| Title |
Stigma and Self-Stigma in Addiction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9784-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steve Matthews, Robyn Dwyer, Anke Snoek |
| Abstract |
Addictions are commonly accompanied by a sense of shame or self-stigmatization. Self-stigmatization results from public stigmatization in a process leading to the internalization of the social opprobrium attaching to the negative stereotypes associated with addiction. We offer an account of how this process works in terms of a range of looping effects, and this leads to our main claim that for a significant range of cases public stigma figures in the social construction of addiction. This rests on a social constructivist account in which those affected by public stigmatization internalize its norms. Stigma figures as part-constituent of the dynamic process in which addiction is formed. Our thesis is partly theoretical, partly empirical, as we source our claims about the process of internalization from interviews with people in treatment for substance use problems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 70% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 286 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 10% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 12% |
| Unknown | 103 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 46 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 38 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 37 | 13% |
| Unknown | 108 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#453,181
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#14
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,299
of 325,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.