“Is That Really a Service Dog?”: How Service Dog Handlers With Invisible Disabilities in the United States Communicate to Manage Stigma With Implications for Policy and Interventions

Abstract

In the United States of America, the Americans with Disabilities Act allows for service dogs, dogs that are task-trained to assist disabled individuals in the management of their condition, to accompany their handler in public spaces. Recently, widespread media coverage of fake service dogs—pet dogs misrepresented as service dogs—has led to a perceived prevalence of fake service dogs. This, combined with a lack of knowledge about laws protecting service dog handlers, complicates the lives of legitimate service dog handlers, especially those with invisible disabilities who have no visible marks of a disability. Informed by the theory of stigma management communication, we conducted 35 in-depth interviews with service dog handlers with invisible disabilities to understand how they experience and manage stigma communication. Using a phronetic iterative approach, thematic analysis of the data revealed how handlers encounter misinformation about service dogs in everyday interactions, including doubts about the legitimacy of their disability, confusion between legitimate and fake service dogs, emotional support animals, and therapy dogs, as well as requests for certifications or registrations that are not endorsed by the ADA. Stigmatizing communication toward handlers was characterized by microaggressions, unwanted and excessive attention, and potentially dangerous interactions with the public. Lastly, thematic analysis found that handlers’ stigma management communication was pre-emptive, communal, and responsive. Findings suggest further exploration into communal coping as a stigma management strategy, as well as discussing implications for policy and suggestions for communication interventions.

In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (2020) defines service dogs as dogs task-trained to assist disabled people. However, many are unaware of how to distinguish a legitimate service dog from a fake service dog, emotional support animal (ESA), or therapy dog, which leads to communication challenges (Ballard et al., 2023). Service dogs are working animals—not pets (ADA, 2020). When the service dog is under the control of their handler, with or without a vest, handlers are legally permitted the same rights of access of any other member of the public, unlike other types of support animals who only provide comfort like ESAs and therapy dogs (ADA, 2020). In establishments with no-pet policies, staff can legally inquire if the dog is a service dog and what tasks they are trained to perform (ADA, 2020). Staff are not allowed to ask the handler’s diagnosis or request documentation of a service dog registration, certification, or ID. In fact, no national registry or certification exists that is regulated or endorsed by the ADA. Furthermore, this is complicated by varying understandings that distinguish an impairment from a disability, and what counts as an impairment versus a disability (Oliver, 1983).

Although well-intentioned, the ADA offers little guidance pertaining staff communication with patrons without visible disability accompanied by a service dog. These factors complicate the lives of handlers with invisible disabilities, conditions not visible to others, since many expect disabled people to look visibly disabled (Mills, 2017; Smith, 2007). This burdens invisibly disabled handlers with educating others about their legal rights, resulting in fatigue from constant advocacy and emotional labor (Ballard et al., 2023). This leads some to explain or justify the existence of their disability to avoid potentially stigmatizing interactions (Braithwaite, 1991). Since increased media attention sparked a perceived prevalence of fake service dogs, many question whether service dogs are legitimate (Mills, 2024; Ramirez, 2025). This compounds stigma toward invisibly disabled handlers who often receive unwanted attention and intrusive questioning (Mills, 2017). Although some willingly disclose their condition, many do not believe the existence of their disability or understand its toll (Baker, 2008). By communicating about the stigma facing this marginalized group as a shared source of adversity, handlers can support each other and share responsibility for stigma management—also known as communal coping (Afifi et al., 2006). To shine a light on this discrimination and inform future policy, we give voice to how invisibly disabled service dog handlers experience and manage stigma. By examining how handlers experience and manage stigma, this study poses communal coping as a useful stigma management strategy for members of stigmatized communities.

Stigma Management Communication

The pervasive nature of stigma has been discussed by psychologists (Corrigan, 2000; Corrigan & Nieweglowski, 2019), sociologists (Link & Phelan, 2001), and communication scholars (Chung & Slater, 2013; Meisenbach, 2010; Smith, 2007). Defined as a human perception of a discrediting mark used to communicate difference and justify negative treatment of others (Coleman, 1986; Goffman, 1963), stigma “simultaneously [operates] at individual, organizational, and societal structural levels” (Meisenbach, 2025, p. 1). It impacts the stigmatized person’s physical and mental health (Major & O’Brien, 2005), career (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999), and academics (Major & O’Brien, 2005).

In the theory of stigma management communication (SMC), Meisenbach (2010) argues that stigma is constructed by both the stigmatizer and the stigmatized. SMC depends on whether one believes the stigma exists and applies to them (Meisenbach, 2010). Those who accept their stigma often engage in open communication to educate others about their experiences (Smith & Bishop, 2019). Service dog handlers with invisible disabilities might avoid questioning by openly disclosing their condition or utilizing a vest that indicates the handler’s condition. Entering a public space with a service dog can even be considered stigma management if they help their handler reduce potentially stigmatizing behaviors, such as those that assist autistic handlers with self-regulation (Hellings et al., 2022).

A stigmatized individual’s decision on how to manage their stigma is influenced by how they believe others perceive them (Vorauer et al., 1998). If they view others’ pre-conceived notions about them as inaccurate, they may attempt to disconfirm these negative stereotypes (Klein & Azzi, 2001) or persuade others to reevaluate (Owuamalam et al., 2013), although these strategies do not always benefit the stigmatized group (Brule & Eckstein, 2016). Like those who refuse to use assistive medical technology in case of a medical episode (Caldeira et al., 2022), handlers might leave their service dog at home to avoid stigma, although this sacrifices their assistance.

Communal Coping as SMC

Current definitions of communal coping typically involve one person in a relationship who is directly affected by the adversity, such as an illness (Afifi et al., 2006; Bassinger, 2020; Helgeson et al., 2018; Wolf, 2015). Together, they define the problem as shared and cope with the adversity together (Helgeson et al., 2018). This study advances SMC scholarship by approaching communal coping as a stigma management strategy. This is supported by SMC literature, which recognized bonding with similarly stigmatized others as a method of coping with stigma (Meisenbach, 2010), as well as the political/relational model of disability (Kafer, 2013), which poses that disability is communally defined. This shared understanding of the stigma among stigmatized people can make it easiest to lean on in-group members to cope (Zhu et al., 2017). These opportunities for connection, collective stigma management, and social support exist regardless of geographic location thanks to the internet (Wright & Rains, 2013). This communal stigma management can positively impact mental and physical health (Afifi et al., 2006) and potentially help balance out the negative health effects of stigma (Major & O’Brien, 2005). For chronically ill individuals, communal coping can help them feel less alone and improve symptom management (Helgeson et al., 2018).

Facilitating strong in-group identification and activism can increase the self-efficacy of stigmatized groups to challenge the stigmatizing beliefs of out-group members (Lähdesmäki et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2017). This can inspire counterarguing with the stigmatizer to communicate resistance, opposition, or defensiveness (Ashforth & Kreiner, 2014; Bresnahan et al., 2018).

To build on these findings, we pose the following research question:

RQ

How do service dog handlers with invisible disabilities experience and manage stigma communication?

Data Collection and Analysis

Although service dog stigma exists on every continent, policies heavily influence both service dog stigma and management. Therefore, the first-author, a member of this stigmatized group, received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Texas Christian University (approval no. 1920-225) to interview service dog handlers with invisible disabilities located within the United States that were at least 18 years old. Considering the historical misrepresentation of disabled people in research leading many to distrust able-bodied researchers (Kichen, 2000; Oliver, 1992), use of interviews invited handlers to tell their story in their own words (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Furthermore, shared group identification between the interviewer and participants likely increased engagement and openness (Kinitz, 2022).

To begin recruitment, the first-author approached personal contacts who fit the criteria and requested they distribute a recruitment flyer with their network, which was originally posted on the first-author’s personal social media account. This author’s feed featured several photos with their service dog, indicating insider status (Kinitz, 2022). Most participants saw this flyer, which was also shared online within service dog groups and by training organizations. Throughout communication with participants, the first-author acknowledged their positionality to foster trust and transparency (Lake & Wendland, 2018). Routine check-ins between authors and detailed memoing encouraged reflexivity. Semi-structured interviews guided by core questions, such as asking participants to describe their interactions in public spaces or if they have experienced negative interactions, encouraged retrospective sensemaking about stigmatizing interactions, while allowing for probing questions (Tracy, 2019). Ultimately, the first-author conducted 35 interviews—approximately 45 min each.

All but eight participants had multiple diagnoses. Participants had one or more of the following conditions, where n entails the number of participants represented: psychiatric (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD], complex PTSD, agoraphobia, and dissociative disorders; n = 23), neurological/neurodevelopmental (e.g., epilepsy, autism, seizures, and chronic migraines; n = 14), and other long-lasting or chronic conditions (e.g., auto-immune, connective tissue disorders, and hearing loss; n = 18). Length of time as handlers ranged from 1 to 25 years, with most between 2 to 5 years (n = 20). Given the wide array of diagnoses represented, analysis considered the impact of individual diagnoses on SMC (see Appendix for more detail regarding participants’ diagnoses and service dog tasks). Interviews took place over phone and video calls. Calls were audio-recorded after collecting verbal informed consent and demographic information.

Computer-generated transcripts were completed via a secure transcription service involving no external human collaboration. Recordings and transcripts were deleted permanently from the software after transcription completion. These were downloaded and stored separately from any identifiable information on a password-protected computer, resulting in 266 single-spaced pages of data. We utilized neutral pronouns and pseudonyms non-attributive to participant gender to prioritize participant confidentiality, reduce bias, and facilitate perspective-taking (Nellis et al., 2025).

Employing Tracy’s (2019) phronetic iterative approach, we utilized inductive and deductive analysis by referencing and building on stigma theory, while documenting emergent themes illuminating handlers’ lived experiences. Data analysis occurred in three stages. First, open coding pinpointed data that are relevant and meaningful in both theory and practice (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Reviewing transcripts line-by-line, the researcher compiled a list of initial, descriptive codes repeated throughout the data (Tracy, 2019). Second, codes were collapsed into thematic categories to create a working coding schema, while documenting each theme’s prevalence and noting the influence of overlapping stigmatized identities on interactions (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Third, axial coding aggregated first-level codes into hierarchical codes to group similar concepts and form relationships between categories (Tracy, 2019).

By conducting synthesized member checks, five participants who requested to review the findings were contacted to facilitate reflection at two different points in time—opting not to contact participants who previously discussed traumatic material to avoid causing distress (Birt et al., 2016). The first-author reviewed each theme with exemplars from interviews to gauge alignment with their experiences of stigma. All concurred that the findings reflected their experiences, hereby adding to our confidence in the results.

Findings

Applying Meisenbach’s (2010) theory of SMC, we sought to understand how service dog handlers with invisible disabilities experience and manage stigma. Analysis yielded the following categories: encountering misinformation about service dogs in everyday interactions, handlers’ experiences with stigma communication, and SMC strategies. Illustrative examples may reflect multiple themes, highlighting the interconnectedness of the themes and the complexity of the dataset.

Encountering Misinformation About Service Dogs in Everyday Interactions

Each handler discussed communication challenges in public spaces. Many blamed a lack of education of the ADA, including a lack of enforcement of the laws that protect service dog handlers’ public access rights. The data reflected how this misinformation often led to stigmatizing interactions. This category encompassed interactions with the public characterized by doubts about the legitimacy of the handler’s disability; uncertainty in distinguishing between fake and legitimate service dogs, ESAs, and therapy dogs; and requests for service dog certifications, registrations, and identifications. When encountering communication challenges due to others’ ignorance, handlers did not always perceive this as stigma, especially when participants did not believe the deliverer of the message intended harm and demonstrated willingness to learn. Other times when this misinformation was expressed in a confrontational or condescending manner, handlers felt stigmatized. This reflected the complexity of stigma and the impact of delivery on whether messages are perceived as stigmatizing. Due to the regularity of these interactions, handlers braced for future incidents. Blair explained, “It sucks … but it’s kind of a normal thing where you are going to have an access issue at some point if you have a service dog.”

Doubts About Disability Legitimacy

About a third of participants recalled being confronted with suspicion or doubt regarding the existence of their disability. Avery explained the lack of understanding that “not every disability is visible.” Although establishments are only allowed to ask whether a dog is a service dog and what tasks they perform to verify legitimacy, participants faced frequent accusations of faking their condition to bring their pet into public spaces. As Taylor put it, “They don’t think my dog is for a disability” and that strangers think “they just want to bring their dog out in public.” Such encounters usually included intrusive questions about participants’ diagnoses or personal health information. Jordan, for example, recalled a confrontation about their service dog in which the confronter asked, “What’s wrong with you?” Jordan responded, “I don’t feel comfortable telling you because you just fought with me about it.” Kelly described a sardonically hostile encounter while getting out of their car, parked in a handicap spot, with their service dog: “[a stranger] looked me straight in the face and goes, ‘So what’s your problem? You blind?’”

Participants described feeling directly stigmatized by these interactions. According to Bryce, the worst part of these interactions is that “they don’t see how bad you are really struggling every day.” Participants employed humor when responding to stigmatizing confrontations, including Parker’s acerbic response to doubters whose service dog helps them manage the aggression caused by their dissociative episodes: “You would definitely notice my disability if I didn’t have [my service dog]. I tend to punch people if I don’t have them.” Others chose to recognize absurdity in confrontation. Alex said, “I’ve had some people walk right up to me and wave their hand around in my face, then seem shocked when I swipe their hand away.” These comments ignored participants’ lived experiences with disability, invalidated their struggles, and reinforced the stereotype that legitimate service dog handlers can only have specific disabilities.

Fake Service Dogs, ESAs, and Therapy Dogs

Participants expressed frustration with people who bring their pets into public places as feigned service dogs, a widespread phenomenon that participants point to as stigmatizing legitimate service dog handlers. Part of the issue, as Morgan argued, is that people “don’t know the difference of service dogs, therapy dogs, and emotional support dogs,” or recognize that only service dogs are protected by the ADA. Kelly reported navigating public spaces as “even harder with all the fake service dogs out there,” since members of the public “don’t really know the difference” between fake and legitimate service dogs. This knowledge gap is sometimes exploited by people wanting to travel with pets—something participants felt incites further stigma for legitimate handlers. One stranger admitted to Rory, “I just tell the airlines it’s a service dog. That way I don’t have to pay.” The lack of knowledge extends to airline and service industry staff. Jo recounted instances of staff asking them how to determine real from fake service dogs. After Jo explained staff’s ability to remove an out-of-control dog in a service dog vest, they responded, “wait, we can?” Morgan explained working to educate the misinformed, even when frustrated: “I’ve shot like 30 minutes out of my day, just explaining and talking to people about the difference between what [my service dog] does versus dogs for therapy and emotional support.”

While offering education and explanations often helped participants legitimize the presence of their animal and distance themselves from the fake handler label, some participants with invisible disabilities were still denied entry to public spaces with their service dog. Riley recalled being denied entry to a carnival with their dog when “the [gatekeeper] kept basically insisting that [my service dog] was a therapy dog,” since they did not understand that service dogs can be used for psychiatric disabilities. This experience was more common for participants with psychiatric disabilities and highlights a potential risk of diagnosis disclosure.

The invisible nature of their disabilities opened participants to being targeted by individuals engaging in “fake-spotting” (policing suspected ESAs or fake service dogs in public). Bailey explained, “Because I’m young and I was never in the military, people always think [my service dog is] an ESA, or that I’ve just gotten a vest off of Amazon.” Fake-spotters were particularly likely to leave participants feeling stigmatized. Casey, despite being a legitimate service dog handler, described one ironic encounter in which a stranger in a store not only accused them of having a fake service dog, but blamed them for complicating the lives of legitimate service dog handlers: “[he said] that I’m the reason that PTSD dogs and those people who actually need them cannot get the service dogs that they need.” The gatekeeping of disabilities deemed deserving of a service animal in this encounter is noteworthy, suggesting one potentially disabled individual policing another—a fake-spotting practice that ultimately upholds the stigma surrounding both disabilities and dog handlers, and, when encounters get heated, endangers both handlers and their service dogs.

Requests for Service Dog Registrations, Certifications, and IDs

No official registration or ADA-endorsed service dog registry exists. Despite this fact, participants encountered requests for written proof of their service dog’s legitimacy (e.g., registrations, certifications, and IDs), and were frequently denied access to public establishments when unable to comply. An entire industry of predatory online services that charge for meaningless certifications and registrations further complicate public and business owner understandings of service dog legitimacy. Bailey explained, “It’s easy to Google [service dogs] and you get registries almost immediately … Everybody’s like, ‘where’s their ID?’ or ‘how’d you get them registered?’ and I have to try to explain that I don’t have that because it’s not legally required.” Participants acknowledged that they could simply purchase fake IDs and provide them when requested, but none did, recognizing that doing so creates the expectation that handlers must produce these phony IDs upon request, both damaging the dog handler community’s reputation and encouraging more predatory ID producers. As Jesse explained, acceptance of these IDs as proof of legitimacy greases the wheels for fake handlers to access public spaces. When Jesse registered for disability accommodations at their school, they were instructed to provide an ID after another student successfully tried to “pass off” their dog as a service dog using a fake registration. Jesse clarified, “There’s no such thing.”

Delivery of Stigma Communication

Whether or not participants identified communication as stigmatizing was heavily influenced by the sender’s perceived intent and willingness to learn about service dog laws. Encounters that were hostile, patronizing, or reinforced stereotypes about disability left participants feeling stigmatized. Stigmatizing communication was characterized by microaggressions and unwanted, excessive attention, along with potentially dangerous interactions with the public.

Microaggressions and Unwanted, Excessive Attention

Condescension was a common experience for participants, including microaggressions that romanticized having a service dog, something participants particularly felt was dismissive of their struggles and stigmatizing. Payton was told they are “lucky,” and Blair that it was “cool” to be able to bring their dog everywhere; they responded, “No, you don’t … That’s like wishing you were in a wheelchair.” For participants, such envy served to draw attention to their disability, making them feel othered. As Payton put it, “I just wish I could have her as a pet only because there’s a reason I have her … they don’t see the full side of it,” emphasizing the unseen trauma often underlying someone’s decision to get a service dog. All participants reported similar feelings of alienation or invalidation of their lived experiences as a disabled person by microaggressions, and all voiced that they wish they did not need a service dog. Many described getting a service dog as a last resort after trying and failing to manage their conditions with medications or therapies. For handlers interviewed in this study, their service dogs are not a fashionable accessory—they are medical equipment. As Tatum expressed, “I wouldn’t be alive without my [service dog].”

Participants described enduring outpourings of uninvited affection or attention showered upon their service dogs by well-intentioned strangers. Blair, like several participants, said they understood adoration and curiosity aimed at their animal but, like other participants, emphasized that these seemingly affirming experiences come at a cost, often overwhelming both handler and animal. As Morgan said, “Everybody kind of likes to get in there, get in [my service dog’s] face, and talk to [my service dog] … It’s literally every minute, every hour, every day, you’re getting somebody looking at you, asking you questions.” Participants described excessive attention as feeling intrusive to their privacy. Blair explained, “What people do not understand is that, yeah, you can tell me my service dog is beautiful, or you can comment on them, but that might literally be the tenth comment that I have heard that day. Sometimes I just want to be left alone to do my thing and live my life.” Not all attention was adoring. While Avery ate at a restaurant, their service dog quietly curled up under the table, a stranger incessantly barked and growled at them, despite Avery’s requests to be left alone. For the invisibly disabled, interactions like these served as a spotlight, showcasing the presence of their animal, and hence, their disability.

Potentially Dangerous Interactions With the Public

Beyond marginalizing or condescending comments, participants reported confrontations that posed danger to both them and their dogs. Interactions where participants felt unsafe posed particular coping difficulties, leaving lasting trauma. These interactions often began over a stranger attempting to pet a working service animal. Remy recounted, “I’ve had things thrown at us … because I told someone they couldn’t pet my dog.” For service dog handlers, the stakes of this kind of attention are high. Participants explained that petting or distracting working service dogs can interfere with their ability to task; service dogs trained in medical alert are often trained to recognize subtle behavioral changes or scents from the handler that signal impending medical crises, including seizures, fainting, diabetic lows, or cardiac events, and alert the handler to prepare for or prevent the episode. Participants described members of the public disregarding both text on their service dog’s vest and/or verbal requests not to pet their animals, with dangerous consequences including missed alerts and adverse health events. Hayden, for example, described an incident when another customer pet their service dog without asking while Hayden was sitting on a store bench in an attempt to manage their cardiac symptoms. After asking them not to pet their service dog again, the customer retaliatorily screamed at Hayden. Since Hayden was already not feeling well, the stress of the interaction worsened their symptoms, and their service dog was not able to alert to an oncoming fainting spell, and Hayden lost consciousness in the store—an event they described as traumatic.

Service dogs, not just their handlers, faced danger. Participants described service dogs being attacked either by members of the public or uncontrolled pet dogs. In extreme cases, multiple handlers were forced to retire their service dog from their ability to serve, including Bryce, who described sitting on the floor of a store, quietly perusing merchandise with their vested service dog lying beside them, a stranger sprayed mace in the dog’s eyes, causing permanent vision loss. Due to this malicious, unprovoked attack, the service dog could no longer perform their tasks and had to retire. Despite law enforcement involvement, the perpetrator was never caught. Bryce explained, “[my state] doesn’t really have any laws to protect service dogs … so I wouldn’t have had to find someone at the federal level to try and do something.” To compound the impacts of this violence, Bryce felt “disappointed” by laws that dismissed their now-retired service dog as “just a dog” instead of valued medical assistance. Another participant’s service dog was shot and killed while off-duty—a presumed act of discrimination by a person known to the handler.

Participants reported similar acts of violence when unexpectedly faced with reactive, fake service dogs with their lackadaisical owners. While out in public, Ellis’ service dog was attacked by a pet dog in a service dog vest. Ellis described how the fake service dog “latched on” to their service dog’s face, which ultimately cost Ellis their medical equipment. Although their service dog eventually healed, the trauma of the event led the dog to become fearful and reactive of other dogs, forcing them into retirement. This attack came at a huge psychological and monetary cost to Ellis, who now had to begin the expensive and lengthy process of training a prospective service dog while processing the attack.

Stigma Management and Coping Strategies

For participants, the communicative management of stigma was an ongoing effort of pre-emptive, communal, and responsive strategies.

Pre-Emptive Stigma Management as Coping

To cope with this stigma, participants described engaging in proactive strategies to reduce the likelihood of negative or stigmatizing encounters. Handlers drew upon knowledge gained from past interactions to inform their future communication. Knowing that service dogs tend to attract both positive and negative attention, Blair strategically budgets extra time when venturing into public, which makes interactions less stressful and rushed, ultimately easing anxiety. Participants sometimes risked their own health and safety by leaving their service dog at home, a decision they made by weighing the possibility of a negative encounter against the help their service dog could provide on a low-symptom days. Payton vocalized their frustrations, saying, “There are days where I’m just like, oh my gosh, I wish I could not bring her.” Participants especially considered leaving their dogs at home when venturing into environments where their access rights were previously questioned. Blair explained, “That’s when I definitely make the decision, like, okay—I can deal without [my service dog] for today.” Leaving their dog at home allowed participants to mask or hide their membership of this stigmatized group, helping them avoid stigma communication, despite the risks.

On the other hand, some participants intentionally displayed visible cues to their disability that might perceptually legitimize the presence of their dog. Dakota, a veteran with PTSD, intentionally dressed in clothes indicating their veteran status when expecting possible access issues, something they found reduced stigmatizing interactions: “A service dog for a military veteran seems to resonate more than a service dog for someone with another invisible disability” (Dakota). Visual cues or verbal disclosures of their diagnoses, however, sometimes backfired, shifting stigmatization to their specific condition. According to Skylar, “[people] have this closed-line view on where it’s only veterans that can have PTSD, but it’s also not just veterans.” After disclosing a diagnosis like PTSD, participants described invasive personal questions. Jamie explained the risks handlers weigh when deciding whether or not to reveal their diagnosis, saying, “It’s very triggering to try to explain why I have a PTSD diagnosis, especially when I’m just trying to get in and get out.”

Sometimes, pre-emptive management involved educating people that handlers planned to regularly interact in hopes of preventing future stigma communication. Some handlers taught colleagues about their dog’s job, or how to interact with their service dog to avoid distracting them. This kind of informal education both lessened further stigmatizing messages and legitimized their service dog. When Braiden, a school employee, discussed how they prepare for each school year, they explained, “I can’t [feasibly] go and visit every single classroom and tell the kids, ‘Hey, when you see [my service dog] in the hallway, don’t pet them’, so I made a PowerPoint for teachers to distribute to their kids and adapt for the age groups’ reading levels.” This addressed gaps in service dog education in their workplace to reduce the likelihood of future communication work to advocate for themselves in the face of stigma. Jordan and Dakota both used a wheelchair metaphor to teach others who they expect to see regularly. Dakota illustrated, “Think of [my service dog] as a combination of a wheelchair and a police dog. You wouldn’t pet a police dog. You wouldn’t ask to play with someone’s wheelchair.”

Communal Stigma Management and Coping

In coping with and reacting to stigmatizing, dangerous, and traumatic interactions, participants turned to the logics and vocabulary of the handler community. Enacting community identities included advocacy for service dogs and disability rights for both themselves and others, education, and accepting advocacy from other members of the community. Participants described engaging with other handlers through a strong network of both in-person and online groups and relationships. Participants turned to social media to connect with other handlers, distribute or seek advice, and offer or seek social support. For instance, Jo is a member of a social media group of handlers who report establishments that illegally deny them access, a means of helping community members avoid unwelcoming establishments or confrontations. For participants, groups like this one facilitated a community complete with its own norms, expectations, vocabulary, and values.

Being part of a community of service dog handlers gave participants a language of advocacy, along with knowledge to aid advocacy. Participants reported feelings of both belonging and responsibility to their online communities, especially to fellow invisibly disabled handlers. Haiden reflected that online community support from other handlers was particularly impactful when coping with the uncertainty from first adjusting to life with a new service dog: “I got inspired by learning from other handlers because, as a new handler myself, I didn’t know what I was doing in the slightest.” Dylan also reflected on their sense of belonging because of their online community, saying, “I’m not the only one who is having problems. It makes me feel better knowing that I’m not the only one … We’re going to be okay.”

Emboldened to advocate, armed with a language and tactics to do so by their communities, participants viewed advocacy and education as a means to improve public interactions not just for themselves but for other invisibly disabled service dog handlers. As Kelly explained, “The best thing you can do for other service dog handlers is to stop and educate the public.” Several handlers presented about service dogs for local establishments. Braiden, for example, presented about service dog laws and handling conflict between business staff and handlers over access rights to a group of law enforcement personnel. They initiated this opportunity to educate after hearing stories from other handlers who were illegally denied access to establishments and did not feel supported by law enforcement—many of which seemed unaware of the laws protecting service dog handlers or what questions to ask to determine if a dog is an ESA or service dog. Braiden explained, “I don’t have a problem [educating], so I see it as a gift. If I can educate as many people as I can, maybe [other handlers] won’t have the problems I do.”

Membership to these handler and disability communities provided participants with the norms, vocabularies, and logics that both informed and constrained their own behavior in public. When venturing out in public with their dog, participants saw themselves not only as individuals but, constantly, as representatives of an entire community of service dog handlers. This constant mindfulness of enacting a community identity involved both constraining their own behavior and policing the behavior of other invisibly disabled handlers who are subject to the same stigmas. Participants reported advising other handlers not to dress their service dogs in colorful vests with loud patches or dye their dog’s hair to not draw unnecessary public attention. Morgan explained, “I see handlers dye their dog’s hair and then expect not to get attention. Then, they do not like when someone in public tries to take a picture. I know it’s rude, but then part of me is like, what [does that handler] expect?”

Participants constrained their own behavior, maintaining a hyper-awareness of how they and their service dog presented in public. Casey explained the pressure they feel to always monitor how their service dog presented in public: “I always have to think, ‘Are they behaving?’ Because we need to be on our best behavior … In my mind, I’m like, ‘Okay, [my service dog] is three inches further away from me than usual. Somebody is going to come up and approach me and say something.’” Such behavioral constraint was self-beneficial in avoiding confrontation, but often performed out of a felt sense of allegiance to the handler community. Hayden expressed a sense of duty that informed their behavior: “I want to be the way other handlers were for me.”

Responsive Stigma Management

Coping with stigmatizing, dangerous, and disagreeable encounters required strategic responses that would neither escalate the situation nor violate the behavior and reputation maintenance expectations of participants’ service dog handler communities. Participants employed tactics and language learned in online and in-person disability and service dog handler communities to frame and enact responses. Several participants referenced “spoon theory,” a metaphor for units of available and expended energy broadly used in disability and chronic illness communities. When faced with aggressive, rude, or stigmatizing messaging, participants used this community-learned logic to choose whether to engage in an interaction, if they had the energy, or ignore someone if they did not. Communities encouraged participants to advocate and educate, but also to prioritize and protect their own, and their animal’s, health and safety. Employing this community-learned logic, Remy described ceasing to attempt to educate if someone was “forceful in the conversation,” and attempts to educate or engage might increase conflict: “I don’t want to put myself in an unsafe situation where it could make my symptoms worse, since my disability is worsened by stress.”

When faced with accusations of having a fake service dog or an ESA in public, participants usually chose to advocate or educate about the differences between ESAs and service dogs. Alexis, for example, recalled directly telling someone in a store, “You know, he’s not an ESA. He’s actually a service dog. Like, I have a disability and he’s working for me … You’re not allowed to bring your dog in the store unless you have a disability and the dog is task-trained.” While participants reported that interactions like this one interrupted outings such as errands or doctor’s appointments, participants advocated and educated both to end interactions and to calm tensions about service dogs for their communities.

In responding to confrontations, participants almost always weighed both their own needs with those of the handler community as a whole. This was particularly evident when deciding whether to discuss private medical information and diagnoses. This choice of whether or not to disclose their medical information involved weighing an invasion of personal privacy with legitimizing both the presence of their service dog and their membership in (and responsibility to) an entire service dog handler community. Even rebuffs were infused with elements of advocacy. Payton, for example, recounted being peppered with intrusive questions about the cause of their PTSD after revealing their diagnosis in a confrontation about their service dog. Their response strategy both balked at the line of questioning and spread awareness as to why it is not appropriate to ask for a stranger’s medical information, while prioritizing advocating for their public access rights: “You’re asking me what is the worst, most horrible thing that’s ever happened to you in your entire life. Think about it … You want me to talk about that?” Pat, similarly, responded to a police officer who illegally ordered them to reveal their condition, saying, “I’m not obligated, nor am I going to tell you, my medical conditions.” They ultimately complied with continued questioning by attempting to make their disability visible: “Finally, I was so pissed. I pulled down my shirt. I said, ‘See this? … It’s my port. Any more questions?’”

Ultimately, data analysis revealed that participants’ experiences with stigma were characterized by regular encounters with misinformation from the public, including doubts about the legitimacy of their disability, confusion between service dogs and other support animals, and requests for registrations. Participants experienced stigma when faced with unwanted, excessive attention, along with potentially dangerous interactions with the public. Managing stigma was both an individual and communal effort. Participants strongly identified with and incorporated the logic and language of online disability and dog handler communities to both develop confrontation response strategies and cope with the stress of stigma.

Discussion

Findings of this study suggest important theoretical and practical implications, including shedding light on existing disability theories and advancing communal coping and stigma management theories.

Advancing Disability Theory

Unlike Oliver’s (1983) social model of disability, which argues that disability stigma exists due to the way society constructs disability as a flaw, the participants in this study make a conscious choice to make their membership to this stigmatized group known by utilizing a service dog with a condition that is typically otherwise invisible. Not only does this decision include foregoing the privilege of being able to keep their condition invisible to others, but this deliberate visibility communicates to others, both in public face-to-face spaces and online spaces, that they are part of the disability community. Participants rely on the handler community to navigate their stigmatized identity and a presumed duty or responsibility to manage stigma for the sake of other handlers who may interact with the stigmatizer in the future.

This interdependence and communal coping with stigma support Kafer’s (2013) political and relational model of disability, which challenges prior conceptualizations of disability as an individualized problem and reframes disability as communally defined and ever-evolving based on the attitudes and actions of others. While Kafer (2013) argues that Oliver’s (1983) distinction between impairment and disability is not useful, we argue its utility in the context of analyzing stigmatizing messages, such as analyzing the stigma affecting invisibly disabled handlers, which is often rooted in the stigmatizer’s questioning of whether the handler is actually disabled based on their own pre-conceived notions of disability. The stigma communicated to invisibly disabled handlers is heightened by the lack of visible indicators verifying the presence of a disability and others’ felt responsibility to protect legitimate handlers from fake service dog handlers. Furthermore, this differentiation between impairment and disability, or what qualifies as a disability, informs the stigma toward those with invisible disabilities or chronic illnesses when utilizing accommodations, such as disabled parking spaces.

Advancing Communal Coping and Stigma Management Theories

Participants in this study managed stigma using strategies, logics, and vocabulary learned and constructed predominantly in online identity-focused communities. Their approaches suggest a more nuanced understanding of communal coping and the utility of online communities in stigma management. Participants interpreted stigma messages and stigmatizing encounters through these co-constructed meanings of their stigmatized identities that were developed in online communities of invisibly disabled service dog handlers. These meanings became an a-priori guide to stigmatizing interactions, guiding both participants’ perceptions of messages as stigmatizing and their responses.

Existing stigma theories (Meisenbach, 2010) present stigma management strategies (e.g., avoiding, reducing offensiveness, redirecting, and accepting) based on the stigmatized person’s perception of the applicability and offensiveness of the stigma message. The strategies participants in this study used broadly resembled these, while presenting more nuanced perspective learned from participation in online groups of others at the same intersection of stigma—invisibly disabled service dog handlers. This suggests a more complicated understanding of the co-construction of both stigma meanings and response strategies that recognizes the role of stigmatized communities. The source of the logics, vocabulary, and meanings attached to stigma messaging are, in this study, of particular theoretical note, since participants understood and interpreted stigma messaging and made decisions on how to manage this stigma based on their involvement with communities of other stigmatized individuals. First, we demonstrate these contributions to communal coping and stigma management theories by illustrating the nuances present in online disability spaces. Then, we pose rumination and communal policing as additional stigma management strategies.

Communal Coping and Stigma Management in Online Disability Spaces

The online nature of handler communities suggests important considerations for the study of both SMC and communal coping. The bulk of existing communal coping research focuses on face-to-face communication within close personal relationships (e.g., families and couples). This study suggests an important role for online spaces where exchanges are often one-sided, and relationships are built solely around the stigmatized identity. For participants in this study, online handler communities represent spaces of reflection on shared stigma experiences. These spaces suggest that communal coping can occur in communities that are not defined by geographic bounds or interpersonal relationships but by a shared stigmatized identity. This broadening of the definition of community is particularly important for understanding group identity development, organizing, and coping and resilience in stigmatized identity groups that may be geographically, economically, or otherwise dispersed. Communal coping, communal organizing, and stigma management are undoubtedly beneficial, especially in health contexts, but the relative rarity of many conditions make in-person, proximal relationships and groups impractical or impossible. This study suggests that the theories of communal coping and SMC can develop in meaningful ways when applied to online contexts, even if the platform does not center dialogic communication. Where previous research has suggested that bonding with stigmatized others can help people cope with stigma (Meisenbach, 2010), our findings demonstrate a function for online communities that moves beyond solidarity and coping—online groups gave participants the logic and language to assume an identity as a member of a stigmatized group, and communal motivations to manage stigma for the community, not just for themselves.

Rumination as Stigma Management

In this study, online communities and coping provided catharsis, a way to manage both individually experienced stigma and stigma experienced as a community. This often involved rumination on lived experiences and their meanings for stigma management, which allowed participants to process and attach meaning to their own experiences. Contrary to literature that demonizes rumination as a coping strategy based on its negative impacts on mental health (Just & Alloy, 1997; Kuehner & Weber, 1999; Nolen-Koeksema, 2000), this study suggests a place for communal rumination as an effective coping strategy when used for positive change. Participants in this study performed ruminative acts in conjunction with similarly stigmatized others as an act of communal coping to manage stigma. This suggests an expanded conceptualization of rumination, usually treated as an internal process, to include external and communal processing. Where traditional considerations of rumination have involved relational communication with family, friends, or other close individuals, participants ruminated with interpersonal online strangers who share similar experiences with stigma.

Of particular note here are the feelings of duty to community that participants discussed. Participants frequently chose to respond to stigmatizing confrontations out of concern for community, not simply an assessment of applicability or offensiveness of the message to the self, as previous research has indicated. This bond and sense of in-group belonging with other handlers was built through engaging in collective rumination about shared stigmatizing experiences. Participants reported venting about and discussing confrontations in online groups, frequently citing these interactions as affirming and offering a sense of community and camaraderie, that they were “not alone. Handlers’ sense of community informed their stigma management decisions in public interactions more often than personal reasons to respond, suggesting that marginalized populations’ communal rumination, even in online contexts, might contribute to meaning-making around stigmatizing experiences, and play a role in SMC strategy choices.

Control, Community, and SMG Organizing

As participants in this study managed stigma for both themselves and their community, they engaged in behavioral constraint and policing of other handlers’ behavior. The extent of this policing suggests that in-group control measures may play a more important role in communal coping and stigma management involving stigmatized or marginalized groups than previous scholarship has recognized. In this study, participants demonstrated more concern for perceptions of community than self. It was not the content of stigma messages, or even managing others’ perception of the self (Vorauer et al., 1998) that drove or informed responses to stigmatizing communication, but rather a sense of custodianship of the service dog handler community. Participants reported tempered and measured SMC strategies that were reflective of both language and techniques taught in online groups, and refrained from aggressive responses that they felt might damage the perception toward all service dog handlers. Participants, likewise, reported constraining their own behavior in public to reflect well on their community (keeping service dogs close to them, making sure dogs were behaving perfectly, etc.).

Control measures extended to enactment of communal policing of other handlers. Participants policed the actions of other community members that fell outside community-constructed definitions of being a “good” service dog handler to maintain their community’s identity and manage the stigma against them. While participants criticized members of the public engaging in “fake-spotting,” they paradoxically engaged in policing the behavior of other dog handlers in public and online. Participants reported correcting people who posted online about behavior they thought reflected badly on the community, and observing and judging other dog handlers in person. This behavior became cyclic, with participants constraining their own behavior with a felt Foucaultian Panopticon effect (Foucalt, 1977). This community policing reflected a system of concertive control (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985) in which members indirectly or unobtrusively controlled one another. Communal control in this study functioned as a form of organizing, creating acceptable norms and a culture in which community members participated, and in doing so, actively engaged in meaning-making around stigma, stigma management, and in-group identity. This suggests that communal control systems are integral to understandings of stigma and stigma management.

Limitations and Future Research

Limitations of the current study include minimal analysis of demographic information and the attainable methods of participant recruitment. We only briefly considered participants’ demographic information as part of the analysis. Further research should consider how multiple intersections of stigmatized identities impact the stigmatized individuals’ perceptions of their stigmatization and their management decisions. COVID-19 restrictions also limited study to remote data collection techniques. Future research should expand methods of data collection to account for those who find synchronous interviews inaccessible, such as those who are nonverbal or experience communication apprehension (Denzin et al., 2024). More accessible methods of data collection include email or text interviews and analysis of handler’s social media content. This can aid in understanding how handlers manage stigma online, such as by posting educational videos or responding to stigmatizing comments, while illuminating the varying experiences of marginalization within the disability community and assuaging the marginalization afflicted by inaccessible methods of data collection, privileging the voices of some members of the disability community over others.

As these populations cope with these layers of stigmatization, researchers should study these populations as sites of communal coping as a method of stigma management. Like service dog handlers with invisible disabilities, there is a special bond between members of a group who share the same stigmatized identities. Interviews with these handlers revealed that the public rarely understands how to interact with handlers and their service dogs in a non-distracting, unobtrusive way. Therefore, these handlers connect with other service dog handlers who relate to their experience with stigma. Future research should study how communal coping aids in this stigma management.

Furthermore, cross-participant analysis across disability types hints at potential moderating of stigma communication and SMC by the capacity to manage stigma. This capacity is impacted by a handler’s spoons or their capacity to exert energy given how their physical body feels at that present moment. Additionally, some disabilities may affect one’s ability to communicate at any given moment, such as those that lead to communication apprehension or cause a physical impairment of one’s ability to speak, such as catatonia. Future quantitative research should explore this potential moderating relationship. Additionally, cross-participant analysis of service dog handlers from multiple countries could add further explanation of how national service dog policies and protections influence experiences of stigma.

Practical Implications

Interviews with service dog handlers with invisible disabilities in the United States revealed stories of stigmatization and a glaring lack of education about service dogs, invisible disabilities, and, more specifically, the laws that currently exist to protect their public access rights. Although these laws exist to protect service dog handlers’ public access rights, the data reflect a lack of education from members of the public about how to determine a service dog’s legitimacy. These interactions are complicated by the uptick in primarily negative media attention featuring fake service dogs, ESAs, and therapy dogs. Some states, such as Texas, have recently made efforts to curb the use of fake service dogs by passing a law that makes it a misdemeanor to misrepresent a service dog (Ramirez, 2025). Although laws like these have the potential to deter people from utilizing fake service dogs, enforcement of these laws by those uninformed of the laws in the ADA will likely result in increased stigma communication toward legitimate service dog handlers, especially those with invisible disabilities.

To empower service dog handlers to manage stigma communication and educate others about service dogs, our team suggests a communication-centered approach for service dog handlers to manage public interactions where their access rights are questioned. This contains the recommendation for handlers to carry business cards with text that informs readers of the two questions per the ADA (2020) that help determine a service dog’s legitimacy, including: “Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability?” and “What work or task has the dog been trained to perform?” Furthermore, we recommend that these cards contain a link and QR code to the ADA (2020) website’s frequently asked questions. This approach will allow handlers to educate those unaware of the two questions to determine a service dog’s legitimacy without requiring much communicative work from the handler. This is helpful for handlers with communication anxiety or those who sometimes struggle with communication because of their illness. Handlers can distribute these cards in the event of an access issue or encountering those curious to learn about service dogs. Offering a free, electronic download of this business card can make a small, positive difference for service dog handlers with invisible disabilities in the United States by providing easily accessible tools for self-advocacy.

Laws like the ADA (2020) often put added communicative and emotional labor on the invisibly disabled to advocate for their rights, which are not guaranteed. The invisibility and stigmatization of this group is seemingly compounded by the constant calculations of risk and expectation of proof set before them. Therefore, these findings argue for visibility of invisibly disabled handlers in policy and policy execution.