In
the contemporary times, stigmatization has been a sources of worry to psychologists
and other helping professionals due to its urgly implications, psychological
consequences and devastating impaction vulnerable individuals. Stigmatization
seem to be associated with negative psychological implications especially among
people living with life threatening illness research show that stigmatization
is an urgly phenomenon particularly associated with individuals confronted with
HIVIAIDS courage (Goff man, 1963).
Stigmatization could be related to social or
physical isolation, unlawful acts of exclusion, abuse, loss of job or business
and gossip. Research reveal that stigmatization has been linked with in curable
and serve diseases with undesirable
characteristics that seem to conform with individual behaviours that tend to
negative social norms and ethnics (Goff man, 1963; Fredrik sson) (Kanabus,
2007). However, the level of impact of stigma on individuals confronted by such
several diseases seem to differ.
Stigmatization
which is associated with HIV/AIDS scourge seem to be the most single important
factor that can produce and extend negative psychological effects of HIV/AIDS
(Daniel 1991). Stigmatization has been variously conceptualized by researchers
to reflect its varied sources, effects, assessment and coping strategies in
relation to negative attitudes and blames town people living with HIV/AIDs
(link a phelan, 2001 Capitation, 1999). However, conception regarding
stigmatization seen to be situation specific and content driven because people
tend to discriminate in their stigmatizing attitude towards victims due to
perceptual discrepancies. Research reveals that stigmatization is relevant to
prevention and treatment of Hiv/Aids because the stigma around HIV and aids
trends to work against control and preventive measures (Kalichman and
sinbayi,2003; kalachman & sinbayi , 2004 ). Hence , without the
stigmatization, individuals could early hide their disease and continues to spree them sporadically.
Global d3finition of stigmatization seem to pose a lot of challenges due to its
relationship with varied diseases and
different interpretations by individuals. Crocker and major (1989), observed
that stigmatized individuals are confron6ted \with negative beliefs, attitudes
and stereotypes due to discrimination from others . this confrontational
attitudes discourages the individuals being stigmatized from revealing the
sources and status of their illnesses, rather, they hide and spread them
further. Cultural beliefs, social distancing, rejection of endorsement of restrictive policies for people living with HIV/Aids , unawareness and
a host of other psychological factors reflect the impact of stigmatization on several
aspects of human lives that obstruct the control, prevention and coping
strategies of HIV? Aids stigmatization (Parker & Aggleton,2003; Boer &
Emons,2004 )
A
lot of theories have been put forward to explain the causes, perception,
control and it is the contention of this work to adopt three of such theories;
in coping with HIV/Aids stigmatization. They include; Dual-process theory
(Pryor, Reeder & Laudau, 1999 ); component theory ( Link and Phelan
,2006) ; modified labeling theory ( Fite
& Wright< 2000); cultural theory ( Mechanic, 1995) ; personality type
theory (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974); and socio-economic theory (Conyers,
Unger & Rumrill,2005). Despite the immense contributions of this theories
to the study of stigmatization, the present study is anchored on the component
theory which buttressed the role played by various interrelated components that
produce HIV/Aids stigmatization.
The
component theory proposed by Linke and Phelan(2006) contended that both the
definition and assessment of HIV/Aids stigma is contigent upon its coping
strategies due to the requirement of joint action of both the comprehensive and
incomprehensive nature of related components to produce stigma . it was the
submission of the component theories that the five interrelated components that
act together to produce stigma do so in varied areas, levels and locations such
as: labeling socially relevance difference (eg public denial, poor social
support and lack of protection for the Hiv/Aids vulnerable individuals ) ;
attachment of undesirable
characteristics to people living with Hiv/Aids (eg stigmatized individuals are
seen as promiscuous and immoral ); isolation, distancing, separation and
disempowerment of the stigmatized by the stigmatizer (eg disorganized
relationship between the stigmatizer and the stigmatized ) ; and experience of
loss and exercise of power (eg loss of job, health benefits, and other social
benefit by the stigmatized). The component
theory therefore opined that stigmatization could be possible only when all the
components are connected to act together. It is the submission of this paper
that appropriate coping strategies for HIV/AIDS stigmatization is vital to
ensure proper intervention strategies towards the control of HIV/AIDS stigmatization
and reduction of the spread of HIV/AIDS.
However,
the dual-process theory (Pryor, Reeser & Laudau, 1999) seem to support the
component theory by suggesting that reactions to the stigmatized are full of
ambivalence as it assures a temporal pattern of reactions waiting for other
conditions to be in place for adjustments. This seems to buttress the impact of
the dynamic nature of human reactions and emotions to the perception of the
stigmatized by the stigmatizer. But the modified labeling theory differ from
the component theory as it posits that stigmatizing beliefs become strong and
meaningful only when the stigmatized individuals realize that they are part of
the stigmatizing category . Hence, the discrepancies in the two theories could
be attributed to personality factors and components attributes within the
environment. It is the contention of this paper therefore, that relevant coping
strategies could be employed to resolve the discrepancies in the theoretical
explanations of Hiv/Aids stigmatization. However, there seem to be some
weaknesses of component theory that could be criticized. It was observed by the
personality theorists (Friedman & Rosenman,1974) that personality type of
individuals (type A and type B) could influence the attitudes, perception and
coping strategies towards Hiv/Aids stigmatization. This position was counter to
the position of the component theory as reflected in this work . suffice it to
say that no single theory and definition is all embracing regarding Hiv/Aids stigmatization
.
The
psychological consequences of human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) / acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS) infection have become universal problems in
contemporary times. Issues relating to causes, awareness, treatment, coping, realities
and sources of HIV/AIDS seem to be controversial in relation to Hiv/Aids
stigmatization, hence, the need for proper coping strategies. Herek, Capitanio
and Uidaman (2002) opined that culture
can influence individuals coping strategies because Hiv/Aids ailments may be
culturally interpreted as taboo within the specific cultural context to enhance cultural ostracism of Hiv/Aids victims
. there is need for intervention regarding Hiv/Aids stigmatization especially
in Nigeria through proper coping strategies. In Nigeria, researches show that
people living with Hiv/Aids experienced discrimination in form of isolation, segregation, denial, and
dismissal in work places and in separate offices (Nwanna,2005).
Nwanna(200)
also reported that people living with Hiv/Aids received the highest level of
discrimination as they were not allowed to share the same canteens, toilets,
hostels and sports facilities with their
counterparts so as to be stigmatized against.
Since
stigmatization is evident in devastating diseases and illnesses such as
Hiv/Aids, the focus of researchers have been on ways of helping individuals
living with the disease to cope with the stigmatization (Link & phelan,
2006;Link & Phelan, 2001). Coping have bee\n variously defined by researchers
and there seems to be dearth of
empirical studies regarding various
coping strategies adopted by individuals in such circumstances like stress,
sports , work , and illness such as Hiv/Aids. Holts and Hogg(2002) gave the assertion that coping is the sum
total of an individuals ability and methods used to master difficult and
stressful circumstances. But, Lazarus (1999)
saw coping as individuals cognitive, affective and behavioral strategies to manage specific
external and internal demands or obstacles while Vanbrackel(2006) expressed the
importance of development of cognitive, behavioral, political, economic,
cultural , skill and religious power to cope with Hiv/Aids stigmatization and
its biological and psychological consequences. The above research information
regarding coping with Hiv/Aids stigmatization tends to align in there direction
of discussions as they discussed the internal and external factors that can
influence coping with Hiv/Aids stigma. However, perceived stigmatized attitude
towards people living with Hiv/Aids seems to stimulate psychological reactions
of fear, depression, anxiety, body image disturbance, ambivalence, guilt and a
host of others, hence, the contention of this paper that there is need to
develop appropriate coping strategies against Hiv/Aids stigmatization .
There
is dearth in empirical evidence regarding coping with sports stress, job stress
and academic stress using approach and avoidance coping strategies (Anshel
& Si,2008; Anshel & Wells, 2000). Although, their seems to be popular
research reports on this approach to the study of coping, other researchers
(eg. Holt and Hogg, 2002; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; and compass,1987) have
captured coping from problem- focused and emotion-focused strategies. Also
Nwankwo and Onyisi (2012) conceptualized
coping within the Adaptive and Maladaptive dimensions. There is the need for
variations in coping strategies so as to achieve the expected objectives of the
situation. So, irrespective of the strategy of pattern, the purpose of coping
effort will be focused on how reliable or unreliable, adaptive or maladaptive
the coping strategy is . therefore, it is the contention of this present study to conceptualize coping into two dimension of adaptive and
maladaptive coping .
Adaptive
coping responses to Hiv/Aids stigmatization represents positive attitude and
control to reduce , eliminate and change all stigma inducing factors within the
environment of individuals ( Letamo,2003) . Also , adaptive/ positive coping
strategies ensures proper control of thoughts, actions, polarization, attitude,
levels of justice and education to reduce stigmatization (Letamo, 2003) . It is
not contestable that likes beget likes, therefore adaptive coping strategies
could change a whole lot of stigmatizing attitude towards people living with
Hiv/Aids.
Maladaptive
coping responses to Hiv/Aids could mean negative actions, statements and
strategies intended to demoralize and destabilize people living with Hiv/Aids supporting and promoting all stigma inducing
factors within the individual’s environment due to lack of proper control
(Barett & whiteside, 2002).
The
need for adaptive coping strategies among people living with HIV/AIDS is cruwal
to both researchers, health workers, caregivers psychologists and the
government. It will provide adequate intervention in the areas of knowdege of HIV status,
reduction/AIDS of HIV spread and
reduction of stigmatization. This will also help to reduce hopelessness,
helplessness anxiety/stress and discrimination (Nyblade, 2006).
Research
has demonstrated that there are several personal variables that could influence
coping strategies of individuals (Anshel & well, 2000; Anshel, Sutarso
& Jubenville, 2009). One of such personal variable that has been observed
to be relevant in coping with HIV/AIDS stigmatization is personality type.
Personality type of individuals seem to align with their attitudes,
perceptions, cognitions and the way they accept or reject certain conditions in
their lives which is their coping strategies. The concept of personality type
(Eysench & Eysench, 1977) refers to the psychological classification of
different types of individuals to distinguish them from personality traits and
personality type (type A and type B). the personality type of individuals (type
A and type B) may determine to a reasonable extent their coping strategies
towards HIV/AIDS stigmatization. This
shows that personality is a wide reaching concept that can use its aspects to
influence conditions. It was the contention of Cameron (1993) that
stigmatization arises from perception through a violation of shared values,
attitudes and beliefs that can lead to prejudice through the individuals
personality type.
Considering
the role of personality type in coping with stigmatization, research reveal
that people with personalities that encourages anger, hostility, anxiety,
perfectionist tendency and impatience are disposal to constant stress and
stigmatization (Anderson & Williams, 1988). The concept of personality type
has been variously defined by psychologists to refer to the characteristic pattern
of thinking, teaching and acting. Type A individuals seem to be linked with
stress and stigmatization while types behavour pattern seem to have little or
no link with stress and stigmatization in personality type makes it imperative
that proper intervention should be sought for through appropriate coping
strategies to ensure stigma reduction and control of the spread of AIDS disease.
On
the other hand, Ptacek, Smith and Zanas (1992) saw gender as one of the
demographic variables that has been severally implicated in the stress and
HIV/AIDS coping literature. Generally, there has been conflicting evidence of
the role of gender in coping with both stress arising from HIV/AIDS and
HIV/AIDS stigmatization (Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Lee, Kochman & Sikkama,
2001).
Gender
differences apply almost all life circumstance and influence attitudes, values,
perceptions and coping strategies due to gender inequalities and natural
tendencies. Hence, the vulnerability of any person to HIV/AIDS has been found
to be related to the individual’s sex stereotyping (Clark, linder, Armisted
& Austin, 2003). However, fear, avoidance and stigmatization among people
living with HIV/AIDS seem to be reinforced due to gender differences concerning
roles, perceptions and assessment of HIV/AIDS.
The
vulnerability of men and women to HIV/AIDS seem to differ due to cultural,
religions, political, economic and traditional factors operating in the
society. All over the globe, there has been reported cases of acute impact of
stigmatization on women because in many societies, women are erroneously
perceived as the main transmitters of severally transmitted infections (STI’S)
which may be referred to as “women” disease. In like manner, the traditional
belief about sex, blood and other kinds of disease transmission encourage
further stigmatization of women in relation to HIV/AIDS scourge (Bush stephens,
2006). Developmental issues relating to HIV/AIDS scourge may play significant
roles in relation to HIV/AIDS
stigmatization.
Hence,
in some African countries, women suffer
more stigmatization than men because white men are likely to be “excused” for
the behaviour that resulted to their infection, women are stigmatized over the
infection as inferior beings (Gilmore & Somerville, 1994).
Meanwhile,
it has been severally implicated in the coping literature that there have been
conflicting results on the role of gender in coping with stress related factors
such as HIV/AIDS stigmatization (Stanton, Danoff-Burg, Cameron, & Ellis,
1994; Roost & Cohen, 1987). However, few emergency research show that men
and women differ in their coping strategies due to differential abilities and
socialization regarding such factors as HIV/AIDS stigmatization because gender
and its values and norms are culturally and socially constructed during the
process of socialization (Shaw, 1982; Eyo, 199; Stonex Neale, 1984). But,
question on whether women or men adopt more adaptive or maladaptive coping
strategies in coping with HIV/AIDS have not been answered. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to examine the
role of personality type and
gender in coping with HIV/AIDS stigmatization. Hence, it is hypothesized that
type A individuals living with HIV/AIDS will not differ significantly their
coping strategies than type B individuals during HIV/AIDS stigmatization; and
that males living with HIV/AIDS will not differ significantly from their female
counterparts in their HIV/AIDS stigmatization coping strategies.
REFERENCES
Anshel,
M.H., Si, G. (2008). Coping styles following acute
stress in sport among elite Chinese athletes: A test
of trait and transactional coping theories. Journal sport Behaviour, 31, 3-21.
Anshel,
M.H. Wells, B. (2000). Sources of acute stress
and coping
styles in competitive sport. Anxiety, stress, and coping, 13, 1-26.
Anshel,
M.H. sutarso, T. & Jubvenville, C. (2009). Racial and
gender competitive athletes. The journal of social
psychology, 149, 19-177.
Anderson,
M.B. & Williams J.M. (1988). A model of stress,
stigmatization and injury; prevention and prediction.
Journal of sport and Exercise psychology, 10(3), 294-36.
Alubo,
O. Wander, A. Jolayemi, T. & Omodu, E. (2002).
Acceptance and stigmatization of people living with
HIV/AIDS in Nigeria. AIDS care, 4 (1), 117-126.
Agbu,
J.O. (1999). Assessment and Management of type A
Behaviour among postgraduate students. Unpublished
M.S.C. Research project Dept. of Psychology, University of Lagos.
Barnett,
T.X whiteside, A. (2002). AIDS in the twenty first
century: disease and Globalization. Pangrave:
Macmillian.
Boer,
H.& Emons, P.A. (2004). Accurate and inaccurate HIV
Transmission Beliefs, stigmatization and HIV
protection, motivation in northern Thailand. AIDs care, 16, 167-176.
Bush,
A.G. & Stevens, P.E. (2006). Constrained but not
determined by stigma: Resistance by African-American
women living with HIV/AIDS. Women Health 44(3), 1-18.
Cameron,
E. (1993). Legal Rights, Human Rights and AIDS:
The first Decades Report from south African AIDS Analysis,
3,3-4.
Compass,
B.E. (1987). Coping with stress during child hood
and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393-403.
Clark,
H.J. Linder G.A. Armistead, L. Austin B.J. (2003).
Stigma disclosure and psychological functioning among
HIV infected and non-infected African-American. Women and Health, 38, 7-71.
Cameron,
E. (1993). Legal Rights, Human Rights and AIDS:
The first Decades report from south African AIDS
Analysis, 3,3-4.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1987). Four ways five
factors are basic. Personality and individual differences. 13, 653-665.
Constrained
but not determined by stigma: Resistance by
African American women living with HIV/AIDS. Women
Health, 44 (3), 1-18.
Development
of questionnaire measure of adjustment to
cancer: the MAC Scale. Psychological medicine, 18,
203-209.
Eliot,
R.S, & Diane, M.M. (199). Social psychology. New
york: worth publishers.
Eysenck,
S.B.G. & Eysenck, H.J. (1977). The place in a
dimensional system of personality description. British
journal of social and clinical psychology, 16,57-68.
Fite,
B.L. & Wright, R. (2000). The Dimensionality of stigma:
A comparison of its impact on the self of persons with
HIV/AIDS and cancer.
Froggatt,
K.L. & Cotton, J.L. (1987). The impact of type A
behaviour parttern on role over lead-induced stress
and performance attribution, journal of management, 13, 87-90.
Golden,
C.S. (1994). “Stigmatization and AIDS: critical
issues in public Health” social Science and Medicine,
39 (9), 1359-1366.
Gilmore,
N., & Somerville, M.A. (1994) stigmatization,
scapegoat and “you” social Science and medicine, 39
(9), 1339-1358.
Herek,
G.M. & Glunt, E.K. (1998). “An Epidemic of Stigma:
public reaction to AIDS.” American psychologist, 43,
886-892.
Herek,
G.M. Capitation, J.P. Wildman, K.F. (2002). HIV-
related stigma and knowledge in the united states.
Prevalence and trends 1991-1999. American Journal of public Health. 92,
371-377.
Jenkins,
C. D. Rosenman, R.H & Friedman, M.(1967).
Development of an objective psychological test for
determination of coronary prove behaviour in Employed men. Journal of chronic
disease, 20, 371-379.
Journal
of Health and Social Behaviour, 41 (i), 0-67.
Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type A
Behaviour and your Heart, Times Book, Newyork.
Kurzban,
R.& Leary, M.R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of
stigmatization: the functions of social Exclusion.
Psychological Bulletins, 127, 187-78.
Lee,
R. & Kochman, A. & Sikkama, K. (2002). Internalized
stigma Among people living with HIV/AIDS Behaviour,
10, 473-482.
Letamo,
G. (2003). Prevalence of and the factors associated
with HIV/AIDS-Related stigma and Discriminatory
attitudes in Botwana. Journal of Health, population and nutrition, 21, 347-357.
Lazarus,
R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and
coping. Newyork: Springer.
Lynes,
S.A. (1993). Predictors of Differences in type A and
type B individuals in Heart. Psychological Bulletin,
114, 266-29.
Lazarus,
R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and
coping Newyork: Springer.
LI,
L.C. Lin, Z, Wu, S., Wu, M.J. Rotheram-Borusa R. & Jia,
M. (2007). Stigmatization and shame: consequences of
caring for HIV/AIDS patients in China AIDS Care, 19 (2), 28-263.
Mechanic,
D. (199) “Sociological Dimensions of illness
Behaviour” social Science medicine. 41 (9) 1207-1216.
Nyblade,
L.C. & Macquarie’s, K. (2006). International centre
for Research on women. www.usaid.gov.
Nwankwo,
B.C. & Onyishi, I.E. (2012). Role of self-efficacy,
Gender and category of Athletes in coping with sports
stress. Ife psychological A, 20(2),
136-147.
Nyblade,
L.C. (2006). Measuring HIV stigma: Existing
knowledge and Gaps. Journal of psychology, Health and
medicine, 11, 335-34.
Omoluabi,
P.F. (1997). The development of TABS: A unified
scale for Assessing type A behaviour pattern.
Unpublished Manuscript, department of psychology, University of Lagos.
Pryor
J.B. & Reeder, G.O. & Landau. S. (1999). A social
psychological Analysis of HIV/AIDS Related Stigma: A
two factor theory. American Behavioural Scientist, 42, 193-1211.
Ptacek,
J.T. Smith, R.E, & Zanas, J. (1992). Gender
, appraisal, and coping: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of personality, 60, 747-770.
Roost,
P.E. & Cohen, L.H. (1987). Sex roles and social
support as moderators of life stress adjustment.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 45, 14-152.
Ross,
P.E. & Cohen, L.H. (1987). Sex roles and social
support as moderators of life stress adjustment.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 52 (3), 76-8.
Stanton,
A.L. Dan off-Burg, S. Cameron, C.L., & Ellis, A.P.
(1994). Coping through emotional approach: problems of
conceptualization and confounding. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 66, 350-362.
Stone,
A.A, & Neale, J.M. (1984). New measure of daily
coping: Development and preliminary results. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 6, 892-906.
Watson,
M. Greer, S. young, J. & Bliss, J.M (1988).
Development of questionnaire measure of adjustment to
cancer: the MAC Scale. Psychological medicine, 18, 203-209.
Vickers,
R. H. (1981). Type A Behaviour pattern, coping and
Defence. Psychometric Medicine (95), 381-396.