Self-Discrepancies on the Big Five Personality Factors

1
Self-Discrepancies on the Big Five Personality
Factors
ABSTRACT
Brenda L. McDaniel James W. Grice
In each kind of self, material, social, and
spiritual, men distinguish between the immediate
and actual, and the remote and potential, between
the narrower and the wider view, to the detriment
of the former and advantage of the latter. (p.
315) Since William James penned these words in
1890, psychologists have been interested in
measuring different conceptualizations of self,
such as the actual, ideal, and ought selves. In
recent years a number of researchers have further
attempted to measure discrepancies among these
different selves on the Big Five personality
traits. The current study introduces a generic
method for measuring the actual, ideal, and ought
selves on any trait model of personality. The
method incorporates Kellys repertory grid
technique and relies on Multiple Group
Confirmatory Components Analysis to compute
scores for the various selves on the different
traits. We demonstrate how this method can be
used to measure the actual, ideal, and ought
selves on the Big Five personality factors. Using
the scores for the different selves, we also test
several key predictions of Higgins theory that
links different self-discrepancies to depression,
anxiety, and self-esteem. The current study shows
the new method of assessment to be more
parsimonious and empirical than existing methods.
The results regarding the predictions derived
from Higgins theory, however, were not
supported.
Oklahoma State University
METHOD
RESULTS (CONT.)

Using Idiogrid (Grice, 2002), participants
completed repertory grids in which they rated the
actual, ideal, and ought selves, and 22 other
individuals (e.g., mom, dad, significant other)
on 30 Big Five personality descriptors (6 items
per trait). The actual self was defined as
yourself as you truly are. The ideal self was
defined as yourself as you would truly like to
be. The ought self was defined as yourself as
others would expect or like you to be. The Big
Five descriptors were randomly selected for each
participant from the International Item Pool
(Goldberg, 1999). Participants finally completed
the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), with anxiety
and depression subscales, and the Rosenberg Self
Esteem Scale (RSE).


INTRODUCTION
RESULTS

• Hart, Field, Garfinkle, and Singer (1997) posited
  a semantic space model of cognition in which the
  different selves are situated. Given this
  semantic space, the proximities between the
  actual and ideal selves can be measured and
  correlated with measures of self-esteem and mood.
  Higgins (1987) also relied on a semantic space
  model of cognition, and specifically showed that
  the discrepancy between the actual and ideal
  selves regulates particular emotional states such
  as depression and anxiety.
• Efforts have also been made to integrate
  self-discrepancy research with modern trait
  theories of personality. Hart, Field, Garfinkle,
  and Singer (1997), for instance, examined the
  relationships between various self-discrepancies
  and scores on the NEO-FFI (Costa McCrae, 1989),
  a measure of the Big Five personality factors
  Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
  Experience, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness.
  
• Hafdahl, Panter, Gramzow, Sedikides, and Insko
  (2000) further introduced a novel measurement and
  scoring procedure to obtain scores for different
  selves (e.g., the actual and ideal selves) on the
  Big Five factors. They then computed
  discrepancies between various pairs of selves and
  correlated the resulting values with measures of
  self-esteem and depression.
• In the current study, we introduce a novel method
  for measuring self-discrepancies on the Big Five
  personality traits. This new method is
  standardized and parsimonious, offering
  significant advantages over the complex and
  time-consuming procedures employed in previous
  studies. We also show how this method can be
  used to test the relationships between
  self-discrepancies on the Big Five personality
  traits and other psychological measures. More
  specifically, we test several of the key
  predictions from Higgins self-discrepancy theory.

• Multiple Group Confirmatory Components Analyses
  (MGCCA) were conducted to fit the Big Five trait
  model to each participants grid. MGCCA creates a
  semantic space comprised of the Big Five factors
  in which the different selves and 22 individuals
  are situated. Figure 1 shows one participants
  2-dimensional semantic space comprised of the
  extraversion and neuroticism traits.

Figure2. Mean Component Scores for Various
Selves on the Big Five Dimensions

• The Big Five component scores were compared to
  the measures of depression, anxiety, and
  self-esteem. Results from regression analyses
  generally failed to support Higgins
  self-discrepancy theory. However, depression was
  associated with ratings on extraversion F (3,
  110) 3.03, p .03, R2 .08 for the ought
  self alone (b -1.13, ß .54, p .04). No
  relationships with anxiety were found. Also, for
  conscientiousness the actual/ideal
  self-discrepancy predicted self-esteem while
  controlling for the ought self ratings F (3,
  111) 3.34, p .02, R2 .08 actual self b
  2.08, ß 1.05, p .05 ideal self b -3.68, ß
  1.52, p .02 ought self b 2.66, ß 1.36,
  p .05.

CONCLUSIONS

• The present study shows that a trait model of
  personality can be assessed at the level of the
  individual, and that ratings for different selves
  can be obtained on personality traits in a
  parsimonious and empirical fashion.
• The current methods are consistent with semantic
  space approaches to self-concept, although the
  results of analyses comparing self-discrepancies
  on the Big Five traits to subjective emotional
  well-being were mostly nonsignificant.
• Future directions include eliciting personally
  relevant constructs and Big Five dimensions to
  compare nomothetic and idiographic
  self-discrepancies.

PARTICIPANTS
CONTACT INFORMATION

• One hundred twenty-nine undergraduate students
  (72 women and 57 men), 18 to 29 years of age (M
  19.6, Mdn 19), participated in this study in
  exchange for course credit. Four participants
  were excluded from data analysis due to computer
  malfunctions and clerical errors. The sample
  consisted of 81.4 Caucasians, 4.7 African
  Americans, 4.7 Native Americans, 3.1
  Asian-Pacific Islanders, 1.6 Hispanics and 4.7
  of the participants reported their ethnicity as
  other.

• MGCCA also yields scores for the actual, ideal,
  and ought selves, as well as for the other 22
  rated individuals, on the five components. These
  scores represent the relative positions of the
  different selves and the other individuals on the
  Big Five traits. Figure 2 shows the average
  component scores for the actual, ideal, and ought
  selves on each of the Big Five traits. As can be
  seen, the ratings for the three selves varied
  across the five traits, but the ideal self was
  consistently rated most extreme.

• Please send inquiries to
• Brenda McDaniel bmcdani_at_okstate.edu
• Dr. James Grice jgrice_at_okstate.edu
• Thank you for your interest in our
  research!