
two actors (both were White, male, and in their early twenties)
variables are dummy coded (1 integration, 1 decategorization, and responding to the same questions used on the personal statements
1 responsible for disability).
R .04, F(5, 330) 2.77, p .05. b R2 .04, F(5, 330 2.85, p
a 2

.05. c R2 .40, F(7, 328) 30.95, p .05. Number of bootstrap samples

for bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals 1,000. 3
The data collection was approved by the institutional review board at

p .05. the University of New Mexico (Protocol 679163-5).
 6 LYONS, VOLPONE, WESSEL, AND ALONSO
5 tion Onset Controllability (indirect effect .07, 95% CI
4.5
4 p .05; b .58, p .05) and pity related significantly to hiring
3.5
Onset Controllability - High
3
Pity
Onset Controllability - Low
2.5
2 The results of Studies 1 and 2 reveal a similar pattern of findings
1.5
1 strategies depended on the onset controllability of the disability. In
Integration De-categorization Simple Disclosure
Disclosure Strategies
Figure 2. The interactive effect of disclosure strategy and onset control-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lability on pity in Study 1.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in Study 1. The actors were trained to ensure consistency in
expression across manipulations.
Results
We recruited participants from a Qualtrics panel in the
United States.4 As in Study 1, participants who had incomplete
data or failed the attention check (N 30) were excluded from
analyses, resulting in a final sample of 310 (mean age 42.70
years, SD 12.10; 66% female; 83% White, 8% Hispanic). All
participants were currently employed in managerial positions
(e.g., owner, principal, human resources manager) and had experi-
ence making hiring decisions. Means, correlations, and reliability
estimates for Study 2 variables are reported in Table 3.
Results of the MANOVA indicated a significant multivariate
main effect for integration, Wilkss .997, F(2, 307) 0.40,
p .05, but not decategorization Wilkss .988, F(2, 306)
0.75, p .05. Moreover, the univariate main effects revealed that
integration did not relate to pity, F(1, 309) 0.80, p .05, or
admiration, F(1, 309) 0.10, p .05, significantly. Hence, H1a
and H1b were not supported. Furthermore, decategorization did not
relate to pity, F(1, 309) 0.47, p .05, or admiration, F(1,
309) 0.02, p .05, significantly. Therefore, H2a and H2b were
not supported.
Next, the Integration Onset Controllability interaction related
significantly to pity (b .48, p .05) but not to admiration (b
.10, p .05; see Table 4). Simple slopes analysis indicated that for
integration, onset controllability did not relate to pity significantly
(b .05, p .05) and for simple disclosure, onset controlla-
bility related to pity significantly and negatively (b .54, p
.05). Furthermore, the Decategorization Onset Controllability
interaction related to pity significantly (b .58, p .05) but not
to admiration (b .01, p .05). Simple slopes analysis indi-
cated that for decategorization, onset controllability did not relate
to pity significantly (b .05, p .05) and for simple disclosure,
onset controllability related to pity significantly and negatively
(b .43, p .05). These results are depicted in Figure 2. Thus,
H3a and H4a were supported but H3b and H4b were not supported.
As the Integration Onset Controllability and Decategoriza-
tion Onset Controllability interactions did not relate signifi-
cantly to admiration, H5b and H6b (moderated mediation) were not
supported. However, the Integration Onset Controllability (in-
direct effect .06, 95% CI [.17, .01]) and Decategoriza-
[.19, .01]) interactions significantly related to pity (b .48,
intentions (b .13, p .05). Thus, H5a and H6a were supported.
Discussion
(see Figures 2 and 3). The effectiveness of the different disclosure
comparison to simple disclosure, decategorization (i.e., distancing
oneself from the disability) reduced pity reactions but only when
the individual was seen as not responsible for their disability (i.e.,
low-onset controllability); when the disability was high in onset
controllability, decategorization increased observers pity reac-
tions that subsequently reduced their hiring intentions. As ex-
pected, by decategorizing a disability high in onset controllability,
observers concerns that the target might continue to experience
negative consequences associated with their disability are elevated
(E. Jones et al., 1984), making the target less desirable as a
candidate. When disability onset controllability was low, decat-
egorizing reduced pity and in turn elevated hiring intentions,
suggesting that observers will use additional information about a
targets character when forming impressions regarding a disability
that is low in onset controllability.
Similarly, in Study 2 (but not in Study 1) we found that the
integration strategy (i.e., highlighting positive aspects of the dis-
ability) also reduced observers pity reactions when disability
onset controllability was low, but not high. Again, this is in line
with our expectation that disclosure strategies are effective in
managing observers impressions for disabilities low in onset
controllability. Although the effect of integration was not robust
across both Study 1 and Study 2, it does suggest that in the more
stressful interview context (Study 2; McCarthy & Goffin, 2004),
observers may be more sensitive to disclosure strategies adopted
by targets as a cue for dealing with stressful situations.
Next, admiration was bolstered by integration and decategori-
zation, but only in Study 1. Perhaps that lack of face-to-face
contact with the candidate in Study 1 elevates social desirability of
admiring individuals with disability who present themselves in a
positive light (Colella et al., 1997). However, onset controllability
did not interact with disclosure strategy type to influence admira-
tion. One possible explanation is that unlike pity (Fiske et al.,
2002; Stone & Colella, 1996), admiration is not a prototypical
reaction toward disability subgroup categorization. Therefore, ob-
servers admiration may be unlikely to be influenced by onset
controllability.
Implications for Theory and Practice
Previous theory on stigma impression management (L. M. Rob-
erts, 2005; Shih et al., 2013) has articulated that different strategies
can enhance observers impressions of targets. We extend this
work by showing that the benefits and costs of disclosure strategies
depend on onset controllability. Indeed, the same disclosure strat-
egy (e.g., decategorization) can be beneficial for a disability that is
4
The data collection was approved by the Office of Research Ethics at
Simon Fraser University (Protocol 2016s0068).
 DISCLOSING DISABILITIES 7

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Study 2

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Integration .36 .48

2. Decategorization .35 .48 .55
3. Simple disclosure .29 .46 .49 .47
4. Onset controllability .53 .50 .06 .02 .04
5. Pity 1.90 .87 .04 .01 .05 .09 (.82)
6. Admiration 2.82 1.08 .03 .02 .01 .16 .26 (.90)
7. Hiring intentions 3.35 .93 .07 .08 .01 .13 .08 .66 (.94)
Note. N 310. Integration, decategorization, simple disclosure, and onset controllability variables are dummy
coded (1 integration, 1 decategorization, 1 simple disclosure, and 1 high-onset controllability). Scale
reliabilities are in diagonal parentheses.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

p .05.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

low in onset controllability and costly for a disability that is high toward a particular social identity (disability) may be important in
in onset controllability. We also show that affective reactions driving this affective process.
and pity in particular explained how disclosure and onset con- In regards to implications for practice, our results suggest that
trollability impact hiring intentions. Although previous theory and applicants with concealable disabilities are likely to benefit from
research has alluded to how stigma impression management can adopting integration strategies and should avoid using decategori-
influence stereotype reactions that underlie hiring (Lyons et al., zation strategies when their disability is high in onset controlla-
2016), we draw on social cognitive theory (Cuddy et al., 2007) bility. However, this is not to suggest that individuals with dis-
and show that affective reactions or action tendenciesare also abilities are responsible for managing bias in hiring contexts.
important for understanding hiring intentions. Our results also Organizations can adopt strategies to ensure that employees mak-
highlight how the prototypicality of an affective reaction (pity) ing hiring decisions are not basing judgments on nonjob-relevant
information. Organizations should hold managers accountable to
job-relevant criteria for evaluation (see related research on gender
Table 4 bias: Koch, DMello, & Sackett, 2015) by, for example, requesting
Effects of Disclosure Strategy on Hiring Intentions, as they justify evaluations.
Moderated by Disability Onset Controllability and Mediated by
Pity and Admiration in Study 2
Limitations and Future Research
Outcome b SE t Our research also has noteworthy limitations. First, we exam-
a
Pity ined one type of concealable disability (hearing impairment) and
Constant 2.27 .14 16.61 source of onset controllability (ear infection, loud music). Al-
Integration .38 .18 2.15 though the focus of our research was to test a theoretical process
Decategorization .41 .18 2.23 underlying how disability disclosure impacts hiring intentions, it is
Onset controllability .53 .18 2.93
Integration Onset controllability .48 .25 2.00
unclear if our process generalizes to other disabilities (e.g., HIV/
Decategorization Onset controllability .58 .25 2.34 AIDS) or additional sources of onset controllability (e.g., acciden-
Admirationb tal needle injection, sexual encounter). It could be that other stigma
Constant 3.05 .17 17.90 characteristics (e.g., peril; E. Jones et al., 1984) moderate the
Integration .13 .22 .57 process described in our findings. It could also be that the valence
Decategorization .01 .23 .08
Onset controllability .39 .23 1.71 of our manipulations for integration and decategorization overlap
Integration Onset controllability .10 .31 .34
Decategorization Onset controllability .01 .31 .04
Hiring Intentionc 5
Constant 2.11 .17 12.12 4.5
Pity .13 .05 2.72
4
Admiration .59 .04 15.73
Integration .12 .14 .82 3.5
Decategorization .35 .15 2.35 3
Onset Controllability - High
Pity

Onset controllability .30 .15 2.04 Onset Controllability - Low

2.5
Integration Onset controllability .36 .20 1.86
De-categorization Onset controllability .36 .20 1.82 2
1.5
Note. N 310. Integration, decategorization, and onset controllability
variables are dummy coded (1 integration, 1 decategorization, and 1
1 responsible for disability). Integration De-categorization Simple Disclosure
R .03, F(5, 304) 1.93, p .05. b R2 .03, F(5, 304 1.77, p
a 2 Disclosure Strategies
.05. c R2 .47, F(7, 302) 38.01, p .05. Number of bootstrap samples
for bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals 1,000. Figure 3. The interactive effect of disclosure strategy and onset control-

p .05. lability on pity in Study 2.
 8 LYONS, VOLPONE, WESSEL, AND ALONSO
with the mediating (e.g., pity) variables by providing different
performance-relevant information. Future research should examine
our proposed process with other disabilities that vary meaningfully
on additional stigma characteristics and other manipulations of
disclosure strategies.
Second, across both studies average levels of pity were low,
raising concerns about the robustness of the results. It could be that
the passive nature of our experimental paradigm meant that ob-
servers affective reactions were tempered or not representative of
hiring contexts in which observers and targets actively interact. It
could also be that the focal disability (hearing impairment) does
not elicit pity as much as other disabilities. However, we found
that both pity (SDmin 0.76, SDmax 0.95) and admiration
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(SDmin 0.96, SDmax 1.16) had variance across experimental
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
conditions similar to previous research (Cuddy et al., 2007). This
suggests that our paradigm elicited a variety of affective reactions,
but may be a conservative test of our model. The interaction
quality of the hiring context, affective influence of the disability,
and other (more sensitive) affective reactions are variables worth
investigating in future research.
Third, in both Study 1 and Study 2 we utilized online samples.
There is concern that participants in online samples are profes-
sional survey takers (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolacci, 2014) and
their responses might not generalize to a broader population of
employees. Indeed, any type of sample has strengths and weak-
nesses. The strength of our use of online samples is that they
enabled us to obtain diverse participants (i.e., not all from the same
organization) who had relevant employment experiences (i.e., hir-
ing managers in Study 2). Concerns about our use of online
samples is further allayed because our focus is on testing a theo-
retical process rather than generalizing to all possible hiring con-
texts (Landers & Behrend, 2015). However, future research will
benefit from examining the moderating effects of sample charac-
teristics.
Conclusion
This study clarifies how and why different disability disclosure
strategies influence the hiring of applicants with concealable dis-
abilities. We show that disclosure strategies, with identical aims,
differ markedly in effectiveness depending on the onset control-
lability of the disability. Identifying successful stigma impression
management strategies is important as it may help curb the bias
individuals with disabilities face when attempting to gain access to
work and accommodations.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disabil-
ity accommodation: The role of individual differences and disability
attributes. Journal of Management, 39, 743762. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0149206310396375
Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of
the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters beliefs
disable the Americans With Disabilities Act? Academy of Management
Review, 26, 8599. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259396
Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1986). Hiring decisions for disabled
workers: Looking at the cause. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
16, 197208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01135.x
Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnavet among Am-
azon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behav-
ioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112130. http://dx
.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & Maclean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out
of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy
of Management Review, 30, 78 95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR
.2005.15281431
Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1997). Appraising the perfor-
mance of employees with disabilities: A review and model. Human
Resource Management Review, 7, 2753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1053-4822(97)90004-8
Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratees
disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of
disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 102111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.83.1.102
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert
& S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol.
2, pp. 504 553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors
from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 631 648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.92.4.631
Dalgin, R. S., & Bellini, J. (2008). Invisible disability disclosure in an
employment interview: Impact on employers hiring decisions and views
of employability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52, 6 15. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0034355207311311
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow
from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 878 902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.82.6.878
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression forma-
tion, from categoryBased to individuating processes: Influences of
information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp.
174). New York, NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60317-2
Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accom-
modation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evi-
dence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
224 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556379
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hayes, A. F. (2014). Comparing conditional effects in moderated multiple
regression: Implementation using PROCESS for SPSS and SAS [White
paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/comparing
slopes.pdf
Hebl, M. R., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging ones stigma in the
interview setting: Effective strategy or liability? Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 223249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816
.2002.tb00214.x
Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. L. (2005). Acknowledging ones physical
disability in the interview: Does when make a difference? Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 35, 24772492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1559-1816.2005.tb02111.x
Jans, L. H., Kaye, H. S., & Jones, E. C. (2012). Getting hired: Successfully
employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interview-
ing, and job search. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 155
165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9336-y
Jones, E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., & Scott, R.
(1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New
York, NY: Freeman.
 DISCLOSING DISABILITIES
Jones, K. J., & King, E. B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas at work:
A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40, 1466
1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515518
Koch, A. J., DMello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of
gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128 161. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary
distinctions between organizations, Mechanical Turk, and other conve-
nience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives
on Science and Practice, 8, 142164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/iop
.2015.13
Lyons, B. J., Martinez, L., Ruggs, E., Hebl, M., Ryan, A. M., Bachman, K.,
& Roebuck, A. (2016). To say or not to say: Different strategies of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
acknowledging a visible disability. Journal of Management. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206316638160
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
McCarthy, J., & Goffin, R. (2004). Measuring job interview anxiety:
Beyond weak knees and sweaty palms. Personnel Psychology, 57,
607 637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00002.x
McLaughlin, M. E., Bell, M. P., & Stringer, D. Y. (2004). Stigma and
acceptance of persons with disabilities understudied aspects of work-
force diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29, 302333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257410
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a
stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin,
133, 328 345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and conse-
quences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 194 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR
.2008.27752724
Appendix
Experimental Manipulations for Disclosure Strategy and Onset Controllability in Study 1 and Study 2
Integration
I have a permanent hearing impairment because I (had an inner
ear infection/listened to a lot of loud music) when I was younger.
I wear hearing aids now. Some people might think that this
condition could cause me problems but it has actually made me
better at dealing with stressful situations. I hope other people see
that in me too.
Decategorization
I have a permanent hearing impairment because I (had an inner
ear infection/listened to a lot of loud music) when I was younger.
I wear hearing aids now. Some people might think that this
9
Roberts, L. L., & Macan, T. H. (2006). Disability disclosure effects on
employment interview ratings of applicants with nonvisible disabilities.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 239 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0090-5550.51.3.239
Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in
diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30,
685711. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.18378873
Shih, M., Young, M. J., & Bucher, A. (2013). Working to reduce the
effects of discrimination: Identity management strategies in organiza-
tions. American Psychologist, 68, 145157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0032250
Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (1999). Covering up what cant be seen:
Concealable stigma and mental control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 474 486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.77.3.474
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the
treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 21, 352 401.
Taub, D. E., McLorg, P. A., & Fanflik, P. L. (2004). Stigma management
strategies among women with physical disabilities: Contrasting approaches
of downplaying or claiming a disability status. Deviant Behavior, 25,
169 190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620490269012
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the
social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73 84).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis
of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 738 748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738
condition could cause me problems but Im not like other people
that have this condition. I hope people do not see me that way. I am
involved in sports and extracurricular activities.
Simple Disclosure
I have a permanent hearing impairment because I (had an inner
ear infection/listened to a lot of loud music) when I was younger.
I wear hearing aids now. I hope people do not see it as a big deal.
Received September 7, 2015
Revision received March 10, 2017
Accepted March 27, 2017