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 behavours 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 Capitanio, 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. Recheach reveals that stigmatization is relevant to
prevention and treatment of Hiv/Aids because the stigma around HIV and aids
trends to work agiants control and preventive measures (Kalichmaan 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-econbomic theory (Conyers,
Unger & Rumrill,2005). Dewspite 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 immuno- deficiency virus (Hiv) / acquired
immuno deficience syndrome (Aids) infection has 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; Roos & 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
Gilmore, N., &
Somerville, M.A. (1994) stigmatization, scapegoating and “you” social Science
and medicine, 39 (9), 1339-1358.
Stanton, A.L. Danoff-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.
Roos, P.E. & Cohen, L.H.
(1987). Sex roles and social support as moderators of life stress adjustment.
Journal of personality and social psychology