Social Stigma

Abstract

Social stigma, which MeSH classifies under social behavior, is the social devaluation of a person who bears an attribute marked as discredited within a particular context. This article develops the two accounts that organize the field: Goffman's description of stigma as an attribute that spoils social identity, and Link and Phelan's model locating stigma in the co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination under conditions of power. It distinguishes public stigma from self-stigma and structural stigma, traces how those who carry a stigma experience and manage it — including the problem of a concealable identity — and reviews the evidence that stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequalities and a barrier to care. Three interactive demonstrations let readers assemble the five components, trace the concealment trade-off, and compare the dominant reduction strategies.

Keywords: social stigma, labeling, discrimination, self-stigma, structural stigma

Few social facts are as consequential as being marked. A diagnosis, a conviction, a visible difference, or a group membership can attach to a person a meaning that precedes and overrides everything else about them — a meaning that others treat as the most important thing to know, and that the person must then live within or around. Social stigma is the name for that process of marking and the devaluation that follows from it. It is not an unpleasant feeling or a private prejudice; it is a relationship between an attribute and a social setting, in which the attribute comes to stand for a discredited kind of person.

That relational character is what makes stigma a subject for the behavioural and social sciences rather than a matter of individual attitude. The same attribute is discrediting in one place and unremarkable in another; it is applied by people with the power to make it stick and absorbed by people who cannot easily refuse it; and its costs — to health, to opportunity, to the sense of self — follow from the social machinery, not from the attribute as such. This article develops that machinery, beginning with the founding account that put the word into social science.

What Social Stigma Is

Social stigma is the devaluation and discrediting of an individual on the basis of an attribute that marks them as deviant within a particular social context. The founding account is Goffman's: stigma is an attribute that is deeply discrediting, one that reduces its bearer from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one (Goffman, 1963). The decisive move in that definition is that the stigma is not the attribute itself but the relationship between the attribute and a set of social expectations — in Goffman's phrase, a special kind of relation between attribute and stereotype. An attribute that discredits a person in one kind of company confirms them in another; what is constant is not the mark but the devaluation that a given audience attaches to it.

Goffman drew a distinction that still organizes the field. The discredited bear a mark that is already visible or known — a facial difference, a wheelchair, a known criminal record — and their task is to manage the tension its visibility creates. The discreditable bear a mark that is not yet visible — a concealable diagnosis, a sexual identity, a hidden history — and their task is the management of information: who knows, who might find out, and at what cost. The two predicaments are different enough that much of the later psychology of stigma splits along exactly this line, with a distinct literature on concealable stigmatized identities. Goffman also named a third category, courtesy stigma (also called stigma by association), in which the discredit spreads to those merely connected to the stigmatized person — family, friends, carers — because the association itself becomes a mark.

The Components of Stigma

Goffman's account is a description; the dominant analytic model is Link and Phelan's, which dissects stigma into components so that each can be studied and targeted. On their account stigma exists when five elements co-occur: a human difference is labeled and judged socially relevant; the label is linked to a set of negative stereotypes; the labeled are placed in a distinct category that achieves a separation of us from them; the labeled consequently suffer status loss and discrimination that disadvantage them; and the whole process unfolds under conditions of social, economic, and political power that allow the labeling, stereotyping, separating, and discriminating to have consequences (Link & Phelan, 2001).

The insistence on power is the model's sharpest contribution. A low-status group may label a dominant group with negative stereotypes and separate itself from them, but without the power to turn those cognitions into status loss and material disadvantage, the result is not stigma. Stigma, in this view, is what prejudice becomes when it is backed by the capacity to act on it. The conjunctive structure matters just as much: because stigma requires all five components together, disrupting any one of them — breaking the label–stereotype link, blocking the discriminatory consequence — can in principle collapse the whole, which is the logic behind several intervention strategies.

Forms of Stigma

Stigma is not a single phenomenon but a family of related ones, and distinguishing the forms is a precondition for studying or reducing any of them. The now-standard synthesis identifies several (Bos et al., 2013). Public stigma is the phenomenon most people mean by the word: the reactions of the general population toward a stigmatized group — the stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination directed outward at its members. Self-stigma is what happens when a member of the stigmatized group turns those same public attitudes inward, applying the devaluation to the self and paying a cost in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and withdrawal. Stigma by association (courtesy stigma) extends the devaluation to people connected to the stigmatized individual. And structural stigma names the form that needs no individual to carry it at all: the societal conditions, institutional policies, and cultural norms that constrain the opportunities and well-being of the stigmatized, whether or not any particular person holds a prejudiced attitude.

A second, cross-cutting distinction concerns the visibility of the mark, reviving Goffman's discredited/discreditable split in modern form. A concealable stigmatized identity — a mental illness, an HIV-positive status, a minority sexual orientation that others cannot simply see — imposes a predicament the visibly marked do not face: the continuous management of disclosure. Pachankis modelled the psychological implications of concealing a stigma as a cognitive–affective–behavioural burden, in which the person must monitor the social situation, suppress the secret, and absorb the cognitive and emotional load of vigilance, with downstream costs to anxiety, self-evaluation, and the quality of relationships (Pachankis, 2007). Concealment removes the immediate risk of enacted discrimination but substitutes a chronic internal cost, which is why hiding is not a solution so much as a different problem.

The Experience of Being Stigmatized

Much early work studied stigma from the perspective of the perceiver; the social-psychological turn studied it from the perspective of the target, and found the target to be an active interpreter of a devaluing environment rather than a passive recipient of it. Major and O'Brien's framework treats stigma as a relationship in which the stigmatized person must continually appraise whether a given outcome, slight, or success reflects their own conduct or others' prejudice (Major & O'Brien, 2005). Two mechanisms recur in their account. Attributional ambiguity is the uncertainty a stigmatized person faces in interpreting feedback: a rejection, or even a compliment, cannot be confidently attributed to the self or to bias, and that ambiguity itself taxes well-being and complicates self-assessment. Stereotype threat is the disruptive effect of a situation in which a person risks confirming a negative stereotype about their group, an apprehension that can depress performance on the very tasks the stereotype concerns.

For the bearer of a concealable mark, the appraisal problem has an additional dimension — not only how to read the environment but how much of the environment to let in on the secret. Quinn and Chaudoir showed that the distress carried by a concealable stigmatized identity is predicted not by the mere fact of concealment but by specific psychological properties of the identity: anticipated stigma (the expectation of being devalued if the identity became known), its centrality to the self-concept, and its salience in awareness, each independently related to psychological distress and symptoms (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009). The practical implication is that two people with the same concealed condition can carry very different burdens depending on how much devaluation they expect and how large the identity looms — which is also why interventions that reduce anticipated stigma can help even when the objective situation is unchanged.

Stigma and Health

The most consequential modern claim about stigma is that it is not merely distressing but a basic driver of how sickness and health are distributed across a population. Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, and Link argued that stigma is a fundamental cause of population health inequalities: it operates through multiple mechanisms at once — restricting access to resources such as money, power, and beneficial social connections — so that even as specific pathways are blocked, the disadvantage reappears through others, exactly as fundamental-cause theory predicts for a persistent social determinant of health (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2013). On this view stigma belongs in the same category as socioeconomic status: a condition whose health effects are robust precisely because they are not tied to any single disease or mechanism.

A large part of that effect runs through structural stigma — the laws, policies, and institutional practices that constrain the stigmatized independent of any individual's prejudice. Hatzenbuehler assembled the evidence that structural stigma is a measurable determinant of health, showing that living under more stigmatizing laws and norms predicts worse outcomes for members of the affected group, and arguing that psychology's traditional focus on individual attitudes had left this macro level understudied (Hatzenbuehler, 2016). A second major pathway is the avoidance of care. Corrigan, Druss, and Perlick synthesized the evidence that the stigma of mental illness deters people from seeking treatment and from staying in it — both through public stigma, which makes seeking care a potential admission of a devalued identity, and through self-stigma, which erodes the sense that treatment is worth pursuing (Corrigan et al., 2014). A systematic review quantified the barrier: stigma was among the factors most consistently associated with reduced help-seeking, with particular weight carried by the fear of disclosure and of being labeled (Clement et al., 2015). The problem is not confined to the patient's decision: stigma enacted within health facilities — by the providers and systems meant to deliver care — degrades the quality of treatment the stigmatized receive once they arrive, a mechanism documented across conditions and countries (Nyblade et al., 2019).

Reducing Stigma

If stigma is a conjunction of social processes backed by power, then reducing it means interrupting one or more of those processes, and the evidence increasingly favours some strategies over others. The three broad approaches are protest (challenging stigmatizing representations), education (correcting the stereotypes with facts), and contact (structured interaction with members of the stigmatized group). Thornicroft and colleagues' review of interventions to reduce mental-illness stigma found that social contact — particularly direct, in-person contact — is the most effective element for improving attitudes and reducing discriminatory behaviour in the short to medium term, while education has smaller effects and protest can backfire (Thornicroft et al., 2016). The finding is consistent with a broader principle in intergroup psychology: changing minds about a group is better achieved by meeting its members than by being told about them.

Contact's power is bound up with familiarity. Corrigan and Nieweglowski reviewed how prior acquaintance with people who have mental illness lowers stigma, and clarified the mechanism and its limits: familiarity reduces stereotyping and social distance, but the effect depends on the nature of the contact — its equality, its disconfirmation of the stereotype, and whether it is remembered as a person rather than a case (Corrigan & Nieweglowski, 2019). The convergence of the contact and familiarity literatures is one reason stigma-reduction programmes have shifted from information campaigns toward designed encounters in which members of the public meet, and hear the stories of, the people the stereotype is about.

Discussion

The study of stigma is held together by a single structural insight that two very different traditions reached independently: stigma is not a thing a person has but a relationship a society enacts. Goffman reached it through close observation of spoiled identities; Link and Phelan reached it by decomposing the process into components and insisting on the role of power. The agreement is substantive, not verbal. It means that the locus of explanation — and of intervention — is the social setting and the power arranged within it, not the attribute and not, in the first instance, the attitudes of individuals. A field that locates its object in a relationship rather than in a trait is a field whose theory points directly at what would have to change.

The through-line from theory to consequence is the health evidence. Once stigma is understood as a fundamental cause operating through resources and institutions, its documented effects on help-seeking, on care quality, and on the distribution of disease stop looking like a collection of separate findings and start looking like the predictable output of a single mechanism. That is also where the field's practical optimism and its hardest problem meet: the conjunctive, power-backed structure of stigma means it can in principle be disrupted at any of several points, but the point with the most leverage — structural stigma embedded in law and institution — is the one least reachable by the attitude-change interventions psychology knows best how to run.

The limitations are real. Much of the measurement still targets public attitudes, which are easier to assess than structural conditions and may respond to interventions without the underlying disadvantage shifting; self-report of a concealed or internalized stigma is vulnerable to the very concealment it studies; and the contact effects best documented are short- to medium-term, leaving the durability of attitude change — and its translation into reduced discrimination — less certain than the headline findings suggest.

Current Directions

The clearest current movement is toward treating stigma as a multi-level system rather than a single attitude. Pescosolido and Martin's synthesis reframed stigma as a stigma complex — a dynamic set of interrelated processes spanning the individual, the interpersonal, the network, and the institutional levels, so that research at any one level is incomplete without the others — and this integrative framing now guides much of the agenda, including large cross-national studies tracking public attitudes over time (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015). A second strand is the sharpening of measurement. Fox and colleagues' review of how mental-illness stigma is conceptualized and measured produced a unifying framework and a critical appraisal of the instruments, exposing how often different studies measure different things under the same name and setting a standard for construct-valid assessment going forward (Fox et al., 2018). The third is the growing weight placed on structural stigma as both the least-studied level and the one with the most leverage over health, which has turned attention toward the policies and institutional practices that carry stigma independent of individual prejudice (Hatzenbuehler, 2016). The open questions across all three are the same: how to measure stigma validly across levels, how to reach the structural level with interventions, and how to make attitude change durable and translate it into reduced discrimination.

Common Misconceptions

Stigma is just another word for prejudice.

It is broader and more structural. Prejudice is an attitude; stigma is the whole process by which a labeled difference leads through stereotyping and separation to status loss and discrimination — and in Link and Phelan's account it obtains only when that process is backed by the power to make it consequential (Link & Phelan, 2001).

A stigmatizing attribute is discrediting everywhere.

No. Stigma is a relationship between an attribute and a social context, not a property of the attribute itself; the same mark that discredits a person in one setting can be neutral or even valued in another. What is constant is the devaluation a given audience attaches, not the mark (Goffman, 1963).

Hiding a stigmatized identity removes the harm.

Concealment trades one harm for another. It can avert immediate discrimination, but the continuous monitoring, secrecy, and vigilance it demands carry their own cognitive and emotional cost, and the distress tracks how much devaluation the person anticipates rather than whether they are currently exposed (Pachankis, 2007)(Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009).

Educating the public is the best way to reduce stigma.

Education helps, but the evidence favours social contact over information. Direct, in-person contact with members of the stigmatized group produces the larger improvements in attitudes and behaviour, while fact-based education has smaller effects and protest can provoke backlash (Thornicroft et al., 2016).

Demo 1 — Stigma as a Conjunction of Components

Link and Phelan define stigma as the co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, and status loss / discrimination, all operating under power. Treating the five as independent switches that must all be present for stigma to obtain, the probability of full-blown stigma is the product of the component probabilities. Set each component and watch the conjunction respond — because it is a product, the whole is far less likely than any part, and weakening any single component drags it down.

Demo 2 — The Concealment Trade-off

When a stigmatized identity is concealable, the person faces a disclosure dilemma. Concealing can avert immediate discrimination but carries the cost of secrecy and vigilance; disclosing risks enacted stigma. Quinn and Chaudoir find the distress tracks anticipated stigma, how central the identity is, and how salient it is — not simply whether one is currently exposed. Move the three and compare the modelled cost of each strategy.

Demo 3 — Comparing Stigma-Reduction Strategies

Interventions against stigma are not equal. Thornicroft and colleagues' review finds social contact produces the largest change in attitudes and behaviour, education a smaller one, and protest can backfire. Pick a strategy and a dose and read the modelled change in enacted stigma. Positive is a reduction; a bar to the left of zero is backlash.

Worked Example

Link and Phelan's model makes a structural claim that can be made quantitative: because stigma requires all five components together, it has the fragility of a conjunction. Treating the components as (idealized, independent) switches that must all be on for stigma to obtain makes the point concrete and shows why disrupting a single component is a viable strategy.

Suppose, in some setting, each of the five components — labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, discrimination, operating under power — is present with probability p. If the components were independent, the probability that all five co-occur, which is the condition the model requires for stigma, is:

P(stigma) = p⁵

Take a setting where each component is quite likely, p = 0.8:

P(stigma) = 0.8⁵ = 0.32768 ≈ 33%

Even with every individual component present four times out of five, the full conjunction obtains only about a third of the time — the first lesson of the arithmetic is that a conjunction of likely parts is far less likely than any of its parts. Now model an intervention that targets just one component — say, contact that breaks the label–stereotype link, dropping that component's probability from 0.8 to 0.3 while the others hold:

P(stigma) = 0.3 × 0.8⁴ = 0.3 × 0.4096 = 0.12288 ≈ 12%

Weakening a single component from 0.8 to 0.3 cuts the probability of full-blown stigma from about 33% to about 12% — a reduction of roughly 62% — without touching the other four. That is the model's intervention logic in a number: because stigma is a conjunction, a partial intervention has leverage out of proportion to the share of the process it addresses, which is one reason a contact programme that changes only how a stereotype is held can measurably reduce enacted stigma. The idealization — independence, equal probabilities, binary components — is exactly that, and the third interactive demonstration lets the reader set each component's probability independently and watch the conjunction respond.

Key Researchers

Patrick W. Corrigan

(Illinois Institute of Technology; 1956–2026). Defined the public, self, and label-avoidance stigma of mental illness and showed how stigma deters people from seeking and staying in mental health care, founding the contact-based stigma-change tradition. Wikipedia · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Erving Goffman

(University of Pennsylvania; 1922–1982). Wrote the founding sociological account of stigma as a discrediting attribute that spoils social identity, introducing the discredited–discreditable distinction and the management of a spoiled identity. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Mark L. Hatzenbuehler

(Harvard University). Established structural stigma — the societal conditions, institutional policies, and cultural norms that constrain stigmatized groups — as a measurable fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Faculty page · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Bruce G. Link

(University of California, Riverside). Co-authored the dominant conceptual model of stigma as the co-occurrence of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination under conditions of power, and developed modified labeling theory. ORCID · Faculty page · Wikipedia

Brenda Major

(University of California, Santa Barbara). Developed the social-psychological account of how targets of stigma experience and cope with devaluation, including attributional ambiguity and the protective and costly uses of social identity. Faculty page · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Bernice A. Pescosolido

(Indiana University Bloomington). Reframed stigma as a dynamic complex spanning individuals, networks, and institutions, and led large cross-national studies tracking public attitudes toward mental illness over time. ORCID · Faculty page · Wikipedia

Jo C. Phelan

(Columbia University). Co-developed the labeling-to-discrimination conceptual model of stigma and fundamental cause theory, and distinguished the social functions stigma serves — exploitation, enforcement of norms, and disease avoidance. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Glossary

Anticipated stigma.

The expectation of being devalued or discriminated against if a stigmatized identity becomes known; a strong predictor of distress for people with a concealable identity.

Attributional ambiguity.

The uncertainty a stigmatized person faces in deciding whether feedback — rejection or praise — reflects their own conduct or others' prejudice; itself a source of strain.

Concealable stigmatized identity.

A devalued attribute others cannot readily see — a diagnosis, an HIV status, a sexual orientation — whose bearer must manage the disclosure of information rather than the visibility of a mark.

Courtesy stigma.

Stigma by association: the spread of devaluation to people merely connected to a stigmatized person, such as family, friends, or carers.

Discreditable.

In Goffman's scheme, a person whose stigmatizing mark is concealable and not yet known, whose predicament is the management of information about it.

Discredited.

In Goffman's scheme, a person whose stigmatizing mark is already visible or known, whose predicament is the management of the tension its visibility creates.

Fundamental cause.

A social condition whose effect on health persists because it operates through many mechanisms at once and commands flexible resources; stigma is argued to be one.

Label avoidance.

Declining to seek care or services in order to avoid the stigmatizing label that using them would attach; a major pathway by which stigma reduces help-seeking.

Public stigma.

The reactions of the general population toward a stigmatized group — the stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination directed at its members.

Self-stigma.

The internalization of public stigma by a member of the stigmatized group, with costs to self-esteem, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of goals including treatment.

Social behavior.

Any behaviour directed toward or influenced by other members of the same species; the superordinate category under which MeSH files social stigma.

Social stigma.

The social devaluation and discrediting of a person who bears an attribute that a given social context treats as marking them as deviant.

Spoiled identity.

Goffman's term for the social identity of a person reduced in others' eyes by a discrediting attribute; the condition stigma produces.

Stereotype threat.

The disruptive apprehension, in a situation where one risks confirming a negative stereotype about one's group, that can depress performance on the task the stereotype concerns.

Stigma complex.

Pescosolido and Martin's reframing of stigma as a dynamic system of interrelated processes spanning the individual, interpersonal, network, and institutional levels.

Structural stigma.

The societal conditions, institutional policies, and cultural norms that constrain the opportunities and well-being of a stigmatized group independent of any individual's prejudice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social stigma?

Social stigma is the social devaluation and discrediting of a person who bears an attribute that a given social context treats as marking them as deviant. It is a relationship between an attribute and a setting rather than a property of the attribute itself, which is why the same mark can be discrediting in one place and unremarkable in another.

How is stigma different from prejudice or discrimination?

Prejudice is a negative attitude and discrimination is a behaviour; stigma is the larger process that connects them. In Link and Phelan's model a human difference is labeled, linked to stereotypes, and used to separate an in-group from an out-group, producing status loss and discrimination, and the whole process counts as stigma only when it is backed by the power to make it consequential.

What did Goffman mean by a spoiled identity?

Goffman described stigma as an attribute that reduces its bearer, in the eyes of others, from a whole and usual person to a tainted and discounted one, spoiling their social identity. He distinguished the discredited, whose mark is already visible, from the discreditable, whose mark is concealable and whose task is managing who knows about it.

What are the main types of stigma?

Public stigma is the population's prejudiced reaction to a group; self-stigma is that reaction turned inward by a group member against the self; stigma by association extends it to the person's family and friends; and structural stigma is embedded in laws, policies, and institutions, constraining the stigmatized whether or not any individual holds a prejudiced attitude.

Why does concealing a stigmatized identity not simply solve the problem?

Concealment removes the immediate risk of enacted discrimination but imposes a chronic cost of its own: the vigilance, secrecy, and cognitive load of managing who might find out. Distress for a concealable identity tracks how much devaluation the person anticipates and how central the identity is to the self, not merely whether it is currently hidden.

How does stigma affect health?

Stigma is argued to be a fundamental cause of health inequalities, acting through many mechanisms at once by restricting money, power, and supportive social ties. It also deters people from seeking and continuing care, and it degrades the quality of treatment the stigmatized receive once inside health systems.

What reduces stigma most effectively?

The evidence favours direct social contact with members of the stigmatized group over fact-based education, with protest the least reliable approach and sometimes counterproductive. Contact works best when it is equal-status, disconfirms the stereotype, and is remembered as an encounter with a person rather than a case.

Can stigma be reduced by changing just one part of the process?

In principle, yes. Because stigma in Link and Phelan's model requires several components to co-occur, interrupting any one of them, for instance by breaking the link between a label and its negative stereotype, can weaken the whole, which is why a targeted intervention can have an effect out of proportion to the single component it addresses.

References

Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147

Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Morgan, C., Rüsch, N., Brown, J. S. L., & Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological Medicine, 45(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000129

Corrigan, P. W., Druss, B. G., & Perlick, D. A. (2014). The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(2), 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398

Corrigan, P. W., & Nieweglowski, K. (2019). How does familiarity impact the stigma of mental illness? Clinical Psychology Review, 70, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.02.001

Fox, A. B., Earnshaw, V. A., Taverna, E. C., & Vogt, D. (2018). Conceptualizing and measuring mental illness stigma: The mental illness stigma framework and critical review of measures. Stigma and Health, 3(4), 348–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000104

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2016). Structural stigma: Research evidence and implications for psychological science. American Psychologist, 71(8), 742–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813–821. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

Major, B., & O'Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 393–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137

Nyblade, L., Stockton, M. A., Giger, K., Bond, V., Ekstrand, M. L., Lean, R. M., Mitchell, E. M. H., Nelson, L. R. E., Sapag, J. C., Siraprapasiri, T., Turan, J., & Wouters, E. (2019). Stigma in health facilities: Why it matters and how we can change it. BMC Medicine, 17(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1256-2

Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328

Pescosolido, B. A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The stigma complex. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145702

Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015815

Thornicroft, G., Mehta, N., Clement, S., Evans-Lacko, S., Doherty, M., Rose, D., Koschorke, M., Shidhaye, R., O'Reilly, C., & Henderson, C. (2016). Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination. The Lancet, 387(10023), 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00298-6