Conceptualizing Stigma

Abstract

Social science research on stigma has grown dramatically over the past two decades, particularly in social psychology, where researchers have elucidated the ways in which people construct cognitive categories and link those categories to stereotyped beliefs. In the midst of this growth, the stigma concept has been criticized as being too vaguely defined and individually focused. In response to these criticisms, we define stigma as the co-occurrence of its components–labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination–and further indicate that for stigmatization to occur, power must be exercised. The stigma concept we construct has implications for understanding several core issues in stigma research, ranging from the definition of the concept to the reasons stigma sometimes represents a very persistent predicament in the lives of persons affected by it. Finally, because there are so many stigmatized circumstances and because stigmatizing processes can affect multiple domains of people's lives, stigmatization probably has a dramatic bearing on the distribution of life chances in such areas as earnings, housing, criminal involvement, health, and life itself. It follows that social scientists who are interested in understanding the distribution of such life chances should also be interested in stigma.

Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?

“…Each of our three types of stigma and prejudice can be construed as threats (domination/exploitation defends against the threat of loss of power and economic advantage; norm enforcement defends against the threat of social disorder and harm to group members; and disease avoidance defends against the threat of infection). However, particularly for exploitation/domination, models that emphasize the role of power and status differences in stigma and prejudice (Feagin 2000;Fiske et al 2002;Link and Phelan 2001;Parker and Aggleton 2003) provide a more accurate representation, we believe, of what is at stake for the perpetrators of this type of stigma and prejudice. Accordingly, the function of stigma and prejudice based on exploitation and domination is the desire to maintain advantage rather than the threat of losing advantage.…”

“…Above the line are power differences, which Link and Phelan (2001) consider necessary for one group to effectively stigmatize another; desire for power and economic gain (e.g., the profit motives undergirding U.S. slavery, Feagin 2000); social groups' desire for order and conformity, implicated by Goffman's identification of norms as the cause of stigma; and evolutionary pressures, which Kurzban and Leary (2001) (Yang et al 2007). …”

Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners.

“…These data may also be relevant to how discrimination affects physical and mental health of minorities and other stigmatized groups (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999;Krieger, 2000;Link & Phelan, 2001). We have found majority group members exhibit threat responses, less positive behavioral responses, and performance impairments when interacting with counterstereotypical or atypical group members.…”

Stigma and Depression Treatment Utilization Among Latinos: Utility of Four Stigma Measures

“…The label of depression can signify a number of stereotypes (personal weakness, for example). Therefore, people may seek social distance from stigmatized persons and impede their social role development and occupational mobility (5). This type of social labeling negatively affects patients and their families (6–10).…”