This article reports on a qualitative study identifying the drivers for and boundaries to disability-disclosure in interability interactions as experienced by 13 students with physical impairments at five Belgian higher education institutions. Through surveys and in-depth interviews, the study explored whether the students experience, prefer, and expect differences in communication about their impairments with temporarily able-bodied peers, instructors, and staff. Interviews provided insight into the nuances of disclosure and topic avoidance decisions that differ by disclosure target: disability-disclosure is mainly a balancing act between fulfilling physical needs and maintaining a normal, positive identity. The visibility of impairments seems to play a minor role in the students’ initial orientation toward disclosing. The functions of disability-disclosure as posited by the Communication Predicament of Disability Model and the CARE-keys to effective interability communication (i.e., Contact, Ask, Respect, Empathy) are discussed as well as the implications of the findings for Communication Accommodation Theory.
BraithwaiteD. O. (1990). From majority to minority: An analysis of cultural change from able-bodied to disabled. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 465-483.
2.
BraithwaiteD. O.LabrecqueD. (1994). Responding to the Americans with Disabilities Act: Contributions of interpersonal communication research and training. Journal of Applied Communication, 22, 287-294.
3.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
4.
DavisL. J. (2002). Bending over backwards: Disability, dismodernism, and other difficult positions. New York: New York University Press.
5.
DugganA.BradshawY. S.AltmanW. (2010). How do I ask about your disability? An examination of interpersonal communication process between medical students and patients with disabilities. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 334-350.
6.
FoxS. A.GilesH. (1996). Interability communication: Evaluating patronizing encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 265-290.
7.
FrymierA. B.WanzerM. B. (2003). Examining differences in perceptions of students’ communication with professors: A comparison of students with and without disabilities. Communication Quarterly, 51, 174-191.
8.
GasiorekJ.GilesH. (2012). Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication. Human Communication Research, 38, 309-332.
9.
GilesH. (2008). Communication accommodation theory. In BaxterL. A.BraithwaiteD. O. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 161-173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
GrahamE. E. (2009). Topic avoidance. In RubinR. B.RubinA. M.GrahamE. E.PerseE. M.SeiboldD. R. (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp. 406-413). London, England: Routledge.
11.
GuerreroL. K.AfifiW. A. (1995). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in parent-child relationships. In SochaT. J.StampG. H. (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 219-245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
HartR. D.WilliamsD. E. (1995). Able-bodied instructors and students with physical disabilities: A relationship handicapped by communication. Communication Education, 44, 140-154.
13.
HarwoodJ.GilesH.PalomaresN. A. (2005). Intergroup theory and communication processes. In HarwoodJ.GilesH. (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
14.
HeblM. R.KleckR. E. (2000). The social consequences of physical disability. In HeathertonT. F.KleckR. E.HeblM. R.HuliJ. G. (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 419-439). New York, NY: Guildford.
15.
HeblM. R.KleckR. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 223-249.
16.
IezzoniL. I. (2006). Make no assumptions: Communication between persons with disabilities and clinicians. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 18, 212-219.
17.
LaurenceauJ. P.BarretF.RovineM. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel approach. Journal of Family Psychiatry, 19, 314-323.
18.
MurphyR. (1990). The body silent. New York, NY: Norton.
19.
NortonR. (1982). Style, content, and target components of openness. Communication Research, 9, 33-65.
20.
OstroveJ. M. (2006). “One lady was so busy staring at me she walked into a wall”: Interability relations from the perspective of women with disabilities. Disability Studies Quarterly, 3. Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/717/894
21.
PetronioS. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
PetronioS.ReederH. M.HechtM. L.Mon’t Ros-MendozaT. (1996). Disclosure of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 181-199.
23.
RyanE. B.BajorekS.BeamanA.AnasA. P. (2005). “I just want you to know that ‘them’ is me”: Intergroup perspectives on communication and disability. In HarwoodJ.GilesH. (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 117-137). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
24.
RyanE. B.ColeR. (1990). Evaluative perception of interpersonal communication with elders. In GilesH.CouplandN.WiemannJ. M. (Eds.), Communication, health, and the elderly (pp. 172-190). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
25.
RyanE. B.GilesH.BartolucciG.HenwoodK. (1986). Psycholinguistic and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language and Communication, 6, 1-24.
26.
SmithJ. W. (2009). Four keys to effective communication between the able-bodied and people with disabilities. Spectra, 45(4), 8-9.
27.
WheelessL. R.GrotzJ. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346.
28.
WheelessL. R.GrotzJ. (2004). Revised self-disclosure scale. In RubinR. B.PalmgreenP.SypherH. E. (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 21-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
