Cited by 45Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-discrepancy, Depression, Anxiety, and Psychological Well-Being: The Role of Affective Style and Self-efficacy

Open access
Schlechter, Pascal, Hellmann, Jens H., Morina, Nexhmedin·2022·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

Abstract Background Self-discrepancy theory posits that greater discrepancy between the actual and ideal self is related to dysphoria and greater discrepancy between the actual and ought self to anxiety. Despite both being transdiagnostically associated with psychopathology, differential effects of actual:ideal and actual:ought discrepancies have not been confirmed. There is further lack of knowledge about cognitive and affective factors implicated in the relationship between self-discrepancies and depression and anxiety. We therefore examined the relationship of actual:ideal/actual:ought discrepancies with depression, anxiety, and psychological well-being, and whether affective styles (concealing, adjusting, and tolerating) and self-efficacy emerge as mediators or moderators. Methods Self-discrepancies were measured as discrepancies in the Big Five taxonomy of personality. Participants (N = 596) responded to the 10-item Big Five Inventory and ideal/ought versions of these traits, and measures of affective styles, self-efficacy, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and well-being. Results Both self-discrepancies were positively associated with depression, anxiety, and negatively with well-being, self-efficacy, tolerating and adjusting. No differential effects of the two types of discrepancy emerged. The adjusting affective style and self-efficacy partly accounted for the relationships between self-discrepancies and the outcomes. Conclusion Knowledge about affective adjustment and self-efficacy in counteracting putative negative emotional effects of self-discrepancies may inform intervention efforts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-022-10314-z

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 9, pp. 1–47). Erlbaum.
  2. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schlechter, P., Hellmann, J. H., & Morina, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
Corresponding author
Schlechter, Pascal
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2022-07-07
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
1075-1086
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W4284894814
Cited by
45
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
self-discrepancy theory, ideal self, ought self, depression, anxiety, psychological well-being, affective style, self-efficacy, Big Five personality traits, emotion regulation, mediators and moderators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review