Explicating the complexity of self-illness ambiguity

Self-illness ambiguity (SIA) has been understood, roughly, as a difficulty in delineating one’s self from one’s mental illness. In this paper, we explicate some of the previously neglected complexity of SIA, by distinguishing two forms of the phenomenon: (a) identity-related SIA (‘How do I relate to my illness?’) and (b) agential SIA (‘Is it me or my illness that makes me act/think/feel a certain way?’). In addition, we differentiate general and particular varieties of these SIA-forms, as well as descriptive and analytic approaches to them. The resulting taxonomy allows (1) clarifying the growing SIA-literature, (2) supporting (self-)understanding in clinical contexts, and (3) drilling into the normatively significant features of SIA, e.g., enabling the better theorising of potential connections between agential SIA and questions of responsibility. Our taxonomy thus strengthens the conceptual foundation for future theories and applications of SIA.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05244-8
Primary Topic
Mental Health Treatment and Access
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Explicating the complexity of self-illness ambiguity

Anna Golova, Roy Dings
Synthese
Mental Health Treatment and Access
article

Explicating the complexity of self-illness ambiguity

Anna Golova, Roy Dings
article en

Abstract

Self-illness ambiguity (SIA) has been understood, roughly, as a difficulty in delineating one’s self from one’s mental illness. In this paper, we explicate some of the previously neglected complexity of SIA, by distinguishing two forms of the phenomenon: (a) identity-related SIA (‘How do I relate to my illness?’) and (b) agential SIA (‘Is it me or my illness that makes me act/think/feel a certain way?’). In addition, we differentiate general and particular varieties of these SIA-forms, as well as descriptive and analytic approaches to them. The resulting taxonomy allows (1) clarifying the growing SIA-literature, (2) supporting (self-)understanding in clinical contexts, and (3) drilling into the normatively significant features of SIA, e.g., enabling the better theorising of potential connections between agential SIA and questions of responsibility. Our taxonomy thus strengthens the conceptual foundation for future theories and applications of SIA.

SyntheseVol. 206(5)
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), University of Oxford (GB), Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Mental Health Treatment and Access
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Explicating the complexity of self-illness ambiguity — Anna Golova, Roy Dings · Synthese (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS