1. 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,
doi: /
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,
doi: /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, doi: /j.1467- 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) = , p < .001, R2 = .613