Self-Discrepancy Theory

DEVELOPERS

E. Tory Higgins (1987, 1989)

BACKGROUND

Higgins (1989) defines Self-Discrepancy Theory (SDT) as “a general theory relating different patterns of self-beliefs to different kinds of emotional-motivational predispositions” (p.129). He posits that the self takes two standpoints: “your own personal standpoint and the standpoint of some significant other” such as a close relative, a romantic interest, and/or a friend (Higgins, 1989, p.321). Combining these standpoints with the three domains of the self – the actual self, the ideal self, and the ought self – produces six possible self-state representations: actual/own, actual/other, ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other. The first two – actual/own and actual/other – represent self-concept. The remaining four – ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other – make up the various self-guides.

Self-discrepancies are comprised of inconsistencies between individuals’ self-concept and pertinent self-guides. For instance, a woman might experience an actual/own versus ought/other discrepancy if she works hard to further her career but her mother thinks she should settle down and start a family. Such discrepancies produce discomfort in the individual, which may motivate the person to minimize discrepancies in order to alleviate the discomfort (Higgins, 1987).

SDT’s most influential hypothesis states that the various forms self-discrepancies take cause different emotional/motivational states, which fall under the general categories of “absence of positive outcomes (dejection-related emotions)” or “presence of negative outcomes (agitation-related emotions)” (Higgins, 1987, p.322). Higgins contends that an actual/own versus ideal/own discrepancy corresponds to an absence of positive outcomes and therefore the dejection-related emotions of disappointment and dissatisfaction. An actual/own versus ideal/other discrepancy also corresponds to an absence of positive outcomes and therefore the dejection-related emotions of shame, embarrassment, and feeling downcast. An actual/own versus ought/other discrepancy corresponds to the presence of negative outcomes and therefore the agitation-related emotions of fear and feeling threatened. An actual/own versus ought/own discrepancy also corresponds to the presence of negative outcomes and therefore the agitation-related emotions of guilt, self-contempt, and uneasiness (Higgins, 1987).

In his original study, Higgins (1987) measured self-discrepancies using the Selves Questionnaire, which asked participants to write up to ten traits or attributes associated with their self-states, then rate how personally meaningful each was to them. However, some researchers doubted the effectiveness of the Selves Questionnaire, so they developed alternative means of measurement. Tangney et al. (1998) combined an adjectives list with the Selves Questionnaire, but they failed to replicate Higgins’ findings as a result. Francis, Boldero & Sambell (2006) developed the Self-Lines measure, which mapped a person’s actual, ideal and possible selves on a line between two self-defined opposite traits or attributes. Finally, Hardin & Lakin developed the Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index, which combines idiographic and nomothetic methods to discover participants’ self-discrepancies.

Terms & definitions:

Domains of the self: (Higgins, 1987, p.320-321)

• Actual self – your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you actually possess
• Ideal self – your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) would like you, ideally, to possess (hopes, aspirations, wishes)
• Ought self – your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you should or ought to possess (sense of duty,
• obligations, responsibilities)

Dejection-related emotions: disappointment, dissatisfaction, frustration; shame, embarrassment; associated with depression (Higgins, 1987, p.322)

Agitation-related emotions: fear, feeling threatened; guilt, self-contempt, uneasiness; associated with anxiety (Higgins, 1987, p.322-323)

RECOMMENDATIONS/APPLICATIONS:

Self-discrepancy theory is well known to influence motivation, self-esteem, and performance (Higgins, 1989; Strauman, 1996; Boldero et al., 2005; Phillips, 2005). On one hand, self-discrepancies may motivate individuals to minimize inconsistencies between their self-concept and important self-guides. For example, if a person’s ideal/own guide contains aspirations to become a librarian, it may motivate that person to pursue an MLIS in order to bring their actual/own in line with the ideal/own. On the other hand, mutually exclusive guides may actually demotivate. For example, if a person’s ideal/own guide involves moving to another country to pursue a dream but their ought/other guide dictates that the person should stay close to home to care for ailing parents, then the two cannot be reconciled and the person may experience negative emotional reactions that inhibit action.

In addition to their motivational effects, discrepancies also impact self-esteem and performance. According to Higgins (1989) “the higher the magnitude of subjects’ actual:ideal discrepancies, the lower was their self-esteem” (p.113). Self-esteem, in turn, affects performance due to its impact on perceptions of competence.

Self-discrepancy theory may be applied to library science in understanding patrons’ behavior and information-seeking patterns. For instance, in the academic realm, freshmen often come to college with only rudimentary research skills. However, university professors often expect these students to compose in-depth papers that require sophisticated research skills. This situation produces an actual/own versus ought/other discrepancy, which cause agitation-related emotions such as anxiety. These students may not want to openly admit that they don’t have the skills that their professors expect of them. Motivation may be affected in one of two ways: the individual student may dive right into the databases in an effort to “figure them out” and meet expectations, or the daunted student may procrastinate to the last minute because they simply don’t know where to start. In this case, librarians may address the situation by gauging faculty’s expectations against students’ skills and offering library instruction to bridge the gap.

REFERENCES ~ Coding Spreadsheet - Web View

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3): 319–340. Abstract: This article signals the emergence of self-discrepancy theory in the field of psychology. Higgins discusses how domains of the self interact with standpoints on the self to create self-state representations. Most importantly, Higgins theorizes and tests the emotions associated with various discrepancies: the actual/own versus ideal/own discrepancy corresponds with the absence of positive outcomes and, therefore, the dejection related emotions of disappointment and dissatisfaction; the actual/own versus ideal/other discrepancy corresponds with the absence of positive outcomes and, therefore, the dejections related emotions of shame, embarrassment, and feeling downcast; the actual/own versus ought/other discrepancy corresponds with the presence of negative outcomes and, therefore, the agitation related emotions of fear and feeling threatened; the actual/own versus ought/own discrepancy corresponds with the presence of negative outcomes and, therefore, the agitation related emotions of guilt, self-contempt, and uneasiness (Higgins, 1987, p.322-323). Magnitude and accessibility of self-discrepancies moderate emotional effects. Discrepancies were measured using the Selves Questionnaire, which asked participants to list up to ten traits or attributes for each self-state (actual/own; actual/other; ideal/own; ideal/other; ought/own; ought/other) (Higgins, 1987, p.325).

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 93-136. Abstract: Expanding upon his original self-discrepancy theory of 1987, Higgins emphasizes the motivational assumptions of SDT: 1) “people are motivated to reach a condition in which their self-concept matches their personally relevant self-guides” and 2) “relations between and among different types of self-state representations represent different kinds of psychological situations, which in turn are associated with distinct emotional-motivational states” (Higgins, 1989, p.95-96). Higgins also details information-processing assumptions of SDT: 1) “a self-discrepancy is a cognitive structure interrelating distinct self-beliefs” and 2) the likelihood that a self-discrepancy will produce psychological distress depends on its level of accessibility” (Higgins, 1989, p.97). The combination of these two assumptions yields a general hypothesis of SDT: “the greater the magnitude and accessibility of a particular type of self-discrepancy possessed by an individual, the more the individual will suffer the kind of discomfort associated with that type of discrepancy” (Higgins, 1989, p.98). Higgins also proposed two further domains of the self: the can self (“your representation of the attributes that someone [yourself or another] believes you can possess”) and the (expected) future self (“your representation of the attributes that someone [yourself or another] believes you are likely to possess in the future”) (Higgins, 1989, p.116).

Strauman, T. (1996). Stability within the self: A longitudinal study of the structural implications of self-discrepancy theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1142-1153. Abstract: Strauman’s (1996) study “sought to determine whether the ideal and ought domains constitute loci of structural stability within the self” (p.1144). Testing the stability of self-guides over a three-year span, the findings suggest that individuals’ self-guides do persist over time.

Tangney, J., Niedenthal, P., Covert, M., & Barlow, D. (1998). Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins's (1987) hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 256-268. Abstract: Tangney et al. (1998) attempted to replicate Higgins’ findings using the Selves Questionnaire along with an adjectives rating list. However, contrary to Higgins (1987), they found “no evidence to support the more general proposition that specific self-discrepancies are differentially related to distinct emotional symptoms or experiences” (p.266). This called into question the most important theoretical underpinning of SDT: that each discrepancy correlates with a specific emotional state.

Higgins, E. T. (1999). When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1313-1317. Abstract: In response to Tangney et al. (1998), Higgins specifies four variables that moderate the likelihood of finding unique discrepancy-emotion relations: “the magnitude of a self-discrepancy, the accessibility of a self-discrepancy, the applicability and relevance of a self-discrepancy in a current context, and the importance of a self-discrepancy to the person” (Higgins, 1999, p.1313).

Boldero, J., Moretti, M., Bell, R., & Francis, J. (2005). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: A primer on when to look for specificity, and how to find it. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 139-147. Abstract: Boldero et al. discuss the various studies that have supported Higgins’ Self-Discrepancy Theory and counters studies that have called SDT into question (Tangney et al., 1998; Ozgul et al., 2003). They argue that SDT has been adequately defended and therefore the literature should “turn to examining the conditions under which these relationships do or do not occur, rather than merely attempting to replicate basic relationships through methodological procedures” (Boldero et al., 2005, p.146).

Phillips, A. (2005). Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of self-discrepancies. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 703-713. Abstract: Phillips studied self-discrepancy alongside objective self-awareness theory, which “predicts that high self-awareness will strengthen the relationship between self-discrepancies and emotions.” The findings reveal, “when self-awareness was low, self-discrepancies had weak, nonsignificant relations to emotion. When self-awareness was high, however, self-discrepancies strongly predicted emotional experience” (Phillips, 2005, p.703).

Francis, J., Boldero, J., & Sambell, N. (2006). Self-lines: A new, psychometrically sound, ‘user-friendly’ idiographic technique for assessing self-discrepancies. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 30(1), 69-84. Abstract: Due to questions regarding the utility of the Selves Questionnaire to measure self-discrepancies, Francis, Boldero & Sambell propose an alternate tool: the Self-Lines measure. It asks participants to generate five attributes for the “ideal” standard and five for the “ought” standard, then identify antonyms for each “ideal” and “ought” attribute. These were then mapped as a vertical scale on which participants marked where their actual, ideal, and possible selves fall on each line. This carried the advantages of easing the process for participants and researchers as opposed to the Selves Questionnaire, producing absolute scores, and eliminates subjective judgment.

Hardin, E., & Lakin, J. (2009). The integrated self-discrepancy index: A reliable and valid measure of self-discrepancies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 245-253. Abstract: Hardin & Lakin developed another tool for measuring self-discrepancy: the Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index. It combines idiographic and nomothetic methods to discover participants’ self-discrepancies. Its benefits are that it is “simpler for researchers to score, simpler for participants to complete, and yields more varied scores” (Hardin & Lakin, 2009, p.251).