Perceived Poverty Stigma: Who Is More Susceptible?

Background and purpose:  Perceived poverty-related stigma (PPS) refers to the sense that friends, family members, and service providers devalue and act in discriminatory ways on account of one’s poverty status.  Research has documented the contours of PPS, particularly as experienced by low-income mothers. Mothers in this group are well aware of their lower social status in society and report on ways in which they are devalued, excluded, shamed, and regarded as a burden. The deleterious physical and psychological effects of PPS above and beyond the toxic effects of poverty are also documented, including its relationship to poorer uptake of economic and health services.

Interestingly, the question of who reports higher PPS has received little attention. This limits our understanding of the risk factors for PPS. This study aims to identify factors associated with PPS among low-income women, exploring the significance of (a) demographic characteristics; (b) non-income stigmatized identities or conditions (i.e., treatment for mental illness or substance use, childhood abuse, chronic health condition); (c) previous discrimination related to non-income related factors (e.g., race, and sexual orientation); (d) extent of financial hardship and receipt of financial assistance; and (e) assets and social supports. Given the possibility that internalized stigma (sense of shame on account of income status) sensitizes individual living in poverty to perceive or interpret events as discriminatory, we also examined the mediating effect of internalized poverty stigma in accounting for the relationship between acute financial hardships and PPS.

Methods:  A voluntary sample of 341 women participating in a supplemental nutrition program, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), was recruited on-site at WIC clinics in a large and diverse county in a Midwestern state. Women were asked to fill out a survey including a range of economic, mental health and social indicators. To examine predictors of PPS, initially, study variables associated with PPS at p<.10 as bivariates were included in OLS regression models to identify factors most predictive of PPS. A mediation analysis modeled after Baron & Kenny’s four-step regression analysis approach was used to test the mediating effect of internalized stigma between acute financial hardships and PPS.

Results: The factors most uniquely predictive of PPS among WIC recipients included: level of acute financial hardships, exposure to discrimination related to non-income attributes, childhood emotional abuse, and internalized poverty stigma. Overall, the final model explained 53% of the variance of PPS.  Finally, the mediational analysis found that internalized poverty stigma partially mediated the relationship between acute financial hardships and PPS.

Conclusions and implications: This research underscores the importance of considering intersecting stigmas as well as the role of internalized poverty stigma when working with individuals who struggle with poverty. Better understanding of the dynamics of stigma and poverty can inform and promote more comprehensive assessment and psychosocial intervention models for agencies working with individuals struggling with poverty.