[3] A primary goal of the self-discrepancy theory is to create an understanding of which types of contrasting ideas will cause such individuals to feel different kinds of negative emotions.
Lastly, to consider the role of the different discrepancies in influencing the kind and type of discomfort individuals are most likely to experience.
The ideal self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of positive outcomes (e.g., love provided or withdrawn).
[4] These two constructs provide the basis from which discrepancies arise; that is, when certain domains of the self are at odds with one another, individuals experience particular emotional affects (ex: one's beliefs concerning the attributes one would personally like ideally to possess versus your beliefs concerning the attributes that some significant other person, such as your mother, would like you ideally to possess).
Specifically, an individual is predicted to be vulnerable to disappointment or dissatisfaction because these emotions are associated with people believing that their personal wishes have been unfulfilled.
In turn, individuals will be vulnerable to shame, embarrassment, or feeling downcast, because these emotions are associated with people believing that they have lost standing or esteem in the eyes of others.
Analysis of shame and related emotions have been described as being associated with the standpoint of one or more other people and discrepancies from achievement and/or status standards.
When people have a sense of the difference between their actual self and their social ideal self, an individual will experience feelings of shame and unworthiness.
Shame that is often experienced when there is a failure to meet a significant other's goals or wishes involves loss of face and presumed exposure to the dissatisfaction of others.
[4] This discrepancy exists when a person's own standpoint does not match what they believe a significant other considers to be his or her duty or obligation to attain.
More specifically, because violation of prescribed duties and obligations is associated with punishment, this particular discrepancy represents the presence of negative outcomes.
The individual experiencing this discrepancy will have an expectation of punishment; therefore, the person is predicted to be vulnerable to fear and feeling threatened, because these emotions occur when danger or harm is anticipated or impending.
Analysis of guilt has described it as associated with a person's own standpoint and a discrepancy from his or her sense of morality or justice.
In order to establish which types of discrepancies an individual holds and which are likely to be active and produce their associated emotions at any point, the availability and accessibility of self-discrepancies must be distinguished.
[4] The availability of a self-discrepancy depends on the extent to which the attributes of the two conflicted self-state representations diverge for the person in question.
The accessibility or likelihood of activation, of a stored construct also depends on the relation between its "meaning" and the properties of the stimulus event.
Thus the negative psychological situation represented in a self-discrepancy (i.e. the "meaning" of the discrepancy) will not be activated by an explicitly positive event.
[4] The theory posits that the greater the accessibility of a self-discrepancy, the more powerfully the person will experience the emotion accompanying that discrepancy.
[4] Self-discrepancy theory becomes applicable when addressing some of the psychological problems individuals face with undesired self-image.
The theory has been applied to psychological problems faced by college students compromising their career choice,[11] understanding clinically depressed students,[12] eating disorders, mental health and depression in chronically ill women[13][14] and even developing self-confidence in athletes.
An actual/ought discrepancy triggers agitated depression (characterized by feelings of guilt, apprehension, anxiety or fear).
An actual/ideal discrepancy triggers dejected depression (characterized by feelings of failure, disappointment, devaluation or shame).
A Test of Higgins's (1987) Hypotheses", brought into question the correlations between specific discrepancy and emotional discomforts laid out by self-discrepancy theory.
The findings displayed no evidence suggesting a direct tie between specific discomforts and type of internal discrepancy.
This study went one step further, also testing the validity of two methods used to observe internal discrepancies; "The Selves Questionnaire" or "SQ" along with the "Adjective Rating List" or "ARL".
The results, though, did bring into question the original research done by Higgins, as there were no ties found between specific internal discrepancies and unique emotional discomforts.
Researchers found evidence to support the long-term validity of the self-discrepancy personality construct along with anxiety and depression having a direct relationship with internal discrepancies.