The case for demedicalizing stigma research

Anti-stigma efforts with the goal of increasing treatment are often prioritized over anti-stigma efforts with the goal of improving the sociocultural status of a stigmatized way of being. We argue that a similar phenomenon exists within basic stigma research: research that enables efforts to increase rates of diagnosis and treatment has been prioritized over research that enables efforts to destigmatize. We refer to this as the medicalization of basic stigma research. In this critical review, we show that the medicalized state of stigma research manifests in several ways: the medicalized impetus and justification for much stigma research, the medicalized focus on the consequences of stigma, and the continued influence of attribution theory despite its empirical and practical limitations. We argue that researchers, reviewers, and funders should work to demedicalize stigma research, highlighting three potential steps. First, we must distinguish between improving the sociocultural valuation of a stigmatized way of being (destigmatization) and increasing the extent to which a way of being is defined and treated as a medical problem (medicalization). Second, we must prioritize research into what causes the sociocultural devaluation of stigmatized ways of being. Third, we must develop new theories of stigma that decenter health and illness and instead center cultural processes of devaluation.