PERCEIVED STIGMA IN THE GEORGIAN POPULATION WITH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY STATUS

Main Article Content

Nazi Pharsadanishvili
Anastasia Kitiashvili

Abstract

The article concerns perceived stigma, construction of the scale measuring social vulnerability status related to perceived stigma in Georgian population and the obtained results. Most items were developed on the basis of qualitative research conducted with the people holding social vulnerability status. Following an expert assessment, 263 citizens with social vulnerability status participated in the study. After apply- ing the principal component factor analysis to the scale measuring perceived stigma related to social  vulnerability status, two factors were identified:  enacted stigma (9 items, α =.87) and internalized stigma  (8 items, α=.81). The   intrascale agreement coefficient turned out to be quite high (17 items, α=.89).  Differently from the other scales measuring poverty related perceived stigma, the items on agreement with perceived stereotypes were also included in the scale. The above items fell under the dimension of internalized stigma. Also differently from other theoretical and empirical studies on perceived stigma, the fear of possible future stigmatization fell under the enacted stigma dimension. We believe that the dimension of enacted stigma comprises conceptually past and present stigmatization experiences as well as the anticipated stigmatization. In addition to exploratory factor analysis the confirmatory factor analysis was not applied in the study, which could be considered its certain limitation. 

Keywords:
perceived stigma related to social vulnerability status, enacted stigma, internalized stigma
Published: Jul 19, 2022

Article Details

How to Cite
Pharsadanishvili , N. ., & Kitiashvili , A. . (2022). PERCEIVED STIGMA IN THE GEORGIAN POPULATION WITH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY STATUS . Georgian Psychological Journal, 2. https://doi.org/10.52340/gpj.2022.07.09
Section
Articles

References

Arjan E. R. Bos , John B. Pryor , Glenn D. Reeder & Sarah E. Stutterheim (2013): Stigma: Advances inTheory and Research, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35:1, 1-9.

Frost, D. M. (2011). Social stigma and its consequences for the socially stigmatized. Social and Per-

sonality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 824-839. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00394.x.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden W.O. The use of expert judges in scale development Implications for

improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research

(2004), 98– 107.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults:

Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 32–

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014672.

Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid

measurement instruments[Electronicversion]. Retrieved from Cornell University, School of Hotel Administration site: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/613.

Mickelson, K. D & Williams S.L (2008). Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27 (9), 903-930

Mickelson, K. D. (2001). Perceived stigma, social support, and depression. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1046–1056.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual : a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maiden-

head :Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398–405.

Syed, M. & Nelson. S (2015). Guidelines for Establishing Reliability When Coding Narrative Data.

Society for the Study of Emerging Adulthood and SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2167696815587648.