Public Perceptions of Disability and Para Athletes Before and After the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games: An Exploratory Independent-Samples Study

Abstract

The Paralympic Games are frequently promoted as a catalyst for social change, yet evidence regarding their social legacy remains limited and inconclusive. This study examined differences in French public perceptions of disability before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games using an independent-samples pre–post design. Two surveys were administered to French adults one month before the Games (Time 1: n = 948; M_age = 36.43 years, SD = 13.67) and approximately two months after the Games (Time 2: n = 930; M_age = 37.40 years, SD = 11.83). The questionnaire assessed general perceptions of disability, perceptions of Para athletes, perceived sporting and professional capabilities of persons with physical and vision impairments, and perceived improvements in public accessibility. Participants surveyed after the Games reported higher scores on general disability perceptions, perceptions of Para athletes, and perceptions of persons with physical disabilities. In contrast, lower scores were observed on four of five items concerning persons with vision impairments. Participants with a disability and those with a close personal connection to disability also reported more positive perceptions of public accessibility after the Games. These findings suggest that public perceptions differed before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games but varied by disability type. Given the independent-samples design, they should be interpreted cautiously.

1. Introduction

The Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games (OPG) were founded on an ambitious vision to leverage a mega-event for profound social and environmental transformation [1]. The event’s “Games Wide Open” philosophy and its integrated “Legacy & Sustainability Strategy” were designed to move beyond a fleeting sporting spectacle to foster a lasting change in public attitudes, particularly concerning disability. As the first Summer Paralympics to be hosted in France, Paris 2024 provided an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of a social legacy strategy that was integrated into the event’s governance from its inception [2]. This deliberate, multi-stakeholder approach sought to establish a new benchmark for how mega-events can be planned to deliver a tangible and enduring social impact [3].

Although previous research on Paralympic media exposure and audience engagement suggests that the Games may contribute to short-term changes in public attitudes toward disability and Para athletes [4,5], negative attitudes toward people with disabilities remain prevalent in many societies. Studies have consistently shown that people with disabilities continue to face stigma and prejudicial beliefs, which are not merely abstract attitudes but significant barriers to social inclusion that negatively affect quality of life, self-esteem, and mental well-being [6,7]. Against this backdrop, the present study provides an empirical contribution by analysing original survey data collected before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. Specifically, this study aimed to compare public perceptions before and after the Games regarding disability in general, Para athletes, persons with physical disabilities, persons with vision impairments, and perceived improvements in public accessibility.

2. Paralympic Legacy and Public Perceptions

The social legacy of the Paralympic Games has increasingly been examined beyond infrastructural outcomes, with growing attention to intangible dimensions such as public attitudes, social inclusion, accessibility, and media representation [1]. Within this literature, the key question is not only whether the Games generate visibility for persons with disabilities but whether such visibility is associated with more inclusive and differentiated public perceptions.

2.1. The Paralympic Games and Measured Attitude Change

A central tenet of the Paralympic movement is the belief that the Games can serve as a powerful vehicle for promoting social change and challenging prevailing societal perceptions of disability [2]. This perspective is often grounded in the contact hypothesis [8], which posits that meaningful interactions between members of different social groups can reduce prejudice and stereotypes. In the context of the Paralympics, where direct contact between the public and persons with a disability is limited, this effect is often mediated through parasocial contact [9]. This model of indirect contact, which involves the audience developing a one-sided, media-driven relationship with Para athletes, has been shown to have a positive effect in a range of intergroup contexts, as demonstrated in a systematic review by Dole et al. [10] and in a study by Walker and Scior [11]. Research suggests that media depictions that challenge stereotypes and present a positive, informed, and normalized view of a devalued group can lead to a positive shift in attitudes [12].

The London 2012 Paralympic Games serve as a pivotal case study for this phenomenon, having been extensively analysed for their impact on public reception. Hodges et al. [5] conducted a qualitative study and captured the audience’s emotional journey with the phrase “from aww to awe factor”. Their findings suggest that initial sympathetic or pity-based reactions were supplanted by genuine admiration and emotional engagement as viewers were captivated by the high level of athletic competition. This shift represented a significant step toward challenging paternalistic narratives, although Hodges et al. [5] also noted that “superhuman” discourses could inadvertently reinforce new hierarchies among disability groups.

These qualitative findings are complemented by experimental research that has examined attitude change through controlled exposure to sport footage. Ferrara et al. [4] conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants viewed either Para sport footage at the intellectual disability level or Olympic footage. They found a short-term, positive shift in explicit (belief-based) attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities, though no significant change was observed in implicit (subconscious) attitudes. Their research found that the positive attitude change was not specific to the Para sport stimulus but was also present in a group that viewed Olympic footage. This finding suggests that a “feel-good factor” or “affective priming” associated with elite sports achievement might be the active ingredient in attitude change, rather than disability-specific content per se.

However, this positive narrative of attitude transformation is met with significant critique, particularly concerning the emergence of the “supercrip” narrative. This portrayal frames persons with a disability as heroic figures who have “overcome” their disabilities to achieve extraordinary success [2]. While ostensibly positive, critics argue that this narrative can create new, problematic stereotypes that do not reflect the lived experiences of the broader community of people with disabilities [13]. People with a disability themselves often express concern that this “superhuman” image is far removed from their daily realities and can set unrealistic expectations, ultimately reinforcing the idea that they are “different” or “other” [2,14]. The tension between a public that is inspired by extraordinary achievement and a disability community that desires recognition as “regular” people is a critical consideration for any study aiming to measure the social legacy of the Paralympics [2,13,14].

Furthermore, a qualitative study by Pullen et al. [15], based on 20 focus groups with 216 members of the public, confirms these ongoing tensions while highlighting important shifts. Conducted in the context of the Rio 2016 Games, their findings demonstrate an increasing appreciation of Para sport as elite competition and show that viewership can fulfill both hedonic (pleasure) and eudaimonic (meaning-seeking) needs—with the latter playing a key role in shifting societal attitudes (drawing on Bartsch et al. [16]). Engaging the public on this deeper, reflective level fosters emerging forms of ‘cultural citizenship’ and a collective consciousness that can stimulate a more engaged civil society. Crucially, however, Pullen et al. [15] revealed that the normalisation of technologically enhanced bodies (such as running blades and prostheses)—while broadening acceptance of certain physical impairments—simultaneously constructs new stigma hierarchies that marginalise less visible, non-physical, or less “spectacular” conditions. This dynamic provides a relevant theoretical context for the divergent pattern of perceptions observed between the two survey waves in the present study.

A broader context for these perceptions is provided by research on public policies and prejudices in France. A 2021 report by the Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (CNCDH) on stereotypes and prejudices against disability in France found that despite legal frameworks promoting rights, significant prejudice persists in society [17]. The report highlighted a gap between public declarations of support and the reality of discrimination in areas like employment and social inclusion. This persistent prejudice creates a fertile ground for interventions like the Paralympic Games, where positive representation can directly challenge these deeply ingrained stereotypes.

2.2. Perceptions of Para Athletes: Talent and Commercial Appeal

A core objective of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is to position Para athletes as elite sportspeople through a strategy of de-medicalization, articulated by the mantra “athletes first, impairment second” [2]. This strategic shift aims to frame athletes based on their sporting ability and talent rather than their medical condition, which is critical for attracting media attention and sponsorship [9].

Research on the photographic coverage of the Paralympics from Sydney 2000 to Beijing 2008 found a deliberate effort to move away from images that overtly highlighted an athlete’s disability, instead focusing on the action, emotion, and competitive spirit of the sport itself [18]. This vision framing is integral to positioning Para athletes as elite professionals, a status that is essential for attracting media attention and commercial sponsorship [9].

A pre-Games survey in France found that a significant portion of the population (50%) was motivated to watch the Paris 2024 Paralympics because they found it “inspiring to see the performances accomplished by people with disabilities” [19]. This highlights a clear public expectation for narratives that emphasize achievement and talent, which directly links to the IPC’s de-medicalization strategy. However, a persistent gap often exists between the intended image and public perception. The public may hold positive views of athletes as inspirational and talented but may still associate them more strongly with terms like “person with a disability” than the IPC’s internal stakeholders do [20]. The normalization of the technologically enhanced body [15] may offer a partial explanation for this success, as it allows the public to focus on the skill and athleticism of the Para athlete rather than on their disability.

A qualitative study of Italian Paralympians further complicates this picture, providing a crucial perspective from those at the center of the media spectacle. Pappous and Gómez-Iniesta [21] found that while athletes acknowledged an improvement in visibility, they expressed frustration with the qualitative aspects of coverage. Athletes reported that media narratives often oscillate between “superhero” tropes and pity stories, marginalizing their athletic performance. The athletes’ collective voice was clear: they desired more balanced, sport-centered coverage and felt that their achievements were often downplayed in comparison to their Olympic counterparts. The rise in social media has provided athletes with a direct channel to challenge these traditional narratives and assert their identity as elite competitors [21].

2.3. The Role of Personal Experience and Demographic Factors

While media is a powerful agent of influence, a substantial body of research suggests it is not the sole or primary driver of sustained attitude change. Collecting data on participants’ own disability status and their connection to persons with a disability is a crucial component of analysis, as the moderating effect of personal experience is a critical variable in attitude formation.

A systematic review by Armstrong et al. [22] of school-based interventions to improve children’s attitudes toward disability found that direct contact and extended contact were effective, while parasocial (media-based) contact showed no significant effect. While this review focused specifically on children in school settings, its finding of limited effectiveness for media-based contact is relevant to understanding the potential ceiling on media-driven attitude change more broadly. Similarly, Dole et al. [10] found that while indirect contact interventions can be effective, they are most successful when they induce emotional engagement and a sense of personal connection—factors that can be amplified by prior experience.

Ferrara et al. [4] found that positive attitude change was not specific to the Para sport stimulus but was also observed among participants who viewed Olympic footage. This finding could be interpreted as a “feel-good factor”: the idea that a positive affective state generated by elite sport achievement may have a generic, beneficial impact on attitudes, regardless of disability-specific content. This distinction is important for the present study, as differences observed after the Games may reflect not only disability-specific messages but also the broader celebratory atmosphere surrounding a successful major sporting event.

The study by Kirakosyan [14] offers a critical perspective on this by exploring the perceptions of Brazilians with a disability following the Rio 2016 Paralympics. Her research found that while participants recognized the positive visibility of the Games, they were often skeptical that this attention would “trickle down to the day-to-day lives of Brazil’s population with disabilities”. This highlights an important distinction between temporary, event-driven visibility and sustained changes in social attitudes, policies, and everyday inclusion.

Taken together, this literature suggests that the Paralympic Games may be associated with shifts in public perceptions but that these shifts are likely to be uneven, temporary, and shaped by the type of disability represented. In this context, the present study addresses the following research questions (RQ):

RQ1: Are there differences in general perceptions of disability between French adults surveyed before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games?

RQ2: Are there differences in perceptions of Para athletes between participants surveyed before and after the Games?

RQ3: Are there differences in perceptions of the sporting and professional capabilities of persons with physical and vision impairments between participants surveyed before and after the Games?

RQ4: Are there differences in perceptions of public-space accessibility before and after the Games, particularly among respondents with a personal connection to disability?

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample Characteristics

To examine differences in public perceptions before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games, a pre–post design with independent samples was used. Data were collected in two survey waves: Time 1 (T1), one month before the Paralympic Games (August 2024), and Time 2 (T2), approximately two months after the Games. Previous research suggests that changes in attitudes associated with major sporting events may diminish over time [23]; therefore, this study focuses on the period immediately following the event.

The study included two independent samples of French adults. The T1 sample comprised 948 participants (M_age = 36.43 years, SD = 13.67), including 455 men (48.1%), 471 women (49.7%), five participants identifying with another gender (0.5%), and 17 participants who did not report their gender (1.8%). The T2 sample comprised 930 participants (M_age = 37.40 years, SD = 11.83), including 505 men (54.3%), 386 women (41.5%), 23 participants identifying with another gender (2.5%), and 16 participants who did not report their gender (1.7%).

3.2. Measurement Instrument and Data Collection Procedure

The research instrument was a structured questionnaire entitled Regards sur le handicap (“Views on Disability”), developed by the authors for the purposes of this study. Item wording and content were discussed among the research team to ensure their relevance to the domains and aspects assessed. Items addressing perceptions of the professional capabilities and employment of persons with disabilities were informed by the Baromètre perception de l’emploi des personnes en situation de handicap developed by Institut français d’opinion publique (IFOP) and the Association de gestion du fonds pour l’insertion professionnelle des personnes handicapées [24]. Item clarity and contextual validity were independently evaluated by the French-speaking members of the research team who possess domain expertise in the Paralympic context. Prior to the main data collection, the questionnaire was pilot-tested with a group of 23 university students.

All items were rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree). The questionnaire comprised 16 items organised into four sections: general perceptions of disability (3 items), perceptions of Para athletes (2 items), perceptions of the sporting and professional capabilities of persons with physical and vision impairments (10 items; five items for each disability type), and perceived improvement in public accessibility (1 item). The domains addressed by the questionnaire are consistent with contemporary multidimensional approaches to disability, particularly the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [25], which conceptualises functioning and disability in relation to body functions and structures, activities and participation, and contextual factors, including environmental factors. The questionnaire also addresses domains emphasised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [26], including accessibility, participation in sport, and participation in work and employment.

As the questionnaire sections were designed to capture related but distinct aspects of perceptions rather than to function as unidimensional composite scales, the items were analysed individually. As a complementary assessment of internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) were calculated separately for the multi-item sections at T1 and T2. Internal consistency varied across sections: for general perceptions of disability, α = 0.57 and ω = 0.59 at T1 and α = 0.47 and ω = 0.52 at T2; for perceptions of physical disability α = 0.67 and ω = 0.72 both T1 and T2; and for perceptions of vision impairment, α = 0.84 and ω = 0.84 at T1 and α = 0.80 and ω = 0.82 at T2. For the two-item Para athlete section, inter-item correlations were r = 0.41 at T1 and r = 0.52 at T2 (Spearman–Brown coefficients = 0.58 and 0.68, respectively). Internal consistency was not applicable to the single accessibility item. The variability in internal consistency across sections provided further support for the item-level analytical approach, rather than treating the sections as unidimensional composite scales.

Data were collected through face-to-face structured interviews conducted in central areas of Paris during the two survey waves. Recruitment took place in general public spaces, primarily at train stations, as well as in markets and streets. The same general recruitment approach was followed at T1 and T2. Trained research assistants approached potential participants in public spaces, explained the objectives of the study, and provided information regarding voluntary participation, anonymity, confidentiality, the exclusive scientific use of the data, and the absence of foreseeable risks. Only individuals who provided informed consent were interviewed. Interviewers read each question aloud and entered participants’ responses directly into a digital questionnaire using a mobile device, thereby eliminating the need for paper questionnaires and minimizing data-entry errors.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study according to the institutional regulations of Gustave Eiffel University, as the research was strictly non-interventional, posed no risk to participants, and utilized fully anonymized data in compliance with French national legislation governing non-biomedical research.

3.3. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS v. 27. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for all items. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare participants’ responses before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. When the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, Welch’s t-test was used instead of Student’s t-test. Given that the questionnaire sections were designed to capture related but distinct aspects of perceptions, analyses were conducted at the item level rather than using composite scores. To account for the increased risk of type I error associated with multiple item-level comparisons, the Holm procedure was applied separately within each conceptual family of tests (general perceptions of disability, perceptions of Para athletes, physical disability, and vision impairment). Holm-adjusted p-values were used to determine statistical significance. Additional independent-samples t-tests were performed for participants who reported having a disability and for those who reported having a person with a disability in their close social environment. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d and interpreted according to Cohen’s [27] criteria, where values of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.

4. Results

4.1. Impact on General Perceptions of Disability

Table 1 presents the comparisons between participants surveyed before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games regarding their general perceptions of disability. Participants surveyed after the Games reported significantly higher scores on all three items analysed. In particular, a higher score was observed for perceived knowledge about disabilities (M = 7.58, SD = 1.98) compared with participants surveyed before the Games (M = 6.64, SD = 2.09), with a small to moderate effect size (d = 0.46, p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also found in the perception that a person with a disability can lead a normal life in an adapted environment (Time 1: M = 6.94, SD = 1.94; Time 2: M = 7.22, SD = 1.48; d = 0.16, p < 0.001) and in the perception that a person with a disability can participate in sport (Time 1: M = 7.36, SD = 2.17; Time 2: M = 7.57, SD = 1.63; d = 0.11, p = 0.017).

Table 1. Mean scores of disability perceptions (Time 1 vs. Time 2).

Item	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (df)	p	Holm-Adjusted p	Cohen’s d
I have good knowledge of disabilities (J’ai une bonne connaissance des handicaps).	6.64 (2.09)	7.58 (1.98)	10.04 a (1874)	<0.001	<0.001	0.46
In an adapted environment, a person with disability can live normally (Dans un environnement adapté, une personne en situation de handicap peut vivre normalement).	6.94 (1.94)	7.22 (1.48)	3.49 a (1767)	<0.001	<0.001	0.16
A person with a disability can take part in sport (Une personne en situation de handicap peut avoir une activité sportive).	7.36 (2.17)	7.57 (1.63)	2.40 a (1753)	0.017	0.017	0.11

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. All items were rated on a 1–10 scale. Holm-adjusted p-values were calculated within the conceptual family of comparisons. Item 1: n = 948 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Items 2: n = 947 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 3: n = 947 (T1), n = 928 (T2). ^a Welch’s t-test was used because the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated.

4.2. Perceptions of Para Athletes and the Games

Table 2 presents comparisons between participants surveyed before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the Games regarding their perceptions of Para athletes. Participants surveyed after the Games reported significantly higher scores on both items analysed. In particular, higher scores were observed in the perception that Para athletes are talented (Time 1: M = 8.00, SD = 2.13; Time 2: M = 8.80, SD = 1.44), with a moderate effect size (d = 0.44, p < 0.001). Similarly, participants surveyed after the Games gave higher scores to the perception that Para athletes are attractive to the public and sponsors (Time 1: M = 6.66, SD = 2.35; Time 2: M = 8.37, SD = 1.65), showing the largest effect size of all the analyses conducted (d = 0.84, p < 0.001).

Table 2. Mean scores of Para athlete perceptions (Time 1 vs. Time 2).

Item	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (df)	p	Holm-Adjusted p	Cohen’s d
Para athletes are talented (Les para-athlètes sont talentueux).	8.00 (2.13)	8.80 (1.44)	7.16 a (860)	<0.001	<0.001	0.44
Para athletes are attractive to the public/sponsors (Les para-athlètes sont attractifs pour le public/les sponsors).	6.66 (2.35)	8.37 (1.65)	13.69 a (868)	<0.001	<0.001	0.84

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. All items were rated on a 1–10 scale. Holm-adjusted p-values were calculated within the conceptual family of comparisons. Item 1: n = 505 (T1), n = 593 (T2); Item 2: n = 498 (T1), n = 593 (T2). ^a Welch’s t-test was used because the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated.

4.3. Perceived Capacities to Practise Sport and Work: Physical Disabilities vs. Vision Impairment

Table 3 and Table 4 present comparisons between participants before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the Games regarding their perceptions of the abilities of people with physical and vision impairments to participate in sporting and work-related activities.

Table 3. Mean scores of sport/professional perceptions about physical disabilities (Time 1 vs. Time 2).

Item A Person with a Physical Disability… (Une Personne en Situation de Handicap Moteur…)	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (df)	p	Holm-Adjusted p	Cohen’s d
…can join the same sport club as me (…peut s’inscrire dans le même club sportif que moi).	6.44 (2.53)	6.90 (2.33)	4.27 a (1824)	<0.001	<0.001	0.20
…can practise the same sport as me (…peut faire le même sport que moi).	6.45 (2.25)	7.62 (1.93)	12.14 a (1842)	<0.001	<0.001	0.56
…is as performant as me in sport (…est aussi performante que moi).	6.13 (2.48)	6.16 (2.83)	0.23 a (1834)	0.819	0.819	0.01
…can hold the same professional occupation as me (…peut exercer la même activité professionnelle que moi).	6.74 (2.39)	7.55 (1.89)	8.19 a (1796)	<0.001	<0.001	0.38
…can be as effective as me in a professional context (…peut être aussi efficace que moi).	6.62 (2.53)	7.30 (2.08)	6.36 a (1817)	<0.001	<0.001	0.29

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. All items were rated on a 1–10 scale. Holm-adjusted p-values were calculated within the conceptual family of comparisons. Item 1: n = 948 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 2: n = 947 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 3: n = 947 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 4: n = 948 (T1), n = 929 (T2); Item 5: n = 947 (T1), n = 927 (T2). ^a Welch’s t-test was used because the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated.

Table 4. Mean scores of sport/professional perceptions about vision impairments (Time 1 vs. Time 2).

Item A Person with a Vision Impairment… (Une Personne en Situation de Handicap Visuel…)	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (df)	p	Holm-Adjusted p	Cohen’s d
…can join the same sport club as me (…peut s’inscrire dans le même club sportif que moi).	5.85 (2.93)	4.97 (2.54)	−6.97 a (1848)	<0.001	<0.001	−0.32
…can practise the same sport as me (…peut faire le même sport que moi).	5.61 (2.58)	5.65 (2.69)	0.32 (1876)	0.751	0.751	0.01
…is as performant as me in sport (…est aussi performante que moi).	5.51 (2.72)	4.20 (2.59)	−10.67 (1873)	<0.001	<0.001	−0.49
…can hold the same professional occupation as me (…peut exercer la même activité professionnelle que moi).	5.74 (2.56)	5.37 (2.69)	−3.11 (1872)	0.002	0.004	−0.14
…can be as effective as me in a professional context (…peut être aussi efficace que moi).	5.58 (2.69)	4.51 (2.73)	−8.56 (1867)	<0.001	<0.001	−0.40

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. All items were rated on a 1–10 scale. Holm-adjusted p-values were calculated within the conceptual family of comparisons. Item 1: n = 948 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 2: n = 948 (T1), n = 930 (T2); Item 3: n = 946 (T1), n = 929 (T2); Item 4: n = 945 (T1), n = 929 (T2); Item 5: n = 941 (T1), n = 928 (T2). ^a Welch’s t-test was used because the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated.

With regard to physical disability (Table 3), participants surveyed after the Games reported significantly higher scores on four of the five items analysed. Significant differences were observed in the perception that a person with a physical disability can join the same sports club (d = 0.20, p < 0.001), practise the same sport (d = 0.56, p < 0.001), perform the same professional activity (d = 0.38, p < 0.001) and be equally effective in a professional context (d = 0.29, p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in the perception that a person with a physical disability can achieve the same sporting performance (d = 0.01, p = 0.819).

In contrast, regarding vision impairments (Table 4), participants after the Games reported significantly lower scores on four of the five items analysed. Lower scores were observed in the perception that a person with a vision impairment can join the same sports club (d = −0.32, p < 0.001), achieve the same sporting performance (d = −0.49, p < 0.001) and be equally effective in a professional context (d = −0.40, p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference, albeit of small magnitude, was also found in the perception that a person with a vision impairment can perform the same professional activity (d = −0.14, p < 0.004). No statistically significant differences were found in the perception that a person with a vision impairment can practise the same sport (d = 0.01, p = 0.751).

4.4. Perceived Improvement in Accessibility

Table 5 presents comparisons between participants surveyed before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games regarding their perception that public spaces are becoming increasingly accessible to people with disabilities. Among participants who reported having a disability, significantly higher scores were observed after the Games (M = 6.34, SD = 1.90) compared to before the Games (M = 5.11, SD = 2.29), with a moderate effect size (d = 0.61, p < 0.001). Similarly, among participants who reported having a person with a disability in their immediate circle, significantly higher scores were found after the Games (M = 6.93, SD = 1.54) than before the Games (M = 5.74, SD = 2.04), with a moderate effect size (d = 0.66, p < 0.001).

Table 5. Mean scores of perceived improvements in public accessibility among participants with a personal connection to disability (Time 1 vs. Time 2).

Subgroup	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (df)	p	Cohen’s d
Participants with a disability (Participants en situation de handicap).	5.11 (2.29)	6.34 (1.90)	3.41 (143)	<0.001	0.61
Participants with a person with a disability in their close circle a (Participants ayant un entourage en situation de handicap).	5.74 (2.04)	6.93 (1.54)	10.90 (1079)	<0.001	0.66

Note: T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2. The item was rated on a 1–10 scale. Disability subgroup: n = 47 (T1), n = 98 (T2). Close circle subgroup: n = 596 (T1), n = 493 (T2). ^a Welch’s t-test was used because the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated. The item compared was: “Public spaces are becoming more and more accessible for people with disabilities (Les lieux publics sont de plus en plus accessibles aux personnes en situation de handicap)”.

5. Discussion

The present study documents a pattern of significant attitudinal differences between participants surveyed before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. Before interpreting these findings, an important methodological caveat must be acknowledged: the two samples are independent, and the observed differences do not constitute evidence of individual-level change. Because the T1 and T2 participants are not the same individuals, it is not possible to conclude that the Games caused the observed differences. What the data reveal is that participants surveyed after the Games held, on average, different perceptions from those surveyed before. The mechanisms underlying these differences remain exploratory, and any explanations offered here should be understood as plausible hypotheses rather than established causal claims.

With this framing in mind, the observed differences in general perceptions of disability and in attitudes toward Para athletes are consistent with the broader literature on the social legacy of mega-events. The higher scores on self-reported knowledge of disability (d = 0.46) among T2 participants may be related to the heightened public visibility of disability during the period of the Games. In a city where Paralympic venues were distributed across multiple public spaces, disability-related imagery, messaging, and sporting activity may have formed part of the broader context in which the post-Games survey was conducted. This hypothesis is consistent with findings from Ribeiro et al. [28] who documented a significant increase in resident perceptions of social impact in Rio de Janeiro during the 2016 Olympic Games compared to both the pre-event and post-event periods, attributing this to the “showcase effect” of media coverage and the heightened civic atmosphere generated by the event. A similar contextual explanation could be considered for Paris; however, as participants’ exposure to the Games or disability-related content was not measured, the present data cannot determine whether such visibility was associated with the observed differences.

The large difference in perceptions of Para athletes’ commercial appeal (d = 0.84) and talent (d = 0.44) between T1 and T2 is the largest observed in the study. This finding is consistent with the IPC’s deliberate strategy of positioning Para athletes as elite professionals, and with the qualitative observations of Hodges et al. [5], who documented an “awww to awe factor” shift in audience engagement with the London 2012 Paralympics. However, the exploratory nature of our design prevents us from attributing this difference directly to exposure to the Games. T2 participants may have been more likely to have watched Paralympic coverage, or they may simply reflect a population segment with greater pre-existing familiarity with Para sport—a possibility that cannot be ruled out given the independent-samples design. What can be said is that the T2 sample, surveyed in the immediate aftermath of the Games, held a markedly more positive view of Para athletes as talented and commercially relevant figures, a pattern that is consistent with previous research documenting more positive perceptions of Para athletes in the context of Paralympic events.

The most theoretically significant finding of this study, however, is the divergent pattern of differences across disability types. Whereas T2 participants reported significantly higher scores on four of five items concerning persons with physical disabilities, they reported significantly lower scores on four of five items concerning persons with vision impairments. The symmetry of this pattern—four significant positive differences for physical disability, four significant negative differences for vision impairment, with the same item (sporting performance) being non-significant in both tables—makes this one of the study’s most robust and original observations.

Several non-exclusive hypotheses may help to account for the more positive perceptions of physical disability among T2 participants. Paralympic competition is, by its very nature, dominated by the display of motor skills: wheelchair racing, hand-cycling, seated throwing, and prosthetic-limb athletics render physical impairment visually salient and physically legible to a general audience. One possible interpretation is that the greater visibility of physical disabilities in Paralympic competition may provide a relevant context for understanding the more positive perceptions observed among T2 participants. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the theoretical mechanisms of parasocial contact [9], whereby mediated exposure to a group can reduce uncertainty and increase perceived competence. Importantly, participants’ actual exposure to Paralympic content was not assessed in this study; therefore, these interpretations should be regarded as plausible hypotheses rather than empirically established mechanisms.

The fact that the non-significant item in Table 3 is precisely the one asking whether a person with a physical disability “is as performant as me in sport” (d = 0.01, p = 0.819) is itself informative: both the T1 and T2 samples appear to agree that physical disability does not imply equal athletic performance, a perception that is arguably realistic. The differences are concentrated instead in the dimensions of social participation (joining the same club, practising the same sport) and professional inclusion (holding the same occupation, being equally effective), suggesting that the T2 sample is more open to the inclusion of persons with physical disabilities in everyday sporting and professional life while not necessarily endorsing an unrealistic equivalence in athletic performance.

The pattern for vision impairment requires a different set of explanatory hypotheses. The lower scores among T2 participants on four of five items could reflect several distinct processes. One possible interpretation is that the lower T2 scores reflect more differentiated assessments of what persons with different types of disability can and cannot do. Under this interpretation, the lower T2 scores for vision impairment would not necessarily represent increased prejudice but rather a more differentiated understanding of the challenges posed by vision impairment in sporting and professional contexts. This hypothesis is consistent with findings from Pullen et al. [15], who found that UK audiences, following the Rio 2016 Paralympics, displayed a more nuanced—if still hierarchical—understanding of disability, distinguishing between impairments that were perceived as compatible with elite athletic performance and those that were not. A second, related hypothesis concerns possible differences in the visibility and media representation of athletes with different types of disability during the Games. Media exposure during Paris 2024 was unprecedented but unevenly distributed across disciplines. Globally, Para athletics generated the greatest amount of broadcast airtime, followed by Para swimming, Para table tennis, wheelchair tennis, and wheelchair basketball [29]. However, disciplines involving athletes with vision impairments were not necessarily absent from prominent coverage. In France, for example, the blind football final between France and Argentina attracted approximately five million viewers, becoming one of the most visible moments of the Paralympic Games [30]. This suggests that the contrasting pattern observed for physical and vision impairments cannot be explained simply in terms of the presence or absence of media visibility. Rather, differences in the amount, type, and framing of representation across disciplines may provide a more nuanced contextual explanation, consistent with previous research showing that Paralympic media coverage can privilege particular impairment types and forms of athletic embodiment [15,21]. Importantly, participants’ exposure to specific Paralympic disciplines or media content was not assessed in the present study; therefore, this interpretation remains hypothetical.

These findings invite a fundamental reconceptualization of how Paralympic legacy is studied and communicated. The dominant paradigm in the literature has treated disability as a single, undifferentiated category, asking whether the Games improve attitudes toward “disability in general.” The present data suggest that this framing is insufficient. The relevant question is not simply whether more positive perceptions of disability are observed in the post-Games but which disabilities are associated with more positive perceptions—and which are not. This “two-speed” pattern, with physical disability associated with more positive T2 perceptions and vision impairment associated with more negative ones, is consistent with the broader observation made by Pullen et al. [15] that Paralympic representation may broaden acceptance of some forms of disability while simultaneously reinforcing hierarchies between impairment types. It also echoes the concerns raised by Pappous and Gómez-Iniesta [21], whose qualitative study of Italian Paralympians highlighted inequalities in the visibility and representation of athletes within Paralympic media coverage and the importance of considering not only the amount of coverage but also how athletes and disabilities are represented.

The findings on perceived improvements in accessibility add a further dimension to this picture. The significant differences in accessibility perceptions were concentrated among participants with a personal connection to disability—those who reported having a disability themselves (d = 0.61) or having a person with a disability in their immediate circle (d = 0.66). This pattern is noteworthy in the context of the widespread accessibility messaging and infrastructural efforts associated with Paris 2024, particularly because the observed differences were concentrated among those with a personal connection to disability. This is consistent with the broader literature on the moderating role of personal experience in attitude formation [14,22], and with the finding of Kirakosyan [14] that persons with a disability are often more attuned to—and more critical of—the gap between event-driven accessibility claims and the realities of daily life. The higher accessibility perceptions reported by T2 participants with disability or a close connection to disability may be interpreted in relation to the Games’ infrastructural legacy or to the broader salience of disability-related issues during the post-Games period; however, the present design does not allow these possible explanations to be distinguished.

An additional consideration is that the differences between the two independent samples may also have contributed to the observed pattern. Although the samples were broadly comparable in age, minor variations in demographic composition were present, and potential unmeasured baseline characteristics may have influenced the findings. Consequently, some of the differences observed between T1 and T2 may reflect differences in sample compositions rather than the post-Games context itself. Future studies using longitudinal designs with the same participants would be better positioned to distinguish event-related differences from pre-existing individual characteristics.

A critical consideration for interpreting all of these findings is their temporal scope. The data were collected within two months of the conclusion of the Games, and therefore capture perceptions in the immediate post-event period. Research on the social legacy of mega-events consistently documents a pattern of short-term positive effects that attenuate over time. Ribeiro et al. [31] conducted a longitudinal study of resident perceptions of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games across four time points (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2020) and found that perceptions of social legacy increased significantly during the Games period but then declined steadily, falling below the pre-event baseline by 2020. The authors attribute this decline to a “prospect theory” dynamic, in which residents adjust their reference points based on initial expectations, and to the growing awareness of the unmet promises and social costs of the event. Shirazipour et al. [23] similarly found that positive perceptions of Paralympians’ warmth, measured at two weeks before and two weeks after the Rio 2016 Games, had decreased by the three-month follow-up. The present study therefore captures a snapshot of perceptions at a moment likely to be close to their post-event peak, and future research should examine whether the differences documented here persist, diminish, or reverse over time.

These findings also carry direct implications for human rights frameworks on disability and for the governance of Paralympic legacy. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has argued, the right to participate in sport is a fundamental human right that must be realized for all persons with disabilities [32]. The divergent pattern documented in this study—with vision impairment consistently associated with lower T2 perceptions—suggests that more positive perceptions in the post-Games period should not be assumed to extend uniformly across all disability groups. A rights-based approach to Paralympic legacy would require, at minimum, a deliberate diversification of media representation to ensure that athletes with vision impairments, and persons with vision impairments more broadly, receive coverage that is proportionate, dignified, and capable of challenging rather than reinforcing stereotypes. The findings also lend support to the call by Brittain and Beacom [2] for legacy initiatives that go beyond event-specific interventions to address the structural barriers to inclusion that persist long after the closing ceremony.

6. Conclusions

This pre–post-event survey documents a pattern of significant attitudinal differences between French participants surveyed before and after the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. Given the independent-samples design, these findings are best understood as exploratory observations rather than evidence of individual-level change, and the explanations offered remain hypothetical. Within these limits, the study contributes one of the first non-governmental empirical analyses of the Games’ social legacy, capturing public perceptions at a moment likely close to their post-event peak.

The most striking finding is the divergent pattern of differences across disability types: T2 participants reported significantly higher scores on four of five items concerning persons with physical disabilities (d = 0.20 to 0.56), while T2 participants reported significantly lower scores on four of five items concerning persons with vision impairments (d = −0.14 to −0.49). This symmetrical, four-out-of-five pattern in opposite directions is one of the study’s most original contributions. It challenges the assumption that public perceptions measured after the Paralympic Games will necessarily be more positive across all disability groups and reveals a “two-speed” pattern in which different disabilities—despite equal representation in the competition—are associated with markedly different attitudinal profiles in the post-event period.

More broadly, this finding calls for a paradigm shift in how Paralympic legacy is conceptualized and measured. The literature has long spoken of the Games’ impact on attitudes toward disability as a single category. Our data suggest that this framing obscures as much as it reveals. Future research, policy, and media strategy must move from treating disability as a monolithic construct to recognizing disabilities in their plurality—each with its own media representation, public legibility, and attitudinal dynamic. The consistent non-significance of the “sporting performance” item for both disability types is also instructive: both T1 and T2 participants appear to hold realistic views about the limits of athletic equivalence while differing on the dimensions of social and professional participation that are more directly relevant to everyday inclusion.

As the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights has argued, the right to participate in sport is a fundamental human right that must be realized for all persons with disabilities [32]. The divergent pattern documented here highlights the need to consider disability-specific differences when evaluating the social legacy of the Paralympic Games, rather than assuming uniform attitudinal patterns across disability groups. Realizing a truly inclusive society will require sustained commitment, deliberate diversification of disability representation, and a willingness to move beyond the most visible and spectacular forms of impairment. The question of whether the differences observed here will persist, diminish, or reverse over time remains open—and underscores the urgent need for longitudinal follow-up research on the Paris 2024 legacy.