The Distinctiveness Principle: Identity, Meaning, and the Bounds of Cultural Relativity

Abstract

Extending theories of distinctiveness motivation in identity (Breakwell, 1987; Brewer, 1991; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980), we discuss the precise role of distinctiveness in identity processes and the cross-cultural generality of the distinctiveness principle. We argue that (a) within Western cultures, distinctiveness is necessaryfor the construction of meaning within identity, and (b) the distinctiveness principle is not incompatible with non-Western cultural systems. We propose a distinction among three sources of distinctiveness: position, difference, and separateness, with different implications for identity and behavior. These sources coexist within cultures, on both individual and group levels of selfrepresentation, but they may be emphasized differently according to culture and context.

Identifiable but Not Identical: Combining Social Identity and Uniqueness Motives in Choice

“…Work on uniqueness, for example, suggests that people want to be at least slightly different but says little about how that difference is enacted when faced with multiple differentiating options (Maslach 1974;Snyder and Fromkin 1980;Vignoles et al 2000). Imagine that black Chevy cars are popular among someone's friends.…”

Entrepreneurial Identity

“…Thus, we suggest that distinctiveness plays a central role in developing a meaningful sense of an entrepreneurial identity and therefore a notion of who one is as an individual (Vignoles et al 2000).…”

“…This differentiation in turn helps them more clearly define their identities (Turner 1987). As an example, Vignoles et al (2000) emphasized studies illustrating the prominence of distinctiveness at the identity level, arguing that (1) individuals can memorize information more effectively if it helps them to illustrate how they are different from others (Leyens et al 1997), (2) groups are seen as being more diverse if the evaluator belongs to the group (Brewer 1993;Park and Rothbart 1982), (3) feelings of intense similarity to other individuals are linked to negative emotions (Fromkin and Snyder 1980), (4) individuals feel a greater sense of identification with groups that are distinct (Brewer and Pickett 1999), and (5) individuals tend to view themselves as less like others than others are to themselves (Codol 1984(Codol , 1987.…”

“…While the search for distinctiveness has been linked to the motivation to enhance one's self-esteem (Abrams and Hogg 1988), theoretical work (Brewer 1991) and empirical studies Vignoles et al 2000) have shown that the need for distinctiveness is a "universal human motive" (Brewer and Pickett 1999) enabling self-definition or comparative appraisal of people's identity (Brewer 1991: 478) and that it is separate from self-esteem (Brewer 1991). Thus, we suggest that distinctiveness plays a central role in developing a meaningful sense of an entrepreneurial identity and therefore a notion of who one is as an individual (Vignoles et al 2000).…”

Ethnic dissimilarity predicts belonging motive frustration and reduced organizational attachment

“…Humans' desire for belonging is considered a basic and universal need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Bowlby, 1969;Maslow, 1968); hence, people experience low academic achievement, reduced meaning in life, emotional distress, or even physical pathology when they are socially disconnected (Barden, Garber, Leiman, Ford, & Masters, 1985;Leary, 1990;Lynch, 1977;Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007;Stillman et al, 2009; Running head: ETHNIC DISSIMILARITY AND THE BELONGING MOTIVE 6 Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011. However, individuals also have a basic need to be distinct from others (Lynn & Snyder, 2002;Snyder & Fromkin, 1980;Vignoles et al, 2000).Failing to differentiate oneself is an unpleasant experience (Fromkin, 1972), and, at the extreme, can be associated with psychological disorders (de Bonis, De Boeck, Lida-Pulik, & Feline, 1995).Contextual factors that highlight an individual's difference from, or similarity to, others are likely to either frustrate or satisfy these two motives. For instance, Murphy and colleagues (2007) found that when female math, science, and engineering (MSE) undergraduates viewed a supposed advertising video for an MSE leadership conference that was composed of 3 men and 1 woman, they reported lower anticipated belonging at the conference than when the video was gender balanced.…”