SELF-DISCREPANCIES AND EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY - HOW MAGNITUDE, ACCESSIBILITY, AND TYPE OF DISCREPANCY INFLUENCE AFFECT
SELF-DISCREPANCIES AND EMOTIONAL VULNERABILITY - HOW MAGNITUDE, ACCESSIBILITY, AND TYPE OF DISCREPANCY INFLUENCE AFFECT
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.5
复制
发表时间：
1986-07-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
STRAUMAN, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HIGGINS, ET;BOND, RN;STRAUMAN, T
两项研究考察了个体经历的情绪变化类型是否受到他们所拥有的不同类型自我差异的大小和可获得性的影响。在这两项研究中，受试者在实验前几周填写了自我差异的测量数据。受试者被要求列出最多10个不同自我状态的属性--他们的真实自我，他们的理想自我(他们自己或他人对他们的希望和目标)，以及他们应该的自我(他们自己或他人对他们的责任和义务的信念)。自我差异的大小是通过比较实际自我中的属性与理想自我或应该自我中的属性，从不匹配的属性对的总数中减去匹配的属性对的总数来计算的。在研究1中，受试者被要求想象一个积极或消极的事件，然后给他们一个情绪测量和一项写作速度任务。具有优势实际：理想差异的被试在消极事件条件下比在积极事件条件下感到更沮丧(例如，悲伤)，写作速度更慢，而具有优势实际：应该差异的被试在消极事件条件下感觉更焦躁(例如，害怕)，写作速度更快。在研究2中，选择了两种差异都很高或两种差异都很低的受试者。每组中的一半受试者被要求讨论他们自己和父母对他们的希望和目标(理想启动)，另一半被要求讨论他们和父母关于他们的责任和义务的信念(应该启动)。对于高差异被试而不是低差异被试，理想启动增加了他们的沮丧，而应该启动增加了他们的焦虑。讨论了这些发现对识别认知动机因素的影响，这些因素可能作为情绪问题的脆弱性标志。
Two studies examined whether the type of emotional change experienced by individuals is influenced by the magnitude and accessibility of the different types of self-discrepancies they possess. In both studies, subjects filled out a measure of self-discrepancy a few weeks prior to the experimental session. Subjects were asked to list up to 10 attributes each for different self-states—their actual self, their ideal self (their own or others' hopes and goals for them), and their ought self (their own or others' beliefs about their duty and obligations). Magnitude of self-discrepancy was calculated by comparing the attributes in the actual self to the attributes in either the ideal self or the ought self, with the total number of attribute pairs that matched being subtracted from the total number of attribute pairs that mismatched. In Study 1, subjects were asked to imagine either a positive event or a negative event and were then given a mood measure and a writing-speed task. Subjects with a predominant actual: ideal discrepancy felt more dejected (eg, sad) and wrote more slowly in the negative event condition than in the positive event condition, whereas subjects with a predominant actual: ought discrepancy, if anything, felt more agitated (eg, afraid) and wrote more quickly in the negative event condition. In Study 2, subjects were selected who were either high in both kinds of discrepancies or low in both. Half of the subjects in each group were asked to discuss their own and their parents' hopes and goals for them (ideal priming), and the other half were asked to discuss their own and their parents' beliefs concerning their duty and obligations (ought priming). For high-discrepancy subjects, but not low-discrepancy subjects, ideal priming increased their dejection whereas ought priming increased their agitation. The implications of these findings for identifying cognitive-motivational factors that may serve as vulnerability markers for emotional problems is discussed.