Stigma as a Significant Social Problem - Lab Report Example

Report Objective: Stigma is a significant social problem because of its adverse effects on targets’ wellbeing. Background information suggests existence of a relationship between stigma and both empathy and belief in a just world. While literature is consistent on an inverse relationship between stigma and empathy, conflicting literature exist on the relationship between stigma and belief in a just world. This study sought to establish these relationships in a single study. Methods: One hundred and twenty-six undergraduate psychology students were recruited for the study but only 114 were considered. Most of the participants, 94 percent, were in the age group of between 18 and 28 years and 94 of them were females. The study implemented both experimental and non-experimental design. Mild symptoms and severe symptoms were the independent variables in the experimental study while non-experimental design used data on stigma, empathy, and belief in a just world. Questionnaires were used in data collection following informed consent from the participants. Results: Applied scales in data collection showed reliability and results identified reliability. Results showed low scores for stigma (3.60), high value for empathy (3.87), and just above average score for Just World Belief. Correlation between stigma and empathy was significant (p=0.017), while that between stigma and just world belief was not significant (p=0.170). Discussion: The results are consistent with existing literature that shows a negative correlation between empathy and stigma and uncertainty in the relationship between stigma and just world belief. The sample was however not representative in terms of gender and age and stratified random sampling is recommended for future studies on the subject for a more representative sample. Report Introduction Stigma is a significant social problem with adverse effects on victims. It also has a wide scope that include “labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination” (Hatzenbeuehler, Phelan and Link 2013, p. e1). Hatzenbeuehler, Phelan, and Link argue that stigma is significant in the society and should command attention as other social concerns that have dominated the research arena. They note adverse effects of stigma on social and medical health to support its significance. Pervasive scope of stigma, its ability to disorganize different aspects of life, and effects on health that emerge from stress are some the major factors that establish significance of stigma as a social problem (Hatzenbeuehler, Phelan and Link 2013, p. e1-, e5). Understanding its factors may therefore offer a basis for preventing its existence in the society and even creating awareness for management of experiences to avoid effects of stigma. Empathy is one of the factors that determine stigma, and its level, towards a target. In studying stigma and empathy under physician-patient relationship, Cohen et al. (2011, p. 1637- 1639) establish that empathy mitigates stigma. Consequently, low levels of empathy exposes a target to high-level stigma through induced stereotyping. Negative empathy is particularly effective in promoting stigma and its associated effects on targets. Lack of empathy, as illustrated in the study of the case of medical students and medically ill patients illustrates this. Cutler, et al. (2009, p. 495- 500) note significance of stigmatization and stereotyping, and negative emotional reactions on the nature of treatment that patients receive from the students to demonstrate possible correlation between stigma and empathy. A relationship may also exist between stigma and belief in a just world. Established through complacency, belief in a just world and stigma may have adverse effects on intentions for managing risks. Riley and Baah-Odoom established this in their study of effects of beliefs in a just world and stigma on intentions towards safe sex (2012, p. 645). The authors established similar effects of the variables on plans for safe sex to suggest a mediator factors or a correlation between the two variables. Even though the authors established a positive correlation between belief in just world and stigma (0.109), this was not significant, p=0.106 (Riley and Baah-Odoom 2012, p. 645). An independent study by Daria, Janet, and Kerry however reports a significant relationship between belief in a just world and stigma. According to the author’s study that focused on eating disorders and obesity, a positive correlation exists between the two variables (2011, p. 620, 621) and this supports observation by Riley and Baah-Odoom that was however not significant. Choma, et al. (2012, p. 577), also notes a relationship between belief in just world and discrimination, an element of stigma. The relationship between stigma and belief in just world may however be different for belief in just world for self and for othrs and between a victim of stigma and the cause of stigma. This is based on the study by Rusch, et al. (2010, p. 620, 621) that also identifies an inverse correlation for self-stigma. Rich literature therefore exist on stigma, belief in a just world, and empathy. The literature however offers a range of conclusions on the variables. In addition, there is dearth of literature that considers all the three variables. This study therefore seeks to ascertain the correlation between stigma and belief in a just world and empathy, in a single set up. Discussion This study sought to ascertain significance belief in a just world and empathy on stigma. The study’s participants were from a wide range of age, ranging from 17 years to 52 years. Most of the participants were however between 18 and 28 years while ages of two participants were unknown. Most of the participants were also females, 94 out of the total 114 participants. Internal reliability of the applied data collection, based on Cronbach’s alpha measurement was recommendable and indicates that the study’s results can be inferred to other populations. Means of the scores for stigma, empathy, and Just World Belief suggest correlations that are consistent with existing literature. Being measured on a scale of one to nine with increasing significance, the mean score of 3.6 means that the research participants’ attitude would be less significantly different due to the presented situation, an indication of low level stigma. Empathy was measured on a scale of one to four and a mean of 3.87 means that the participants had strong empathetic responses. This identifies an inverse correlation between stigma and empathy and is consistent with findings by Cohen et al. that noted the role of empathy in reducing stigma in interactions. This implies that low-level empathy or lack of empathy would lead to higher-level significance of stigma and is consistent with results of the study by Cutler, et al. The low p-value for correlation (0.017) shows that the correlation is significant. Average scores for Just World Belief was however high, to infer that the participants did not believe in a just world and this suggests an inverse relationship between stigma and belief in a just world. The perception is however just above the middle score and is therefore reflexive of the uncertainty that existing literature portray in the relationship between stigma and belief in a just world. Test of significance further shows that the predicted inverse relationship is not significant (0.170). Consequently, belief in a just world is not a good indicator of stigma and this justifies the different relationships between the two variables as different research results show. The study succeeds in its objective of ascertaining significance of empathy and belief in a just world. It establishes significance of empathy and uncertainty on significance of belief in a just world and therefore validates existing literature on the relationship between stigma, empathy, and belief in a just world. The study however faced a few challenges, though test on reliability undermined this. Distribution in participants’ demographic factors identifies poor representativeness in terms of age and gender. Most of the research participants were within the 18-28 years age bracket and a majority were females. This could have effects on the results because emotional maturity and perception on social ties differ by both age and gender. A stratified random sampling approach is therefore recommended for future studies on the subject. improving the study to an experimental one, in which research participants are exposed to real life situations, which they are made to experience, instead of a hypothetical situation, can also be tried in future research. Reference list Choma, B et al. 2012, ‘Perceptions of personal sex discrimination: The role of belief in a just world and situational ambiguity,’ Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152, No. 2, pp. 568-585. Cohen, M et al. 2011, ‘Stigmatization of patients with chronic pain: The extinction of empathy,’ Pain Medicine, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 1637-1643. Cutler, J et al. 2009, ‘Discrediting the notion “Working with ‘crazies’ will make you “crazy””’: Addressing stigma and enhancing empathy in medical student education, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Vol. 14, Nno. 4, pp. 487-502. Daria, E Janet, L and Kerry, O 2011, ‘Just world beliefs, causal beliefs, and acquaintance: Associations with stigma toward eating disorders and obesity,’ Personal and Individual Differences, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 618-622. Hatzenbeuehler, M Phelan, J and Link, B 2013, ‘Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities,’ Pain Medicine, Vol. 103, No. 5, pp. 813-821. Riley, G and Baah-Odoom, D 2012, ‘Belief in a just world, generalized self efficacy and stigma may contribute to unsafe sexual intentions via a reduced perception of vulnerability to HIV/AIDS amongst young people in Ghana,’ AIDS Care, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 642-848. Rusch, N et al. 2010, ‘Do people with mental illness deserve what they get? Links between meritocratic worldviews and implicit versus explicit stigma,’ European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, Vol. 260, No. 8, pp. 617-625. Read More