Conceptualizing Stigma - Bruce Link and Jo Phelan

Conceptualizing Stigma Author(s): Bruce G. Link and Jo C. Phelan Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp.
363-385 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678626 . Accessed: 14/07/2013 21:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Sun, 14 Jul 2013 21:14:14 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev.Sociol. 2001. 27:363-85 Copyright Reviews. All rights reserved (? 2001 byAnnual
CONCEPTUALIZING STIGMA BruceG. Link1 and JoC. Phelan2
andNewYork StatePsychiatric NewYork, NY 10032; Institute, 'ColumbiaUniversity e-mail: BGLl@Columbia.edu NewYork, NY 10021; 2Department ofSociology, Columbia University, e-mail: JCP13@Columbia.edu
deviance discrimination, exclusion, Key Words labeling, stereotype, * Abstract Socialscience over research onstigma hasgrown dramatically the past where haveelucidated twodecades, insocialpsychology, researchers the particularly categories andlink those categories tostereoways inwhich people construct cognitive hasbeencriticized In themidst ofthis thestigma as concept typed beliefs. growth, toovaguely defined andindividually focused. In response to these criticisms, being stereotyping, sepwe define stigma as theco-occurrence ofitscomponents-labeling, for to status further indicate that stigmatization aration, loss,anddiscrimination-and be exercised. Thestigma weconstruct hasimplications must for concept occur, power research, ranging from thedefinition of understanding several coreissuesin stigma represents a very persistent predicament theconcept tothe reasons stigma sometimes in thelivesofpersons because there areso many stigmatized affected byit.Finally, circumstances andbecause canaffect domains ofpeomultiple stigmatizing processes on thedistribution hasa dramatic oflife bearing ple's lives, stigmatization probably chances insuch areas as earnings, criminal andlife itself. involvement, health, housing, Itfollows inunderstanding thedistribution of that socialscientists whoareinterested suchlife chances should alsobe interested instigma.
INTRODUCTION
on thenature, andconsequences a profusion ofresearch sources, Identity inspired inthenumber of BothPsychInfo andMedline showdramatic increases ofstigma. titles orabstracts from 1980(PsychInfo the word intheir articles mentioning stigma 81, Medline48) to 1999 (PsychInfo 161, 14, Medline19) to 1990 (PsychInfo Medline114). leadsinceGoffman's seminal Research essayhas beenincredibly productive, of the and repeated demonstrations refinements, ing to elaborations, conceptual The stigma on thelives of the stigmatized. concept negative impactof stigma is appliedto literally incontinence scoresofcircumstances from ranging urinary (Lewis 1998) to leprosy (Opala & (Sheldon& Caldwell1994) to exoticdancing 0360-0572/01/0811-0363$14.00 363
Erving Goffman's (1963) book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled
364
LINK * PHELAN
Boillot1996),cancer(Fife& Wright 2000), and mental illness(Angermeyer & & Penn1999,Phelan etal 2000). Itis usedtoexplain Matschinger 1994,Corrigan someofthesocialvagaries ofbeing unemployed (Walsgrove 1987),to showhow welfare stigma canleadtotheperpetuation ofwelfare use (Page 1984),andtoprovideanunderstanding ofsituations faced bywheelchair users (Cahill& Eggleston 1995),stepparents (Colemanet al 1996),debtors (Davis 1998),andmothers who arelesbian(Causey& Duran-Aydintug 1997). A substantial portion oftheproductive research on stigma hasbeencontributed bysocialpsychologists whohaveusedthe ofthesocialcognitive insights approach tounderstand howpeopleconstruct andlinkthese to stereocategories categories typed beliefs. Thislineofresearch a major represents advance inthe understanding ofstigma andsociologists would do welltoattend toitthoroughly processes, a (for see Crocker etal 1998).Given these advances inthesocial comprehensive review, of stigma andgiven theaccumulated psychology scientific ofresearch impact on more we propose a return tothestigma from a distinctly stigma generally, concept We engageoursociological sociological perspective. to perspective by attending several corecriticisms ofthestigma anditsapplication. The first concept ofthese is directed criticisms toward theclarity of theconcept andfollows from theobthat servation stigma is defined in different waysby different The investigators. secondis a setof criticisms thewayin which regarding thestigma has concept beenappliedby someresearchers. We use thesecriticisms bothas a stimulus to return tothestigma andas a critical a revised concept lensinconstructing analytic We follow ourexplication conceptualization. of thestigma with concept a more detailed discussion ofeach ofitscomponent We endby applying ourconparts. toseveral coreissuesinthestigma literature with ceptualization aneyetoassessing whether ourconceptualization is helpful in understanding thoseissues.In doing moreto thenature andconsequences of stigma to itssources. so, we attend than of someideas abouttheorigins of stigma see Crocker & Lutsky (For a review 1986.)
IN THE DEFINITION OF STIGMA VARIATIONS

One of thecurious features of literature is thevariability that concerning stigma existsin thedefinition of theconcept & Scott1986). In many circum(Stafford stances no explicit definition andseemtorefer to something investigators provide likethedictionary mark of or to definition some related like ("a disgrace") aspect orrejection a social distance When is stereotyping (e.g., scale). stigma explicitly authors definition ofstigma as an "attribute that is defined, many quoteGoffman's andthat thebearer a wholeandusualperson reduces "from deeply discrediting" to a tainted, discounted one" (Goffman 1963,p. 3). SinceGoffman, alternative orelaborated definitions havevaried considerably. Forexample, Stafford & Scott that "is a characteristic (1986,p. 80) propose stigma ofpersons that is contrary toa norm ofa socialunit" where a "norm" is defined as
CONCEPTUALIZING STIGMA
365
to behavein a certain wayat a certain time" a "shared belief that a person ought that "stigmatized individuals possess (p. 81). Crocker etal (1998,p. 505) indicate topossess)someattribute, a social orcharacteristic, that conveys (or arebelieved is devalued socialcontext." An especially influential identity that in a particular ofJones etal (1984),whouse Goffman's definition is that (1963,p.4) observation between an "attribute and a stereotype" that stigma can be seenas a relationship as a "mark" (attribute) that linksa personto to producea definition of stigma In ourownreviews ofstigma andmental undesirable characteristics (stereotypes). component ofdiscrimination illness (e.g.,Link& Phelan1999),we haveaddedthe totheJones et al (1984) definition. of stigma two seem particularly Of themanyreasonsthatdefinitions vary, as indicated above,thestigma concept has beenappliedto an prominent. First, of circumstances. Each one of theseis unique,and each one is enormous array to lead investigators to conceptualize in a somewhat different way. stigma likely on stigma is clearly contributions research by multidisciplinary, including Second, andsocialgeograanthropologists, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, there is a great dealofoverlap ininterests across these disciplines, phers. Although somedifferences inemphasis. peothere arenevertheless Evenwithin disciplines, theoretical that profrom different orientations ple approach thestigma concept be included ducesomewhat different visions ofwhat should intheconcept. Thus, ofreference different frames haveled todifferent conceptualizations. phenomenon, itseemswisetocontinue Becauseofthe complexity ofthestigma to allow variation in definition so long as investigators are clear as to whatis meant whentheterm is used. Havingsaid this, we shallalso attempt by stigma to movematters aheadby specifying a conceptualization of stigma that includes share. Before of theconcerns that in thisarea ofresearch many peopleworking itis important theuse ofthestigma has tonotethat concept proceeding, however, who havefocused on theperspective been challenged by some social scientists ofpersons whoarestigmatized 1988,Fine& Asch 1988,Sayce 1998; (Schneider is important thefurther these for Kleinman etal 1995).Understanding challenges a sociological on stigma, from ofresearch particularly perspective. development
CHALLENGESTO THE STIGMACONCEPT

tothestigma The first is that social aretwomainchallenges There concept. many andwhostudy do so whodo notbelongto stigmatized scientists groups, stigma, thevantage thatare uninformed from by thelivedexperience pointof theories in et al 1995,Schneider ofthepeoplethey 1988).Forexample, study (Kleinman "most ablethat about the ofdisability, Schneider (1988) asserts writing experience "to their scientific theories andresearch bodiedexperts" techniques givepriority The result is rather to thewordsandperceptions of thepeoplethey than study." andthe of theexperience ofthepeoplewhoare stigmatized a misunderstanding Fine& Asch about ofunsubstantiated assumptions. Writing disability, perpetuation
366
LINK * PHELAN
fiveassumptions: is locatedsolelyin biology, (1988) identify (a) that disability theproblems of thedisabledaredue to disability-produced (b) that impairment, is central to the (c) thatthedisabledpersonis a "victim," (d) thatdisability disabled person's self-concept, self-definition, socialcomparisons, andreference and(e) that with a disability is synonymous groups, having needing helpandsocial support. is that The secondchallenge research on stigma has had a decidedly individutoOliver alistic focus. Forexample, according (1992),thecentral thrust ofstigma research hasbeenfocused on theperceptions ofindividuals andtheconsequences to Oliver(1992), reof suchperceptions formicro-level interactions. According of pervasive, searchexamining the sourcesand consequences sociallyshaped from exclusion social and economic lifeare farless common. this Interestingly, is echoed criticism byatleastonerenowned student ofstereotyping, and prejudice, In herreview discrimination. of thesetopics, SusanFiske(1998) concludes that theliterature (at leastwithin socialpsychology) on discrimination is farless extensive thanthat on stereotyping and that moreattention needsto be addressed to structural issues.In another Goffman vein,eventhough (1963, p. 3) initially advised that we really needed"a language ofrelationships, notattributes," subsehas often transformed or marks intoattributes ofpersons quentpractice stigmas or markis seen as something in theperson (Fine & Asch 1988). The stigma rather than a designation or tagthat others affix to theperson. In this the respect term stigma directs our attention differently thana term like "discrimination." In contrast to "stigma," theattention "discrimination" focuses ofresearch on the of rejection and exclusion-thosewho do thediscriminating-rather producers on thepeoplewhoaretherecipients than ofthese behaviors (Sayce 1998).Thus, theterms we use couldlead to "different understandings ofwhere responsibility to different lies forthe'problem' andas a consequence foraction" prescriptions (Sayce 1998). on stigma Researchers could respond to thesechallenges their by disputing or pointing to exceptions in thenow voluminous literature on stigma. validity thesecritiques to provide a usefulstimulus fora reassessment of the We find of stigma andrelated One wayin which someofthe conceptualization concepts. issuesraised is topropose that be described bythe critiques canbe addressed stigma with totherelationships a setofinterrelated reference between concepts.
DEFINING STIGMAIN THE RELATIONSHIP OF INTERRELATED COMPONENTS

tolocating themeaning An important ofstigma intherelation between precedent concepts is availablein Goffman's observation thatstigma can be seen as the relationship between an "attribute and a stereotype." We expandthenexusof withtheintent somewhat of capturing a fuller setof meanings for relationships
367
theterm bydoingso. We state ourconceptualization as concisely as we can and then elaborate thecomponents itcontains. In ourconceptualization, stigma existswhenthefollowing interrelated comIn thefirst ponents converge. component, people distinguish and label human In thesecond, differences. dominant cultural beliefs linklabeledpersons toundesirable characteristics-to negative In thethird, stereotypes. labeledpersons are placedindistinct categories so as toaccomplish somedegree ofseparation of"us" from "them." In thefourth, labeledpersons experience status loss anddiscriminationthat lead to unequaloutcomes. Finally, stigmatization is entirely contingent on access to social,economic, andpolitical allowstheidentification powerthat ofdifferentness, theconstruction theseparation ofstereotypes, oflabeledpersons into distinct andthefull execution categories, ofdisapproval, rejection, exclusion, and discrimination. whenelements of labeling, Thus,we applytheterm stigma status co-occur stereotyping, separation, loss,anddiscrimination in a powersituationthat allowsthecomponents of stigma to unfold. With thisbrief explication ofthestigma we turn as background, to a moredetailed concept examination of each component we identified.
COMPONENT 1-ON DISTINGUISHING AND LABELINGDIFFERENCES

The vastmajority of human differences are ignored and are therefore socially irrelevant. Some of these-such as thecolorof one's car,thelastthree digits of one's social security or whether one has hairy ears-are routinely number, (but notalways)overlooked. suchas one's foodpreferences oreyecolor Manyothers arerelevant inrelatively fewsituations andaretherefore typically inconsequential Butother in thelargescheme ofthings. suchas one's skincolor, differences, IQ, sexualpreferences, or gender arehighly salient in theUnited Statesat thistime. Thepoint is that there is a socialselection ofhuman itcomesto differences when differences that willmatter identifying socially. is often Thefull ofthis observation overlooked becauseoncedifferences weight are identified and labeled,they forgranted are typically taken as beingjust the are-thereareblackpeopleandwhite blind waythings people, peopleandsighted Thetaken-for-granted andpeoplewhoarenot. people, peoplewhoarehandicapped nature of thesecategorizations is one of thereasonsthat likethese designations suchweight. There someobservations we canmakethat carry are,however, bring tolight ofhuman differences is. justhowsocialthissocialselection substantial is required to create One example First, oversimplification groups. is theassignment of individuals to categories of "black"or "white" whenthere is enormous within theresulting and no cleardemarcation variability categories between onalmost criterion onecanthink evenattributes likeskin categories any of, orfacialcharacteristics that arebelieved todefine thecategories color, parentage,
368
LINK * PHELAN
other likegayorstraight, categorizations (Fullilove 1998).Thesamecanbe saidfor ornot. blind orsighted, handicapped is revealed thecentral roleofthesocialselection ofhuman differences Second, to time deemedsalient differ dramatically according bynoting that theattributes characcentury, human physical and place. For example, in thelatenineteenth salient-these andlargefaceswereparticularly teristics suchas smallforeheads thecrimtobe ape-like-andwerebelieved toreveal characteristics werethought cultures them (Gould 1981).And,ofcourse, inalnature ofthepeoplepossessing andeemedsociallysignificant. Forexample, vary extensively in characteristics andsought to significance to beingcross-eyed cient Mayanculture gaveunusual bainchildren through devices that encouraged create this desirable characteristic studies Sociological onobjects inwaysthat forced their eyestocross. biestofocus arealso goodexamples ofsocialconstruction andmedicalization (Conrad1992). ofa disorder, itused than is much more salient now, as an indicator Hyperactivity is part ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) tobe,andthemedical term ofcommon parlance. for wehavechosen to aresocially selected salience, Becausehuman differences or"mark." Each ofthese "label"rather than "condition" "attribute," use theword that is beingreferred to in thestigmatized person latter terms locatesthething its identification forsocial significance is that and election and risksobscuring is affixed. In contrast, a label is something that theproduct of social processes. like"attribute," terms or Moreover in theabsenceofqualifications, "condition," that hasvalidity. In contrast theword "label"leaves "mark" thedesignation imply that has great thevalidity ofthedesignation an openquestion-an option utility todiscussthestigma somewomen experienced as, for example, when onewishes ofbeinglabeledwitches. as a consequence thecritical issue to With sociological process, regard thisaspectofthestigma arise and how are sustained. is todetermine howculturally created categories they outanddeemed salient somehuman differences aresingled is itthat byhuman Why cultural forces others What arethesocial, and while areignored? economic, groups thefocuson a particular human difference? that maintain
COMPONENT 2-ON ASSOCIATINGHUMAN ATTRIBUTES DIFFERENCESWITH NEGATIVE

are linked to of stigma occurswhenlabeleddifferences The secondcomponent was in Goffman's work and This of (1963) stereotypes. aspect stigma highlighted eversince.It is theaspect to theconceptualization of stigma has been central aboutstigma, has beenmostsalient in thepsychological literature of stigma that aboutthe it of a nature because critical questions psychological perhaps poses connections between labelsandstereotypes. Conthat facilitate thought processes in withthisemphasis in psychology is thecentrality of thisdimension sistent ofstigma. Forexample, Crocker andcolleagues definitions (1998) psychologists'
369
a social that conveys as an"attribute orcharacteristic above, define stigma, as noted context." in a particular identity that is devalued label with the involves a labelanda stereotype, this aspect ofstigma Inourterms, An form thestereotype. characteristics that toa setofundesirable linking a person byLink in a vignette conducted experiment component is evident example ofthis labeling, tagging a random manipulated et al (1987). The study experimentally half "former back-pain patients" andtheother half ofthevignettes "former mental believed a measure oftheextent to which respondents It also included patients." a described Whenthevignette that mental ingeneral were"dangerous." patients mental ofpeoplewith former patient, beliefs aboutthedangerousness back-pain When toward thevignette subject. responses illnessplayedno partin rejecting these beliefs werepotent patient, however, thevignette described a former mental were mental patients whobelieved responses: Respondents predictors ofrejecting patient described as a former mental reacted negatively to theperson dangerous label linked patient" in thevignette. formanypeople,the"mental Apparently, beliefsaboutthedangerousness of people thedescribed personto stereotyped from the in turn led them to desireforsocialdistance illness, which with mental person. has beena between labelsandstereotypes above,this connection As indicated in recent following the years, study of stigma majoraspectofthepsychological bodyof andvery fruitful socialcognitive approach (Fiske 1998).Thisintriguing the useofcategories research seekstoelucidate thecognitive processes underlying ofthosecategories to stereotypes et al 1998).We focus andthelinking (Crocker extensive on someselected ofthis bodyofresearch. aspects briefly are often "automatic" and stereotypes categories According to thisliterature, is revealed in experiThe automatic nature and facilitate "cognitive efficiency." andstereotypes areusedinmaking split-second ments that indicate that categories Gaertner tobe operating Forexample, preconsciously. andthus appear judgments ofwhite subinwhich onegroup anexperiment & McLaughlin (1983) conducted and another by theword"blacks,"and by theword"whites" jects was primed which wereabletoidentify weretested as tothespeedwith then both they groups and low-prejudiced werebothwords.Bothhighwhether twostrings of letters and like"smart," more topositive words "ambitious," rapidly subjects responded word "blacks." word "whites" than when bythe primed "clean"when bythe primed that ina preconcious, automatic somestudies tooperating In addition way, suggest for ifsubjects areproresources. usepreserves example, Thus, cognitive category orrealestate whenaskedto agent videdwith labelslikedoctor, artist, skinhead, of a vignette, arebetter able to simultaneously form an impression perform they who are not thanare subjects another tasklike turning offa beeping computer a psychological labels(Macraeetal 1994).Thus,from standpoint, these provided level and provide are present even at a preconcious culturally givencategories to attend that freethem to shorthand decisions peoplewitha meansof making conin socialpsychology reveals At thesametime, other research other matters. suchthat different that in thecognitive siderable latitude very transpire processes
370
LINK * PHELAN
and ofthecognitions peopleemploy onthenature depending outcomes mayoccur (Crocker etal 1998). peopleareembedded thecontexts inwhich
"US" FROM "THEM" COMPONENT 3-ON SEPARATING

a sepof thestigma processoccurswhensocial labels connote A third feature "them"(Morone1997,Devine et al 1999). UnitedStates aration of "us" from deold-order Americans as established many examples offer andpolitics history wavesofimmiAmerican Indians, andsuccessive fined African-American slaves, "us." Few groups whowerevery different from as outgroups-the "them" grants from Benjamin quotes Morone (1997) provides Forexample, entirely spared. were on theEn("them") of Dutchimmigrants observations of theimpact Franklin's toquitparticular neighborhoods, the begin English colonists ("us"). "Already glish ofdissonant madeuneasy bythedisagreeableness being bytheDutch, surrounded tounder-work enabled andarethereby ... Besides,theDutchunder-live, manners and conseincommoded theEnglishwho are thereby extremely and under-sell whilethegroups representing 1752).Andofcourse, (Franklin disgusted" quently is still this today. "They"are havechanged, prominent "us" and"them" separation areimmoral, (Morone1997). lazy,andpredatory a menaceto "us" becausethey of labelsto undesirof thestigma process-thelinking Thus,other components labeled persons for that negatively believing therationale ableattributes-become types thelabel-different from thosewhodon'tshare different arefundamentally to be distinctly are believed of people.At thesametime, whenlabeledpersons harm becausethere is little can be smoothly accomplished stereotyping different, thestigto"them." In theextreme, in attributing ofbad characteristics all manner human. "us" as to be notreally is thought to be so different from matized person becomes of horrific of "them" all manner treatment And again,in theextreme, possible. are sometimes available us from them directly to separate Evidenceofefforts to "be" the Incumbents are thought in theverynature of thelabels conferred. somepeoplespeakofpersons arelabeled(Estroff 1989).Forexample, thing they as having them rather thandescribing as being"epileptics" or "schizophrenics" of is revealing thiscomponent Thispractice regarding or schizophrenia. epilepsy heart for diseases. A person has cancer, disease, becauseitis different other stigma tobe besetby is one of"us,"a person whojusthappens ortheflu-sucha person a serious Buta person is a "schizophrenic." illness.
COMPONENT 4-STATUS LOSS AND DISCRIMINATION

loss status thelabeledperson In this ofthestigma experiences process, component this component, but ofstigma do notinclude anddiscrimination. Mostdefinitions we commonly cannot holdthemeaning assignto as we shallsee,theterm stigma setapart, when itwhen this is left out.In ourreasoning, peoplearelabeled, aspect
371
a rationale is constructed for devaluing, characteristics, andlinked toundesirable whenthefactthat them. Thus,people are stigmatized rejecting, and excluding to undesirable characteristics leadsthem to andlinked they arelabeled, setapart, experience status loss anddiscrimination. whenitcomesto a stigmatized groups aredisadvantaged Consistent with this, psychological well-being, oflifechanceslikeincome, education, general profile medical treatment, andhealth (e.g. Drusset al 2000,Link 1987). housing status, someofsomedisadvantaged outcomes Whilesomegroups escapetheexperience Crocker 1999),when Americans regarding self-esteem-see times (e.g.,African principle clearly one considers theprofile of all possibleoutcomes, thegeneral groups. How does this happen? holdsfor moststigmatized
StatusLoss
immediate ofsuccessful andstereotyping Analmost labeling consequence negative ofa person in a status The person is is a general downward hierarchy. placement in theeyes that characteristics reducehis or herstatus connected to undesirable The factthat human of thestigmatizer. is, of course, beingscreatehierarchies whositswhere inmeetings, to whom in organizational whodefers charts, evident and so on. One strand of sociological research on in conversational turn-taking, is particularly theso-called tradition, relevant expectation-states socialhierarchies, to thestudy of stigma and status loss (Cohen 1982,Driskell& Mullen 1990). of evenunacquainted to form a reliabletendency indivdiuals Based on finding setout when situations, researchers hierarchies placedingroup fairly stable status have to understand theprocesses that thisstateof affairs. Whatthey produced to research on stigma in manyways,two of whichwe shall foundis relevant like race and here.First, thisresearch showsthatexternal statuses, emphasize ofunacquainted even within smallgroups persons hierarchies gender, shapestatus at a taskthegroupis has no bearing on proficiency theexternal status though are morelikelythanwomenand blacksto askedto perform. Men and whites havetheir ideas talk more attain ofpower andprestige-they frequently, positions and are morelikelyto be votedgroupleader morereadily by others, accepted because areimportant to research on stigma (Mullenet al 1989). Thesefindings can lead to is devalued in thewidersociety a status that showhowhaving they within inthecontext ofsocialinteractions small forms ofinequality concrete very in status-related occur outcomes definitely inequalities groups. Second,although be readily forms would do notresult from ofdiscrimination that inthegroups, they use external statuses Instead members to a casual observer. (like group apparent then of tocreate that leadtoa labyrinth raceandgender) performance expectations thefloor, tothecontributions that involve thefloor, referring details taking keeping and thelike.Thisis important to research of others, headnodding, interrupting, inoutcome canoccureven on stigma becauseitshows that substantial differences the to specify a singleeventthatproduced forparticipants whenit is difficult unequaloutcome.
372
LINK * PHELAN
Discrimination
INDIVIDUAL DISCRIMINATION The standard wayofconceptualizing theconnectionbetween and discrimination in thestigma labeling, stereotyping, literature follows a relatively simplistic formulation. In thisapproach, theimportance of andbeliefs attitudes arethought to lie in whether person A's labeling andstereoof personB leads personA to engagein some obviousforms typing of overt discrimination directed at person a job application, refusing B, suchas rejecting torent an apartment, andso on. There is no doubt that this rather straightforward processoccurswith considerable regularity, somesocialpsychologists although with interests instigma haverecently bemoaned the fact that discrimdocumenting behavior suit(Fiske1998).Connecting inatory has notbeentheir strong attitudes to behaviors is, therefore, as something thearea of research on conceptualized and stereotyping needs(Fiske 1998). In thisregard stigma Ajzen & Fishbein's ofreasoned (1980) "theory action" hasbeensuccessfully applied totheprediction ofmany behaviors andmight alsobe useful inpredicting behaviors. discriminatory The approach is effective they propose becauseit asksus to narrow ourfocusto a veryspecific behavior to theintricacies and to be attentive of thebeliefs and attitudes toward thespecific actinquestion. performing Buttheareaofstigma research needstoexpand itsconception oftheprocesses which and through labeling leadtosocialinequalities inlifecircumstances. stereotyping thestandard By itself modelthat asks"what-makes-person-A-discriminate-against-person-B" is inadethefullconsequences of stigma In fact, quateforexplaining processes. getting intricacies ofexplaining a specific tangled up in thenarrow actfrom knowledge of a specific set of attitudes and beliefscould cloud rather thanilluminate our ofwhystigmatized understanding groups so many experience disadvantages. STRUCTURALDISCRIMINATION Theconcept ofinstitutional racism sensitizes usto thefact that all manner ofdisadvantage outside ofa modelinwhich one canresult does something bad to another. Institutional racism refers to accumulated person institutional that work tothedisadvantage ofracialminority practices even groups in theabsenceofindividual ordiscrimination & Carmichael prejudice (Hamilton recom1967). For example, employers (moreoften white) relyon thepersonal mendations ofcolleagues or acquaintances andmorelikely white to (moreoften knowandrecommend The samekind white for decisions. job candidates) hiring ofstructural discrimination for other For is,ofcourse, present stigmatized groups. disabledpersons in their to worknotso much example, maybe limited ability becauseof their inherent limitations areexposedto whatHahn butbecausethey environment" created toparticipation that (1983) calls"a disabling bythebarriers residein architecture we humans have constructed (Fine & Asch 1988). Consider somepossible ofstructural discrimination a mental examples for illness like is stigmatized, becausetheillness lessfunding is dedschizophrenia. Supposethat icatedto research aboutit thanforother is allocated illnessesand less money to adequate careandmanagement. consider becauseofhistorical Moreover, that,
CONCEPTUALIZING
STIGMA
373
influenced processes by stigma, treatment facilities tendto be either isolated in settings awayfrom other people(Rothman 1971) orconfined to someofthemost in urban in communities disadvantaged neighborhoods that do nothave settings cloutto excludethisstigmatized enough their midst groupfrom (Dear & Lewis 1986). At thesame time, themostsuccessful and accomplished mental health tend to accruemorestatus personnel andmoney bytreating less serious illnesses in private offices in affluent areas,leaving thecareofpeoplewithschizophrenia to a generally less accomplished group (Link1983).To theextent thestigma that ofschizophrenia hascreated sucha situation, a person whodevelops this disorder willbe therecipient of structural discrimination or notanyone whether happens to treat himor herin a discriminatory way because of some stereotype about schizophrenia. has affected thestructure theperson, Stigma around leadingthe person to be exposedto a hostofuntoward circumstances. In keepingwithobservations abouttherole of stigma in theloss of status, it is important to notethat lower in a status can beginto haveeffects placement ofitsownon a person's hierarchy lifechances. Itis notnecessary torevisit thelabeling andstereotyping that initially ledtothe lower becausethelower status itself becomes the basisofdiscrimstatus, ination. Forexample, low status makea person might less attractive to socialize to involve in community orto include in a business with, activities, venture that whohavepolitical influence requires partners with local politicians. In thisway, a lower in thestatus can havea cascadeofnegative position hierarchy effects on all manner ofopportunities. Becausethediscrimination that occurs is one steprefrom thelabeling moved andstereotyping, itis easytomissthemore distal effects ofthese in anyaccounting factors oftheeffects ofthesestigma components.
STATUS LOSS AS A SOURCE OF DISCRIMINATION SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES OPERATING THROUGH THE STIGMATIZED is in place, it can affect PERSON Once thecultural labeledpersons stereotype
inimportant do notinvolve ofdiscriminatory behavior on obvious forms waysthat thepart ofpeopleintheimmediate ofthestigmatized Forexampresence person. toa modified theeffects on people about ofstigma ple , according labeling theory with illnesses of mental (Link1982,Linketal 1989),peopledevelop conceptions inlifeas part ofsocialization mental illness intoourculture & early (Angermeyer Matschinger 1996,Scheff 1966,Wahl1995).Onceinplace,people'sconceptions becomea lay theory aboutwhatit meansto havea mental illness(Angermeyer as to & Matschinger & Bower1992). People form 1994,Furnham expectations emwhether most an individual with mental illness as a friend, peoplewillreject orintimate most a person andwhether ployee, neighbor, partner peoplewilldevalue with mental illnessas less trustworthy, andcompetent. Thesebeliefs intelligent, havean especially a serious relevance for a person whodevelops mental poignant becausethepossibility ofdevaluation anddiscrimination becomes illness, personIfonebelieves that others willdevalue andreject mental allyrelevant. peoplewith onemust nowfear that Theperson this illnesses, rejection applies personally. may
374
LINK * PHELAN
wonder, "Willothers look downon me,rejectme, simply becauseI havebeen identified as having a mental illness?" Thento theextent that it becomesa part ofa person's world view, that canhaveserious perception negative consequences. and fearing Expecting formental rejection, peoplewho havebeenhospitalized illnesses mayactless confidently andmore orthey defensively, maysimply avoid a potentially threatening contact altogether. The result maybe strained and uncomfortable social interactions withpotential stigmatizers (Farinaet al 1968), moreconstricted social networks (Link et al 1989), a compromised of quality life(Rosenfield 1997),low self-esteem etal 2000),depressive (Wright symptoms (Linket al 1997),unemployment andincome loss (Link1982,1987).Whilethis theory has beenmostthoroughly with examined to mental the respect illnesses, processis probably muchmoregeneral. In keeping withthispossibility, Pinel (1999) hasrecently calledtheexpectation ofstereotyping "stigma consciousness" andhasproposed itsapplication to other stigmatized statuses. A related butslightly different to understanding theeffect of stereoapproach is Steele& Aronson's types of"stereotype (1995)concept threat." tothis According idea,peopleknowaboutthestereotypes that be appliedto them-African might Americans knowthey aretagged with attributes ofviolence andintellectual infeare seenas flamboyant andpromiscuous, riority, gaymenknowthey andpeople with mental illnesses know that arebelieved tobe unpredictable anddangerthey ous. The insight that Steele& Aronson provide is that thestereotype becomesa threat or challenge either becauseone might be evaluated in accordance with the orbecauseonemight stereotype thestereotype confirm through one'sbehavior. In keeping with thisidea,Steele& Aronson haveshown that, controlling forinitial on SAT scores, differences African-American students worsethan perform white students on a test whenstudy areled tobelievethat thetest participants measures intellectual In contrast, ability. when thesametest is notlabeledas beingdiagnosticofability, African Americans scoreas wellas whites. Thisresearch us that tells theexistence ofa stereotype andtheadministration ofa test of"ability" can lead to an invalid oftheacademic assessment ofAfrican-American students potential and thereby to discrimination suchstudents on thebasis of a seemingly against test. "objective" inboth Notethat the modified andtheory about labeling theory stereotype threat, no one in theimmediate context oftheperson in obvious needsto haveengaged forms ofdiscrimination. thediscrimination lies anterior to theimmediate Rather, situation andrests in theformation andsustenance instead ofstereotypes andlay theories. Stilltheconsequences andundoubtedly aresometimes severe contribute todifferences inthelifechances ofpeoplein stigmatized greatly groups. The problem of stigma has beendescribed as a predicament or a dilemma and others by Goffman (Ainlayet al 1986,Crocker et al 1998). One reasonforthisis brought to light observaby thesociological tionthat mechanisms liketheones we have described are bothinterchangeable and mutually in achieving endsthat discrimnate reinforcing against stigmatized
INTERCHANGEABLE MECHANISMS
375
against aremotivated todiscriminate 1985).Ifpowerful groups groups (Lieberson can be waysin whichsuchdiscrimination "them," there aremany a stigmatized to voluntarily accepttheir be persuaded If stigmatized persons cannot achieved. and inferior direct discrimination can be used to accomrewards, lowerstatus difficult, If direct discrimination becomesideologically plishthesameoutcome. inducestereoas tests that forms ofstructural discrimination-such sophisticated are mutually typethreat-canachievesomeof thesameends.The mechanisms groups acceptthedominant as well. To theextent thatstigmatized reinforcing forms of structural they are less likelyto challenge view of their lowerstatus, desire. direct discrimination they Further, discrimination that blockopportunities in accorgroups that they willbe treated thebelief amongstigmatized reinforces explicated in processes likethose stereotypes andtherefore reinforces dancewith concept. From and thestereotype-threat of modified labeling theory thecontext in thefollowing sense-as longas thisvantage stigma is a predicament point, viewof stigmatized theuse of decreasing dominant sustain their persons, groups simultaneously which disadvantage canbe accomplished through onemechanism theuse ofanother. Thislatter observation brings us theimpetus toincrease creates on power differences. tothefinal ofourstigma concept-itsdependence aspect
THE DEPENDENCE OF STIGMAON POWER

is entirely on social,economic, and political power-it takes dependent Stigma In someinstances therole of poweris obvious.However, powerto stigmatize. becausein many instances theroleof powerin stigma is frequently overlooked When areso taken for as toseemunproblematic. people differences granted power oftwo, oneleginstead there think ofmental andhaving deafness, illness, obesity, rather associated withtheseconditions is a tendency to focuson theattributes andpeoplewhodo not. than onpower between differences peoplewhohavethem to thesocial production of evenin thesecircumstances, is essential But power, stigma. consider instances to reasonabouttheroleof powerin stigma, first In order To begin,taketheexample in whichit is clearthatsocial poweris important. colonists theDutch in which earlier tagged century English eighteenth provided andlow-living. ofdisagreeableness peopleof with attributes Alongthesamelines, as "temperamental, Irishbackground werestereotyped quarrelsome, dangerous, The Irish in thenineteenth Americans century. idle and reckless" by old-order of the as suchin cartoons to apes and wereportrayed at thetimewerelikened itis clearthat ofcurrent circumstances, day(Feagin& Feagin1996).In thelight of the and theold-order Americans of theeighteenth century Englishcolonists theDutchand Irishbecauseof their wereable to stigmatize nineteenth century itwas thepower atthetime. ofpower overthese And,ofcourse, groups positions ofJewish anddevastating oftheNazis that allowedtheir stigmatization thorough people.
376
LINK * PHELAN
Buthowcanwe think oftheroleofpower incircumstances likemental illness, obesity, deafness, and one leggedness? One wayis to recognize that stigmatized often inthesamekinds ofstigma-related intheir groups engage processes thinking aboutindividuals who are notin their stigmatized group. Consider forexample in a treatment for serious in patients program peoplewith mental illness. Patients sucha setting arelikely andlabelhuman toidentify differences in staff members. Forinstance, they might tagsomeclinicians with thelabel"pillpusher" andapply stereotypes connected withthelabels theycreatesuch as thatpill pushers are cold,paternalistic, andarrogant. treat Finally they might thepeoplethey identify as pill pushers in accordance have drawn differently withtheconclusions they aboutthem by avoiding or minimizing withthem, communication exchanging andjokesabout andso on.Thusalthough thepatients derogatory comments them, might engagein every component of stigma we identified, thestaff wouldnot The patients do notpossessthesocial, endup beinga stigmatized group. simply their cultural, economic, andpolitical to imbue aboutstaff with power cognitions serious discriminatory consequences. Consider further thatscenarios to theone just described existforall similar ofother inwhich create labelsand sorts circumstances relatively powerless groups about more andtreat members ofthemore stereotypes powerful groups powerful in accordance with thosestereotypes. Such a realization clarifies group whythe of stigma definition must involve reference topowerdifferences. Without sucha becomesa very different andmuch broader that reference, stigma concept might be applied tolawyers, WallStreet politicians, investors, andwhite people.Stigma is dependent on power. Because of theimportance of powerin stigmatization, to ask the it is critical setof questions: Do thepeoplewho might havethepower following stigmatize to ensure thehuman andlabelis broadly that difference identified they recognize in theculture? Do thepeoplewhomight confer havethepower to ensure stigma theculture anddeeply connect to the that recognizes thestereotypes accepts they toseparate labeled differences? Do the havethe peoplewhomight stigmatize power "us" from "them" and to have thedesignation stick? And do thosewho might access to majorlifedomains likeeducational confer control stigma institutions, and health intothe carein order to putreally teeth -jobs,housing, consequential we distinctions draw? To theextent that we cananswer they yestothese questions, toresult. we answer canexpect To theextent that stigma no,someofthecognitive of stigma meanby stigma be in place,butwhatwe generally components might wouldnotexist.
IMPLICATIONSOF THE STIGMACONCEPT

Thestigma we havearticulated hasimplications for howonemight reason concept about several definition ofstigma, persistent questions including: (a) the (b) stigma as a matter ofdegree, of stigma, (c) theorigins (d) theimageofthestigmatized
377
personas a passivevictim versusan activechallenger, (e) theconsequences of as a persistent we should do tochange stigma, dilemma, (g) what stigma (f) stigma processes, and (h) theimportance of stigma in understanding thedistribution of lifechances.
The Definition ofStigma

of thestigma is revealing Our explication with to whyso many concept regard definitions of stigma in theliterature-there are extant are several components, each one of whichhas been described as stigma. We chose to define stigma in ofinterrelated theconvergence components. Thus,stigma exists when elements of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss,anddiscrimination occur together in a power that situation allowsthem. Thisis a definition that we derived, notonethat existsin someindependent in itsutility. existential way.As such,itsvaluerests itis helpful is that theterm Onereason is invery wideuse,andsomedegree stigma ofclarity willhelpus communicate about the there arewords that concept. Second, describe eachofthecomponents likelabel(ormark orstatus), aptly stereotyping, status so that theuse of thewordstigma to exclusion, loss, and discrimination describe thedefinition coheres anyparticular aspectis notnecessary. Third, with thecurrent usageoftheterm as itis applied togroups that arecommonly referred to as stigmatized Recallthat ifwe onlyusedthecognitive of groups. components and stereotyping to define likelawyers, and labeling stigma, groups politicians, white peoplewouldhavetobe considered stigmatized groups. Ourincorporation ofpower, status anddiscrimination definition we derived loss,, allowstheformal ofwhata stigmatized to cohere with current is. Fourth, we understandings group believethat thedefinition and thereby morefully understand helpsus envision as described several issuesin thestigma literature below. important
as a Matter ofDegree Stigma

leads to theconclusion thatstigma existsas a matter of Our conceptualization Thelabeling ofhuman differences canbe more orlessprominent. A label degree. canconnect a person tomany tojusta fewortononeatall. Moreover, stereotypes, of theconnection can be thestrength between labels and undesirable attributes orrelatively weak.The degree of separation intogroups of "us" relatively strong ofstatus loss and and"them" canbe more orless complete, andfinally theextent discrimination can vary. Thismeansthat somegroups aremorestigmatized than others andthat someofthecomponents wehavedescribed canbe usedanalytically from tothink about differences intheextent ofstigma why experienced vary group togroup.
The Origins ofStigma

on thenature than andconsequences ofstigma rather Ourpaperhasbeenfocused its sources. Nevertheless ourconceptualization someideas abouthow provides
378
LINK * PHELAN to think abouttheorigins of stigma. As we indicated at theoutset of thispaper, a great in theliterature deal of attention on stigma has beendirected toward the cognitive processing ofstigma-relevant information. As crucial as theknowledge gainedfrom thisliterature is, it is not a sufficient basis forunderstanding the origins of stigma. As we havepointed out,groups bothwith and without power labelandform stereotypes about theother group-members ofeachgroup engage in thekinds ofcognitive processes that are studied in thenowvoluminous social is whosecognitions psychological literature. But whatmatters prevail-whose cognitions carry sufficient clout insocial,cultural, andpolitical economic, spheres toleadtoimportant consequences for that hasbeenlabeledas different. thegroup Hereis where the ofstigma isbadly sociological study needed-forwhile cognitive of stigma, processes causes fortheproduction maybe necessary theyare not sufficient causes.We needto further understand thesocial processes that allow one group's viewsto dominate so as toproduce realandimportant consequences for theother group.
Victim Passive Versus Active Challenger

One of themosttroublesome issuesin thestudy of stigma whensocial emerges scientists seek to articulate thereal constraints thatstigma createsin people's lives,andin doingso they of thestigmatized endup portraying members group as helplessvictims (Fine & Asch 1988). Ironically, thisproduces morelinesin thelistof undesirable attributes thatform thestereotype aboutthestigmatized areadditionally group-they or "acquiescent." "passive," "helpless," Because of there arefrom time totime articles that remind this, us that peopleartfully dodgeor constructively challenge stigmatizing processes (e.g. Reissman 2000). Theseare very important reminders, andthemessage they deliver needstobe incorporated ourunderstanding into ofstigma. Atthesametime, thesimple that fact these forms ofresistance existsuggests there outthere toavoidandthat is something there are at work. forces How can we reason powerful constraining aboutthese contrasting constraint andresistance inresearch imagesandportray aboutstigma? Here,our on theimportance ofpowerdifferences in stigma emphasis and ourobservation that is a matter of degreeare helpful. stigma theseallow us to see Specifically, in thecontext issues of constraint and resistance of a powerstruggle. We can see that peoplein stigmatized use available resources toresist the groups actively ofthe stigmatizing tendencies more andthat, tothe that powerful group extent they toportray do,itis inappropriate them as passive ofstigma. Atthesame recipients to theextent that time, resistence cannot overcome powerdifferences exist, fully ofstigma constraint. Theamount that peopleexperience willbe profoundly shaped bytherelative ofthestigmatized andthestigmatizer. power
The Outcomes ofStigma

Our conceptualization of stigma demands of multiple theassessment outcomes, notjustoneortwo.We cannot ofstigmatization assesstheextent whenwe assess
379
outcome be self-esteem, housing status, or justone outcome, whether that single point, thisis an odd stricture toimpose accesstomedical care.Fromonevantage conceptualization ofstigma, for examonthestudy ofstigma. Ifwe adopt a narrow to a stereotype, we might in theoutcomes. expect specificity ple as a labellinked theelements of thestereotype and then, based on whatthe We might identify might be affected. If thestereotype is stereotype entails, predict which outcomes math then we might expect the person tobe excluded from endeavincompetence, As important as thiskindof theorizing orswhere math competence is required. ofstigma, itwillcloudourvisionofthe might be for understanding someaspects we employ. fullconsequences ifitis theonlyapproach calls forthescrutiny of stigma of Amongthereasonsourconceptualization we consider here.First, stigma involves status lossmanyoutcomes are three a downward hierarchy. To theextent thatthisoccurs, placement in the status groups to accrueall manner ofuntoward we can expect members of stigmatized in a status the hierarchy, ranging from outcomes associated with lower placement discrimination can selection of sexualpartners to longevity. Second,structural havelittle outcomes that to do with thestereotyped beliefs that produce negative Forexample, motivated thestructural discrimination. theNotIn MyBack initially mental Yard(NIMBY) phenomenon resulted intreatment facilities for peoplewith illness located inrelatively areasofthe that were also city being poorandpowerless peoplewith crime ridden anddangerous (Dear & Lewis 1986).As a consequence, thanother people.Third, mental illnessare muchmorelikelyto be victimized to cope withstigma thatare mayhaveuntoward consequences people's efforts seemingly unrelated to thestereotype et al 1984,Smart & Wegner (James 1999). James theconcept of For example, socialepidemiologist Sherman putsforward towork what hecalls"John for someAfrican Americans tendency Henryism"-the to disprove thestereotype oflazinessand hardandwith extremely great pressure this toJames etal (1984),under someconditions coping effort inability. According a comprehensive bearscostsin theform In short, of ofhypertension. exploration andthat makes itclearthat caninvolve outcomes thestigma stigma many concept must ofsuchoutcomes. lookto a broadrange anyfullassessment
as a Persistent Predicament Stigma

as a predicato stigma As previously theliterature makesreference mentioned, one draws attention to mentor dilemma. way in which Our conceptualization ofstigma are is a the consequences stigma persistent predicament-why negative and to label so difficult eradicate. Whenpowerful groups forcefully extensively forachieving disa less powerful therangeof mechanisms stereotype group, three outcomes is both flexible We mentioned andextensive. generic criminatory and structural discrimination, discrimination, typesof mechanisms-individual beliefs and behavthe discrimination that person's operates through stigmatized of are a wholemultitude iors.But lyingbelow thesebroad-band designations aremany mechanisms-there waysto achievestructural discrimination, specific
380
LINK * PHELAN
many waystodirectly discriminate, andmany waysin which stigmatized persons canbe encouraged tobelieve that they should notenjoy full andequalparticipation ifthe inplace insocialandeconomic life. Moreover, mechanisms that arecurrently areblocked orbecomeembarrassing touse,newonescanalways be created. This is sucha persistent is themainreasonthat stigma predicament. Whenpeoplein a stigmatized to avoida negative group takeaction consequence, they frequently do so bycounteracting oravoiding) thespecific mechanism that (e.g. confronting leadstotheundesirable outcome ofposthey seektoescape.Butwhentherange is broad, thebenefit is onlytemporary siblemechanisms becausethemechanism that has beenblocked oravoidedcanbe easilyreplaced byanother. andrelated reason that is a persistent is that there A second stigma predicament effort to avoidone of associated outcomes. One can exert are a multitude great inmedical orinjury to selflikediscrimination insurance stigma-related outcome, so cancarry Forinstance, the canbe stressful, esteem, but doing costs. coping effort andhypertension African Americans as inthe case ofJohn Henryism levelsamong theeffort one bad outcome (Jameset al 1984). In thatexample, to eliminate strain that leadstoanother. attention ironically produces Also,focusing particular on oneoutcome less attention is available todeal with of meansthat other aspects As a result, benefits inonedomain, harms life. while concomitant mayaccrue may It is theexistence and multiple result in others. of multiple stigma mechanisms stigma outcomes that helpsexplain why stigma is a persistent predicament-why, on average, of members ofstigmatized groups aredisadvantaged in a broad range lifedomains (e.g. employment, socialrelationships, housing, andpsychological well-being). We end ourdiscussion of stigma as a persistent witha pointof predicament to say thatstigma clarification. is a persistent is notto say First, predicament that individual in a group suffers thesameoutcome. Individual differences every in personal, and resources also the life circumstances of economic social, shape in substantial variation within persons stigmatized groups, thereby producing stigmatized in anyoutcome onemight consider. groups Thus,no one is fully trapped of persons in a uniform All of theother characteristics disadvantaged position. outcomes for who influence an outcome in thesamewaythey influence persons arenotmembers inquestion. Thepersistent ofthestigmatized group predicament that is connected tostigma of refers toa general ofdisadvantage pattern processes status and discrimination. labeling, stereotyping, loss,
Changing Stigma
is If stigma is a persistent how can it be changed? One approach predicament, in a particular one might to focuson a particular behavior For example, group. theaim of increasing theemployment with chancesfora target hiring practices illnesses. One could thentry to stigmatized groupsuchas people withmental beliefsaboutand attitudes toward withsuch changeemployers' hiring persons Thisapproach is very becauseit breaks downthemorass of illnesses. appealing todevelop into a more tractable Ifonewere interconnecting stigma-facets problem.
381
attitudes, tothespecific beliefs, one couldtarget theintervention an intervention, of employers, thelikelihood of an apparently thereby increasing and behaviors research study. But whatis appealing fortheintervention successful outcome to the is also whatmakesit such an inadequate response aboutthisapproach in one of The focus on one specific behavior stigma. intense broader problem even untouched and as a consequence context specific group leavesthebroader successful program will erodewith thevery outcomes of an unusually positive package Thereexists a flexible Thiswilloccurfor reasons we havestated: time. ofdominant theattitudes andbeliefs ofmutually mechanisms linking reinforcing ofuntoward forstigmatized persons. to an array outcomes groups in considering how Ourconceptualization leads us to focuson twoprinciples be multifaceted and must to really The first is that anyapproach changestigma. the It to be multifaceted to address mechanisms that can many multilevel. needs issuesof to address outcomes, anditneedstobe multilevel lead todisadvantaged Butsecond, important, an andmost both individual andstructural discrimination. of the cause stigma-it must address fundamental ultimately approach to change ofpowerful that either heldattitudes and beliefs groups must changethedeeply or it devaluing, and discriminating, stereotyping, setting apart, lead to labeling, to maketheir so as to limit thepower of suchgroups must circumstances change interventhedominant changes, ones.In theabsenceof fundamental cognitions becausetheir at onlyone mechanism at a timewillultimately fail, tions targeted untouched by willbe undermined factors that areleft bycontextual effectiveness a multifaceted mulThus,in considering sucha narrowly conceived intervention. either to stigma, one shouldchooseinterventions that produce tilevel response that in attitudes or changethepowerrelations changes and beliefs fundamental ofdominant to acton their attitudes andbeliefs. underlie theability groups
ofStigma Processes theInfluence Understanding ofLife Chances on theDistribution

thedistribution of lifechances, A core concern of sociology is to understand refer tocareers, socialties, criminal involvement, housing, whether those earnings, andprobably that havea dramatic processes orlifeitself. Webelieve stigma health, Mostresearch on suchlifechances. a highly underestimated proceeds by impact at a time(e.g. AIDS, thestigma associatedwithone circumstance examining racialstatus, female homosexuality, etc), gender, mental illness, minority obesity, at a time(e.g. earnings, and mostalso assessesonlyone outcome self-esteem, often researchers find some socialinteractions, etc.).Whenthisoccurs, housing, ona particular outcome. levelofeffect for a particular However, stigmatized group other thestigma inquestion itis also usually true that factors than processes many This can as just one factor amongmany. influence theoutcome, leavingstigma is relatively modest butthat itseffect that matters lead to theconclusion stigma This accounting is misguided fortworeasons. to other factors. First, compared one theimpact of stigma fora particular in seeking to understand circumstance, itcan affect lifechances, notjustone. Thus,a full that must many keepin mind
382
LINK * PHELAN
ofoutcomes. consider theoverall effect on a multitude Second, accounting must ofstigmatizing needtobeconsidered instudying circumstances that there area host outcome. A full assessment ofthe impact ofstigma onsuchanoutcome a particular to that must that circumstances contribute outcome recognize many stigmatizing in question. Whenviewed study and notjusttheone selected fortheparticular broadly, stigma processeslikelyplay a majorrole in lifechancesand deserve whohappen to be interested notjustbyinvestigators in stigma butbya scrutiny of social scientists who are interested in thedistribution of lifechances variety more generally.
CONCLUSION
the ofGoffman's bookon stigma, werevisited Almost after forty years publication ofresearch intheinterim. theconcept inlight that hasbeenundertaken Attending of theconcept from to to criticisms and its application by researchers Goffman we constructed of theterm. thepresent, a revised conceptualization In ourdefof labeling, status existswhenelements stereotyping, separating, inition, stigma co-occur in a powersituation that allowsthese processes loss,anddiscrimination After this definition itscomponent we tounfold. andexplicating parts, developing found ituseful a substantially different on several perspective crucial inproviding ourconceptualization issuesin theliterature on stigma. that Moreover, suggests is likelyto be a keydeterminant of manyof thelifechancesthatsocistigma from well-being to employment, housing, and life ologists study, psychological A propitious research wouldinvolve itself. avenueforfuture theincorporation ofstigma in community-based research that seeks survey concepts andmeasures of a broadarray of lifechances.Such an to understand thesocial determinants wouldgreatly research on stigma becauseitwouldassessthe advance undertaking andoutcomes that matter inpeople'slives, between clearly thereby linkage stigma theoveremphasis thecriticism we alluded toearlier on miregarding overcoming research. At thesame time, theincorporation of crolevel interactions in stigma focused on lifechances wouldprovide andmeasures in research stigma concepts with in many areasof sociological research additional possibilities investigators forunderstanding thesocial distributions of theparticular outcomes that arethe suchan endeavor wouldtell focusof their attention. Mostimportantly, however, under which is us muchmorethan we already knowabouttheconditions stigma sort should tountoward ofthis related outcomes inreallifesituations. Knowledge ofmultifaceted interventions that form thebasisfor thekinds multilevel represent ourbesthopefor realchange in stigma-related processes. producing ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BruceDohrenwend, Wethank Patrick DavidPenn, andElmer Struening Corrigan, for on an earlier ofthis valuable comments version paper.
CONCEPTUALIZING STIGMA Visitthe Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org
383
LITERATURE CITED
Ainlay SC, Becker LM. 1986.The ST Fiske, 2:504-53. ogy,ed. DT Gilbert, G, Colman A Multidisciplinary Boston, DilemmaofDifference: MA: McGraw-Hill New York:Plenum Davis KR. 1998.Bankruptcy: a moral dilemma View ofStigma. AjzenI, Fishbein M. 1980.Understanding Atfor women debtors.Law Psychol. Rev. titudes and Predicting Social Behavior. En22:235-49 glewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Dear ML, Lewis G. 1986.Anatomy ofa deciAngermeyer M, Matschinger H. 1994.Lay besion:recent landusezoning appealsandtheir liefs about schizophrenic disorder: the results effect on grouphomelocations in Ontario. ofa population in Germany. study ActaPsyMental Health5:5-17 Can. J.Commun. chiatr. DevinePG, PlantEA, Harrison Scand.89:39-45 K. 1999.The Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H. 1996.Theefof us versus them and aids stigma. problem ofviolent fect attacks Am.Behav.Sci. 42:1212-28 byschizophrenia perofthepublic sonsontheattitude towards the Driskell JE, MullenB. 1990. Status, expectaand behavior: a meta-analytic review mentally ill. Soc. Sci. Med. 43:1721-28 tions, Cahill S, Eggleston R. 1995. Reconsidering andtestof thetheory. Personality Soc. Psyof physical thestigma disability. Sociol. Q. chol.Bull. 16:541-53 36:681-98 DrussBG,Bradford DW, RosenheckRA, RadC. 1997.Tendenford HM. 2000.Mental disorCauseyKA, Duran-Aydintug MJ,Krumholz lesbianmothers in custody ders andthe useofcardiovascular cy to stigmatize procedures cases.J.DivorceRemarriage 28:171-82 after infarction. myocardial J.Am.Med.AsCohenEG. 1982. Expectations statesand insoc. 283:506-11 terracial interaction inschoolsettings. Annu. Estroff SE. 1989. Self,identity and subjective Rev.Sociol. 8:209-235 ofschizophrenia: insearch ofthe experiences ColemanM, GanongL, Cable S. 1996. PerBull. 15:189-96 subject. Schizophrenia of stepparents: an examination of Farina ceptions A, AllenJG, Saul B. 1968.The roleof in affecting theincomplete institutionalization andsocial thestigmatized social relationJ. DivorceRemarriage J.Personality 36:169-82 stigma hypotheses. ships. 26:25-48 FeaginJR,FeaginCB. 1996.Racial andEthic NJ:Prentice ConradP. 1992. Deviance and MedicalizaRelations. UpperSaddleRiver, Hall tion:FromBadness to Sickness.PhiladelER. 2000.Thedemensionality Univ.Press FifeBL, Wright phia:Temple soofstigma: a comparison ofitsimpact on the Corrigan PW, PennDl. 1999.Lessonsfrom with and cancer. cial psychology on discrediting psychiatric selfof persons HIIV/AIDS Am.Psychol. J.HealthSoc. Behav.41:50-67 54:765-76 stigma. stiN. 1986.Stigma andthedy- FineM, AschA. 1988.Disability Lutskey beyond CrockerJ, In TheDilemma and namics of socialcognition. gma: social interaction, discrimination, LM activism. J.Soc. Issues44:3-22 ed. SC Ainlay, G. Becker, ofDifference, and Coleman. New York:Plenum Fiske ST. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, J.1999.Social stigma Crocker In The Handbookof Social andself-esteem: discrimination. ed.DT Gilbert, situational construction ofself-worth. J.Exp. ST Fiske, 2:357Psychology, MA: McGrawHill Soc. Psychol. 411. Boston, 35:89-107 In The Crocker toJames Parker. B. 1752.Letter J, Major B, Steele C. 1998. Social Franklin In TheHandbook the stigma. ofSocial PsycholImportance of Gainingand Preserving
384
LINK * PHELAN
Inareaofmental anassessment Friendship of theIndiansto theBritish of the disorders: Am. theeffects of expectations ofrejection. London: terest Considered, ed. A Kennedy. E Cave Sociol.Rev.52:96-112 system ofpsychotherraceas a vari- LinkBG. 1983.Reward Fullilove MT. 1998.Abandoning for inservice deableinpublic health research: an ideawhose apy:implications inequities livery. J.HealthSoc. Behav.24:61-69 time hascome.Am.J.Pub.Health88:1297Link BG, CullenFT, FrankJ, WozniakJ. 98 of ex-mental of 1987. The social rejection paFurnham A, BowerP. 1992.A comparison andlay theories labelsmatter. Am. academic of schizophrenia. tients: understanding why Br.J.Psychiatr. 161:201-10 J.Sociol.92:1461-1500 JP.1983.Racialste- LinkBG, CullenFT, Struening E, Shrout Gaertner SL, McLaughlin P, BP. 1989.A modified labeling andascriptions ofposDohrenwend reotypes: associations in thearea of mental Soc. Psydisitiveand negative characteristics. theory approach orders: an empirical assessment. Am.Sociol. chol.Q. 46:23-30 Rev.54:100-23 E. 1963.Stigma: Goffman Noteson theManEnglewood LinkBG, PhelanJC. 1999.Labelingandstigagementof Spoiled Identity. Hall ma. In The Handbookof theSociologyof NJ:Prentice Cliffs, JCPheMental Health,ed. CS Aneshensel, GouldSJ.1981.TheMismeasure ofMan. New lan.New York:Plenum York:Norton JC, EL, RahavM, Phelan HahnH. 1983. Paternalism and publicpolicy. LinkBG, Struening Nuttbrock L. 1997.On stigma anditsconseXX:36-46 Society from a longitudinal study Hamilton S. 1967.BlackPower. quences:evidence C, Carmichael House ofmenwith dualdiagnoses ofmental illness New York:Random and substance abuse.J. HealthSoc. Behav. DG, StroJames SA, LaCroixAZ, Kleinbaum and blood gatz DS. 1984. JohnHenryism 38:177-90 pressure differences amongblack men: II. Macrae CN, Milne AB, Bodenhausen GV. The roleofoccupational stressors. J.Behav. 1994.Stereotypes as energy devices: saving J.PerMed. 7:259-75 a peek insidethecognitive toolbox. JonesE, FarinaA, Hastorf Soc. Psychol. 66:37-47 A, MarkusH, sonality Miller The MoroneJA.1997. Enemiesof thepeople:the R. 1984.SocialStigma: DT, Scott New moraldimension to publichealth. J.Health Psychology of MarkedRelationships. Law 22:993-1020 York: Freeman Polit., Policy Kleinman JE.1989.Salience, A, WangW-Z, Li S-C, ChengX- Mullen B, Salas E, Driskell as contributions and artifact to J.1995.The motivation, M, Dai X-Y, Li K-T, Kleinman rateand therelation between social courseof epilepsy: chronic illnessas participation socialexperience in interior China.Soc. Sci. J.Exp.Soc. Psychol. 25:545-59 leadership. Med.40:1319-30 OliverM. 1992. The PoliticsofDisablement. Macmillan LewisJ.1998.Learning to strip; thesocializaBasingstoke: tionexperiences of exoticdancers. Can. J. Opala J, BoillotF. 1996.Leprosy amongthe of Hum.Sexuality limba:illnessand healingin thecontext 7:51-66 world Lieberson S. 1985.Making It Count:TheImview.Soc. Sci. Med. 42:3-19 London:Routledge & provement of Social Researchand Theory. PageRM. 1984.Stigma. Univ.Calif.Press Berkeley: KeeganPaul B. LinkB. 1982.Mental and Phelan work, patient status, JC,LinkBG, Stueve A, Pescosolido ofmental in income:an examination of theeffects of a illness 2000.Publicconceptions illness is mental andis label.Am.Sociol. Rev.47:2021950and 1996:What psychiatric ittobe feared. J.HealthSoc. Behav.41:18815 in LinkB. 1987.Understanding effects labeling 207
385
PinelEC. 1999.Stigma consciousness: the can'tbe seen:concealable psystigma andmental J. control. chologicallegacyof social stereotypes. J.Personality Soc. Psychol. 77:474Personality Soc. Psychol. 76:114-128 86 re- Stafford Reissman CK. 2000. Stigma and everyday MC, Scott RR. 1986. Stigmadesistance:childlesswomenin South India. vianceand social control: someconceptual issues.In TheDilemma ofDifference, ed. SC Gender Soc. 14:111-35 Ainlay, G Becker, LM Coleman. New York: Rosenfield S. 1997. Labelingmentalillness: ofreceived theeffects services andperceived Plenum on lifesatisfaction. Am.Sociol.Rev. SteeleCM, Aronson stigma J. 1995. Stereotype vul62:660-72 and the intellectual testperfornerability Rothman D. 1971.TheDiscovery ofthe Asylum. manceofAfrican Americans. J.Personality Boston:Little Brown & Coompany Soc. Psychol. 69:797-811 SayceL. 1998.Stigma, discrimination andso- Wahl OF. 1995. Media Madness: Public Imcial exclusion: what'sin a wordJ. Mental Illness.New Brunswick N J: ages ofMental Health7:331-43 Rutgers Univ.Press Scheff TJ.1966.Being Mentally Ill: A Sociolo- Walsgrove D. 1987. Policingyourself: social In IL: Aldine de Gruyter closure andtheinternalization of stigma. gicalTheory. Chicago, Schneider as moral expeThe Manufacture JW.1988.Disability of Disadvantage,ed. G rience: and selfin routine relation- Lee, R Loveridge. Philadelphia: OpenUniv. epilepsy J.Soc. Issues44:63-78 Press ships. Sheldon K, Caldwell L. 1994.Urinary inconti- Wright ER, Gonfrein WP, Owens TJ.2000. nence inwomen: for social rejection, and implications therapeutic Deinstitutionalization, recreation. Ther. J.28:203-12 theself-esteem offormer mental J. Recreation patients. Smart DM. 1999.Covering HealthSoc. Behav.41:68-90 L, Wegner upwhat

Conceptualizing Stigma - Bruce Link and Jo Phelan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Conceptualizing Stigma - Bruce Link and Jo Phelan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Conceptualizing Stigma Author(s): Bruce G. Link and Jo C. Phelan Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp.

CONCEPTUALIZING STIGMA BruceG. Link1 and JoC. Phelan2

IN THE DEFINITION OF STIGMA VARIATIONS

CHALLENGESTO THE STIGMACONCEPT

DEFINING STIGMAIN THE RELATIONSHIP OF INTERRELATED COMPONENTS

COMPONENT 1-ON DISTINGUISHING AND LABELINGDIFFERENCES

COMPONENT 2-ON ASSOCIATINGHUMAN ATTRIBUTES DIFFERENCESWITH NEGATIVE

"US" FROM "THEM" COMPONENT 3-ON SEPARATING

COMPONENT 4-STATUS LOSS AND DISCRIMINATION

THE DEPENDENCE OF STIGMAON POWER

IMPLICATIONSOF THE STIGMACONCEPT

The Definition ofStigma

as a Matter ofDegree Stigma

The Origins ofStigma

Victim Passive Versus Active Challenger

The Outcomes ofStigma

as a Persistent Predicament Stigma

ofStigma Processes theInfluence Understanding ofLife Chances on theDistribution

CONCEPTUALIZING STIGMA Visitthe Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen