Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support

Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support

Jason T. SiegelClaremont Graduate University

APSMay 23, 2014

CollaboratorsBenjamin RosenbergMario NavarroElena LyrintzisLindsay Handren

AcknowledgmentDr. Bill Crano

See GDTheory.com for the full presentation.

Edward C. Tolman

Changes in thought and action are system-wide.

The causes of behavior are environmental stimuli and initiating physiological states.

Behavior is purposive“…[it] always seems to have the character of getting-to or getting-from a specific goal-object, or goal-situation” (Tolman,

1932, p. 10)

Tolman = the spark.

Edward C. TolmanDi

srup

tion

A mouse, an ape, some lettuce.

Organisms develop “cognitive

expectations” for stimuli or behavior to lead to more or less

reward

When these expectations are

violated, disruption occurs.

Tolman presented disruption as an upset in behavior caused by environmental change, leading the organism to focus on the cause of the disruption.

DisruptionCould this explain some behavior typically perceived as irrational and foolish?

What are the totality of changes that occur?

What dictates whether a violation will lead to disruption?

Goal disruption theory (GDT, see Siegel, 2013; Siegel et al., 2012) seeks to

explain the factors (e.g., strength of the expectation that was violated) that

influence whether negatively valenced goal expectancy violations (e.g.,

learning resources for goal satiation are less than expected) will cause

disruption, and the breadth of changes that occur as a result (e.g., increased

need for structure, willingness to endure harm).

What is GDT?

Goal Disruption TheoryBehavior is goal directed and purposive.

Disequilibrium is a motivational state that triggers the psychological system to adjust to maximize a return to equilibrium.

Goal expectancy violations represent a cause of a state of disruption (persistent state of psychological disequilibrium).

Definitions

Goals

Moskowitz and Grant (2009)

define goals as follows:

• “…the desired end state the individual reaches for; it is the ultimate aim of one’s adopted action, the very cause of the action; it is the purpose toward which one is striving; it is the reason for doing and thinking” (p. 1).

Expectations

Tolman (1932) defines

expectations as follows:

• “an immanent cognitive determinant aroused by actually presented stimuli” (Tolman, 1932, p. 444).

Tolman (1925, 1932) theorized extensively on the importance of expectations (i.e., beliefs an individual holds about his or her world and how the components of the world interact) and the role they play in goal pursuit and the maintenance of psychological equilibrium.

Goal ExpectationsBeliefs about rewards associated with specific goals.

Paths through which the goal can be achieved.

Peoples’ capabilities for achieving the goal.

Skills that will be needed for achieving the goal. Level of performance they can expect to achieve from the self as well as from other people and environmental objects.Resources and support that exist for achieving the goal. Situations that will be encountered as the result of goal-related behavior. People hold expectations about the goals they have already accomplished and the distance remaining between themselves and the goal.

Goal Expectation Violations

If people hold expectations about their goals, occurrences will transpire that violate those expectations (i.e., goal expectation violations).

Goal expectation violations can make the world seem less predictable and less controllable than previously believed

Appraisals of threat and feelings of vulnerability are amplified (e.g., Rosenberg et al., in press; Siegel et al., 2012; Tolman, 1932; also see Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1981).

Goal DisruptionA persistent state of psychological

disequilibrium that occurs as a result of a goal expectation violation.

Theoretical Model

Disruption

Violation

Severity

Opinion of

Efficacy

Structural

Harmony

Violation

ImprintPersona

lity Traits

Goal State

Disruption

Ability

Disposition

Allocation of

Mental Resource

s

Tactic

Processing &

Perception

Seeks to explain the factors that influence whether a goal expectancy violations will cause disruption.

Seeks to understand the breadth of changes that occur as a result

DISRUPTION(persistent

psychological disequilibrium)

Ability

Disposition

Allocation of

Resources

Processing and

Perception

Tactic

Violation Severity

Violation Imprint

Opinion of Efficacy

Structural Harmony

Personality Traits

Unexpected Goal Violation Mental Constriction

Predicting Goal Disruption

Violation SeverityStrength The strength of the violated

expectations/beliefs, and goal status.

Goal Status Closeness to goal, effort into goal, and goal magnitude.

Unexpected Nature

The level of unexpectedness of the goal expectation violation.

Predicting Goal Disruption

Violation Imprint

The number of impaired expectancies and the perceived importance of the goal to the

person’s well being.

Opinion of Efficacy

An individual's perceived capabilities of finding an alternative path to restore their

feelings of safety.Structural Harmony

(State of the System)

Current psychological state, organization, flexibility.

Personality Traits

Traits that buffer the intensity of a violation (i.e., tolerance of uncertainty, trait anxiety).

If a goal disruption occurs…

Mental constriction

A return to equilibrium becomes paramount focus

System-wide adaptive processes engage (for similar conceptualization see Arndt & Solomon, 2003; Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, 1941; Berkowitz, 1988, 1989; Lewin, 1946)

Psychological disequilibrium will persist until psychological balance is restored (Kessen, 1971; Tolman, 1926).

ADAPTAbility

Reduced goal fluidityLess creativity

Reduced ability to focus on other goals

DispositionIncreased need for closureChanges in temperament

Less inclined to take another person’s perspective

Allocation of

Resources

Goal ShieldingLittle to no concern for problems caused by shifting resources away from other

goalsProcessing

& Perception

Attention bias toward relevant stimuli Hyper-focus on goal

Tunnel vision

TacticsBehavior will become more primitive

Most direct path toward goal Long term consequences not considered

Why care?Explain behavior previously regarded as irrational.

Offers an explanation for extreme behavior.

Makes it very scary to think about medical decisions made after receiving bad news.

Offers insight into why interventions sometimes fail (decision are made while in a state of disruption).

Empirical Evidence• Start with evidence that unexpected

negative goal violations cause more psychological disequilibrium than expected negative goal violations.

O-HITS:

• Begin with purposive harm endurance.

• Highlight how a negative goal violation changes numerous constructs not often considered as a system-wide response.

ADAPT:

So what?

Study Set 1

Goal

To experimentally test the factors of the individual that

cause a goal expectation

violation to become a goal disruption.

Will a goal violation become a goal disruption?

Disruption

Violation Severity

Opinion of Efficacy

Structural HarmonyViolation

ImprintPersonality

Traits

Studies 1a-1c

Dependent VariablePsychological Disequilibrium

Study 1a

MTurk StudyN = 333Compensated $0.51

Informed Consent

Pretest measure of intolerance of uncertainty

Randomly assigned to intense or minor goal violation

Posttest measure of PDQ

Thanked and debriefed

Participants

Study 1aIntense vs. Minor goal violation

Pilot tested [N = 75; t(74) = 4.75,

p < .001, d = 1.10]Outcome of job interviewManipulated factors

Bad vs. good week (structural harmony)Prepared vs. did not prepare (strength)Need job vs. don’t need job (imprint)Confident vs. not confident (severity)

Study 1a

Measure

Intolerance of Uncertainty

Study 1a

1 SD - Mean 1 SD +1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IntenseMinor

Intolerance of Uncertainty

Mea

n PD

Q

Significant interaction between violation and IUS: B = -.34, t(329) = -2.54, p = .01 ✔

Study 1bInformed Consent

Pretest measure of general self-efficacy

Randomly assigned to intense or minor goal violation



Mturk sampleN = 308Compensated $0.51

Participants

Study 1b

Measure

General self-efficacy

Study 1b

1 SD (-) Mean 1 SD (+)1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IntenseMinor

General Self-Efficacy

Mea

n PD

Q

Significant interaction between violation and GSE: B = .46, t(302) = 2.52, p = .01 ✔

Study 1c

MTurk StudyN = 90Compensated $1.00

Informed Consent

Pretest measures: optimism and need for structure

Randomly assigned to unexpected or expected academic failure



Participants

Study 1cUnexpected vs. Expected academic failure

Waiting to take an important testAll students imagine failingExpect to pass vs. Expect to fail

Study 1c

Measures

OptimismNeed for Structure

Study 1c

SD (-) Mean SD (+)1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Unex-pectedExpected

Optimism

Mea

n PD

QSignificant interaction between violation and Optimism: B = .48, t(89) = 2.05, p = .04 ✔

Study 1c

SD (-) Mean SD (+)1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Unex-pected

Need for Structure

Mea

n PD

QSignificant interaction between violation and NFS: B = -.97, t(89) = -2.13, p = .04 ✔

Study Set 1, SummaryIntolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, optimism, and need for structure are all moderators of goal disruptionPersonality traits moderate whether a goal expectation violation leads to goal disruption Personality

traits

Goal DisruptionExpectation violation

Even when confronted with an intense goal violation, having certain personality traits can

buffer the likelihood of experiencing a goal disruption.

Study Set 2

Goal

To experimentally test the GDT

derived prediction that goal

expectation violations lead to intense system-wide changes in

thought and action.

Disruption

Ability

Disposition

Allocation of Mental Resources

Tactic

Processing &

Perception

Disruption

Violation Severity

Opinion of Efficacy

Structural HarmonyViolation

ImprintPersonality

Traits

Study Set #22a: Pay cut Unexpected vs. Expected Violation on

PDQThreat Appraisal Vulnerability

2b: Unexpected vs. Expected Violation onAbility: Self-reported CreativityDisposition: Personal Need for Structure Tactics: Purposive Harm Endurance

2c: Unexpected vs. Expected Violation onAllocation of resources: Goal Reengagement/Goal DisengagementPerception and processing: Goal Rumination

Study 2aMethods:

MTurk Study211 Participants

Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to unexpected or expected goal violation

Posttest measures of PDQ, Appraisal, Vulnerability


Study 2aUnexpected vs. Expected pay cut

Imagine you are in Jessie’s positionYou receive a one percent pay cutUnexpected (completely surprised) vs. Expected (not surprised)

Study 2aMeasurePsychological disequilibrium

Threat appraisal

Vulnerability

Study 2a

PDQ

Threa

t App

raisal

Vulne

rabilit

y01234567

UnexpectedExpected

Mea

n Re

spon

se

F(3,208) = 7.64, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .38

Study 2bMethods:


Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to an expected or unexpected goal violation

Posttest measure of personal need for structure, creativity, purposive harm endurance


Study 2bUnexpected vs. Expected academic failure


Study 2b

MeasuresPersonal need for structure

Creativity

Study 2b

MeasurePhysical

purposive harm endurance

Interpersonal and emotional purposive

harm endurance

Study 2b

Physi

cal Harm

End.

Interp

erson

al/Em

otion

al Harm

End.

Need f

or Str

ucture

Creativ

ity01234567

Unex-pectedExpected

Mea

n Re

spon

se

F(4, 152) = 4.41, p = .002; Cohen’s d = .33

Study 2cParticipants


Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to an expected or unexpected goal violation

Posttest measure of goal adjustment scale (goal disengagement and goal reengagement) and goal rumination


Study 2cUnexpected or Expected Elimination of Bonus

Waiting to hear about a monthly bonus Email saying you did not receive the bonusUnexpected (surprised) vs. Expected (not surprised)

Study 2c

MeasureGoal

reenegagement

Goal disengageme

nt

Study 2c

MeasureGoal

rumination

Study 2c

Goal ru

minatio

n

Goal d

iseng

agem

ent

Goal re

enga

gemen

t0

2

4

6

UnexpectedExpected

Mea

n Re

spon

se

F(3,62) = 3.56, p = .002; Cohen’s d = .47

Study Set 2, Summary

Unexpected vs. Expected

ViolationPDQ, Threat, Vulnerability

Unexpected vs.

Expected Violation

Changes in•Ability•Disposition•Allocation of Resources

•Processing and Perception

•Tactic

Study Set 3

Goal

To test the applied utility of GDT within the

contexts of politics, drug

use, and alcohol myopia.

Disruption

Ability

Disposition

Allocation of Mental Resources

Tactic

Processing &

Perception

Study Set #3: Application of GDT

3a-b: Harm for Romney

•Are people who are most surprised about a negative election result most likely to endure harm to change the outcome?

3c-3d: Disrupted Drug Use

•Can GDT offer insight into why non-users of prescription stimulants decide to initiate use? •Can GDT offer insight into how drug ads influence peoples’ processing and perception?

3e-3f: Disruption Myopia

•Does processing in a state of disruption mimic that of someone who is drunk?

Purposive Harm EnduranceRefers to the extent to which people will be willing to endure various forms of pain and impairment to reach a desired goal.Derived from animal studies conducted by Tolman (1932) and his contemporaries (Warden & Nissen, 1928; Wiesner & Sheard, 1933).

Monkey and rat studies.

Tolman emphasized that a violation of expectations led to an upset and change in behavior.

Purposive Harm EnduranceSiegel (2011) and Siegel and colleagues (2012).

Need for goal increases -> willingness to endure harm for goal increases.

Rosenberg and colleagues (2013) Need for a desired end state was associated with greater willingness to endure harm if it led to goal satiation.

Studies 3a-3b

Dependent VariableWillingness to

endure purposive harm

Study 3aParticipants

MTurk Study137 Voters

Informed Consent

Measure of candidate support

Measure of surprise of outcome

Measure of purposive harm endurance


Study 3a

MeasureSupport for candidate

Level of unexpectedness

Study 3a

Low (-1SD) Average High (+1SD)0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Barack ObamaMitt Romney

Unexpectedness

Purp

osiv

e H

arm

End

uran

ceR2 change = .03, F(1, 133) = 4.22, p = .04, B = .29,

SE = .14, t(133) = 2.05, p = .04

Study 3bParticipants

New England college students 32 participants

Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to expected or unexpected goal violation

Posttest measure of purposive harm endurance


Study 3bUnexpected vs. Expected academic failure


Study 3b

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UnexpectedExpected

Purp

osiv

e H

arm

En

dura

nce

F(1, 30) = 8.10, p = .01; Cohen’s d = 1.01

Study 3bAs predicted, an unexpected violation led to increased levels of willingness to endure purposive harm.For Romney voters, the more unexpected the loss of the election was, the more they would be willing to endure purposive harm to have their candidate win a recount.Purposive harm endurance can be a measure for extreme behavior that can be used in applied settings. The unexpected has a role in adaptive behavior for real life circumstances.

Study 3c

Can GDT explain why nonusers initiate nonmedical prescription stimulants use (NMPS)?

Study 3cExperimental Manipulation

Midterm in a very important class Expect to get an 80%Fail (60%) vs. Pass (100%)

Study 3c

ParticipantsMturkN = 319 students

Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to pass or fail important test

Posttest measures: PDQ & Purposive harm


Study 3c

MeasuresPsychological Disequilibrium

Willingness to endure purposive

harm

NMPS Intentions

Study 3c

Purposive Harm

Endurance

Psychological Disequilibrium

β = -0.23***

β = 0.27***

Condition (Pass/Fail)

Intentions

β = 0.36***

β = 0.25***

Study 3cNegative occurrences can lead people to change perceptions of utility of drugs and usage intentions

Doing whatever it takes to pass the class- Supports idea that people in a heightened drive state may act differently than they would otherwise.

Study 3dIf events in students’ lives trigger these processes, can prescription drug ads do the same thing?

Studies suggest the presence of inconsistency-arousing negative emotional appeals in direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads

Can these appeals produce negative goal expectation violations? How are people’s perceptions of the ad and drug affected? What about their usage intentions?

Study 3dParticipants

mTurk415 participants

Informed Consent

Randomly assigned expectation violation or control drug ad

Posttest measures: PDQ, Purposive harm, outcome expectancies, drug and ad eval, & usage intentions


Study 3d

MeasuresPsychological Disequilibrium

(mediator)

Willingness to endure

purposive harm

Study 3d

MeasuresAd

evaluation

Drug evaluation

Study 3d

MeasuresOutcome

expectations

Intentions to use drug

Study 3dExperimental manipulation

Randomly assigned participants to view one of two prescription drug advertisements1. Negative goal violation: Used text like “Do

you sometimes feel lonely? Not as happy as you could be? A little lost? Do you sometimes feel vulnerable?” to remind viewers of a goal expectation violation. A drug (RISPEROFF) was then offered as a solution to their problems.

2. Control: Included the same presentation of the drug without the negative goal violation text.

Study 3d

Study 3dPsychological disequilibrium mediated the relationship between viewing a DTC drug ad and…

Increased purposive harm endurancePositive evaluations of the adPositive evaluations of the drugPositive outcome expectations of the drugIncreased usage intentions

Not all ads will cause all people to enter a state of goal disruption, but those ads that do will drastically influence subsequent thought and behavior

Study 3dResults indicate what could happen if negative emotional appeals in prescription drug ads cause psychological disequilibrium

If ads do cause psychological disequilibrium, people may more inclined to use the advertised drug and be more willing to endure harm to do so

Could influence how side effects information affects people’s decisions

Psychological shortsightedness

Inabilit

y t

o

pr

ocess

di

st

al i

nf

or

mati

on

Cognitive effects

✔

✔

✔

✔

Studies 3e & 3f: Can outcomes associated with alcohol myopia be applied to the GDT realm? During alcohol myopia people experience an “…impoverished version of reality in which the breadth, depth, and time line of our understanding is constrained” (Steele & Josephs, 1990, p. 923).

Study 3e:Myopia and Goal

Commitment A conceptual replication of the effects of alcohol myopia on goal commitment (Sevincer & Oettingen, 2009) Drunk people were highly committed to their goal, even with low

expectation of success

H1

There will be an interaction such that, when disrupted, goal commitment will be high regardless of

expectations; when not, commitment will be

aligned

GOAL Other stuff

Study 3e: Method

ParticipantsMturk sampleCompensated 40¢N = 303

55.4% maleMean age of 3279.2% Caucasian

Procedure

Informed Consent

Pretest measures of expectation & importance

Randomly assigned to goal disruption or control condition

Posttest measure of commitment & demographics

Thank & Debrief

Disruption Manipulation

Study 3e: Measures

• “How likely do you think it is that you will attain your goal?”

Expectation of success

• “How important is it to you that you will attain your goal?” Incentive Value

• “How disappointed would you feel if you did not attain your goal?”

• “How hard would it be for you if you did not attain your goal?”

• “How determined are you to attain your goal?”

Goal Commitmentα = .74

Study 3e: Results

Relationship between expectation and commitment as a function of condition (age and gender as covariates); p = .031

• Hypothesis supported

Low (10th) Average (50th)

High (90th)1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ControlDisruption

Expectation of Attainment

Goa

l Com

mitm

ent

Study 3f:Myopia and Attribution

A conceptual replication of the effects of alcohol myopia on ratings of attribution (Herzog, 1999) Drunk people made attributions based on what they were primed

to think about – situation or disposition

H2

There will be an interaction such that when disrupted and given a situational

inferential prime, Ps will infer greater

dispositional attributions than

those in the control.

Social Inference

Process

1. Initial, Automatic Categorization

2. Effortful processing of all demands on behavior

Study 3f: Method

ParticipantsMturk sampleCompensated 40¢N = 489

64.2% maleMean age of 3076.5% Caucasian

2x3 Randomized Design

Procedure

Informed Consent

Randomly assigned to disruption or control

2nd Randomization to dispositional, situation, or no prime for photos

Posttest measures of attribution, PDQ, & demographics

Thank & Debrief

PhotosAggression

Anxiety

Study 3f: Measures• “For the picture above, do you think it

is the person that is aggressive (anxious) or the situation that is causing the aggression (anxiety)? ”

• 1 (person) – 7 (situation) semantic differential

Attribution

• “I am mentally uneasy”• “I feel psychology disoriented”• “I feel psychologically off-balance”• “I feel mentally disrupted”• “I have lost my psychological center”

PDQα = .96

Study 3f: Results• Anxiety photo: no significant interaction • Aggression photo: Significant

interaction!

Relationship between inferential prime and attribution as a function of disruption condition; p = .017

Person No Prime Situation1234567

Control Disruption

Inferential Prime

Aggr

essi

on A

ttri

butio

n Ra

ting

Studies 3e & 3f Summary

Hyper-focus and over commitment to goal • M

ay be helpful in motivating goal pursuit

• May lead to making unreasonable decisions that cannot be reversed

Increased dispositional attributions – even when primed to focus on the situation • D

istorted dispositional attributions may lead to increased conflict, aggression, and violence

• Otherwise avoidable conflict with loved ones in time of strife

Discussion• GDT: A work in progress• Brings together nearly a century of psychological

scholarship.• The focus on goal expectancy violations, the

unique role of unexpected, and the breadth of outcomes examined are the relatively unique aspects of the model.

• GDT might be able to explain behavior typically seen as irrational or foolish.

• Many more components of the model to be tested.

Questions?

Gdtheory.com

Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support

Documents

Transcript of Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support