Can disabled people…? What autocomplete reveals about views on disability

Inspired by Safiya Umoja Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, this post explores a neglected area of autocomplete research. While stereotyping in search suggestions has been studied for race, gender, and other attributes, disability is largely absent from the literature. I report the results of a small audit of disability-related autocomplete queries across major search platforms.

After a recent reread of Safiya Umoja Noble’s excellent Algorithms of Oppression, I went down a rabbit hole looking for empirical studies that audit search engine autocomplete for stereotyping. Noble shows how search engines are not neutral mirrors of public interest, but systems that reproduce and amplify social hierarchies through design, ranking, and monetisation choices. As she puts it:

Search results reflect the values and norms of the search company’s commercial partners and advertisers and often reflect our lowest and most demeaning beliefs, because these ideas circulate so freely and so often that they are normalized and extremely profitable.

A surprising gap emerged: although multiple researchers have documented stereotyping and dehumanisation in autocomplete suggestions related to race, gender, sexuality, religion, and age, disability appears to be largely absent from this literature. That absence is notable, given how often disabled people are subjected to questions that challenge their basic capacities, legitimacy, and even humanity.

It was too enticing a research gap to resist. In this post, I describe the results of a small, manual audit of autocomplete suggestions across four major search platforms using disability-related queries.

How does autocomplete question personhood?

The first query template I used was “can [disabled people]…” These questions tend to frame disabled people’s lives as matters of capacity and permission. They ask whether disabled people are able to think, feel, work, have relationships, reproduce, or participate in civic life at all. In practice, these queries frequently function as tests of basic personhood.

To make sense of the patterns in these suggestions, I grouped them into six domains of personhood that the questions implicitly challenge:

• Inner life: whether disabled people think, understand, or experience emotions in recognisably human ways (e.g. intelligence, understanding, empathy, falling in love).

• Subjective experience: whether disabled people can perceive, feel, or sense the world as others do (e.g. sensation, pain, sensory perception).

• Moral character: whether disabled people are dangerous, deceptive, or morally suspect (e.g. violence, aggression, manipulation).

• Reproductive fitness: whether disabled people are permitted or able to have sex, reproduce, or become parents (e.g. sex, pregnancy, children, parenthood).

• Adult life: whether disabled people can live independently, work, or sustain ordinary adult roles (e.g. employment, independent living, relationships).

• Civic participation: whether disabled people can participate fully in civic and legal life (e.g. voting, jury service, military service, legal responsibility).

The figure below summarises how often different domains of personhood are questioned in autocomplete suggestions. For each disability term, it shows the proportion of autocomplete suggestions that fell into each domain.

For clarity, the figure shows results from Google and Bing only. These two platforms produced the most complete and consistent sets of autocomplete suggestions across disability terms. Yahoo and DuckDuckGo are shown in the table below.

Several patterns stand out:

• Different disabilities attract different kinds of personhood doubt. Cognitive and developmental conditions are most likely to prompt questioning of inner life and adult independence, while psychiatric conditions attract suspicion about moral character.
• Physical and sensory disabilities are more often framed through perception and sensation, driven by curiosity about pain, dreams, and bodily experience rather than legitimacy or moral worth.
• Questions about reproduction cut across many disability types, suggesting that assumptions about who should have children remain deeply embedded in public thinking about disability.

These patterns are remarkably consistent between Google and Bing.

For completeness, the table below shows the suggestions for each disability on each of the four search engines, with colours used to indicate terms belonging to each of the six domains.

“Can [disabled people]…” autocomplete suggestions by disability and search engine

'Can [disabled people]...' suggestions by disability and search engine
Inner Life Subjective Experience Moral Character Reproductive Fitness Adult Life Civic Participation
Disability	Google	Bing	Yahoo	DuckDuckGo
disabled people	get married, vote, drive, join the military, park on double yellows, work, park on double yellow lines, have kids, get food stamps, own guns	have sex, join the military, vote, work, drive, get medicaid, park on double yellows, get married, get medicare, own guns, have kids, get out of jury duty	go to jail	join the military, vote, work, drive, get medicaid, park on double yellows, get married
blind people	dream, see in their dreams, drive, cry, see in dreams, have schizophrenia, get schizophrenia, see light, see, use echolocation	dream, drive, cry, see, see light, be schizophrenic, blink, swim, write, play video games, hallucinate, use echolocation	dream, see their dreams, what see	dream, drive, cry, see, see light, be schizophrenic, blink, swim
deaf people	drive, speak, hear their thoughts, read, drive in australia, drive in victoria, hear themselves, hear, get tinnitus, hear their own voice	speak, drive, hear their thoughts, read, hear, drive legally, talk with their voice, drive uk, listen to music, get a drivers license, hear with hearing aids, have tinnitus	drive, read, talk, hear their thoughts, go to the normal olympics, drive cars, read english	speak, drive, hear their thoughts, read, hear, drive legally, talk with their voice, drive uk
paralysed people	get pregnant, walk again, drive, have kids, feel pain, talk, swim, feel, poop, feel their legs	feel sex, feel pain, have kids, feel touch, get hard, get pregnant, feel their legs, ever walk again, feel their genitals, feel, talk, blink	—	feel pain, have kids, feel touch, get hard, get pregnant, feel their legs, ever walk again
wheelchair users	fly, swim, drive cars, walk, use escalators, use uber, drive, go on roller coasters, ice skate, go on cruises	drive, have sex, reach counter height	use, get, see, drive	drive, reach counter height
people with cerebral palsy	drive, talk, walk, have children, understand you, live a normal life, have kids, work, talk normally, swim	walk, drive, speak, have kids, have sex, swim, have children, drink alcohol, work, live independently, talk, get married	get, take, live, run	walk, drive, speak, have kids, swim, have children, drink alcohol
people with dyslexia	read, learn to read, drive, write, join the military, be smart, spell, have high iq, read music, be successful	drive, learn to read, go to college, claim pip, read numbers, join the military, read, read minds, be smart, speak, have kids, write	read	drive, learn to read, go to college, claim pip, read numbers, join the military
people with intellectual disability	drive, go to college, work, vote, live on their own, be smart, get married, drive a car	drive, vote, live independently, work, have children, get married, have kids, get disability	get, work, take, buy	drive, vote
people with learning disabilities	go to college, vote, join the military, be smart, live on their own, go to college for free, go to university, have high iq, drive, have children	drive, work, live independently, have children, vote, have kids, be successful, get married	get, use, play, drive	drive, work
people with Down syndrome	how long live, drive, have children, have kids, vote, live independently, walk backwards, reproduce, drink alcohol, be smart	have kids, drive, vote, walk backwards, drink alcohol, reproduce, consent, be smart, go to college, live alone, have autism, have babies	drive, have children	have kids, drive, vote, walk backwards, drink alcohol, reproduce, consent, be smart
autistic people	drive, be empathetic, have kids, say the r word, be smart, be extroverted, hear electricity, join the army, fall in love, be social	join the military, drive, have kids, lie, have sex, be narcissistic, work, be violent, join the army, be smart, hear electricity, live on their own	drive, fall in love, can play professional soccer, can participate in the olympics, what be less sensitive to	join the military, drive, have kids, lie, be narcissistic, work, be violent
people with ADHD	join the military, drive, meditate, multitask, read books, be organised, have manic episodes, have sensory issues, be successful, stim	drive, join the military, multitask, get pip, be successful, have sex, work, hyperfocus, be smart, focus, be hypnotized, meditate	join the military	drive, join the military, multitask, get pip, be successful, work, hyperfocus
people with schizophrenia	drive, work, live a normal life, get ndis, smoke weed, have kids, live alone, live normal lives, be cured, own guns	work, drive, live normally, be violent, get ssi, be cured, own guns, be dangerous, join the army, get disability, drive uk, function	get, see, take, feel	work, drive, live normally, be violent, get ssi, be cured, own guns, be dangerous
people with bipolar	work, live without medication, hear voices, take antidepressants, drive, be dangerous to others, live a normal life, be violent, drink alcohol, have kids	live normal lives, work, drive, hallucinate, work, be dangerous, take antidepressants, get disability, get guns, take adderall, take trazodone, be dangerous	—	live normal lives, work, drive, hallucinate, work, be dangerous, take antidepressants, get disability
people with fibromyalgia	work, donate blood, exercise, drive, have kids, get tattoos, donate plasma, get a blue badge, get massages, get pip	work, get disability, take statins, donate blood, have kids, have children, donate plasma, drink alcohol, take o	get, feel, go, give	work, get disability, take statins
people with chronic fatigue	work, drive, exercise, drive, donate blood	exercise, get disability, donate blood, drink alcohol, work, donate plasma, live long, drive	cause, symptoms, qualify	—

What stereotypes do search engines surface?

Having examined what capacities people question, I next wanted to explore to what traits they assume using a second query template: “why are [disabled people] so…”. This query is designed to elicit different kinds of assumptions and stereotypes. These questions tend to presuppose a stereotyped trait or behaviour, so they more often surface stereotypes about character, danger, emotional volatility, or otherness.

I grouped the resulting suggestions into six categories:

• Negative stereotype: moral judgments, (e.g. angry, mean, lazy, manipulative, annoying, difficult)
• Pity: framing disabled people as fragile or suffering (e.g. tired, weak, vulnerable, anxious, depressed, scared, sensitive)
• Savant: assumption of compensatory special talents (e.g. good at math, good at piano)
• Strong: strong or physically strong
• Happy: infantilising positivity framing (e.g. happy, cheerful, joyful, positive, content)
• Positive stereotype: other benevolent stereotyping (e.g. kind, nice, creative, smart, funny, honest, sweet)

Unlike the earlier queries, these frequently returned no suggestions at all, particularly on Google and DuckDuckGo. This could be due to filtering or potentially volume of queries, though one would imagine Google would have at least as much to work with as Bing. For this reason, the table below presents the results directly rather than summarising them in a figure.

'Why are [disabled people] so...' suggestions by disability and search engine
Negative Stereotype Pity Savant Strong Happy Positive Stereotype
Disability	Google	Bing	Yahoo	DuckDuckGo
disabled people	strong, physically strong, happy, funny, nice, smart	—	—	—
blind people	good at singing, smart, good at piano, nice	—	stupid, mean, angry, tired	—
deaf people	strong, expressive, nice, cute	—	bad, stupid, hard, angry	—
paralysed people	—	tired, emotional, weak, numb, strong, happy, vulnerable, scared	mean, angry, stupid, happy	—
wheelchair users	—	vulnerable to injury, vulnerable to falls, tired, tall, vulnerable to injuries, vulnerable to accidents, emotional, important	expensive, bad, angry, high	—
people with cerebral palsy	happy	emotional, sensitive to light, smart, sensitive, sensitive to noise, intelligent, tired, special	tired, angry, mean, old	—
people with dyslexia	—	smart, good at math, good at writing, sensitive to light, hard to read, hard to understand, good at reading, emotional	angry, tired, bad, low	—
people with intellectual disability	—	—	hard, much	—
people with learning disabilities	—	sensitive to light, emotional, successful, smart, special, sensitive, intelligent	angry, tired, bad, hard	—
people with Down syndrome	happy, strong, kind, nice, flexible, physically strong, sweet, affectionate, loving, confident	happy, nice, strong	happy, much	happy, nice, strong
autistic people	smart, honest, flexible, physically strong, nice, funny, creative, happy, good at one thing, smart reddit	strong, physically strong	smart	strong, physically strong
people with ADHD	funny, creative, smart reddit	tired, sensitive, impulsive, good at math, emotional, hyperactive, sensitive to noise, sociable, lazy, smart	bad, hard, annoying, common	tired, sensitive, impulsive
people with schizophrenia	—	—	difficult, much	—
people with bipolar	—	emotional, moody, depressed, angry, sociable, mean, sensitive, tired	much	—
people with fibromyalgia	tired	tired, sensitive to pain, emotional, bloated, skinny, cold, sensitive, angry	tired, bad, angry, low	—
people with chronic fatigue	—	tired, irritable, sensitive to pain, emotional, anxious, weak, sensitive, cold	bad	—

Several observations are notable:

• Google returns lots of positive stereotypes like happy, strong, and creative.
• In contrast, Bing returns mostly negative stereotypes (people with bipolar get a particular bad run: emotional, moody, depressed, angry, mean).
• Yahoo also returns a lot of negative stereotypes, with terms like stupid, mean, bad, annoying, and difficult all coming up for most disabilities.
• Down syndrome consistently attracts happy across all platforms and nice across three.
• Chronic illness terms only attract pity (tired, weak, anxious).
• Strong and physically strong appear with surprising frequency across disabilities. For example, autistic people get ‘physically strong’ for three of the four search engines.

The contrast between Google and Bing here is particularly striking given how similar their results were for the earlier “Can…” queries. This suggests different filtering or moderation approaches to stereotype-based prompts.

Does terminology change the questions asked?

If autocomplete reflects underlying assumptions about personhood, the language used to describe disability might be expected to shape those assumptions.

There’s ongoing debate about whether to use identity-first language (“autistic people”, “disabled people”) or person-first language (“people with autism”, “people with disabilities”). Autistic and Deaf communities generally prefer identity-first language, while person-first remains standard in many clinical and policy contexts. And of course, individuals have their own preferences.

This led me to wonder if the choice of language changes what suggestions are offered. To explore this, I compared autocomplete suggestions for identity-first and person-first language across four conditions: disability (generic), deafness, autism, and bipolar disorder. Only Google results are shown, as other platforms frequently returned no suggestions.

Three findings stand out:

• For disability and deafness, identity-first and person-first language produce broadly similar patterns.
• “Autistic people” attracts substantially more questioning of inner life than “people with autism” but less questioning of capacity for adult life.
• “People with bipolar” attracts more moral character suspicion than “bipolar people”.

These results complicate the assumption that person-first language consistently humanises how disability is perceived.

The table below shows the suggestions for each disability and framing for Google, with colours used to indicate terms belonging to each of the six domains.

“Can [disabled people]…” Google autocomplete suggestions by disability and framing

Google 'Can [disabled people]...' suggestions by disability and framing
Inner Life Subjective Experience Moral Character Reproductive Fitness Adult Life Civic Participation
Disability	Identity-first	Person-first
disability	get married, vote, drive, join the military, park on double yellows, work, park on double yellow lines, have kids, get food stamps, own guns	join the military, go to jail, vote, drive, get married, have kids, work, live on their own, own a gun, go to heaven
deaf	drive, speak, hear their thoughts, read, drive in australia, drive in victoria, hear themselves, hear, get tinnitus, hear their own voice	drive, speak, read, from birth speak, talk, and blind communicate, and mute drive, hear, have tinnitus, from birth talk
autism	drive, be empathetic, have kids, say the r word, be smart, be extroverted, hear electricity, join the army, fall in love, be social	drive, join the military, live a normal life, lie, work, join the army, drink alcohol, have kids, live independently, get married
bipolar	live a normal life, be narcissistic, drink alcohol, donate blood, know they are bipolar, tell if they’re bipolar, join the military, control their emotions, work, tell they are bipolar	work, live without medication, hear voices, take antidepressants, drive, be dangerous to others, live a normal life, be violent, drink alcohol, have kids

Final thoughts

Autocomplete suggestions reveal something about how the public thinks about disabled people (or at least, what questions they type into search engines). The patterns are not random. Psychiatric conditions attract suspicion about dangerousness. Cognitive disabilities prompt doubts about inner life and capacity for adult independence. And across nearly all conditions, people ask whether disabled people can or should have children at all.

What stood out most to me was how often stereotypes surfaced as ostensibly positive. Terms like strong, physically strong, happy, and nice appeared frequently. This was particularly noticeable for autistic people on Google: smart, honest, physically strong, nice, funny, creative, happy. As an autistic person, this does not reflect my experience of how autistic people are typically perceived in everyday life, which is far more often shaped by assumptions of incapacity, social difficulty, or fragility.

These findings are interesting in their own right, but it is also notable how little effort this analysis required. Manually collecting the data and analysing it took under a day. That such a basic study appears to be missing from the literature reflects how research priorities in the area of algorithmic bias have largely excluded disability.

Search engines reinforce the questions people already ask about marginalised groups. For disabled people, those questions often start from a presumption of incapacity, danger, or otherness. Until disability is treated as a core dimension of algorithmic fairness research, these patterns will continue to go unexamined.