Cited by 840Mental Health Treatment and AccessSocial and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Structural stigma: Research evidence and implications for psychological science.

Open access
Hatzenbuehler, Mark L.·2016·American Psychologist

Abstract

Psychological research has provided essential insights into how stigma operates to disadvantage those who are targeted by it. At the same time, stigma research has been criticized for being too focused on the perceptions of stigmatized individuals and on microlevel interactions, rather than attending to structural forms of stigma. This article describes the relatively new field of research on structural stigma, which is defined as societal-level conditions, cultural norms, and institutional policies that constrain the opportunities, resources, and well-being of the stigmatized. I review emerging evidence that structural stigma related to mental illness and sexual orientation (a) exerts direct and synergistic effects on stigma processes that have long been the focus of psychological inquiry (e.g., concealment, rejection sensitivity), (b) serves as a contextual moderator of the efficacy of psychological interventions, and (c) contributes to numerous adverse health outcomes for members of stigmatized groups-ranging from dysregulated physiological stress responses to premature mortality-indicating that structural stigma represents an underrecognized mechanism producing health inequalities. Each of these pieces of evidence suggests that structural stigma is relevant to psychology and therefore deserves the attention of psychological scientists interested in understanding and ultimately reducing the negative effects of stigma. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000068

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Emerging research has highlighted that structural forces not only impede implementation in their own right but also perpetuate and reinforce other barriers such as stigma and deprioritization of mental health care.

    “This need for task-sharing interventions to be more responsive to and resistant against macro-level factors is echoed by emerging research that has highlighted the role that structural forces play in not only impeding implementation in their own right but also perpetuating and reinforcing other barriers (e.g., stigma, deprioritization of mental health care) [97–99].”

    From Barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review using implementation science frameworks (2022) · cites this paper as [99]

    The sections on psychological interventions and stigma processes report that structural stigma can weaken intervention efficacy and is associated with individual-level stigma. They do not establish that structural forces impede task-sharing implementation or cause mental health care to be deprioritized. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hatzenbuehler ML Major B Dovidio JF Link BG Structural stigma and health. The Handbook of Stigma, Discrimination and Health Oxford University Press Oxford in press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hatzenbuehler, M. L.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Hatzenbuehler, Mark L.
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2016-11
Volume
71
Issue
8
Pages
742-751
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2561252048
Cited by
839
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 116 · 2025: 168 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
33.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K01DA032558)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
structural stigma, mental health stigma, sexual orientation stigma, concealment, rejection sensitivity, psychological intervention, health disparities, physiological stress response, premature mortality, institutional policy, cultural norms
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Psychology, Sexual Behavior, Stereotyping, Stress, Psychological, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review