Self-discrepancy theory free essay sample

Figures may be missing from this format of the document Abstract: Many self-theories presume that discrepancies between the self and goals for the self influence emotional experience. The present research compared how discrepancies from ideal selves, ought selves, and undesired selves predict negative emotions. In particular, the research tested Ogilvies (1987) claim that the undesired self has stronger effects on well-being relative to ideal and ought selves. A total of 231 participants completed several measures of self-discrepancies and negative emotions. Consistent with Ogilvies hypothesis, discrepancies from the undesired self significantly predicted negative emotions, whereas discrepancies from the ideal and ought selves did not. No type of discrepancy, however, predicted negative affect when global selfesteem was entered as a predictor, indicating a lack of incremental validity for self-discrepancies. Article: Many self-theories presume that discrepancies between the self and goals for the self influence emotional experience. The present research compared how discrepancies from ideal selves, ought selves, and undesired selves predict negative emotions. In particular, the research tested Ogilvies (1987) claim that the undesired self has stronger effects on well-being relative to ideal and ought selves. A total of 231 participants completed several measures of self-discrepancies and negative emotions. Consistent with Ogilvies hypothesis, discrepancies from the undesired self significantly predicted negative emotions, whereas discrepancies from the ideal and ought selves did not. No type of discrepancy, however, predicted negative affect when global selfesteem was entered as a predictor, indicating a lack of incremental validity for self-discrepancies. People distinguish between the self as it is and the self as it could be (Markus Nurius, 1986). Representations of possible states of the self function as goals and standards (Carver Scheier, 1998; Duval Wicklund, 1972), so it is important to understand how these self-states influence self-regulation. Several theories have examined how representations of possible selves differ (Carver, 1996; Higgins, 1987; Ogilvie, 1987) and whether these differences influence emotion and action (Leary, 2003; Ogilvie, 1987; Phillips Silvia, 2005). Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) proposes that discrepancies from ideal and ought selves create negative affect. Ogilvie (1987), in contrast, suggests that the undesired self-an avoidance-based self-goal-has a more powerful influence on emotions relative to ideal and ought selves. The present research examines how these three kinds of possible selves-ideal selves, ought selves, and undesired selves-predict emotional experience. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) posits three domains of the self: actual, ideal, and ought. The actual self is the persons representation of who he or she is currently. The ideal self is the representation of who he or she would like to become, such as wishes and aspirations for the self. The ought self is the representation of who a person feels he or she should become, such as duties and obligations for the self. Self-discrepancy theory predicts that discrepancies between the actual and ideal selves cause dejected emotions such as depression and sadness, and that discrepancies between the actual and ought selves cause agitated emotions such as anxiety and tension (Higgins, Klein, Strauman, 1985). Although research has shown that ideal and ought discrepancies predict emotions, it is clear that these effects depend on specific moderating variables (Boldero Francis, 2000; Boldero, Moretti, Bell, Francis, 2005; Higgins, 1999). Two patterns of findings have complicated tests of self-discrepancy theory. First, many studies have found that ideal and ought discrepancies are highly correlated. Phillips and Silvia (2005) found a correlation of . 77 between latent ideal and ought factors. In their latent variable analysis, Gonnerman, Parker, Lavine, and Huff (2000) found that the discrepancy types were too highly correlated to estimate separate ideal and ought factors. Other studies have found correlations around . 70 between ideals and oughts (Ozgul, Heubeck, Ward, Wilkinson, 2003; Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, Barlow, 1998). Based on their multimethod study, Tangney and her colleagues concluded that there was very little unique variance in the quantitative estimates of these concepts (p. 265). Second, many studies have failed to find that ideals and oughts uniquely predict depression and anxiety. In some studies, ideal discrepancies predicted many emotions and ought discrepancies did not. In a structural model of self-processes and emotions (Gramzow, Sedikides, Panter, Insko, 2000), ideal discrepancies predicted both depression and anxiety, but ought discrepancies predicted neither emotion. In a study by Heppen and Ogilvie (2003), ideal discrepancies predicted many positive and negative emotions, but ought discrepancies did not uniquely predict any emotion. Thus, recent research shows that self-discrepancy theorys predictions are most likely to hold in specific situations, such as when self-discrepancies are salient and relevant to the context (see Boldero et al. , 2005; Phillips Silvia, 2005). THE UNDESIRED SELF Ogilvie (1987) proposed an additional self-domain-the undesired self, which appears to play an important role in emotion. The undesired self is a representation of the self at its worst; it thus acts as a central avoidance goal. Ogilvie (1987) predicted that the undesired self should more strongly predict well-being relative to idealized selves.