We present a model with specific antecedents, a refined appraisal phase and a new classification of coping strategies based on the motives that may be elicited by the threatening situation, those of protecting and/or enhancing the personal and/or social identity.
Originally, a stigma was a physical mark that was apposed on some persons to signal not only their lower status (e.g., prostitute, slave), but the fact that one should avoid them because of morality flaws, sicknesses or more generally because those person could be dangerous in a way or another.
Coping refers to “cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, reduce, or tolerate the internal and/or external demands that are created by the stressful transaction” (Folkman, 1984, p. Given the diversity of responses to stress that exist, most authors tried to make significant and meaningful categorizations (e.g., active versus passive or avoidant coping, see Suls and Fletcher, 1985; Roth and Cohen, 1986). Dweck (New York, NY: Guilford Publications), 297–317.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed that coping serves two major functions.
The idea that people are active in responding to discrimination and stigmatization is not new.
More than 50 years ago, Allport (1954) described how victims of discrimination used compensatory behaviors to cope with the discreditation of their identity.
This appraisal goes through two cognitive mechanisms which are primary and secondary appraisals.
Primary appraisal is an assessment of what is at stake: “Am I in trouble or being benefited, now or in the future, and in what ways?
All are stigmatizing “categories” that can be met in the school context.
The consequences of stigma are numerous, especially for the stigmatized.