STUDENT RESOURCES

HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHIES

What Is Self-Concept?
By
Kendra Cherry, MSEd
Updated on November 07, 2022
Reviewed by
Rachel Goldman, PhD, FTOS
Print
Verywell / Cindy Chung

Table of Contents
 Development
 Can It Be Changed?
 Self-Concept Theories
 Frequently Asked Questions

Self-concept is the image we have of ourselves. It is influenced by many

forces, including our interaction with important people in our lives. It is how
we perceive our behaviors, abilities, and unique characteristics.1 For
example, beliefs such as "I am a good friend" or "I am a kind person" are
part of an overall self-concept.

Other examples of self-concept include:

 How you view your personality traits, such as whether you are an
extrovert or introvert
 How you see your roles in life, such as whether you feel that being a
parent, sibling, friend, and partner are important parts of your identity
 The hobbies or passions that are important to your sense of identity,
such as being a sports enthusiast or belonging to a certain political
party
 How you feel about your interactions with the world, such as whether
you feel that you are contributing to society

Our self-perception is important because it affects

our motivations, attitudes, and behaviors. It also affects how we feel about
the person we think we are, including whether we are competent or have
self-worth.2

Self-concept tends to be more malleable when we're younger and still going
through self-discovery and identity formation. As we age and learn who we
are and what's important to us, these self-perceptions become much more
detailed and organized.

At its most basic, self-concept is a collection of beliefs one holds about

oneself and the responses of others. It embodies the answer to the
question: "Who am I?" If you want to find your self-concept, list things that
describe you as an individual. What are your traits? What do you like? How
do you feel about yourself?

Rogers' Three Parts of Self-Concept

Humanist psychologist Carl Rogers believed that self-concept is made up of
three different parts:

 Ideal self: The ideal self is the person you want to be. This person
has the attributes or qualities you are either working toward or want to
possess. It's who you envision yourself to be if you were exactly as
you wanted.
 Self-image: Self-image refers to how you see yourself at this moment
in time. Attributes like physical characteristics, personality traits, and
social roles all play a role in your self-image.
 Self-esteem: How much you like, accept, and value yourself all
contribute to your self-concept. Self-esteem can be affected by a
number of factors—including how others see you, how you think you
compare to others, and your role in society.3

Incongruence and Congruence

Self-concept is not always aligned with reality. When it is aligned, your self-
concept is said to be congruent. If there is a mismatch between how you see
yourself (your self-image) and who you wish you were (your ideal self), your
self-concept is incongruent. This incongruence can negatively affect self-
esteem.4

Rogers believed that incongruence has its earliest roots in childhood. When
parents place conditions on their affection for their children (only expressing
love if children "earn it" through certain behaviors and living up to the
parents' expectations), children begin to distort the memories of experiences
that leave them feeling unworthy of their parents' love.4

Unconditional love, on the other hand, helps to foster congruence. Children

who experience such love—also referred to as family love—feel no need to
continually distort their memories in order to believe that other people will
love and accept them as they are.

Defining Personality in Psychology

How Self-Concept Develops

Self-concept develops, in part, through our interaction with others. In
addition to family members and close friends, other people in our lives can
contribute to our self-identity.

For instance, one study found that the more a teacher believes in a high-
performing student's abilities, the higher that student's self-
concept.5 (Interestingly, no such association was found with lower-
performing students.)

Self-concept can also be developed through the stories we hear. As an

example, one study found that female readers who were "deeply
transported" into a story about a leading character with a traditional gender
role had a more feminist self-concept than those who weren't as moved by
the story.6

The media plays a role in self-concept development as well—both mass

media and social media. When these media promote certain ideals, we're
more likely to make those ideals our own. And the more often these ideals
are presented, the more they affect our self-identity and self-perception.7

Can Self-Concept Be Changed?

Self-concept is not static, meaning that it can change. Our
environment plays a role in this process. Places that hold a lot of meaning to
us actively contribute to our future self-concept through both the way we
relate these environments to ourselves and how society relates to them.8

Self-concept can also change based on the people with whom we interact.
This is particularly true with regard to individuals in our lives who are in
leadership roles. They can impact the collective self (the self in social
groups) and the relational self (the self in relationships).9

In some cases, a medical diagnosis can change self-concept by helping

people understand why they feel the way they do—such as someone
receiving an autism diagnosis later in life, finally providing clarity as to why
they feel different.10

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind
Podcast shares how you can be kinder to yourself.

Follow Now: Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Other Self-Concept Theories

As with many topics within psychology, a number of other theorists have
proposed different ways of thinking about self-concept.

Social Identity
Social psychologist Henri Tajfel developed social identity theory, which states
that self-concept is composed of two key parts:11

 Personal identity: The traits and other characteristics that make you
unique
 Social identity: Who you are based on your membership in social
groups, such as sports teams, religions, political parties, or social class

This theory states that our social identity influences our self-concept, thus
affecting our emotions and behaviors. If we're playing sports, for instance,
and our team loses a game, we might feel sad for the team (emotion) or act
out against the winning team (behavior).12

Multiple Dimensions
Psychologist Bruce A. Bracken had a slightly different theory and believed
that self-concept was multidimensional, consisting of six independent traits:13

 Academic: Success or failure in school

 Affect: Awareness of emotional states
 Competence: Ability to meet basic needs
 Family: How well you work in your family unit
 Physical: How you feel about your looks, health, physical condition,
and overall appearance
 Social: Ability to interact with others
 In 1992, Bracken developed the Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale, a
comprehensive assessment that evaluates each of these six elements of self-
concept in children and adolescents.13

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

 When is the development of self-concept finished?

Self-concept development is never finished. Though one's self-

identity is thought to be primarily formed in childhood, your
experiences as an adult can also change how you feel about
yourself. If your self-esteem increases later in life, for instance, it
can improve your self-concept.

 How does self-concept affect communication?

Our self-concept can affect the method by which we communicate.

If you feel you are a good writer, for instance, you may prefer to
communicate in writing versus speaking with others.

It can also affect the way we communicate. If your social group

communicates a certain way, you would likely choose to
communicate that way as well.14 Studies on teens have connected
high self-concept clarity with more open communication with
parents.15

 What is the difference between self-concept and self-esteem?

Self-concept refers to a broad description of ourselves ("I am a

good writer") while self-esteem includes any judgments or opinions
we have of ourselves ("I feel proud to be a good writer"). Put
another way, self-concept answers the question: Who am I? Self-
esteem answers the question: How do I feel about who I am?

 Why is a well-developed self-concept beneficial?

Our self-concept impacts how we respond to life, so a well-

developed self-concept helps us respond in ways that are more
positive and beneficial for us. One of the ways it does this is by
 enabling us to recognize our worth. A well-developed self-concept
also helps keep us from internalizing negative feedback from others.
 How does culture influence self-concept?
Different cultures have different beliefs. They have different ideas of
how dependent or independent one should be, different religious
beliefs, and differing views of socioeconomic development.

All of these cultural norms influence self-concept by providing the

structure of what is expected within that society and how one sees
oneself in relation to others.16
The self-discrepancy theory states that individuals compare their "actual" self to internalized
standards or the "ideal/ought self". Inconsistencies between "actual", "ideal" (idealized version of
yourself created from life experiences) and "ought" (who persons feel they should be or should
become) are associated with emotional discomforts (e.g., fear, threat, restlessness). Self-
discrepancy is the gap between two of these self-representations that leads to negative emotions.
Developed by Edward Tory Higgins in 1987, the theory provides a platform for understanding how
different types of discrepancies between representations of the self are related to different kinds of
emotional vulnerabilities. Higgins sought to illustrate that internal disagreement causes emotional
and psychological turmoil. There were several previous theories proving this concept such as the
self-inconsistency theory,[1] the cognitive dissonance theory,[2] and the imbalance theory (e.g., Heider,
1958); however, Higgins wanted to take it one step further by determining the specific emotions that
surfaced as a result of these internal disagreements. Previous self-imbalance theories had
recognized only positive or negative emotions. The self-discrepancy theory was the first to assign
specific emotions and affects to the disparity.
The theory proposes how a variety of self-discrepancies represents a variety of types of negative
psychological situations that are associated with different kinds of discomfort.[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.[3]
The structure of the theory was built based on three ideas. First classify the different kinds of
discomfort felt by those people holding contrasting ideals experienced, as well as the various types
of emotional vulnerabilities felt by the different types of discrepancies. Lastly, to consider the role of
the different discrepancies in influencing the kind and type of discomfort individuals are most likely to
experience.

Domains of the self[edit]

The theory postulates three basic domains of the self:
Actual[edit]
Actual self is one's representation of the attributes that one believes one actually possesses, or that
one believes others believe one possesses.[4] The "actual self" is a person's basic self-concept. It is
one's perception of their own attributes (intelligence, athleticism, attractiveness, etc.).
Ideal[edit]
Ideal self is one's representation of the attributes that someone (oneself or another) would like one,
ideally, to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's hopes, aspirations, or wishes for one).[4] The
"ideal-self" is what usually motivates individuals to change, improve and achieve.
The ideal self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of positive outcomes (e.g.,
love provided or withdrawn).[5]
Ought[edit]
Ought is one's representation of the attributes that someone (oneself or another) believes one
should or ought to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's sense of one's duty, obligations, or
responsibilities).[4]
The ought self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of negative outcomes (e.g.,
criticism administered or suspended).[5]
Standpoints of the self[edit]
Self-discrepancy theory initiates the importance of considering two different standpoints (or vantage
points) in which "the self" is perceived. A standpoint on the self is defined as "a point of view from
which you can be judged that reflects a set of attitudes or values."
Own[edit]
An individual's own personal standpoint.
Other[edit]
The standpoint of some significant other.[4] Significant others may comprise parents, siblings,
spouses, or friends. The "other" standpoint is what the self perceives their significant other's
standpoint to be.
Except for theories focusing on the actual self, previous theories of the self had not systematically
considered the different domain of self in terms of the different standpoints on those domains.
[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).

Discrepancies[edit]
Discrepancies create two major types of negative physiological situations: absence of positive
outcomes, which is associated with dejection-related emotions, and the presence of negative
outcomes which is associated with agitation-related emotions.

Actual Ideal Ought

Self-
Own Self-Guide Self-Guide
Concept

Self-
Other Self-Guide Self-Guide
Concept

Self-concept[edit]
Actual/own vs. actual/other[edit]
These self-state representations are the basic self-concept (from either or both standpoints).
Discrepancies between own self-concept, and other self-concept can be described as an identity
crisis, which often occurs during adolescence.[3] Guilt is a characteristic result of discrepancy from
the own perspective. Shame is a characteristic result of discrepancy from the other perspective.
Self-guide[edit]
Actual/own vs. ideal/own[edit]
In this discrepancy, a person's view of their actual attributes does not match the ideal attributes they
hope to develop. Discrepancy between these self-guides is characterized by dejection-related
emotions such as disappointment and dissatisfaction. Actual/ideal discrepancies are associated with
low self-esteem[6] and characterized by the threat of absence of positive outcomes. 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. These
emotions have been described as being associated with the individuals' own standpoint and a
discrepancy from his or her hope, desire, or ideals. The motivational nature of this discrepancy also
suggests that it could be associated with frustration because of these unfulfilled desires. Emotions
such as blameworthiness, feeling no interest in things, and not feeling effective was also associated
with this discrepancy. In addition, this discrepancy is also associated with dejection from perceived
lack of effectiveness or self-fulfillment.[4] This discrepancy is uniquely associated with depression.[4]
Actual/own vs. ideal/other[edit]
Here, one's view of their actual attributes does not match the ideal attributes their significant other
hopes or wishes for them. The ideal self-guide is characterized by the absence of positive outcomes,
and accompanied by dejection-related emotions. More specifically, because one believes that they
have failed to obtain some significant other's hopes or wishes are likely to believe that the significant
other is disappointed and dissatisfied with them. 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. Other analyses describe shame as being
associated with concern over losing the affection or esteem of others. 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] Feeling lack of pride, lack of feeling sure of self and goals, feeling lonely,
feeling blue, and feeling not interested in things was also associated with this discrepancy. This
discrepancy is associated with dejection from perceived or anticipated loss of social affection or
esteem.[4]
Actual/own vs. ought/other[edit]
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. Agitation-related emotions are
associated with this discrepancy and results in the presence of negative outcomes. 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. Analyses of such emotions have described them as
being associated with the standpoint of one or more other people and discrepancy from norms or
moral standards. The motivational nature of this discrepancy suggests that one might experience
feelings of resentment. The feeling of resentment arises from the anticipated pain to be inflicted by
others. The person might also experience anxiety because of apprehension over negative responses
from others. This discrepancy is associated with agitation from fear and threat.[4] In addition, it is also
associated with agitation from self-criticism.[4] Social anxiety is uniquely associated with this
discrepancy.[4]
Actual/own vs. ought/own[edit]
A discrepancy between these self-guides occurs when one's view of their actual attributes does not
meet the expectations of what they think they ought to possess. This discrepancy is associated with
the presence of negative outcomes and is characterized by agitation-related emotions such as self-
dissatisfaction. An individual predicts a readiness for self-punishment. The person is predicted to be
vulnerable to guilt, self-contempt, and uneasiness, because these particular feelings occur when
people believe they have transgressed a personally legitimate and accepted moral standard.
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. The motivational nature of this discrepancy suggests
associations with feelings of moral worthlessness or weakness.[4] Transgression of one's own
internalized moral standards has been associated with guilt and self-criticism because when people
attribute failure to a lack of sufficient effort on their part, they experience feelings of guilt.[4]
Ideal vs. ought[edit]
Ideal self and ought self act as self guides with which the actual self aspires to be aligned. The ideal
self represents hopes and wishes, whereas the ought self is determined through obligation and
sense of duty. In terms of the ideal or ought discrepancy and specific to self-regulatory approach vs.
avoidance behaviors, the ideal domain is predisposed to approach behavior and the ought domain is
predisposed to avoidance behavior.[5]

Another domain of self[edit]

In 1999 Charles Carver and associates made a new amendment to the theory by adding the domain
of feared self.[7] Unlike the self guides proposed by Higgins which imply an actual or desired (better)
self, the feared self is a domain that measures what one does not desire to be. In many cases, this
may have a different level of influence in terms of priority on the self than previous domains and self-
guides. It is human nature to avoid negative affect before approaching positives.

Availability and accessibility of self-discrepancies[edit]

Beliefs that are incongruent are cognitive constructs and can vary in both their availability and
accessibility. 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]
Availability[edit]
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. Each attribute in one of the
self-state representations (actual/own) is compared to each attribute in the other self-state
representation (ideal/own). Each pair of attributes is either a match or a mismatch.[4] The larger
variance between the number of matches and the number of nonmatches (i.e., the greater the
divergence of attributes between the two self-state representations), the larger the magnitude of that
type of self-discrepancy that is available. Furthermore, the greater the magnitude of a particular
discrepancy produces more intense feelings of discomfort accompanying the discrepancy when
activated.[4]
The availability of the self-discrepancy is not enough to influence emotions. In order to do so, the
self-discrepancy must also be activated. The variable that influences the probability of activation is
its accessibility.[8]
Accessibility[edit]
The accessibility of a self-discrepancy depends on the same factors that determine the accessibility
of any stored construct. One factor is how recently the construct has been activated. The more often
a construct is activated, the more likely it will be used later on to understand social events. 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. A stored construct will not be used to interpret
an event unless it is applicable to the 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. In sum, the accessibility of self-discrepancy is determined by its recency of activation,
its frequency of activation, and its applicability to the stimulus 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.[8]
The theory does not propose that individuals are aware of the accessibility or availability of their self-
discrepancies. However, it is obvious that both the availability and accessibility can influence social
information processing automatically and without awareness.[4] Thus, self-discrepancy theory
simulates that the available and accessible negative psychological situations embodied in one's self-
discrepancies can be used to provide meaning to events without being aware of either the
discrepancies or their impact on processing. The measure of self-discrepancies requires only that
one be able to retrieve attributes of specific self-state representations when asked to do so. It does
not require that one be aware of the relations among these attributes of their significance.[4]
Self-discrepancy theory hypothesizes that the greater the magnitude of a particular type of self-
discrepancy possessed by a person, the more strongly the person will experience the emotion
associated with that type of discrepancy.[4]

Application and use[edit]

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,[9] understanding clinically depressed
students,[10] eating disorders, mental health and depression in chronically ill women[11][12] and even
developing self-confidence in athletes.[13] Self-Discrepancy Theory inherently provides a means to
systematically lessen negative affect associated with self-discrepancies by reducing the
discrepancies between the self domains in conflict of one another (Higgins, 1987). Not only has it
been applied to psychological health, but also to other research and understanding to human
emotions such as shame and guilt.[14] The self-guided pressure society and ourselves induce throw
an individual into turmoil. The theory finds many of its uses geared toward mental health, anxiety,
and depression. Understanding what emotions are being aroused and the reasoning is important to
reinstate psychological health.
Procrastination[edit]
Studies have correlated the theory and procrastination. Specifically, discrepancies in
the actual/ought domain from the own perspective, are the strongest predictor of procrastination.
[15]
Avoidance is the common theme. The actual/ought self-regulatory system responds through
avoidance. Procrastinators also have an avoidance relationship with their goals.
Depression[edit]
Depression is associated with conflict between a person's perceived actual self, and some standard,
goal or aspiration. 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).
Emotions[edit]
Higgins measured how individuals experienced self-discrepancies by having individuals reminisce
and remember about "negative events or personal self-guides, including hopes, goals, duties, and
obligations, and measure what will help increase the kind of discomfort that the individual
experiences.[4] The study found the "absence of an actual/own and ideal/own discrepancy" is
associated with the emotions "happy" and "satisfied" and the "absence of an actual/own and
ought/other discrepancy" is associated with the emotions "calm" and "secure" (p. 336).[4]

New findings[edit]
Since its original conception in 1987, there have been a number of studies that have tested the
legitimacy of self-discrepancy theory. Some of their findings do in fact contradict certain aspects of
the theory, while another finds further evidence of its validly. These studies give insight into the
research that has been done regarding self-discrepancy theory since its original conception in 1987.
Conducted in 1998, "Are Shame and Guilt Related to Distinct Self-Discrepancies? A Test of
Higgins's (1987) Hypotheses", brought into question the correlations between specific discrepancy
and emotional discomforts laid out by self-discrepancy theory. Researches believed that there was
no way to tie a unique emotional discomfort to one internal discrepancy, but rather that various
internal discrepancies result in a variety of discomforts. The study was carried out and the
hypothesis was confirmed based on the results. The findings displayed no evidence suggesting a
direct tie between specific discomforts and type of internal discrepancy.[16]
"Self-discrepancies: Measurement and Relation to Various Negative Affective States", also brought
into question the core aspect of self-discrepancy theory – The correlation between specific
discrepancies and the emotional discomforts that result. 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 study found a strong
relationship in results from both methods, speaking to their validly. 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. One of the researchers in this study wrote "Overall,
these findings raise significant concerns about the relevance of self-discrepancies as measured by
the SQ and ARL and fail to support the main contentions of self-discrepancy theory".[17]
"Self-discrepancy: Long-term test–retest reliability and test–criterion predictive validity", published in
2016, tested the long-term validity of self-discrepancy theory. 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.[18]