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, scapegoat and “you” social Science and medicine, 39 (9),
1339-1358.
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.
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.
Eyo, I.E (1995) social issues in Nigeria: A
psychological Analysis. Enugu: Auto-Century Publishing.
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.
Golden, C.S. (1994). “Stigmatization and AIDS:
critical issues in public Health” social Science and Medicine, 39 (9),
1359-1366.
Nyblade, L.C. & Macquarie’s, K. (2006). International
centre for Research on women. www.usaid.gov.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cameron, E. (1993). Legal Rights, Human Rights and
AIDS: The first Decades report from south African AIDS Analysis, 3,3-4.
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.
Mechanic, D. (199) “Sociological Dimensions of illness
Behaviour” social Science medicine. 41 (9) 1207-1216.
Lynes, S.A. (1993). Predictors of Differences in type
A and type B individuals in Heart. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 266-29.
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.
Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress,
appraisal and coping Newyork: Springer.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1987). Four ways five
factors are basic. Personality and individual differences. 13, 653-665.
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.
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.
Herek, G.M. & Glunt, E.K. (1998). “An Epidemic of
Stigma: public reaction to AIDS.” Ameriacan psychologist, 43, 886-892.
Herek, G.M. Capitanio, J.P. Wildaman, K.F. (2002).
HIV-related stigma and knowedge in the united states. Prevalence and trends
1991-1999. American Journal of public Health. 92, 371-377.
Gilmore, N. Somerville, MA. (1994). Stigmatization,
scape goating and “you” social Science and medicine, 39 (9), 1339-138.
Clark, H.J. Linder, G. 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.
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.
Constrained but not determined by stigma: Resistance
by African American women living with HIV/AIDS. Women Health, 44 (3), 1-18.
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.
Agbu, J.O. (1999). Assessment and Mangement of type A
Behavour among postgraduate students. Unpublished M.S.C. Research project Dept.
of Psychology, University of Lagos.
Vickers, R. H. (1981). Type A Behaviour pattern,
coping and Defence. Psychometric Medicine (95), 381-396.