Self-stigma is a significant barrier to help-seeking among survivors of childhood maltreatment (CM). Although context, including cultural context, shapes the way stigma-related beliefs are experienced and translated into help-seeking intentions, most evidence derives from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) countries/cultures. This multi-national study examined cross-national differences in self-stigma dimensions and help-seeking intentions among CM survivors spanning both WEIRD (United States, Sweden, Switzerland) and non-WEIRD (Japan, South Africa, Türkiye) countries. Young adults with a retrospectively self-reported history of CM ( N = 2,691) completed online self-report measures assessing self-stigma dimensions (alienation, stereotype endorsement, secrecy, and perceived recovery) and help-seeking intentions. Group (WEIRD vs. non-WEIRD) differences were examined using ANCOVAs controlling for age, gender, education, subjective social status, and extent of CM exposure. Pearson correlations assessed associations among stigma-related constructs and help-seeking intentions at both group (regional; WEIRD vs. non-WEIRD) and country levels. Participants from non-WEIRD countries reported lower alienation alongside higher secrecy, perceived recovery, and help-seeking intentions compared to participants from WEIRD countries. Stereotype endorsement did not differ between groups. Correlational patterns among stigma-related constructs were broadly similar across contexts, but associations were descriptively stronger and more interlinked in WEIRD countries. Country-level analyses revealed substantial mean-level variation across countries. Self-stigma-related patterns among CM survivors varied descriptively across countries, with differing configurations of stigma-related dimensions observed across contexts. These findings underscore the importance of moving beyond WEIRD-centric models and support culturally sensitive approaches to stigma reduction and help-seeking promotion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Haim‐Nachum et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: