Predicting psychological well-being from self-discrepancies: A comparison of idiographic and nomothetic measures

Abstract

This study examined the associations between self-discrepancies, assessed both idiographically and nomothetically, and measures of depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that actual – ideal and actual – ought self-discrepancies were significant predictors of the three measures of psychological well-being, even while controlling for individual variability in ratings of the actual self. Further analysis indicated these effects were primarily attributable to the nomothetic, rather than the idiographic, measures of self-discrepancies. Lastly, the results failed to support the central predictions of Higgins' (1987 Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3): 319–340. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) self-discrepancy theory. Specifically, for both the idiographic and nomothetic measures the actual – ideal discrepancies were not found to be uniquely predictive of depression and the actual – ought discrepancies were not found to be uniquely predictive of anxiety. The results were discussed with regard to the general self-discrepancy literature as well as self-discrepancy theory in particular.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.