From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social stigma is the extreme disapproval of (or discontent with) a person or group on socially characteristic grounds that are perceived, and serve to distinguish them, from other members of a society. Stigma may then be affixed to such a person, by the greater society, who differs from their cultural norms.

Social stigma can result from the perception of mental illness, physical disabilities, diseases such as leprosy (see leprosy stigma),[1] illegitimacy, sexual orientation, gender identity,[2] skin tone, education, nationality, ethnicity, ideology, religion (or lack of religion[3][4]) or criminality. Attributes associated with social stigma often vary depending on the geopolitical and corresponding sociopolitical contexts employed by society, in different parts of the world.

According to Goffman there are three forms of social stigma:[5]

1. Overt or external deformations, such as scars, physical manifestations of anorexia nervosa, leprosy (leprosy stigma), or of a physical disability or social disability, such as obesity.

2. Deviations in personal traits, including mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, and criminal background are stigmatized in this way.

3. "Tribal stigmas" are traits, imagined or real, of ethnic group, nationality, or of religion that is deemed to be a deviation from the prevailing normative ethnicity, nationality or religion.

Description

Stigma is a Greek word that in its origins referred to a type of marking or tattoo that was cut or burned into the skin of criminals, slaves, or traitors in order to visibly identify them as blemished or morally polluted persons. These individuals were to be avoided or shunned, particularly in public places.[6]

Social stigmas can occur in many different forms. The most common deals with culture, obesity, gender, race and diseases. Many people who have been stigmatized feel as though they are transforming from a whole person to a tainted one. They feel different and devalued by others. This can happen in the workplace, educational settings, health care, the criminal justice system, and even in their own family. For example, the parents of overweight women are less likely to pay for their daughters' college education than are the parents of average-weight women.[7]

Stigma may also be described as a label that associates a person to a set of unwanted characteristics that form a stereotype. It is also affixed.[8] Once people identify and label your differences others will assume that is just how things are and the person will remain stigmatized until the stigmatizing attribute is undetected. A considerable amount of generalization is required to create groups, meaning that you put someone in a general group regardless of how well they actually fit into that group. However, the attributes that society selects differ according to time and place. What is considered out of place in one society could be the norm in another. When society categorizes individuals into certain groups the labeled person is subjected to status loss and discrimination.[8] Society will start to form expectations about those groups once the cultural stereotype is secured.

Stigma may affect the behavior of those who are stigmatized. Those who are stereotyped often start to act in ways that their stigmatizers expect of them. It not only changes their behavior, but it also shapes their emotions and beliefs.[7] Members of stigmatized social groups often face prejudice that causes depression (i.e. deprejudice).[9] These stigmas put a person's social identity in threatening situations, like low self-esteem. Because of this, identity theories have become highly researched. Identity threat theories can go hand-in-hand with labeling theory.

Members of stigmatized groups start to become aware that they aren't being treated the same way and know they are probably being discriminated against. Studies have shown that "by 10 years of age, most children are aware of cultural stereotypes of different groups in society, and children who are members of stigmatized groups are aware of cultural types at an even younger age."[7]

Main theories and contributions

Émile Durkheim

French sociologist Émile Durkheim was the first to explore stigma as a social phenomenon in 1895. He wrote:

Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes or deviance, properly so-called, will there be unknown; but faults, which appear venial to the layman, will there create the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousnesses. If then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal (or deviant) and will treat them as such.[10]

Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman was one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century. He defined stigma as:[5]

The phenomenon whereby an individual with an attribute which is deeply discredited by his/her society is rejected as a result of the attribute. Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity.

Gerhard Falk

German born sociologist and historian Gerhard Falk wrote:[11]

All societies will always stigmatize some conditions and some behaviors because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating "outsiders" from "insiders".

Falk[12] describes stigma based on two categories, existential stigma and achieved stigma. Falk defines existential stigma "as stigma deriving from a condition which the target of the stigma either did not cause or over which he has little control." He defines Achieved Stigma as "stigma that is earned because of conduct and/or because they contributed heavily to attaining the stigma in question."[11]

Falk concludes that "we and all societies will always stigmatize some condition and some behavior because doing so provides for group solidarity by delineating 'outsiders' from 'insiders'".[11] Stigmatization, at its essence is a challenge to one's humanity- for both the stigmatized person and the stigmatizer. The majority of stigma researchers have found the process of stigmatization has a long history and is cross-culturally ubiquitous.[13]

Goffman's theory

In Erving Goffman's theory of social stigma, a stigma is an attribute, behavior, or reputation which is socially discrediting in a particular way: it causes an individual to be mentally classified by others in an undesirable, rejected stereotype rather than in an accepted, normal one. Goffman, a noted sociologist, defined stigma as a special kind of gap between virtual social identity and actual social identity:

Society establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories. [...] When a stranger comes into our presence, then, first appearances are likely to enable us to anticipate his category and attributes, his "social identity" [...] We lean on these anticipations that we have, transforming them into normative expectations, into righteously presented demands. [...] It is [when an active question arises as to whether these demands will be filled] that we are likely to realize that all along we had been making certain assumptions as to what the individual before us ought to be. [These assumed demands and the character we impute to the individual will be called] virtual social identity. The category and attributes he could in fact be proved to possess will be called his actual social identity. (Goffman 1963:2).

While a stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind--in the extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma, especially when its discrediting effect is very extensive [...] It constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity. Note that there are other types of [such] discrepancy [...] for example the kind that causes us to reclassify an individual from one socially anticipated category to a different but equally well-anticipated one, and the kind that causes us to alter our estimation of the individual upward. (Goffman 1963:3).

The stigmatized, the normal, and the wise

Goffman divides the individual's relation to a stigma into three categories:

1. the stigmatized are those who bear the stigma;

2. the normals are those who do not bear the stigma; and

3. the wise are those among the normals who are accepted by the stigmatized as "wise" to their condition (borrowing the term from the homosexual community).

The wise normals are not merely those who are in some sense accepting of the stigma; they are, rather, "those whose special situation has made them intimately privy to the secret life of the stigmatized individual and sympathetic with it, and who find themselves accorded a measure of acceptance, a measure of courtesy membership in the clan." That is, they are accepted by the stigmatized as "honorary members" of the stigmatized group. "Wise persons are the marginal men before whom the individual with a fault need feel no shame nor exert self-control, knowing that in spite of his failing he will be seen as an ordinary other." Goffman notes that the wise may in certain social situations also bear the stigma with respect to other normals: that is, they may also be stigmatized for being wise. An example is a parent of a homosexual; another is a white woman who is seen socializing with a black man. (Limiting ourselves, of course, to social milieus in which homosexuals and blacks are stigmatized).

Until recently, this typology has been used without being empirically tested. A recent study[14] showed empirical support for the existence of the own, the wise, and normals as separate groups; but, the wise appeared in two forms: active wise and passive wise. Active wise encouraged challenging stigmatization and educating stigmatizers, but passive wise did not.

Ethical considerations

Goffman emphasizes that the stigma relationship is one between an individual and a social setting with a given set of expectations; thus, everyone at different times will play both roles of stigmatized and stigmatizer (or, as he puts it, "normal"). Goffman gives the example that "some jobs in America cause holders without the expected college education to conceal this fact; other jobs, however, can lead to the few of their holders who have a higher education to keep this a secret, lest they be marked as failures and outsiders. Similarly, a middle class boy may feel no compunction in being seen going to the library; a professional criminal, however, writes [about keeping his library visits secret]." He also gives the example of blacks being stigmatized among whites, and whites being stigmatized among blacks (note that this work was written during racial segregation).

Individuals actively cope with stigma in ways that vary across stigmatized groups, across individuals within stigmatized groups, and within individuals across time and situations.[15]

The stigmatized

The stigmatized are ostracized, devalued, rejected, scorned and shunned. They experience discrimination, insults, attacks and are even murdered. Those who perceive themselves to be members of a stigmatized group, whether it is obvious to those around them or not, often experience psychological distress and many view themselves contemptuously.[13]

Although the experience of being stigmatized may take a toll on self-esteem, academic achievement, and other outcomes, many people with stigmatized attributes have high self-esteem, perform at high levels, are happy and appear to be quite resilient to their negative experiences.[13]

There are also "positive stigma": you may indeed be too thin, too rich, or too smart. This is noted by Goffman (1963:141) in his discussion of leaders, who are subsequently given license to deviate from some behavioral norms, because they have contributed far above the expectations of the group.

The stigmatizer

From the perspective of the stigmatizer, stigmatization involves dehumanization, threat, aversion and sometimes the depersonalization of others into stereotypic caricatures. Stigmatizing others can serve several functions for an individual, including self-esteem enhancement, control enhancement, and anxiety buffering, through downward-comparison—comparing oneself to less fortunate others can increase one's own subjective sense of well-being and therefore boost one's self-esteem.[13]

21st century social psychologists consider stigmatizing and stereotyping to be a normal consequence of people's cognitive abilities and limitations, and of the social information and experiences to which they are exposed.[13]

Current views of stigma, from the perspectives of both the stigmatizer and the stigmatized person, consider the process of stigma to be highly situationally specific, dynamic, complex and nonpathological.[13]

Link and Phelan stigmatization model

Bruce Link and Jo Phelan propose that stigma exists when four specific components converge:[16]

1. Individuals differentiate and label human variations.

2. Prevailing cultural beliefs tie those labeled to adverse attributes.

3. Labeled individuals are placed in distinguished groups that serve to establish a sense of disconnection between "us" and "them".

4. Labeled individuals experience "status loss and discrimination" that leads to unequal circumstances.

In this model stigmatization is also contingent on "access to social, economic, and political power that allows the identification of differences, construction of stereotypes, the separation of labeled persons into distinct groups, and the full execution of disapproval, rejection, exclusion, and discrimination." Subsequently, in this model the term stigma is applied when labeling, stereotyping, disconnection, status loss, and discrimination all exist within a power situation that facilitates stigma to occur.

Differentiation and labeling

Identifying which human differences are salient, and therefore worthy of labeling, is a social process. There are two primary factors to examine when considering the extent to which this process is a social one. The first issue is that significant oversimplification is needed to create groups. The broad groups of black and white, homosexual and heterosexual, the sane and the mentally ill; and young and old are all examples of this. Secondly, the differences that are socially judged to be relevant differ vastly according to time and place. An example of this is the emphasis that was put on the size of forehead and faces of individuals in the late 19th century—which was believed to be a measure of a person's criminal nature.

Linking to stereotypes

The second component of this model centers on the linking of labeled differences with stereotypes. Goffman's 1963 work made this aspect of stigma prominent and it has remained so ever since. This process of applying certain stereotypes to differentiated groups of individuals has attracted a large amount of attention and research in recent decades.

Us and them

Thirdly, linking negative attributes to groups facilitates separation into "us" and "them". Seeing the labeled group as fundamentally different causes stereotyping with little hesitation. "Us" and "them" implies that the labeled group is slightly less human in nature, and at the extreme not human at all. At this extreme, the most horrific events occur.

Disadvantage

The fourth component of stigmatization in this model includes "status loss and discrimination". Many definitions of stigma do not include this aspect, however these authors believe that this loss occurs inherently as individuals are "labeled, set apart, and linked to undesirable characteristics." The members of the labeled groups are subsequently disadvantaged in the most common group of life chances including income, education, mental well-being, housing status, health, and medical treatment. Thus, stigmatization by the majorities, the powerful, or the “superior” leads to the Othering of the minorities, the powerless, and the “inferior”. Where by the stigmatized individuals become disadvantaged due to the ideology created by “the self,” which is the opposing force to “the Other.” As a result, the others become socially excluded and those in power reason the exclusion based on the original characteristics that led to the stigma.[17]

Necessity of power

The authors also emphasize the role of power (social, economic, and political power) in stigmatization. While the use of power is clear in some situations, in others it can become masked as the power differences are less stark. An extreme example of a situation in which the power role was explicitly clear was the treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis. On the other hand, an example of a situation in which individuals of a stigmatized group have "stigma-related processes" occurring would be the inmates of a prison. It is imaginable that each of the steps described above would occur regarding the inmates' thoughts about the guards. However, this situation cannot involve true stigmatization, according to this model, because the prisoners do not have the economic, political, or social power to act on these thoughts with any serious discriminatory consequences.

'Stigma Allure' and authenticity

Sociologist Matthew W. Hughey explains that prior research on stigma has emphasized individual and group attempts to reduce stigma by 'passing as normal', by shunning the stigmatized, or through selective disclosure of stigmatized attributes. Yet, some actors may embrace particular markings of stigma (e.g.: social markings like dishonor or select physical dysfunctions and abnormalities) as signs of moral commitment and/or cultural and political authenticity. Hence, Hughey argues that some actors do not simply desire to 'pass into normal' but may actively pursue a stigmatized identity formation process in order to experience themselves as causal agents in their social environment. Hughey calls this phenomenon 'stigma allure'.[18]

The Six Dimensions of Stigma

While often incorrectly attributed to Goffman the "Six Dimensions of Stigma" were not his invention. They were developed to augment Goffman's two levels - the discredited and the discreditable. Goffman considered individuals whose stigmatizing attributes are not immediately evident. In that case, the individual can encounter two distinct social atmospheres. In the first, he is discreditable—his stigma has yet to be revealed, but may be revealed either intentionally by him (in which case he will have some control over how) or by some factor he cannot control. Of course, it also might be successfully concealed; Goffman called this passing. In this situation, the analysis of stigma is concerned only with the behaviors adopted by the stigmatized individual to manage his identity: the concealing and revealing of information. In the second atmosphere, he is discredited—his stigma has been revealed and thus it affects not only his behavior but the behavior of others. Jones et al. (1984) added the "six dimensions" and correlate them to Goffman's two types of stigma, discredited and discreditable.

There are six dimensions that match these two types of stigma:[19]

1. Concealable - extent to which others can see the stigma

2. Course of the mark - whether the stigma's prominence increases, decreases, or remains consistent over time

3. Disruptiveness - the degree to which the stigma and/or others' reaction to it impede social interactions

4. Aesthetics - the subset of others' reactions to the stigma comprising reactions that are positive/approving or negative/disapproving but represent estimations of qualities other than the stigmatized person's inherent worth or dignity

5. Origin - whether others think the stigma is present at birth, accidental, or deliberate

6. Peril - the danger that others perceive (whether accurately or inaccurately) the stigma to pose to them

Types

In Unraveling the contexts of stigma, authors Campbell and Deacon describe Goffman's universal and historical forms of Stigma as the following.

• Overt or external deformities - such as leprosy, clubfoot, cleft lip or palate and muscular dystrophy.

• Known deviations in personal traits - being perceived rightly or wrongly, as weak willed, domineering or having unnatural passions, treacherous or rigid beliefs, and being dishonest, e.g., mental disorders, imprisonment, addiction, homosexuality, unemployment, suicidal attempts and radical political behavior.

• Tribal stigma - affiliation with a specific nationality, religion, or race that constitute a deviation from the normative, i.e. being African American, or being of Arab descent in the United States after the 9/11 attacks.[20]

Deviance

Stigma occurs when an individual is identified as deviant, linked with negative stereotypes that engender prejudiced attitudes, which are acted upon in discriminatory behavior. Goffman illuminated how stigmatized people manage their "Spoiled identity" (meaning the stigma disqualifies the stigmatized individual from full social acceptance) before audiences of normals. He focused on stigma, not as a fixed or inherent attribute of a person, but rather as the experience and meaning of difference.[21]

Gerhard Falk expounds upon Goffman's work by redefining deviant as "others who deviate from the expectations of a group" and by categorizing deviance into two types:

• Societal deviance refers to a condition widely perceived, in advance and in general, as being deviant and hence stigma and stigmatized. "Homosexuality is therefore an example of societal deviance because there is such a high degree of consensus to the effect that homosexuality is different, and a violation of norms or social expectation".[11]

• Situational deviance refers to a deviant act that is labeled as deviant in a specific situation, and may not be labeled deviant by society. Similarly, a socially deviant action might not be considered deviant in specific situations. "A robber or other street criminal is an excellent example. It is the crime which leads to the stigma and stigmatization of the person so affected."

The physically disabled, mentally ill, homosexuals, and a host of others who are labeled deviant because they deviate from the expectations of a group, are subject to stigmatization- the social rejection of numerous individuals, and often entire groups of people who have been labeled deviant.

Stigma communication

Communication is involved in creating, maintaining, and diffusing stigmas, and enacting stigmatization.[22] The model of stigma communication explains how and why particular content choices (marks, labels, peril, and responsibility) can create stigmas and encourage their diffusion.[23] A recent experiment using health alerts tested the model of stigma communication, finding that content choices indeed predicted stigma beliefs, intentions to further diffuse these messages, and agreement with regulating infected persons' behaviors.[22][24]

Challenging

Stigma, though powerful and enduring, is not inevitable, and can be challenged. There are two important aspects to challenging stigma: challenging the stigmatisation on the part of stigmatizers, and challenging the internalized stigma of the stigmatized. To challenge stigmatization, Campbell et al. 2005[25] summarise three main approaches.

1. There are efforts to educate individuals about the non-stigmatising facts and why they should not stigmatise.

2. There are efforts to legislate against discrimination.

3. There are efforts to mobilize the participation of community members in anti-stigma efforts, to maximize the likelihood that the anti-stigma messages have relevance and effectiveness, according to local contexts.

In relation to challenging the internalized stigma of the stigmatized, Paulo Freire’s theory of critical consciousness is particularly suitable. Cornish provides an example of how sex workers in Sonagachi, a red light district in India, have effectively challenged internalized stigma by establishing that they are respectable women, who admirably take care of their families, and who deserve rights like any other worker.[26] This study argues that it is not only the force of rational argument that makes the challenge to the stigma successful, but concrete evidence that sex workers can achieve valued aims, and are respected by others.

Current research

Research undertaken to determine effects of social stigma primarily focuses on disease-associated stigmas. Disabilities, psychiatric disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases are among the diseases currently scrutinized by researchers. In studies involving such diseases, both positive and negative effects of social stigma have been discovered..

Research on self-esteem

Members of stigmatized groups may have lower self-esteem than those of nonstigmatized groups. A test could not be taken on the overall self-esteem of different races. Researchers would have to take into account whether these people are optimistic or pessimistic, whether they are male or female and what kind of place they grew up in. Over the last two decades, many studies have reported that African Americans show higher global self-esteem than whites even though, as a group, African Americans tend to receive poorer outcomes in many areas of life and experience significant discrimination and stigma.

Correlations between self-esteem and achievement tests:

		8th grade 10th grade
African Americans	Male	.235	.192
	Female	.152	.159
European Americans	Male	.140	.165
	Female	.163	.166

Correlations between self-esteem and GPA:

		8th grade	10th grade
African Americans	Male	.206	.081
	Female	.260	.207
European Americans	Male	.227	.241
	Female	.279	.269

Average weight women have higher self-esteem than overweight women. Overweight women who are older have lower levels of collective self-esteem on an implicit measure but have equivalent levels of personal self-esteem on both implicit and explicit measures.

The US Department of Health, Education and Welfare determined that including the 24% of women who are actually obese, 60% of adolescent women believe they are overweight. Recent studies have shown that women who are "unattractive" or obese do not believe they will make a good impression on the men they come into contact with, which makes the men feel the women are uncomfortable and uninterested in them. The women of average weight felt better about the impression they would make on the men, and in return the men felt the women were interested in them and enjoyed their company.

This test showed how obese or overweight women have low self-esteem. Obese women and overweight women feel uncomfortable, and aren't very social, which makes the people they come into contact with uninterested and uncomfortable. The more overweight the woman is, the lower her self-esteem tends to be.

People with mental disorders

Empirical research on stigma associated with mental disorders, pointed to a surprising attitude of the general public. Those who were told that mental disorders had a genetic basis were more prone to increase their social distance from the mentally ill, and also to assume that the ill were dangerous individuals, in contrast with those members of the general public who were told that the illnesses could be explained by social and environment factors. Furthermore, those informed of the genetic basis were also more likely to stigmatize the entire family of the ill.[27] Although the specific social categories that become stigmatized can vary over time and place, the three basic forms of stigma (physical deformity, poor personal traits, and tribal outgroup status) are found in most cultures and eras, leading some researchers to hypothesize that the tendency to stigmatize may have evolutionary roots.[28][29]

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy has been used effectively to help people to reduce shame associated with cultural stigma around substance abuse treatment.[30]

Mental illness, Taiwan

In Taiwan, strengthening the psychiatric rehabilitation system has been one of the primary goals of the Department of Health since 1985. Unfortunately, this endeavor has not been successful and it is believed that one of the barriers is social stigma towards the mentally ill.[31] Accordingly, a study was conducted to explore the attitudes of the general population towards patients with mental disorders. A survey method was utilized on 1,203 subjects nationally. The results revealed that the general population held high levels of benevolence, tolerance on rehabilitation in the community, and nonsocial restrictiveness.[31] Essentially, benevolent attitudes were favoring the acceptance of rehabilitation in the community. It could then be inferred that the belief (held by the residents of Taiwan) in treating the mentally ill with high regard, somewhat eliminated the stigma.[31]

Epilepsy, Hong Kong

Epilepsy, a common neurological disorder characterised by recurring seizures, is associated with various social stigmas. Chung-yan Gardian Fong and Anchor Hung conducted a study in Hong Kong which documented public attitudes towards individuals with epilepsy. Of the 1,128 subjects interviewed, only 72.5% of them considered epilepsy to be acceptable; 11.2% would not let their children play with others with epilepsy; 32.2% would not allow their children to marry persons with epilepsy; additionally, employers (22.5% of them) would terminate an employment contract after an epileptic seizure occurred in an employee with unreported epilepsy.[32] Suggestions were made that more effort be made to improve public awareness of, attitude toward, and understanding of epilepsy through school education and epilepsy-related organizations.[32]

In the media

In the early 21st century, technology has a large impact on the lives of people in multiple countries and has become a social norm. Many people own a television, computer, and a smart phone. The media can be helpful with keeping people up to date on news and world issues and it is very influential on people. Because it is so influential sometimes the portrayal of minority groups affects attitudes of other groups toward them. Much media coverage has to do with other parts of the world. A lot of this coverage has to do with war and conflict, which people may relate to any person belonging from that country. There is a tendency to focus more in the positive behaviour of one’s own group and the negative behaviours of other groups. This promotes negative thoughts of people belonging to those other groups, reinforcing stereotypical beliefs.[33]

“Viewers seem to react to violence with emotions such as anger and contempt. They are concerned for the integrity of the social order and show disapproval of others. Emotions such as sadness and fear are shown much more rarely.” (Unz, Schwab & Winterhoff-Spurk, 2008, p. 141)[34]

In a study testing the effects of stereotypical advertisements on students, 75 high school students viewed magazine advertisements with stereotypical female images such as a woman working on a holiday dinner, while 50 others viewed non stereotypical images such as a woman working in a law office. These groups then responded to statements about women in a "neutral" photograph. In this photo a woman was shown in a casual outfit not doing any obvious task. The students that saw the stereotypical images tended to answer the questionnaires with more stereotypical responses in 6 of the 12 questionnaire statements. This suggests that even brief exposure to stereotypical ads reinforces stereotypes.(Lafky, Duffy, Steinmaus & Berkowitz, 1996)[35]

Effects of education, culture

The aforementioned stigmas (associated with their respective diseases) propose effects that these stereotypes have on individuals. Whether effects be negative or positive in nature, 'labeling' people causes a significant change in individual perception (of persons with disease). Perhaps a mutual understanding of stigma, achieved through education, could eliminate social stigma entirely.

Laurence J. Coleman first adapted Erving Goffman's (1963) social stigma theory to gifted children, providing a rationale for why children may hide their abilities and present alternate identities to their peers.[36][37][38] The stigma of giftedness theory was further elaborated by Laurence J. Coleman and Tracy L. Cross in their book entitled, Being Gifted In School, which is a widely cited reference in the field of gifted education.[39] In the chapter on Coping with Giftedness, the authors expanded on the theory first presented in an 1988 article.[40] According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited at least 110 times in the academic literature.[41]

Coleman and Cross were the first to identify intellectual giftedness as a stigmatizing condition and they created a model based on Goffman's (1963) work, research with gifted students,[38] and a book that was written and edited by 20 teenage, gifted individuals.[42] Being gifted sets students apart from their peers and this difference interferes with full social acceptance. Varying expectations that exist in the different social contexts which children must navigate, and the value judgments that may be assigned to the child result in the child’s use of social coping strategies to manage his or her identity. Unlike other stigmatizing conditions, giftedness is a unique because it can lead to praise or ridicule depending on the audience and circumstances.

Gifted children learn when it is safe to display their giftedness and when they should hide it to better fit in with a group. These observations led to the development of the Information Management Model that describes the process by which children decide to employ coping strategies to manage their identities. In situations where the child feels different, she or he may decide to manage the information that others know about him or her. Coping strategies include: disidentification with giftedness, attempting to maintain a low visibility, or creating a high-visibility identity (playing a stereotypical role associated with giftedness). These ranges of strategies are called the Continuum of Visibility.

Stigmatising attitude of narcissists to psychiatric illness

Arikan found that a stigmatising attitude to psychiatric patients is associated with narcissistic personality traits.[43]

See also

• Social alienation

• Guilt by association

• Identity

• Label (sociology)

• Labelling

• Labeling theory

• Self-Schema

• Self-esteem

• Self-Concealment

• Stereotype

• Social exclusion

• Taboo

• Passing (sociology)

• Collateral consequences of criminal charges

• Scapegoat

• Stigma management

• Weight stigma

• Leprosy stigma

• National Mental Health Anti-Stigma Campaign

• Badge of shame

• Stereotype threat

• Stig-9 perceived mental illness stigma questionnaire

Notes

1. Jopling WH. Leprosy Stigma. Lepr Rev 62,1-12,1991

2. Preamble of The Yogyakarta Principles and UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity

3. "globeandmail.com". Toronto.

4. Atheists Attacked in Hate Crime?

5. Erving Goffman (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-671-62244-7.

6. Healthline Network Inc., 2007

7. Brenda Major, Laurie T. O'Brien (2005), "The Social Psychology of Stigma", Annual Review of Psychology 56 (1): 393–421, doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137

8. Jacoby A, Snape D, Baker GA. (2005), "Epilepsy and Social Identity: the Stigma of a Chronic Neurological Disorder", Lancet Neurology 4 (3): 171–8, doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(05)70020-x, PMID 15721827

9. Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia G.; Hollon, Steven D. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (5): 427–49. doi:10.1177/1745691612455204.

10. Émile Durkheim (1982). Rules of Sociological Method (1895) The Free Press

11. Gerhard Falk (2001). STIGMA: How We Treat Outsiders, Prometheus Books.

12. [1]

13. Heatherton, T. F.; Kleck, R. E.; Hebl, M. R.; Hull, J. G. (2000). The Social Psychology of Stigma. Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-573-8.

14. Smith, R. (2012). "Segmenting an Audience into the Own, the Wise, and Normals: A Latent Class Analysis of Stigma-Related Categories". Communication Research Reports (29 ed.): 257–65. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.704599.

15. Shana Levin, Colette van Laar (2004), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN 978-0805844153

16. Link, Bruce G.; Phelan, Jo C. (2001), "Conceptualizing Stigma", Annual Review of Sociology 27: 363–85, doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

17. Frosh, Stephen. "The Other." American Imago 59.4 (2002): 389-407. Print.

18. Hughey, Matthew W. (2012) 'Stigma Allure and White Antiracist Identity Management.' Social Psychology Quarterly. p. 1-23.

19. Jones E, Farina A, Hastorf A, Markus H, Miller D, Scott R. (1984), Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships., New York: Freeman, ISBN 978-0716715924

20. Catherine Campbell, Harriet Deacon (Sep 2006), "Unraveling the Contexts of Stigma: From Internalisation to Resistance to Change", Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 16 (6): 411–17, doi:10.1002/casp.901, ISSN 1052-9284

21. Linda Shaw (Oct 1991), "Stigma and the Moral Careers of Ex-Mental Patients Living in Board and Care", Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 20 (3): 285–305, doi:10.1177/089124191020003003

22. Smith, R. (2011). "Stigma, Communication, and Health" (2 ed.). Routledge Handbook of Health Communication. pp. 455–68.

23. Smith, R. (2007). "Language of the lost: An explication of stigma communication". Communication Theory 17 (4): 462–85. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00307.x.

24. Smith, R. (2012). "An Experimental Test of Stigma Communication Content with a Hypothetical Infectious Disease Alert". Communication Monographs 79 (4). doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.723811.

25. Catherine Campbell, Carol Ann Foulis, Sbongile Maimane, Zweni Sibiya (2005), "I have an evil child at my house: stigma and HIV/AIDS management in a South African community", American journal of public health 95 (5): 808–15, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2003.037499

26. Cornish, F (2006), "Challenging the stigma of sex work in India: Material context and symbolic change", Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 16 (6): 462–71, doi:10.1002/casp.894

27. Ben Goldacre, The stigma gene, reproduced on his blog from his column in The Guardian, 9 October 2010

28. https://books.google.com/books?id=FRszpOfV5o0C&pg=PA113

29. Kurzban R, Leary MR. (2001), "Evolutionary Origins of Stigmatization: The Functions of Social Exclusion" (PDF), Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 187–208, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187, PMID 11316010

30. James D Livingston, Teresa Milne, Mei Lan Fang, Erica Amari (2012), "The effectiveness of interventions for reducing stigma related to substance use disorders: a systematic review", Addiction 107 (1): 39–50, doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03601.x, PMC 3272222

31. Song LY, Chang LY, Shih CY, Lin CY, Yang MJ. (2005), "Community Attitudes Towards the Mentally Ill: The Results of a National Survey of the Taiwanese Population", International Journal of Social Psychiatry 51 (2): 162–76, doi:10.1177/0020764005056765, PMID 16048245

32. Fong, C.; Hung, A. (2002), "Public Awareness, Attituse, and Underdstanding of Epilepsy in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China", Epilepsia 43 (3): 311–16, doi:10.1046/j.1528-1157.2002.31901.x

33. Geschke, D., Sassenberg, K., Ruhrmann, G., Sommer, D. (2010), "Effects of linguistic abstractness in the mass media: How newspaper articles shape readers' attitudes toward migrants", Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications 22 (3): 99–104, doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000014

34. Unz, D., Schwab, F., Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (2008), "TV news–the daily horror?: Emotional effects of violent television news", Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications 20 (4): 141–55, doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.4.141

35. Lafky et al. "Looking through Gendered Lenses: Female Stereotyping in Advertisements and Gender Role Expectations" in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, v73 n2 p379-88 Sum 1996. http://virtualworker.pbworks.com/f/Looking%20through....pdf

36. Coleman, Laurence J. (1985). Schooling the Gifted. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

37. Coleman, L. J. & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being Gifted in School. Prufrock Press.

38. Cross, T.L.; Coleman, L.J. (1993). "The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm". Roeper Review 16 (1): 37–47. doi:10.1080/02783199309553532.

39. "Google Scholar Search". Retrieved May 19, 2012.

40. Coleman, L.J.; Cross, T. L. (1988). "Is being gifted a social handicap?". Journal for the Education of the Gifted 11 (4): 41–56.

41. "Google Scholar Search". Retrieved May 19, 2012.

42. The American Association of Gifted Children (1978). On Being Gifted. Walker and Company.

43. Arikan, K. (2005). "A stigmatizating attitude towards psychiatric illnesses is associated with narcissistic personality traits" (PDF). Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 42 (4): 248–50. PMID 16618057.

This article incorporates text translated from the corresponding German Wikipedia article.

References

• George Ritzer (2006). Contemporary Social Theory and its Classical Roots: The Basics (Second Edition). McGraw-Hill.

• Blaine, B. (2007). Understanding The Psychology of Diversity. SAGE Publications Ltd.

• Smith, R. A. (2009). Stigma communication. In S. Littlejohn & K. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp 931–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Healthline Networks, Inc. [2] Retrieved: February 2007

• Anna Scheyett, The Mark of Madness: Stigma, Serious Mental Illnesses, and Social Work, [3] Retrieved: February 2007

• Osborne, Jason W. (November 1993) Niagara county community college. "Academics, Self-Esteem, and Race: A look at the Underlying Assumptions of the Dissidentification Hypothesis"

• Carol T. Miller, Ester D. Rothblum, Linda Barbour, Pamela A. Brand and Diane Felicio (September 1989). University of Vermont. "Social Interactions of Obese and Nonobese Women"

• Kenneth Plummer (1975). Sexual stigma: an interactionist account. Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-8060-3.

External links

• Stigma Research and Action a peer reviewed open access journal in the stigma field

• A report on the Best & Worst States for Healthcare:
  < https://renewbariatrics.com/healthcare-rankings/ >