Distinctiveness as a Marker of Identity Formation

Abstract

Individual distinctiveness is theorized to characterize an adaptive identity, but its importance remained underexplored. In two studies, we investigated the nomological networks of two common conceptualizations of distinctiveness: general and comparative distinctiveness. We compared these to the network of identity formation’s best-validated marker: commitment. Findings from two samples of young adults living in the Netherlands (n = 320) and in the US (n = 246) both revealed that general distinctiveness marked adaptive identity formation and greater psychosocial well-being. Moreover, general distinctiveness had unique predictive value over commitment strength. Comparative distinctiveness from important others uniquely indicated lowered social well-being. Our findings illustrate that careful attention should be paid to the conceptualization of distinctiveness, because distinctiveness is an important but complex concept.

Psychiatric nursing staffs’ attitudes towards the use of containment methods in psychiatric inpatient care: An integrative review

“…Out of the six studies that utilized the questionnaire by Heyman (1987), four studies utilized the same data set (Happell & Koehn 2010, 2011a. Other questionnaires that were used included those presented by Gelkopf et al (2009), Husum et al (2008, Janelli et al (1992), Van Doeselaar et al (2008), andWynn (2003). Four of the studies used a questionnaire which was developed specifically for their study and has not been used since.…”

“…In addition, seclusion and restraint were used to assure legal protection (Mahmoud 2017), maintain the treatment regimen, and minimize disturbances to other patients and due to nurses' accountability in caring for patients (Chien & Lee 2007). Seclusion was considered a solution to threatening situations and was linked to departmental culture (Van Doeselaar et al 2008). Some felt that restraint was a way to stop a commotion in the ward (Gelkopf et al 2009) and a substantial proportion of nurses believed a patient's bothersome action(s) to be a reason for restraint (Gelkopf et al 2009).…”

“…Some of the staff described abuse of psychiatry or psychiatric patients, due to political, religious, sexual, racial, or economic reasons, as a general problem (Alem et al 2002). According to Van Doeselaar et al (2008), a seclusion reduction programme did not change the reasons why seclusion was applied. However, professionals did become more critical of seclusion, but the universal approval of the use of seclusion did not decrease (Van Doeselaar et al 2008).…”

“…According to Van Doeselaar et al (2008), a seclusion reduction programme did not change the reasons why seclusion was applied. However, professionals did become more critical of seclusion, but the universal approval of the use of seclusion did not decrease (Van Doeselaar et al 2008).…”

“…Moreover, nurses with lower levels of knowledge and positive attitudes towards seclusion and restraint methods used these practices more frequently (Khalil et al 2017). Even though mental healthcare professionals reported facing various ethical questions concerning coercion, they were nevertheless in favour of the practice of seclusion (Van Doeselaar et al 2008).…”