Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look

Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 1

Self-Discrepancy Theory:

A Closer Look

Karyn N. Lewis

Theories of Communication 0535-445-01 Fall 20081

Professor T. Worrell

November 2, 2008


Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look

Simply put, self-concept is a person’s individual perception of oneself. This perception is

composed of multidimensional characteristics that include physical as well as psychological

attributes, which interact with the various roles a person must take on (Mehta, 1999). The system

of thoughts and feelings that make up one’s self-concept work to organize and guide the

individual’s processing of information, which acts as the driving force for much of human

behavior. People are strongly motivated to maintain a sense of consistency among their various

beliefs and self-perceptions, and problems occur when there are differences between their

individual aspirations and actual behaviors (ChangingMinds.org, 2008). When an actual

experience is somewhat less than an individual thinks he or she is or should be capable of, he or

she tends to feel a pattern of negative emotions such as sadness, dissatisfaction, fear or anxiety.

The levels of discrepancies between the actual self-conception and the ideal self are different for

each individual, and can be explained using the self-discrepancy theory.

Definition/Explanation

Developed by E. Tory Higgins in 1987, the self-discrepancy theory proposes that

different types of chronic discrepancies between the self-concept and different self-guides are

associated with different motivational predispositions (Higgins, 1987). The theory also assumes

that people are motivated to reach a condition in which their self-concept matches their

personally relevant self-guides. The degree of discrepancy between different cognitive domains

possessed by an individual—referred to as self-state representations—characterize particular

emotional outcomes with a variety of psychological affects. The theory identifies three domains

of the self: the actual self, which includes the attributes that people believe they actually possess;

the ideal self, which contains the attributes that people would like to possess, and the ought self,


which contains the attributes that people believe they ought to possess (Bizman & Yinon, 2004).

The ideal-self typically represents an individual’s hopes, aspirations and wishes for oneself,

whereas the ought-self represents beliefs about the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the

self. Each of these domains can be viewed from a personal standpoint or as perceived by others

(Higgins, 1987). The ideal self and the ought self—as viewed from either standpoint—serve as

self-guides against which individuals tend to compare their actual self (Bizman & Yinon, 2004).

Individuals possessing a body image self-discrepancy between their actual self and the

ideal and ought selves are likely to associate failure to reach their model self-concept (Higgins,

1987). However, not all self-discrepancies produce negative emotions (Boldero, et al., 2005).

Rather, these occur only when the self-guide has self-regulatory significance, which is moderated

by the extent to which self-discrepancies are accessible and depends on recency and frequency of

its activation as well as relevance to the situation at hand. Ultimately, the self-discrepancy theory

proposes that inconsistencies in self-states lead to psychological discomfort and negative

emotions. This proposition is central to many psychological models, including those of Adler,

Freud, James, and Rogers, and research examining this proposition has demonstrated that the

magnitudes of these discrepancies are substantially correlated (Boldero, et al., 2005).

Social Significance/Personal Interest

The discrepancy-affect relationship in the self-discrepancy theory was a major theoretical

development designed to explain the circumstances of negative emotional states (Boldero, et al.,

2005). According to the theory, self-discrepancies represent negative psychological situations

including a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral characteristics. Discrepancies between

how one actually is and how one would ideally like to be or feels he/she ought to be represent the

negative emotions felt—such as depression, sadness, guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-


contempt, feeling threatened or fearful, anxiety and tension (Higgins, 1987). High levels of self-

discrepancy have also been linked to disappointment and dissatisfaction (Strauman & Higgins,

1988), and low self-esteem (Moretti & Higgins, 1990). The significance of these discrepancies is

related to the intensity of the negative emotions felt, as there is some evidence that media play a

critical role in shaping these perceptions of body image. Initial research suggests a causal

relationship between long-term exposure to media idealism and developing self-discrepancies.

This relationship implies that possession of a self-discrepancy may moderate the likelihood of

making social comparisons to media idealism (Bessenoff, 2006). Research further suggests that

advertising affects consumers’ tendency to implicitly or explicitly compare themselves with the

idealized images portrayed in ads. The self-discrepancy theory holds recognized importance in

social interactions because self-esteem arises via the interactions people have with each other—

circumstances that might increase, improve, decrease, or worsen those individual interactions can

affect an individual's self-esteem or personal dissatisfaction.

With the current societal standards for beauty inordinately emphasizing desirability

throughout the mass media world of advertising today, a mismatch between the ideal body type

and an individual’s actual body image has become apparent. Through advertising, the mass

media has made it obvious there is a strong cultural ideal of female beauty, one that has become

synonymous with thinness (Dittmar & Howard, 1994; Freedman, 1984). The omnipresent ultra-

thin female body image commonly presented in media and offered as the ideal sets an

impossible-to-achieve standard for most women. Nevertheless, the ideal is accepted and

internalized by many women. Compared to the actual population of adult women, thin female

models are drastically over-represented in magazines and television, so that only a small

minority of women have the body size shown in virtually all advertising (Fouts & Burggraf,


1999; Spitzer, et al., 1999). Women’s ideal body weight as depicted in magazines has decreased

over the last 40 years, so that the average model now is more than 20 percent underweight

(Wiseman, Gray, Mosimann, & Ahrens, 1992). Furthermore, parallels are frequently drawn

between the afore-mentioned decreasing size of the female body ideal and both escalating levels

of women’s body dissatisfaction and increases in the incidence of eating disorders (Stice, et al.,

1994). A solid, theory-based explanation of why women are vulnerable to the negative self-

evaluative effects of the thin female ideal has often been based in the self-discrepancy theory,

demonstrating its social significance. By addressing the relationship between body

dissatisfaction and the cognitive processes of the self, the self-discrepancy theory has provided a

better understanding of the extent to which an individual accepts the thin societal standard of

attractiveness as her own personal standard.

Review of Related Literature

Past research endeavors have provided substantial support for the self-discrepancy

theory. In fact, literature on the topic includes a large number of correlational studies (e.g.,

Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1988) reported in a vast array of

publications and a smaller—but still substantial—number of criterion groups studies (e.g.,

Strauman & Higgins, 1987) that support the theory’s propositions. Early investigations of the

theory have examined whether unique relationships exist between actual-ideal self-discrepancies

and dejection-related emotional outcomes and between actual-ought self-discrepancies and

agitation-related emotions. More recent investigations yield studies involving the social and

group aspects of self-discrepancies. Overall, the primary researchers of the topic include

Higgins, Klein, Strauman, and Bond, who have worked alone or collaborated in multiple studies


since 1985 (Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman, 1986; Strauman 1989; Strauman & Higgins,

1987; Strauman & Higgins, 1988).

In the correlational studies, support was provided for the theory when the magnitude of

significant actual-ideal self-discrepancies were found to be uniquely related to the intensity of

dejection-related emotions, and the magnitude of significant actual-ought self-discrepancies were

found to be uniquely related to the intensity of agitation-related emotions (Higgins, Bond, Klein,

& Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1987). Strauman (1989) later replicated this general

pattern among participants with major depressive disorders and social phobias. In addition, the

discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self—but not between the actual self and the

ought self—was found to be uniquely related to self-esteem (Moretti & Higgins, 1990). Research

using theoretically defined criterion groups confirmed these correlational findings. For example,

Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman (1986) found that participants with large self-discrepancies

for either actual-ideal or actual-ought cases reported higher levels of the related emotions than

those with small self-discrepancies. However, not all researchers have replicated these patterns.

Bruch, Rivet, and Laurenti (2000), in a study with 94 unselected undergraduate participants,

found support for a unique relationship between the ideal discrepancy and depression, but no

support for that between the ought discrepancy and anxiety. Scott and O’Hara (1993), studying

undergraduates with clinically significant anxiety and depression, also found general support for

self-discrepancy theory but found no significant difference between the depressed and anxious

groups as predicted in respect to the ideal and ought discrepancies and related emotions felt.

More recently, Bizman & Yinon (2004) extended the self-discrepancy theory to

discrepancies related to the social aspect of the self, namely, to discrepancies involving attributes

of one’s group discrepancies. They found the pattern of relations between group-based


psychological distress and group discrepancies to be similar to those patterns that are found in

personal self-discrepancies. Specifically, the investigators assessed perceived actual, ideal, and

ought participant attributes and the dejection and agitation-related emotions felt. The actual-ideal

group discrepancy was found to be uniquely related to dejection-related emotions, while the

actual-ought group discrepancy was found to be uniquely linked to agitation-related emotions. In

other self-discrepancy theory studies at the personal level, investigators have assessed other

standpoints by requesting participants to choose among specific significant others such as father,

mother, or best friend. Based on current studies of self-perception theory, support for the model

may now be clear enough to investigate the conditions which strengthen or weaken the

relationships between self-discrepancies and relevant emotions (Moretti & Higgins, 1990).

Although some researchers will continue to test the theory’s fundamental propositions, the future

of newer studies will focus on different evaluative bases of emotion as related to self-perception

based on personal attributes and characteristics relevant to the individual.

Evaluation

All theories have strengths and weaknesses in that they reveal certain aspects of reality

and conceal others (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Such determination of the strengths and

weaknesses of a theory, however, is likely due in part to the background and experiences of the

reader. I will focus the evaluation of self-perception theory from my perspective based on the

criteria of scope, logical consistency, parsimony, utility, testability, heurism, and the test of time:

Scope is the breadth or range of application for a communication theory. The self-discrepancy

theory has been mostly limited to the application of emotional states as they represent negative

psychological situations including a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral characteristics


as a consequence of long-term exposure to media idealism. This has been connected to eating

disorders and other health problems, but represents the majority of use for the self-discrepancy

theory. The scope of the self-discrepancy theory, as of now, is very narrow.

Logical consistency determines whether or not the theory demonstrates consistency within its

own premises. The premises of the self-discrepancy theory are as follows: 1—The system of

thoughts and feelings that make up one’s self-concept work to organize and guide his or her

processing of information. 2—People are strongly motivated to maintain a sense of consistency

among their beliefs and self-perceptions. 3—When an actual experience is less than an individual

thinks he or she is or should be capable of, he or she will feel a pattern of negative emotions such

as sadness, dissatisfaction, fear or anxiety. Although these ideas build upon each other in logical

consistency, the ideas are complicated and not without external factors and a variety of variables

that must be recognized and defined.

Parsimony defines the extent to which a communication theory makes clear an otherwise

complex experience. The discrepancy-affect relationship in the self-discrepancy theory was a

major theoretical development in work designed to understand the circumstances of negative

emotional states (Boldero, et al., 2005). In order to understand this, however, we must define and

understand how different self-concepts are related to self-guides, as well as how these are

associated with different motivational predispositions. To add to the complexity, we know that

not all self-discrepancies produce negative emotions (Boldero, et al., 2005). Rather, these occur

only when the self-guide has self-regulatory significance, which is moderated by the extent to

which self-discrepancies are accessible. To thoroughly understand the self-discrepancy theory in

order to apply it to real-life situations, we must be able to define accessibility and apply it in

variables such as recency, frequency, and relevance—not a particularly easy feat.


Utility tests the real world applications for the theory. The self-discrepancy theory may help a

person understand the extent to which they accept the thin societal standard of attractiveness as

his or her own personal standard, but it is too abstract to be used by an individual in daily

communication. Self-discrepancy theory cannot necessarily help a person make better

communicative decisions in his or her interactions with coworkers, for example. Thus, the

theory’s lack of practical applications make it weaker than those with more practical uses.

Testability is simply that—whether or not the theory can be tested. As described earlier in the

review of related literature, early investigations of the theory have examined whether unique

relationships exist between actual-ideal self-discrepancies and dejection-related emotional

outcomes and between actual-ought self-discrepancies and agitation-related emotions. More

recent investigations have yielded studies involving the social and group aspects of self-

discrepancies. Therefore yes, the theory fits the standard of testability.

Heurism is a test of a theory’s accuracy—whether research has supported that the theory works

the way it says it does and it’s ability to advance knowledge. In the case of self-discrepancy

theory, support was provided in multiple correlation studies when the magnitude of significant

actual-ideal self-discrepancies were found to be uniquely related to the intensity of dejection-

related emotions, and the magnitude of significant actual-ought self-discrepancies were found to

be uniquely related to the intensity of agitation-related emotions (Higgins, Bond, Klein, &

Strauman, 1986; Strauman & Higgins, 1987). However, not all researchers have replicated these

patterns, instead finding support for a unique relationship between the ideal discrepancy and

depression, but not for that between the ought discrepancy and anxiety (Bruch, Rivet, and

Laurenti, 2000). Perhaps the theory is still evolving with newer and more specific studies,

determining a need for more specifically defined variables.


Test of time: Self-discrepancy theory was developed in 1987 and used in a variety of studies

over the last twenty years or so. However, the theory is relatively new and not without its errors.

A large number of studies have supported the theory, while a few newer ones have questioned its

logistics on very specific details—leading me to believe the self-discrepancy theory has room for

further growth and development.

Conclusion

The purpose of any communication theory is to aid in the understanding of people,

media, and events in order to answer important questions (West & Turner, 2007). Learning about

who we are, how we function in society, the influence we are able to have on others, the extent to

which we are influenced by the media, how we behave in various circumstances, and what

motivates our decisions are just a handful of the possible areas touched on by communication

theory. In the broad sense of communication, self-discrepancy theory is very narrow in scope and

utility. In more specific application, however, the theory does have some heuristic value—it has

been useful in the psychological explanation of the extent to which an individual accepts the thin

societal standard of attractiveness as her or her own personal standard, and it has been tested.

Ultimately, however, the self-discrepancy theory is complicated and perhaps in need of further

interpretation in order to become more parsimonious. The original foundation of the theory has

already been questioned and found weary, meaning further work must be done in order for the

self-discrepancy theory to stand the test of time.


References

Bessenoff, G. R. (2006, September). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and

the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(3), 239-251. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from

ABI/Inform Global via Proquest Direct.

Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2004). Social self-discrepancies and from own and other standpoints and collective self-

esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 101-113. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from Academic

Search Elite via EBSCO Host.

Boldero, J.M., Moretti, M.M., Bell, R.M., & Francis, J.J. (2005, December). 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. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from Academic Search Elite via EBSCO Host.

Bruch, M.A., Rivet, K.M., & Laurenti, H.J. (2000). Type of self-discrepancy and relationships to components of the

tripartite model of emotional distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 37-44.

ChangingMinds.org. (2008). Self-Discrepancy Theory. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/self-discrepancy.htm

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E.D. (2005). Applying communication theory for professional life: A practical introduction.

California: SAGE Publications.

Dittmar, H., & Howard, S. (1994, December). Thin-ideal internalization and social comparison tendency

as moderators of media models’ impact on women’s body-focused anxiety. Journal of Social Science and

Clinical Psychology, 23(6), 768-792. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global via Proquest

Direct.

Fouts, G., & Burggraf, K. (1999). Television situation comedies: Female body images and verbal

reinforcements. Sex Roles, 40(5-6), 473-481. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global via

Proquest Direct.

Freedman, Rita J. (1984). Reflections on beauty as it relates to health in adolescent females. Women and

Health, 9, 29-45. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global via Proquest Direct.

Higgins, E. (1987, July). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,

94(3), 319-340. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global via Proquest Direct.

Higgins, E.T., Bond, R.N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How

magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51, 5-15.

Mehta, A. (1999). Using self-concept to assess advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research,

39(1), 81-89. Retrieved February 2, 2008, from ABI/Inform Global via Proquest Direct.

Moretti, M.M., & Higgins, E.T. (1990). Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contribution of

discrepancy beyond actual-self ratings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2), 108-123.

Scott, L., & O’Hara, M.W. (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically anxious and depressed university students.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 282-287.

Spitzer, B.L., Henderson, K.A., & Zivian, M.T. (1999). Gender differences in population versus media

body sizes: A comparison over four decades. Sex Roles, 40(7-8), 545-565. Retrieved

September 20, 2007, from ABI/Inform Global via Proquest Direct.


Stice, E., Schupak-Neuberg, E., Shaw, H.E., & Stein, R.I. (1994, November). Relation of media exposure

to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 103(4), 836-840.

Strauman, T.J., & Higgins, E.T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When

cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1004-1014.

Strauman, T.J., & Higgins, E.T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct

syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56, 685-707.

Strauman, T.J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that underlie

emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 14-22.

West, R., & Turner, L.H. (2007). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Wiseman, C.V., Gray, J.J., Mosimann, J.E., & Ahrens, A.H. (1992). Cultural expectations of thinness in

women: An update. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11(1), 85-89.

Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look

Documents

Transcript of Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look