When neuroticism matters: The role of actual and perceived self-discrepancies L. Wasylkiw1, A. Bayarsaikhan1, M. Robichaud1, & L. R. Fabrigar2 1Mount Allison University 2Queen’s University Introduction Results: Study 1 Study 2 Discussion Participants: 123 undergraduate students (76% women) Measures: Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992) (α = .88) Emotional Frequency Index (Higgins et al., 1997) Dejection (α = .86) Agitation (α = .87) Objective discrepancy magnitude: Regulatory Focus Strength (Higgins et al., 1997) mismatches – matches (for both ideal & ought) Subjective discrepancy magnitude: Extent participants believed they possessed actual attributes – extent of ideal/ought attributes Objective discrepancy accessibility: Response latencies Subjective discrepancy accessibility: How quickly attributes came to mind Being discrepant from what one hopes or should be evokes negative emotions with dejection arising when one falls short of ideal standards and anxiety arising when one falls short of ought standards (Higgins, 1987). Some research (e.g., Hong et al., 2012; Wasylkiw et al., 2010) shows that such emotional responses are exacerbated for those people who score high on neuroticism. Here, we distinguish between actual and perceived self-discrepancies where actual discrepancies are relatively objective indices of magnitude and accessibility and perceived are subjective views of the same properties. Depression Anxiety Neuroticism Actual Magnitude Ideal .353** .233** .325** Ought .326** .176* .272** Perceived Magnitude -.313** -.166* -.321** -.308** -.266** Key findings: In Study 1, larger actual and perceived discrepancies significantly related to dejection, anxiety, and neuroticism. Replicated moderating role of neuroticism such that higher scores exacerbated emotional responses to ideal discrepancies (both actual and perceived). In Study 2, perceptions of large and accessible discrepancies more strongly correlated with dejection, anxiety, and neuroticism compared to actual discrepancies (magnitude and accessibility). Future directions: Implications of actual versus perceived discrepancies for goal directed behaviour. Are there other traits that might impact the relationship between discrepancies and emotional outcomes? Hypotheses Neuroticism moderates the impact of perceived discrepancies Neuroticism and emotional outcomes will positively relate to larger and more accessible discrepancies Neuroticism will moderate the relationship between discrepancies and emotional outcomes such that higher scores on neuroticism will exacerbate responses to discrepancies. Stronger relationships will be found between neuroticism and emotional outcomes for perceived (vs. actual) discrepancy magnitude and accessibility Results: Study 2 Depression Anxiety Neuroticism Actual Magnitude Ideal -.027 .042 .014 Ought .074 -.054 .055 Accessibility -.135 -.010 -.004 -.065 .007 Perceived Magnitude -.278** -.107 -.388** -.219* -.127 -.306** Perceived Accessibility .196* .207* .250** .034 .104 .136 References Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515-525. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.515 Hong, R. Y., Triyono, W., & Ong, P. S. (2013). When being discrepant from one’s ideal or ought selves hurts: The moderating role of neuroticism. European Journal of Personality, 27, 256-270. doi:10.1002/per.1888 Wasylkiw, L., Fabrigar, L. R., Rainboth, S., Reid, A., & Steen, C. (2010). Neuroticism and the architecture of the self: Exploring neuroticism as a moderator of the impact of ideal self- discrepancies on emotion. Journal of Personality, 78, 471-492. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2010.00623.x Study 1 Participants: 179 undergraduate students (66% women) Measures: Neuroticism (Costa & McCrae, 1992) (α = .6) Emotional Frequency Index (Higgins et al., 1997) Dejection (α = .83) Agitation (α = .79) Objective discrepancy magnitude: Regulatory Focus Strength (Higgins et al., 1997) mismatches – matches (for both ideal & ought) Subjective discrepancy magnitude: Ratings of closeness Objective discrepancy accessibility: Response latencies Subjective discrepancy accessibility: How quickly attributes came to mind F(3, 176) = 83.895, p < .001, R2 = .613