Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
karyn-n-lewis -
Category
Documents
-
view
4.463 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look
![Page 1: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 2
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,
![Page 3: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 3
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-
![Page 4: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 4
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,
![Page 5: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 5
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
![Page 6: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 6
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
![Page 7: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 7
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
![Page 8: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 8
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.
![Page 9: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 9
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.
![Page 10: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 10
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.
![Page 11: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 11
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.
![Page 12: Self Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022100516/552855e24a7959bf448b46d0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Self-Discrepancy Theory: A Closer Look 12
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.