Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Self-stigma and emotion

A 21-year-old university student has just moved out of home. They are juggling part-time work, assignments, and a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder. They keep their diagnosis to themselves, terrified that classmates will see them as unstable or that lecturers will lower their expectations. They internalise a fear that future employers will pass them over for more "suitable" candidates. During group projects, every slip in focus feels like proof they can't be trusted. When friends make jokes about being “crazy,” the words sting more than they let on. They replay these interactions on the bus ride home, until, eventually, they start to believe them. Bit by bit, they stop attending study sessions, avoid campus events, and retreat to their room (see Figure 1). Being unseen feels safer than being exposed.

Self-stigma occurs when people internalise public stereotypes or negative beliefs about their own group — for example, those living with mental illness, disability, or any identity society devalues. It is the shift from “they think I’m broken” to “maybe I am.”

This chapter examines how that internalisation shapes emotional life. Self-stigma links motivation and emotion, influencing how people view themselves, the goals they pursue, and how they regulate shame, guilt, fear, and pride.

Focus questions

1. What is self-stigma, and how does it differ from public stigma?
2. How does self-stigma influence emotion and motivation?
3. Which psychological theories explain this link ?
4. How can self-stigma be reduced?

Self-stigma unfolds as a three-step process (Corrigan & Watson, 2002):

1. Awareness – noticing public stereotypes.
2. Agreement – believing those stereotypes are valid.
3. Application – applying them to oneself.

Public stigma lives outside; self-stigma lives inside. When a student with depression hears classmates call mental illness “weakness,” they may start believing that about themselves. The external label becomes an internal truth.

This aligns with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): our self-concept is partly built from group membership. When that group is devalued, maintaining self-esteem demands constant emotional labour — balancing acceptance with fear of rejection.

Self-stigma activates painful emotions — shame, guilt, embarrassment, fear, anger. Shame fuses identity and fault: “I am bad.” Guilt separates them: “I did something wrong.” Both drain motivation and promote withdrawal.

Figure 1 symbolises this retreat: staying home offers short-term safety from judgment but deepens isolation. The mirror reflects self-evaluation — the emotional loop where social opinion becomes self-perception.

People hold three self-guides (Higgins, 1987):

1. the actual self – who one is,
2. the ideal self – who one wants to be, and
3. the ought self – who one believes they should be.

Gaps between these selves evoke emotion. An actual–ideal gap produces dejection and shame; an actual–ought gap produces anxiety and guilt. Self-stigma widens both, convincing a person they can never meet internal or external standards. Studies show greater self-discrepancy predicts depression and low motivation (Phillips & Silva, 2019).

According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), self-esteem depends on group membership. Belonging to a stigmatised group threatens identity, sparking humiliation, sadness, or anger. People may distance themselves (“I’m not like them”), or over-identify (“At least we understand each other”). Both regulate emotion but rarely resolve shame. In mental-health contexts, internalised stigma predicts reduced belonging and self-esteem (Thoits, 2011).

Corrigan’s (2002) model connects cognition and emotion:

Awareness → 2. Agreement → 3. Application → 4. Harm. Each stage deepens emotional distress — from anxiety to shame, guilt, and despair. Protective beliefs or supportive communities can interrupt the chain.

• Self-discrepancy theory: Discrepancies between actual, ideal, and ought selves trigger shame, guilt, and anxiety (Higgins, 1987).
• Social identity theory: Stigmatised group membership threatens self-esteem, eliciting humiliation or anger (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
• Cognitive-behavioural model: Internalisation progresses from awareness to harm, generating shame and withdrawal (Corrigan & Watson, 2002).

No single model explains self-stigma fully. Combined, they show that stigma is cognitive (beliefs), emotional (feelings), and motivational (actions). Emotion is the hinge converting social judgment into personal limitation.

Self-discrepancy highlights inner conflict, social identity locates it in community, and the cognitive-behavioural model reveals the process. Together, they explain how stigma either immobilises or inspires resistance.

Emotion and motivation are intertwined. The broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001) holds that positive emotion widens behavioural options; negative emotion narrows them. Self-stigma fosters chronic negative affect, shrinking one’s motivational field — avoiding class discussions, job applications, even therapy.

Within self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), self-stigma undermines the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness:

• Autonomy → “I have no control over how I’m seen.”
• Competence → “I’m not good enough.”
• Relatedness → “I don’t belong.”

When those needs are thwarted, intrinsic motivation fades. Shame signals incompetence, guilt signals failure, and fear signals exclusion.

Some researchers view self-stigma as a misguided self-protection strategy (Link et al., 2015): withdrawal shields against judgement but preserves helplessness. Avoidance soothes pain today and sustains it tomorrow.

Self-stigma isn’t experienced in a vacuum. It’s filtered through gender, culture, race, class, disability, age, and neurodiversity. These contexts change both the content of the internalised message and the emotion that carries it.

Gendered self-stigma -

Women and gender-diverse people may absorb contradictory messages (e.g., “be strong” and “don’t be too much”). Shame often centres on perceived emotional “excess” or “instability,” which can intensify avoidance of care or leadership opportunities.

Indigeneity and culture -

For First Nations peoples, self-stigma can entangle with historical trauma and ongoing discrimination. The emotional core may include cultural grief and a protective vigilance that looks like withdrawal but is, in context, adaptive. Pride, community connection, and cultural practices can buffer shame and rebuild motivational energy.

Neurodiversity -

People with ADHD, autism, or learning differences frequently internalise the myth that productivity equals worth. That fuels an actual–ought discrepancy (Higgins, 1987): “I should be able to focus like others.” The result is guilt, then burnout. Reframing difference as diversity of cognition, not deficit, reduces moral pain and restores agency.

Intersections with class and disability -

When poverty or disability limits access to flexible work or study, self-stigma can morph into fatalism (“people like me can’t…”). Here, community-level solutions (accessible policies, financial safety nets) are not optional add-ons; they’re core anti-stigma interventions.

Minority stress and belonging -

Belonging to multiple stigmatised groups compounds identity threat (social identity theory). Emotionally, that often shows up as “double vigilance” — scanning for rejection on more than one axis — which narrows motivation and makes values-based actions feel riskier.

Measuring self-stigma and its emotional impact helps track progress and tailor interventions.

Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale (short forms exist). Assesses alienation, stereotype endorsement, discrimination experience, social withdrawal, and stigma resistance.

• Self-Stigma of Seeking Help (SSOSH). Captures anticipated shame/guilt about seeking psychological help.
• Self-Compassion Scale (short form). Useful as a resilience marker; higher scores often predict reduced shame.
• Affect check-ins. Quick repeated measures (e.g., 0–10 shame, guilt, anxiety, self-efficacy) logged weekly.
• Values/behaviour alignment logs. One sentence per day: “Today I did ___ because I value ___.” Motivation tends to return where values are enacted, even with lingering shame.

Implementation tip: pair a belief measure (e.g., ISMI subscales) with an affect measure (shame/anxiety) and a behaviour metric (attendance, social/contact steps). This triangulation prevents “belief change” from masking ongoing emotional pain.

Self-stigma doesn’t just shape thoughts; it reshapes how people feel about existing. Common emotional patterns include:

1. Shame and self-contempt – feeling fundamentally “less than,” leading to withdrawal and avoidance.
2. Guilt and moral pain – believing one has failed expectations.
3. Anxiety and fear of rejection – anticipating disapproval or ridicule.
4. Depression and hopelessness – a sense that recovery or acceptance is impossible.
5. Anger and defiance – energy that can fuel either advocacy or alienation.

Shame is the emotional nucleus of self-stigma. It fuses identity and fault: “I am bad.” Guilt separates them: “I did something wrong.” Persistent shame predicts depression and suicidality (Gilbert & Procter, 2006).

Self-stigma erodes self-efficacy, belief in one’s ability to act effectively. Lower efficacy increases avoidance, forming a loop between emotion and behaviour.{{f}

Case vignette:

A 21-year-old university student with ADHD misses deadlines. Hearing peers call ADHD “lazy,” she internalises the label. Each late submission triggers shame rather than frustration. Eventually she stops requesting support, convinced she is undeserving.

Emotion, not logic, sustains that spiral.

Avoidance briefly reduces anxiety but deprives people of connection — the cure for shame. Loneliness magnifies pain. Recovery literature emphasises approach motivation: small, repeated steps toward valued goals (Hayes et al., 2011). Every approach act weakens the stigma script. Shame narrows attention to threat; self-compassion broadens it to possibility. Compassion activates the “soothing system” (Gilbert, 2010), enabling re-engagement with life.

Protective forces buffer self-stigma’s emotional weight:

• Self-compassion – responding to failure with understanding instead of judgment.
• Social support – peers or mentors who validate experience.
• Cultural pride – reclaiming identity as a source of strength.
• Education – recognising stigma as social, not personal.
• Therapeutic alliance – being genuinely understood by clinicians.

These do not erase stigma but change its meaning from shame to shared humanity.

Addressing self-stigma means working across emotion, cognition, and social context.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy challenges internalised beliefs like “I am weak.”

Key questions:

• What evidence supports this belief?
• Would I say this to a friend?
• How might stigma distort my interpretation?

Psychoeducation reframes stigma as a cultural process rather than a personal defect, easing guilt and isolation.

Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) encourages acceptance of internal pain while committing to values-driven action. For example, someone who values connection attends a support group despite fear. Exposure to discomfort builds flexibility (Hayes et al., 2011).

Reflection: Write an intention: “Even though I feel __, I will still __.” Linking acceptance with action transforms emotion from barrier to guide.

Peer-led spaces such as Beyond Blue forums or NAMI’s “In Our Own Voice” replace hopelessness with identification. Seeing others live well with stigma restores possibility and reduces shame through equality rather than authority.

Compassion-focused therapy directly targets shame. Through imagery and breathing, people cultivate an inner compassionate voice (Gilbert & Procter, 2006). Mindfulness adds the skill of observing thoughts without fusing with them — turning “I am bad” into “I notice the thought that I am bad.” Daily compassionate journaling or soothing rituals gradually reset emotional tone from hostility to care.

Because stigma is collective, community action matters:

• Contact-based education – structured interactions between the public and people with lived experience reduce fear.
• Media campaigns – stories that humanise mental health foster empathy.
• Workplace inclusion – policies allowing safe disclosure lower anxiety.
• Cultural storytelling – music, film, and art transform collective emotion.

Emotion spreads; shifting public feeling from fear to empathy dismantles stigma’s roots.

Support workers and clinicians can:

• Name stigma early. Acknowledge it as real and emotional, not abstract.
• Model vulnerability. Judicious self-disclosure normalises humanity.
• Track affective change. Measure not only belief shifts but reductions in shame and fear.
• Practitioners must monitor their own biases — the “difficult client” narrative often echoes social stigma in miniature.

Self-stigma is not only a reflection of public attitudes but a deeply personal process that reshapes identity and emotions. Theories such as self-discrepancy, social identity, and modified labeling explain why internalised stigma can be so damaging, producing shame, hopelessness, withdrawal, and reduced motivation. Yet research also demonstrates that the cycle is not inevitable. Approaches such as cognitive restructuring, mindfulness, peer support, and self-compassion can reduce internalised stigma and support recovery. Addressing self-stigma matters not only for emotional well-being but also for encouraging resilience, motivation, and fuller participation in life.

Beyond Blue – Tackling Self-Stigma

https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/9494/stigma-and-discrimination-associated-with-depression-and-anxiety.pdf

National Alliance on Mental Illness – Ending Self-Stigma

https://www.nami.org/recovery/the-many-impacts-of-self-stigma/

World Health Organization – Mental Health and Stigma

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/26-06-2024-the-overwhelming-case-for-ending-stigma-and-discrimination-in-mental-health