Disability Stigma Reduction

Relational Frame Theory, Verbal Behavior, and the Construction of Disability Stigma

Our research examines disability stigma as a learned and maintained pattern of verbal behavior, rather than as an individual attitude or belief. Drawing primarily from Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and Relational Density Theory (RDT), we study how language, relational networks, and repeated verbal practices shape what disability comes to mean in a given context—and how those meanings guide behavior toward disabled individuals.

How Verbalization Produces Stigma

From an RFT perspective, stigma emerges when individuals learn relational networks that link disability-related stimuli (e.g., diagnostic labels, support needs, communication differences) with concepts such as incapability, burden, risk, or dependence. These relations are often arbitrarily applicable, socially reinforced, and repeatedly encountered across educational, clinical, media, and policy contexts.

Importantly, the impact of these verbal relations is not determined by their surface positivity or negativity, but by their functional effects. Words, labels, and narratives evoke expectations, emotional responses, and action tendencies. For example:

• Certain descriptors may evoke avoidance, over-control, or exclusion.

• Others may cue paternalism, reduced autonomy, or lowered expectations.

• Even “positive” language can function to restrict access when it evokes protection rather than participation.

Through the lens of Relational Density Theory, we examine how stigma strengthens when these relations become dense—that is, when multiple verbal links converge repeatedly across contexts, roles, and time. As relational density increases, stigma becomes more resistant to change and more likely to generalize across settings.

Using Verbal Behavior to Reduce Stigma—Functionally, Not Performatively

A central focus of our work is identifying how verbal behavior can be systematically altered to disrupt stigmatizing relational networks and establish new patterns that support access, dignity, and participation.

Rather than emphasizing “positive language” alone, we ask:

• What do these words prompt people to do?

• What behaviors do they make more or less likely?

• How do they shape environmental responses?

Stigma reduction, from this perspective, involves re-engineering relational networks so that disability-related cues evoke:

• Approach rather than avoidance

• Collaboration rather than control

• Environmental flexibility rather than individual correction

• Comfort, predictability, and shared problem-solving

This includes identifying and teaching verbal practices that cue specific, observable actions—such as offering choices, modifying environments, sharing control, or slowing interactions—rather than abstract values alone.

Building Environments of Success and Comfort

Across our projects, we analyze how verbal behavior shapes environments at multiple levels, including classrooms, clinical settings, workplaces, and community systems. We focus on how relational frames guide:

• Who is seen as a decision-maker

• What kinds of supports are considered “reasonable”

• Which behaviors are interpreted as meaningful versus problematic

• How responsibility for access is distributed between individuals and environments

By mapping these verbal and relational patterns, our work aims to support intentional language use that produces measurable changes in interaction, access, and comfort—for disabled individuals and for the communities around them.

Ultimately, this research positions stigma not as a fixed trait or bias, but as a modifiable system of verbal relations—one that can be reshaped to support environments where participation, safety, and success are more likely to occur.

Our publications related to basic stigma research