Environmental Stigma: Resident Responses to Living in a Contaminated Area.

Jie Zhuang, Jeff Cox, Shannon Cruz, James W Dearing, Joseph A Hamm, Brad Upham
Author Information
  1. Jie Zhuang: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  2. Jeff Cox: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  3. Shannon Cruz: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  4. James W Dearing: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  5. Joseph A Hamm: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
  6. Brad Upham: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Abstract

This article examined the extent to which residents living in the Midland-Saginaw-Bay City area in Eastern Michigan felt stigmatized due to industrial contamination. Seventy in-depth interviews were conducted with local residents, focusing on the extent to which they experienced three aspects of stigma-affective, cognitive, and behavioral. Results indicated that although some participants were not concerned with living in a contaminated community, local residents largely perceived dioxin as a risk to individual health and the local environment. Concern, shock, and irritation were typical affective responses at the time participants learned of the contamination. Several participants indicated a feeling of embarrassment and fear of being rejected by others because of the stigma associated with industrial contamination. Instead of actively seeking information about dioxin contamination and remediation, participants often relied on information provided to them by government officials. Behaviorally, participants avoided eating locally caught fish and prepared fish more carefully in order to avoid exposure to contaminants. As a whole, this study provided insight to understand affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to environmental stigma.

Keywords

References

  1. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Dec;105 Suppl 6:1545-50 [PMID: 9467080]
  2. Risk Anal. 2002 Apr;22(2):347-58 [PMID: 12022681]
  3. Br J Health Psychol. 2010 Feb;15(Pt 1):213-28 [PMID: 19527564]
  4. Soc Sci Med. 2014 Apr;107:1-8 [PMID: 24602965]
  5. Risk Anal. 2012 Mar;32(3):483-95 [PMID: 21992523]
  6. Qual Health Res. 2005 Feb;15(2):169-87 [PMID: 15611202]
  7. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jan;76(1):114-28 [PMID: 9972557]
  8. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov;69(5):797-811 [PMID: 7473032]
  9. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep;129(5):674-97 [PMID: 12956539]
  10. Risk Anal. 2004 Oct;24(5):1349-67 [PMID: 15563300]
  11. Psychiatry Res. 2012 Dec 30;200(2-3):802-6 [PMID: 22889545]
  12. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Oct 1;463-464:1201-9 [PMID: 23706479]
  13. Risk Anal. 2001 Oct;21(5):967-77 [PMID: 11798130]
  14. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015 Jul;81:28-33 [PMID: 25862955]
  15. AIDS Educ Prev. 2015 Feb;27(1):58-71 [PMID: 25646730]

Grants

  1. P42 ES004911/NIEHS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0contaminationparticipantsresidentsindustriallocalstigmaextentlivingcognitivebehavioralindicateddioxinriskaffectiveresponsesinformationprovidedfishenvironmentalarticleexaminedMidland-Saginaw-BayCityareaEasternMichiganfeltstigmatizeddueSeventyin-depthinterviewsconductedfocusingexperiencedthreeaspectsstigma-affectiveResultsalthoughconcernedcontaminatedcommunitylargelyperceivedindividualhealthenvironmentConcernshockirritationtypicaltimelearnedSeveralfeelingembarrassmentfearrejectedothersassociatedInsteadactivelyseekingremediationoftenreliedgovernmentofficialsBehaviorallyavoidedeatinglocallycaughtpreparedcarefullyorderavoidexposurecontaminantswholestudyinsightunderstandEnvironmentalStigma:ResidentResponsesLivingContaminatedAreadioxinspublicperceptionssuperfundsites

Similar Articles

Cited By