The self-discrepancy theory states that individuals compare their "actual" self to internalized standards or the "ideal/ought self". Inconsistencies between "actual", "ideal" (idealized version of yourself created from life experiences) and "ought" (who persons feel they should be or should become) are associated with emotional discomforts (e.g., fear, threat, restlessness). Self-discrepancy is the gap between two of these self-representations that leads to negative emotions.
Developed by Edward Tory Higgins in 1987, the theory provides a platform for understanding how different types of discrepancies between representations of the self are related to different kinds of emotional vulnerabilities. Higgins sought to illustrate that internal disagreement causes emotional and psychological turmoil. There were several previous theories proving this concept such as the self-inconsistency theory, the cognitive dissonance theory,Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press and the Balance theory (e.g., Heider, 1958); however, Higgins wanted to take it one step further by determining the specific emotions that surfaced as a result of these internal disagreements. Previous self-imbalance theories had recognized only positive or negative emotions. The self-discrepancy theory was the first to assign specific emotions and affects to the disparity.
The theory proposes how a variety of self-discrepancies represents a variety of types of negative psychological situations that are associated with different kinds of discomfort. A primary goal of the self-discrepancy theory is to create an understanding of which types of contrasting ideas will cause such individuals to feel different kinds of negative emotions.
The structure of the theory was built based on three ideas. First classify the different kinds of discomfort felt by those people holding contrasting ideals experienced, as well as the various types of emotional vulnerabilities felt by the different types of discrepancies. Lastly, to consider the role of the different discrepancies in influencing the kind and type of discomfort individuals are most likely to experience.
Domains of the self The theory postulates three basic domains of the self:
Actual Actual self is one's representation of the attributes that one believes one actually possesses, or that one believes others believe one possesses.Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy; A theory relating self and affect, Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. The "actual self" is a person's basic self-concept. It is one's perception of their own attributes (intelligence, athleticism, attractiveness, etc.).
Ideal Ideal self is one's representation of the attributes that someone (oneself or another) would like one, ideally, to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's hopes, aspirations, or wishes for one). The "ideal-self" is what usually motivates individuals to change, improve and achieve.
The ideal self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of positive outcomes (e.g., love provided or withdrawn).Higgins, E.T., Roney, C.J.R., Crowe, E., Hymes C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.
Ought Ought is one's representation of the attributes that someone (oneself or another) believes one should or ought to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's sense of one's duty, obligations, or responsibilities).
The ought self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of negative outcomes (e.g., criticism administered or suspended).
Example To illustrate the differences between Ideal and Ought selves, Hardin & Lankin (2009)Hardin, E. E., & Lakin, J. L. (2009). The Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index: A Reliable and Valid Measure of Self-Discrepancies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902794291 give the example of wealth. A person may hope to ideally be rich someday, but they feel no duty or moral obligation to be rich. Rich would therefore describe their ideal self, but not their ought self. Their actual self would be dependent upon how they perceive their current socioeconomic status.Hardin, E. E., & Lakin, J. L. (2009). The Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index: A Reliable and Valid Measure of Self-Discrepancies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902794291
Standpoints of the self Self-discrepancy theory initiates the importance of considering two different standpoints (or vantage points) in which "the self" is perceived. A standpoint on the self is defined as "a point of view from which you can be judged that reflects a set of attitudes or values."
Own An individual's own personal standpoint.
Other The standpoint of some significant other. Significant others may comprise parents, siblings, spouses, or friends. The "other" standpoint is what the self perceives their significant other's standpoint to be.
Except for theories focusing on the actual self, previous theories of the self had not systematically considered the different domain of self in terms of the different standpoints on those domains. These two constructs provide the basis from which discrepancies arise; that is, when certain domains of the self are at odds with one another, individuals experience particular emotional affects (ex: one's beliefs concerning the attributes one would personally like ideally to possess versus your beliefs concerning the attributes that some significant other person, such as your mother, would like you ideally to possess).
Discrepancies Discrepancies create two major types of negative physiological situations: absence of positive outcomes, which is associated with dejection-related emotions, and the presence of negative outcomes which is associated with agitation-related emotions. Actual Ideal Ought Own Self-Concept Self-Guide Self-Guide Other Self-Concept Self-Guide Self-Guide
Self-concept
Actual/own vs. actual/other These self-state representations are the basic self-concept (from either or both standpoints). Discrepancies between own self-concept, and other self-concept can be described as an identity crisis, which often occurs during adolescence.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:Norton. Guilt is a characteristic result of discrepancy from the own perspective. Shame is a characteristic result of discrepancy from the other perspective.
Self-guide
Actual/own vs. ideal/own In this discrepancy, a person's view of their actual attributes does not match the ideal attributes they hope to develop. Discrepancy between these self-guides is characterized by dejection-related emotions such as disappointment and dissatisfaction. Actual/ideal discrepancies are associated with low self-esteemWells, L. E. & Marwell, G. (1976) Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. and characterized by the threat of absence of positive outcomes. Specifically, an individual is predicted to be vulnerable to disappointment or dissatisfaction because these emotions are associated with people believing that their personal wishes have been unfulfilled. These emotions have been described as being associated with the individuals' own standpoint and a discrepancy from his or her hope, desire, or ideals. The motivational nature of this discrepancy also suggests that it could be associated with frustration because of these unfulfilled desires. Emotions such as blameworthiness, feeling no interest in things, and not feeling effective was also associated with this discrepancy. In addition, this discrepancy is also associated with dejection from perceived lack of effectiveness or self-fulfillment. This discrepancy is uniquely associated with depression.
Actual/own vs. ideal/other Here, one's view of their actual attributes does not match the ideal attributes their significant other hopes or wishes for them. The ideal self-guide is characterized by the absence of positive outcomes, and accompanied by dejection-related emotions. More specifically, because one believes that they have failed to obtain some significant other's hopes or wishes are likely to believe that the significant other is disappointed and dissatisfied with them. In turn, individuals will be vulnerable to shame, embarrassment, or feeling downcast, because these emotions are associated with people believing that they have lost standing or esteem in the eyes of others. Analysis of shame and related emotions have been described as being associated with the standpoint of one or more other people and discrepancies from achievement and/or status standards. Other analyses describe shame as being associated with concern over losing the affection or esteem of others. When people have a sense of the difference between their actual self and their social ideal self, an individual will experience feelings of shame and unworthiness. Shame that is often experienced when there is a failure to meet a significant other's goals or wishes involves loss of face and presumed exposure to the dissatisfaction of others. Feeling lack of pride, lack of feeling sure of self and goals, feeling lonely, feeling blue, and feeling not interested in things was also associated with this discrepancy. This discrepancy is associated with dejection from perceived or anticipated loss of social affection or esteem.
Actual/own vs. ought/other This discrepancy exists when a person's own standpoint does not match what they believe a significant other considers to be his or her duty or obligation to attain. Agitation-related emotions are associated with this discrepancy and results in the presence of negative outcomes. More specifically, because violation of prescribed duties and obligations is associated with punishment, this particular discrepancy represents the presence of negative outcomes. The individual experiencing this discrepancy will have an expectation of punishment; therefore, the person is predicted to be vulnerable to fear and feeling threatened, because these emotions occur when danger or harm is anticipated or impending. Analyses of such emotions have described them as being associated with the standpoint of one or more other people and discrepancy from norms or moral standards. The motivational nature of this discrepancy suggests that one might experience feelings of resentment. The feeling of resentment arises from the anticipated pain to be inflicted by others. The person might also experience anxiety because of apprehension over negative responses from others. This discrepancy is associated with agitation from fear and threat. In addition, it is also associated with agitation from self-criticism. Social anxiety is uniquely associated with this discrepancy.
Actual/own vs. ought/own A discrepancy between these self-guides occurs when one's view of their actual attributes does not meet the expectations of what they think they ought to possess. This discrepancy is associated with the presence of negative outcomes and is characterized by agitation-related emotions such as self-dissatisfaction. An individual predicts a readiness for self-punishment. The person is predicted to be vulnerable to guilt, self-contempt, and uneasiness, because these particular feelings occur when people believe they have transgressed a personally legitimate and accepted moral standard. Analysis of guilt has described it as associated with a person's own standpoint and a discrepancy from his or her sense of morality or justice. The motivational nature of this discrepancy suggests associations with feelings of moral worthlessness or weakness. Transgression of one's own internalized moral standards has been associated with guilt and self-criticism because when people attribute failure to a lack of sufficient effort on their part, they experience feelings of guilt.