The authors propose a working definition of stigmatization towards ex-combatants from organized armed groups outside the law in Colombia's internal conflict and empirically validate a questionnaire to assess stigmatization. First, they offer a brief review of different concepts of stigmatization, mainly stemming from psychology and sociology. Second, based on the previous review, they will offer a specific definition of stigmatization directed towards ex-combatants in the Colombian internal conflict. This definition encompasses social distance, label attribution, and emotional reactions towards the stigmatized group. Further, they present the validated scale to measure these attitudes in a non-representative sample of 289 people in 34 Colombian counties. Finally, they describe the psychometric properties of this scale as a way to measure stigmatization against ex-combatants in the Colombian internal conflict to be used in interventions aimed at attenuating this stigmatization and favoring their return to civilian society.
TopDefining Stigmatization
Studies on stigmatization have sought to conceptualize the term “stigma” and clarify its use in the context of social interactions. Literature on stigma has been centered in the context of interpersonal relationships. Most proposed definitions of stigmatization include three separate dimensions: a cognitive dimension, an emotional dimension, and a behavioral dimension (see supplementary materials). Some studies prioritize the cognitive dimension (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000; Gofman, 1963; Hannem, 2012; Link & Phelan, 2001; Sharp et al., 2014). From this viewpoint, stigma refers to a profoundly discrediting and negative characteristic attributed to the stigmatized person, opposing their actual, observable, demonstrable character.
In this sense, Goffman (1963) provides one of the most recognized studies. Goffman states that stigma is a deeply discrediting attribute which produces a special kind of gap between virtual social identity (the character ascribed to the individual) and actual social identity (the category and demonstrable attributes that actually belong to the individual). His ideas have served as the baseline for subsequent definitions and discussions, such as those by Dovidio, Major, and Crocker (2000), Link and Phelan (2001), Hannem (2012), and Sharp et al. (2014).
Later, Stafford and Scott 1986 would consider stigma to be a personal characteristic that is contrary to the norm of society. This view has been shared by authors such as Crocker, Major and Steele who highlight how this notion devalued the identity of stigmatized individuals in a particular context. Meanwhile, Jones et al. (1984) state that stigma is produced from a relationship between the “mark” (attribute) and its connection with certain undesirable characteristics (stereotype) of the stigmatized individual.
Therefore, the first studies on this topic focused on stigma as an individual negative quality. However, Link and Phelan (2001) ultimately reject the use of words such as “attribute”, “condition” or “mark” when they discuss stigma. Their argument lies in that this language denotes prejudice, presenting stigma as a characteristic feature of the person without acknowledging the role of the stigmatizer. Thus, dismissing this notion, they use instead the term “label” and, in this way, clarify that this “something” is not a fixed part of the stigmatized individual but, rather, is assigned to them by others. This idea is shared by other studies which conclude that stigma is a negative “label” given from a dominant perspective, usually linked to physical, ideological or derived from some past actions (Goar, 2013).