Core distinctions and claim
Higgins (1987) divided the self into three domains: the actual self, the attributes one has; the ideal self, the attributes one or significant others hope for; and the ought self, the attributes one should have out of duty. When the actual self falls short of the ideal, it signals the absence of positive outcomes and produces dejection-related emotions such as disappointment, sadness and depression. When it falls short of the ought, it signals possible punishment and produces agitation-related emotions such as anxiety, guilt and restlessness. The idea grew from the earlier model of Higgins and colleagues (1985).
Evidence and clinical relevance
Strauman and Higgins (1987) found that simply presenting words tied to a participant's discrepancies triggered the matching emotions and physiological responses. Strauman (1989) found ideal discrepancies were prominent in clinical depression and ought discrepancies in social phobia. Phillips and Silvia (2005) showed that discrepancy-related distress grows when attention is focused on the self, as in front of a mirror. These results supported the view that cognitive structures can underlie emotional problems.
Extension and critiques
Higgins (1997) broadened the idea into regulatory focus theory, distinguishing a promotion focus toward ideals from a prevention focus on oughts. Tangney and colleagues (1998), however, found that shame and guilt did not pair with distinct discrepancies as predicted. Critics also note that ideal and ought discrepancies overlap heavily in measurement. Even so, the theory remains a leading framework linking self-concept and emotion in counseling and clinical research.
FAQ
- What is self-discrepancy theory in simple terms?
- When who you are is far from who you want to be, you feel sad; when it is far from who you think you should be, you feel anxious.
- How do the ideal and ought selves differ?
- The ideal self is the person you hope and wish to be, while the ought self is the person you feel you must be because of duties and responsibilities.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. The founding statement of self-discrepancy theory.
- Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3(1), 51–76. Early model linking discrepancy types to depression versus anxiety.
- 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(6), 1004–1014. Shows priming discrepancies automatically shifts emotion.
- Strauman, T. J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that underlie emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(1), 14–22. Tests the theory in clinical depression and social phobia.
- Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. Extends the theory into regulatory focus theory.
- Tangney, J. P., Niedenthal, P. M., Covert, M. V., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins's (1987) hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 256–268. A critical test that found weak support for specific predictions.
- Phillips, A. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2005). Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of self-discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 703–713. Shows self-awareness amplifies discrepancy-related distress.