Self-discrepancy theory
The gap between who you are and who you think you should or want to be produces specific, predictable emotions.
What it means
Self-discrepancy theory distinguishes the actual self from two self-guides — the ideal self (hopes and aspirations) and the ought self (duties and obligations) — and argues that mismatches between them generate distinct emotional states. A gap between actual and ideal selves yields dejection-related emotions (sadness, disappointment), whereas a gap between actual and ought selves yields agitation-related emotions (anxiety, guilt). The theory's power is its specificity: it predicts not just that falling short feels bad, but which kind of bad. It also requires that a self-guide be both accessible and personally important for the discrepancy to bite. It matters because it links the structure of the self to emotion and underpins later work on regulatory focus, clarifying why some failures depress while others make us nervous.
Examples
Falling short of your dream of being a novelist brings dejection; failing the duties you feel you owe your family brings anxious guilt.
Missing the promotion you had pictured leaves a flat sadness; missing the deadline you promised a colleague leaves a jumpy dread — one shortfall each, two different self-guides.
The runner who never made the marathon he dreamed of feels wistful and low; the one skipping the physio he promised his surgeon feels a nagging, guilty unease.
First described in E. Tory Higgins (1987).