Disability and the Job Applicant

When it comes to revealing a physical disability during a job interview, apparently, timing is everything.

A concern of many physically disabled individuals is deciding whether or not to acknowledge a stigmatizing condition during an interview. While studies in the past have shown it is better for physically disabled job candidates to acknowledge their disability, new research by Rice psychologist Mikki Hebl suggests that the time chosen to reveal the disability is equally important in making an impression on a potential employer. Because job interviews are based largely on first impressions, applicants’ straight-forward, immediate attention to their physical condition seems to be viewed more positively by employers than if they wait later in the interview or don’t acknowledge it at all.

In the study, titled “Acknowledging One’s Physical Disability in the Interview: Does ‘When’ Make a Difference?” and published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Hebl and Jeanine Skorinko ’01 presented the first empirical evidence that timing does make a difference. The researchers found that applicants who disclosed their disability at the beginning or middle of the interview rather than at the end or not at all created more favorable impressions with evaluators, who tended to like and respect those candidates, indicated they would hire them, and thought they would be intelligent workers. Applicants who acknowledged their disability at the beginning were considered to be better-adjusted psychologically, and female evaluators, in particular, rated them as happier and more capable.

“Our findings confirm that acknowledging a disability can be a successful strategy when job hunting, particularly when used at the initial stages of the interview process,” Hebl says. “If an applicant doesn’t acknowledge a physical disability, the interviewer might be guided by stereotypes and view the candidate as poorly adjusted, unhappy, and incapable. Acknowledgments, however, lead directly to increased perceptions of well-adjustment, which result in improved ratings from evaluators.”

—Pam Sheridan