Higgins’ (1987) theory of self-discrepancy proposes a framework to support the
understanding of different types of emotional distress experienced by people who hold discrepant self-guides. Within this theory there are three types of evaluations of self: actual self, ideal self, and ought self. There are also two perspectives on these types of self: the own and the other. These six self-state representations are presented in Table 1.4.
Page 40 of 335 Table 1.4: Six self-state representations (adapted from Higgins, 1987, pp. 320-321).
Actual Ideal Ought
Own Self-Concept Self-Guide Self-Guide
Other Self-Concept Self-Guide Self-Guide
Higgins (1987) proposed that a person’s self-concept is composed of the actual/own and the actual/other, and that the other four representations are considered self-guides. These self- guides are suggested to be internal standards that an individual is motivated to reach i.e. being in a position where a self-concept matches a self-guide. Individuals may evaluate their self based on their perception of discrepancy between their self and self-guide. Higgins suggested that it was the discrepancy between these state representations would result in an individual experiencing distress and that the distress would differ depending on the type of discrepancy. Discrepancy between actual/ideal self representations were thought to increase emotional distress associated with low mood whilst discrepancy between
actual/ought self representations were thought to increase emotional distress associated with anxiety. Higgins, et al. (1986) developed the self-discrepancy questionnaire to measure self-discrepancies. In this measure, individuals are asked to list up to ten qualities that they believe they actually have, would ideally like to have or believe they ought to have.
Discrepancies are scored by subtracting the total number of matching qualities across the three lists from the mismatching qualities.
Higgins (1997) Regulation Focus Theory (RFT) proposed that the motivation of an individual impacts on the way that they behave to pursue goals (see Table 1.5). The pursuit of a goal may be positive or negative, with individuals being either motivated to pursue goals through a promotion system focused on gains (e.g. gain of hopes, accomplishments) or a prevention system focused on losses (e.g. loss of safety, security, responsibility). Higgins suggested these motivational orientations were not fixed and could be primed.
Page 41 of 335 Table 1.5: Higgins (1997) motivational systems and behavioural strategies to achieve goals.
Later, Higgins (1998) suggested that when an ideal self-guide motivates a promotion
‘gain/no gain’ focus an individual may be more sensitive to positive outcomes, and when an ought self-guide motivates a prevention ‘loss/no loss’ focus an individual may be more sensitive to negative outcomes. Higgins (1999) also proposed four factors that impact on how discrepancy relates to emotions, these included: the magnitude of a self-discrepancy; the accessibility of a self-discrepancy; the applicability and relevance of a self-discrepancy in context; and the importance of a discrepancy to an individual.
RFT lead to the development of Regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000) (see Table 1.6) that suggested that when the motivation to pursue a goal, the behaviour to pursue the goal and the reward matched, this resulted in an individual experiencing ‘rightness’ about the
motivation, increasing engagement in the behaviour. This experience of regulatory fit is suggested to maintain the individuals own values. When individuals experience the ‘rightness’ of fit, they will be satisfied about what they are doing, and the way they are doing it.If an individual experiences a ‘non fit’, they will not experience satisfaction and what they are doing and the way they are doing it will not ‘feel right’ (Higgins, 2005). Higgins, et al. (2001) developed the Regulatory focus questionnaire to measure these concepts.
Motivation Focus
Promotion Prevention
Advancement Safety
Approach Growth Security
Behaviour "Gain" "Non loss"
Strategy Deprivation Danger
Avoidance Stagnation Threat
Page 42 of 335 Table 1.6: Motivational systems and reward structures (adapted from Higgins, 2000, pp. 1223-1225).
1.4.1 Model Validity
Higgins (1987) theory of self-discrepancy has been researched and supported by several research studies, with many studies being conducted with populations with physical health (e.g. cancer, Heidrich, et al., 1994; chronic back pain, Kinderman, et al., 2011) and mental health diagnoses (depression, Vergara-Lopez & Roberts, 2012; social phobia, Strauman, 1989; eating disorders, Wonderlich, et al., 2008).
Research has supported the concept of self-discrepancies applied to values, reporting that when an individual’s values do not match the values perceived as being dominant in their environment, this discrepancy can result in emotional experiences of anxiety and low mood (Savig & Schwartz, 2000; Lonnqvist, et al., 2009).
Rees and Maio (2009) investigated values and self-discrepancies in an undergraduate population, reporting that value with high priority were associated with ideals rather than ought’s, whereas the least prioritised values were associated with ought’s rather than ideals. The study also investigated violation of values and the impact on emotional distress.
Motivation Focus
Promotion Prevention
Gain Regulatory 'fit' Mismatch 'non fit'
Reward
Structure
Loss Mismatch 'non fit' Regulatory 'fit'
Page 43 of 335 The study reported that when participants were required to violate a highly prioritised value in a public and private context they reported experiencing more dejection than when
violating a least prioritised value in the same contexts. When participants were required to violate a least prioritised value in a public context they reported experiencing more
agitation than when violating a highly prioritised value in the same context. Maio (2010) considers this research in support of the ‘value level’ of his mental representation of values, and the role of prioritised and more peripheral values on discrepancy and emotional
experiences.
Parsons (2013) investigated values and self-discrepancies in a clinical population. The study reported that the largest value discrepancies were found in values of Hedonism,
Stimulation, Achievement, Security, Self-Direction, and Power. The clinical population with experiences of mental health difficulties were reported to have larger value discrepancies in these values than the non-clinical population sample. The study also reported that
actual/ought value discrepancies were found to be greater than actual/ideal value discrepancies when looking at the clinical groups. The study also aimed to investigate whether value discrepancies were related to distinct experiences of emotional distress i.e. anxiety and depression. Actual/ideal value discrepancies were not specifically associated with depression, and actual/ought value discrepancies were not specifically associated with anxiety. However, correlations were found between value discrepancies and both anxiety and depression. This study appears to support the value motivational structure of Schwartz (1992) and Schwartz, et al. (2012) model of values and aspects of Higgins (1987) theory of self-discrepancy, supporting the concept of self-discrepancy but not that discrepancy between actual/ideal self representations increase emotional distress associated with low mood whilst discrepancy between actual/ought self representations increase emotional distress associated with anxiety.
Page 44 of 335
1.4.2 Summary of Self-Discrepancy
In summary, Higgins (1987) model of self-discrepancy has been used to understand value discrepancy and experiences of psychological distress (Parsons, 2013; Rees & Maio, 2009). This research has proposed that value-discrepancy may be associated with increased levels of psychological distress.