In psychology, Self-Discrepancy Theory refers to a model for understanding how our self-perception can spark or amplify various sorts of vulnerabilities, emotional responses, and even life-long internal turmoil.

This framework is predicated on the idea that we have three main imagined selves:

The "actual" self is our mental model of who are truly are, based on rational self-assessment—including our sense of who others think we are.

The "ideal" self is our model of who we'd like to be, and our sense of who we're capable of being when everything's optimal—when we're living up to our highest standards for ourselves.

The "ought" self is the version of ourselves we believe we should be, or believe other people think we should be.

This theory posits that much of our psychological discord can be explained by conflicts between these self-perceptions, and that many of our motivations—especially, but not limited to our motivations to change and grow—can also be traced back to these perceptions and conflicts between them.

The original version of Self-Discrepancy Theory was proposed in 1987, and that vanilla version was predicated on other models that were conceived of in the mid-20th century, like Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Imbalance Theory—both of which orient around the idea that we're motivated by a general desire to bring balance to our sense of reality and self.

This concept was further developed in 1999 with the introduction of another theoretical internal domain, the "feared" self, which could serve as a version of oneself that one pushes against, lest one become this disdained, unwanted, negative form of who one is, today: the version of ourselves we want to avoid becoming.

This concept has more recently been associated with several psychological states and problems, including broad issues like depression, but also more specific self-perception-related conflicts like procrastination, which involves a dissonance between one's sense of where one is currently and where one would like to be (procrastinating can be framed as a discrepancy between one's "actual" and "ought" selves, and a desire to avoid comparing the two for practical insights).

Late-1990s research that sought to explain shame and guilt using this model by connecting emotional discomfort and internal discrepancies failed to do so. Other research from around the same time which posited that there might be some validity in using this concept for self-exploration and self-understanding purposes likewise failed to show any solid connection between internal discrepancies and specific negative emotional states.

That said, like many frameworks that can't be used diagnostically, this theory may serve as a method for better expressing or understanding various sorts of discomfort and dissatisfaction that are otherwise tricky to pinpoint, discuss, or think about in a practical way.

Paid Brain Lenses subscribers receive twice as many essays and podcast episodes each week. They also fund the existence and availability of all the free stuff.

You can become a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year.

You can also support all my work (and receive gobs of bonus content) via Understandary.