self-discrepancy theory

n. Why do people react so differently emotionally to the same tragic event? More specifically, why is it that when people are emotionally overwhelmed by a severe setback in their life, such as the death of their child, the loss of their job, or the breakup of their marriage, some suffer from depression whereas others suffer from anxiety? Self-discrepancy theory was developed in an attempt to answer this question. Self-discrepancy theory proposes that even when people have the same specific goals, such as seniors in high school wanting to go to a good college or older adults wanting a good marriage, they often vary in the way they represent these goals. Some individuals represent their goals (or standards), called self-guides in self-discrepancy theory, as hopes or aspirations – ideal self-guides. Other individuals represent their self-guides as duties or obligations – ought self-guides. According to self-discrepancy theory, it is the difference between failing to meet one's ideals versus failing to meet one's oughts that provides the key to unlock the mystery of why people react differently emotionally to the same negative life event.

Self-discrepancy theory proposes that when a negative life event happens to someone, it is represented as saying something about his or her current state – his or her actual self now. Individuals compare their actual self to a self-guide – “Compared to the kind of person I want to be (e.g., going to a good college, having a good marriage), how am I doing?” People suffer emotionally when there is a discrepancy between their actual self and a selfguide – a self-discrepancy. When the actual self is discrepant from an ideal self-guide, people feel sad, disappointed, discouraged – dejection-related emotions that relate to depression. When the actual self is discrepant from an ought self-guide, people feel nervous, tense, and worried – agitation-related emotions that relate to anxiety. According to self-discrepancy theory, then, people's vulnerabilities to different kinds of emotional suffering depend on which type of self-guide is emphasized in their self-regulation – dejection/depression suffering when ideals are emphasized and agitation/anxiety suffering when oughts are emphasized.

Research with clinically depressed and clinically anxious patients has found support for these proposals about emotional vulnerabilities. Discrepancies between patients' actual selves and their ideal self-guides predict their suffering from depression more than they predict their suffering from anxiety disorders, whereas discrepancies between patients' actual selves and their ought self-guides predict their suffering from anxiety disorders more than they predict their suffering from depression. Because some individuals have actual-self discrepancies from both their ideal and their ought self-guides, one or the other kind of discrepancy can be made temporarily more active by exposing them either to words related to an ideal they possess or to an ought they possess. When such “priming” of either an ideal or an ought occurs in an experiment, participants whose actual-ideal discrepancy is activated suddenly feel sad and disappointed and fall into a depression-like state of low activity (e.g., talk more slowly). In contrast, participants whose actual-ought discrepancy is activated suddenly feel nervous and worried and fall into an anxiety-like state of high activity (e.g., talk more quickly).

What is the psychological mechanism that underlies these predictions? Self-discrepancy theory proposes that different emotions are associated with different psychological situations that people experience. That is, the psychological situations produced by success or failure to meet your ideals are different from the psychological situations produced by success or failure to meet your oughts. Specifically, when events are related to ideal self-guides (i. e., to someone's hopes and aspirations), individuals experience success as the presence of a positive outcome (a gain), which is a happy experience, and they experience failure as the absence of positive outcomes (a nongain), which is a sad experience. In contrast, when events are related to ought self-guides (i.e., someone's beliefs about his or her duties and obligations), individuals experience success as the absence of a negative outcome (a nonloss), which is a relaxing experience, and they experience failure as the presence of a negative outcome (a loss), which is a worrying experience. Consistently with this underlying logic of the theory, several studies have found that individuals with strong ideals are especially sensitive to events reflecting the absence or the presence of positive outcomes (gains and nongains), whereas individuals with strong oughts are especially sensitive to events reflecting the presence or absence of negative outcomes (nonlosses and losses).

What kind of parenting is likely to result in children's having strong ideal self-guides, and what kind of parenting is likely to result in children's having strong ought self-guides? In answering these questions, self-discrepancy theory relies on the basic idea that self-regulation in relation to ideal self-guides involves experiencing successes in the world as the presence of positive outcomes (gains) and failures as the absence of positive outcomes (nongains), whereas self-regulation in relation to ought self-guides involves experiencing successes as the absence of negative outcomes (nonlosses) and failures as the presence of negative outcomes (losses). When children interact with their parents (or other caretakers), the parents respond to the children in ways that make the children experience one of these different kinds of psychological situations. Over time, the children respond to themselves as their parents respond to them, producing the same specific kinds of psychological situations, and this develops into the kind of self-guide (ideal or ought) that is associated with those psychological situations.

What pattern of parenting, then, predicts the development of strong ideal self-guides in children? It is when parents combine bolstering (when managing success) and love withdrawal (when disciplining failure). Bolstering occurs, for instance, when parents encourage the child to overcome difficulties, hug and kiss him or her when he/she succeeds, or set up opportunities for the child to engage in success activities – it creates an experience of the presence of positive outcomes in the child. Love withdrawal occurs, for instance, when parents end a meal when the child throws some food, take away a toy when the child refuses to share it, stop a story when the child is not paying attention – it creates an experience of the absence of positive outcomes in the child. What pattern of parenting predicts the development of strong ought selfguides in children? It is when parents combine prudence (when managing success) and punitive/critical behavior (when disciplining failure). Prudence occurs, for instance, when parents “child-proof” the house, train the child to be alert to potential dangers, or teach the child to “mind your manners” – it creates an experience of the absence of negative outcomes in the child. Punitive/critical behavior occurs, for instance, when parents play roughly with the child to get his or her attention, yell at the child when he or she does not listen, criticize the child when he or she makes a mistake – it creates an experience of the presence of negative outcomes. There is evidence supporting these predictions that bolstering plus love withdrawal parenting is associated with developing strong ideals, and prudence plus critical/punitive parenting is associated with developing strong oughts.

Self-discrepancy theory does not only distinguish between ideal and ought self-guides. It also distinguishes between whose viewpoint or standpoint on the self is taken in the self-regulation. Individuals' self-regulation could be from their own independent viewpoint or standpoint – “What are my own goals and standards for myself?” Self-discrepancy theory refers to this standpoint as the own standpoint. Alternatively, individuals' selfregulation could be from the standpoint of a significant person in their life, such as their father or mother – “What are my mother's goals and standards for me?” Self-discrepancy theory refers to this standpoint as the significant other or simply other standpoint. The theory proposes that there are individual differences in whether it is discrepancies from independent self-guides or discrepancies from significant other self-guides that underlie individuals' emotional vulnerabilities. As predicted, individual differences have been found in whether it is discrepancies from independent self-guides or discrepancies from significant other self-guides that most determine emotional vulnerabilities. In particular, it has been found that, in North America at least, discrepancies from independent self-guides are a more important determinant of emotional vulnerabilities for males than for females, whereas discrepancies from significant other self-guides are more important for females than for males.

Self-discrepancy theory has practical significance. For example, a new method of clinical treatment for depression and for anxiety, called self-system therapy, is based on self-discrepancy theory, and this new therapy has been shown to help some patients more than standard drug treatment or cognitivebehavioral therapy. There is also evidence that discrepancies of the actual self from ideal self-guides are a vulnerability factor for bulimic eating disorders, whereas discrepancies from ought self-guides are a vulnerability factor for anorexic eating disorders. What self-discrepancy theory highlights is that it is not simply individuals' specific goals that are critical. Instead, what determines the quality of our emotional and motivational lives is our more general concerns, our viewpoints on how the world works – is it a world of gains that we hope for (ideals) or a world of nonlosses that it is our duty to assure (oughts)? – ETH